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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Sony: Kinect is a bunch of tech problems

Edgeoflife on 13 February 2011
NotStan said:
Edgeoflife said:
NotStan said:

 

Edgeoflife said:
NotStan said:
[..]

How do you know that? Do you have internal sources? Cough them up, all I see is EDD division having it's best quarter ever, if you imply that MS should have already covered the cost of R&D and advertising in a space of 4 months I dread to think of your attitude towards most games that tend to justify their development over several months into their life cycle.

Fact is, EDD is profitable(By quite a margin btw), so whichever way you spin it, Kinect probably moved substantial amount of HW besides the stand alone unit itself. Btw, 8,000,000*~$100 = alot of f**king money.

last time I checked they were only making 50 on it per sale and half a billion on advertising is alot a hell of a lot of money and again this is off topic, the topic is about hte capabilities of kinect not the sales 

Hey I am not the one that started the whole sales thingy majig here, "MS is probably still in the red with Kinect because of advertising". Just had to disprove a statement or two made by you.

In terms of capabilities, if Sony could have made this kind of tech it would have. If you honestly believe that Sony would applaud it's competitor on launching a succesful product and not in anyway, trying to undermine it, you're dead wrong. I don't have Kinect personally so I can't comment on the capabilities or the scope that it provides, but the fact of the matter is, you're arguing about something completely pointless without any relative sources to back your "facts" up.

 

You didn't read the full article did you (not the one on the first post but it was a few posts down, destrutoid just picked out parts)? Sony was looking at 3D cameras before MS was thats a fact denying it is just ignorant 

Did Sony carry on with that? No. It's like saying someone was eyeing the last can of beans and I came along and took it.

No Sony didn't carry on with it for the exact reasons it states in the article, the technical limitations just didn't seem to bother MS as much since it seemed more futury 



Around the Network
NotStan on 13 February 2011
Edgeoflife said:
NotStan said:
Edgeoflife said:
NotStan said:

 

Edgeoflife said:
NotStan said:
[..]

How do you know that? Do you have internal sources? Cough them up, all I see is EDD division having it's best quarter ever, if you imply that MS should have already covered the cost of R&D and advertising in a space of 4 months I dread to think of your attitude towards most games that tend to justify their development over several months into their life cycle.

Fact is, EDD is profitable(By quite a margin btw), so whichever way you spin it, Kinect probably moved substantial amount of HW besides the stand alone unit itself. Btw, 8,000,000*~$100 = alot of f**king money.

last time I checked they were only making 50 on it per sale and half a billion on advertising is alot a hell of a lot of money and again this is off topic, the topic is about hte capabilities of kinect not the sales 

Hey I am not the one that started the whole sales thingy majig here, "MS is probably still in the red with Kinect because of advertising". Just had to disprove a statement or two made by you.

In terms of capabilities, if Sony could have made this kind of tech it would have. If you honestly believe that Sony would applaud it's competitor on launching a succesful product and not in anyway, trying to undermine it, you're dead wrong. I don't have Kinect personally so I can't comment on the capabilities or the scope that it provides, but the fact of the matter is, you're arguing about something completely pointