By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - Why Sony passed on Kinect

tjallern on 29 November 2010

I really loved the video with the guy playing Joy Ride without even moving and finishing 3rd. Really confirmed my suspicions about Kinect. Flawless!



Around the Network
ArnoldRimmer on 29 November 2010
ramses01 said:

Also, the article was mistaken about the resolution of the camera.  It is not 320x240, it is 640x480 as can be seen from the PC hacks.  Kinect currently only uses lower resolution, but there is no reason it can use the higher resolution.

The article was actually completely right about the resolution, because it was referring to the resolution of the depth sensor which is indeed only 320x240. What you are talking about is the resolution of the RGB camera, which is 640x480 on both the PS Eye and Kinect.

EDIT: Seems I was wrong, the infrared camera would indeed be capable of outputting 640x480. But Microsoft doesn't use 640x480 - either because the 360's USB port would be too slow for 640x480 (four times the bandwidth) or because the native resolution is less than 640x480 and only scaled up.



A203D on 29 November 2010
insomniac17 said:
ramses01 said:
Jinova said:

No I read it, several times.

"That's the long-winded answer of why we stopped that research. We basically got to a point where we felt we understood the limitations of the tech. Sony as a group wanted to do a motion controller that could work with a broad variety of games."

That quote alone sums up the article for me.  Its limited, deal with it.

I admit, its a cool tech for interfacing and menus  etc..., but for games?  not so much

LOL, thanks for the quote proving my point.

I was under the impression that they thought the technology was there, it just wasn't cost effective.

"So when we were working with the 3D cameras we felt the cost of the camera outweighed the advantages of what it offered. "

That quote is near the top of the first page. 

What I got out of that is that they looked into it years ago and decided that it cost too much for what they wanted to do. Now may be a different story. It looks like they stopped looking into 3D camera stuff before Move. 

"Eurogamer: Did you have a stressful meeting with the execs when you pitched Move?

Anton Mikhailov: Yes. And, actually, at that time we were investigating a lot of technologies. We were looking into 3D cameras like Kinect. That started way back in 2002, so we already by that time had stopped that research. We worked with the London Studio guys on that."

It looks like the research was done a while ago.

So... it's not that the tech isn't advanced enough, or that it isn't there, it seems to me that it was more of... at the time they looked into it, the tech wasn't where they would have liked it to be, at the cost they would have liked it to be.

All this means is that sony didnt want to waste more money on the eyetoy which wasnt a breakthrough success and wasnt the direction they want to go with gameplay interface.

based on the manufacturing costs of kinect and the article itself we dont know that microsoft have invested in the new technologies to make kinect the masterpiece it could be. all we know is theres a lot of things it cant do, and that these tech guys think that they can compensate for its shortcomings with good software.



MARCUSDJACKSON on 29 November 2010

while riding to school while in the first grade i pretended i was driving. while riding to the grocery store at the ages 6-9 i pretended i was driving to the store while sitting in the back seat of my grandmothers car! i even had a horn?

now im 26 and i want a real car to drive! i've been past holding my hands infront of me driving with no steering wheel.

while the tech is new the idea is old, about 14 yr's old for me!

but i say if you love it enjoy it, and if you don't then why talk about it.



 Zarx's unofficial The Witcher 3    

Official Playstation Vita Thread!

write reveiws, articles, share thoughts, and expand on discussion like never before on gamewise.co/brainwaves

Darth Tigris on 29 November 2010
Porcupine_I said:

lets just pretend for one second that Sony had not abandoned Kinect technology

let us imagine Sony came up with that exact same product that Microsoft has released now, with exact the same launch games and tech behind it.

let us further pretend Microsoft had chosen to go the other way and develop a Motion controller with buttons and tracking in 3D Space.

is there anyone supporting Kinect right now who could honestly say that they would buy a PS3 in that case, because Sony has the better motion controls?

Or would it rather be that the ridicule would never end for trying to sell the Eyetoy again?

i don't expect an answer, just ask yourself people, you know the truth.

Can't speak for others, but I think that Sony coming up with Kinect instead of MS actually would've made more sense considering their history with the EyeToy and PS Eye.  The reality that MS took their basic idea and significantly enhanced it into Kinect (which, is a big success even early on) while Sony gave up on the camera path they were on and simply enhanced Nintendo's strategy is what doesn't make sense to me.

But maybe it really was a software solution and sheer force of will.  I remember MS had a motion controller on the PC and it did nothing and they dropped it but Nintendo wanted to make it work and DID.  Plus technology that might not be workable 4 years ago CAN work now (remember initial polygonal efforts?).

This article only proves that Sony's engineers couldn't or wouldn't solve the 3D camera limitations and MS (so far) has.



Around the Network
darklich13 on 29 November 2010
jneul said:
fredfuchs said:

i never understand why move controler needed the wierd looking ball end part? was it suppose to look like an icecream cone to attrct the kiddies? couldnt they have not made it look so odd?

because the glowing sphere is very easy to track in 3d, and the algorithm required to do so is not very complex or taxing upon the system, that is why when combined with the gyros and accelerometers and magnetometers move is such a really precise and impressive piece of technology, fact is you forget about the sphere (if you hated it) and grow to love it when you are playing games, just from the immersion you get

Could have easily been done with IR and those glowing stupid balls would not have to be there



EMULATION is the past.....NOW.......B_E_L_I_E_V_E

 

 


jneul on 29 November 2010
darklich13 said:
jneul said:
fredfuchs said:

i never understand why move controler needed the wierd looking ball end part? was it suppose to look like an icecream cone to attrct the kiddies? couldnt they have not made it look so odd?

because the glowing sphere is very easy to track in 3d, and the algorithm required to do so is not very complex or taxing upon the system, that is why when combined with the gyros and accelerometers and magnetometers move is such a really precise and impressive piece of technology, fact is you forget about the sphere (if you hated it) and grow to love it when you are playing games, just from the immersion you get

Could have easily been done with IR and those glowing stupid balls would not have to be there

even tracking a controller(without the sphere) is not efficient as tracking a sphere on top of a controller, if you ever programmed you would know this, it still would not be as fast or as precise as move, each system has it's benefits kinect can do full body tracking(3d) and casual games, move can do full body tracking (if needed in 2d), and all kinds of games....



it's the future of handheld

PS VITA = LIFE

The official Vita thread http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=130023&page=1

darklich13 on 29 November 2010
jneul said:
darklich13 said:
jneul said:
fredfuchs said:

i never understand why move controler needed the wierd looking ball end part? was it suppose to look like an icecream cone to attrct the kiddies? couldnt they have not made it look so odd?

because the glowing sphere is very easy to track in 3d, and the algorithm required to do so is not very complex or taxing upon the system, that is why when combined with the gyros and accelerometers and magnetometers move is such a really precise and impressive piece of technology, fact is you forget about the sphere (if you hated it) and grow to love it when you are playing games, just from the immersion you get

Could have easily been done with IR and those glowing stupid balls would not have to be there

even tracking a controller is not efficient as tracking a sphere, if you ever programmed you would know this, even if you used ir to track your controller it still would not be as fast or as precise as move, each system has it's benefits kinect can do full body tracking(3d) and casual games, move can do full body tracking (if needed in 2d), and all kinds of games....

My point is the sphere does not need to be visable with the human eye.  IR could have been used. Cameras can pick up IR just as easily as visible light. 



EMULATION is the past.....NOW.......B_E_L_I_E_V_E

 

 


jneul on 29 November 2010
darklich13 said:
jneul said:
darklich13 said:
jneul said:
fredfuchs said:

i never understand why move controler needed the wierd looking ball end part? was it suppose to look like an icecream cone to attrct the kiddies? couldnt they have not made it look so odd?

because the glowing sphere is very easy to track in 3d, and the algorithm required to do so is not very complex or taxing upon the system, that is why when combined with the gyros and accelerometers and magnetometers move is such a really precise and impressive piece of technology, fact is you forget about the sphere (if you hated it) and grow to love it when you are playing games, just from the immersion you get

Could have easily been done with IR and those glowing stupid balls would not have to be there

even tracking a controller is not efficient as tracking a sphere, if you ever programmed you would know this, even if you used ir to track your controller it still would not be as fast or as precise as move, each system has it's benefits kinect can do full body tracking(3d) and casual games, move can do full body tracking (if needed in 2d), and all kinds of games....

My point is the sphere does not need to be visable with the human eye.  IR could have been used. Cameras can pick up IR just as easily as visible light. 


the problem with ir is you cannot tell exactly where you are in 3d space, which is why you can get away with allsorts on wii, if move used ir it would be exactly like wii, which would make you lot happy i guess, so keep on dreaming

here is my simple noob guide:-

a sphere is a certain size right, ok so from its size and it's calibration angle we can tell how far away it is and more important it's x,y an z co-ordinates are really precise



it's the future of handheld

PS VITA = LIFE

The official Vita thread http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=130023&page=1

darklich13 on 29 November 2010
jneul said:
darklich13 said:
jneul said:
darklich13 said:
jneul said:
fredfuchs said:

i never understand why move controler needed the wierd looking ball end part? was it suppose to look like an icecream cone to attrct the kiddies? couldnt they have not made it look so odd?

because the glowing sphere is very easy to track in 3d, and the algorithm required to do so is not very complex or taxing upon the system, that is why when combined with the gyros and accelerometers and magnetometers move is such a really precise and impressive piece of technology, fact is you forget about the sphere (if you hated it) and grow to love it when you are playing games, just from the immersion you get

Could have easily been done with IR and those glowing stupid balls would not have to be there

even tracking a controller is not efficient as tracking a sphere, if you ever programmed you would know this, even if you used ir to track your controller it still would not be as fast or as precise as move, each system has it's benefits kinect can do full body tracking(3d) and casual games, move can do full body tracking (if needed in 2d), and all kinds of games....

My point is the sphere does not need to be visable with the human eye.  IR could have been used. Cameras can pick up IR just as easily as visible light. 


the problem with ir is you cannot tell exactly where you are in 3d space, which is why you can get away with allsorts on wii, if move used ir it would be exactly like wii, which would make you lot happy i guess, so keep on dreaming

here is my simple noob guide:-

a sphere is a certain size right, ok so from its size and it's calibration angle we can tell how far away it is and more important it's x,y an z co-ordinates are really precise

I love how you treat me like an idiot. Again the sphere could have been lit with IR light. It does not have to be blue or red or any color that is visable to the human eye.  As long as the camera can see the light it can track the sphere.



EMULATION is the past.....NOW.......B_E_L_I_E_V_E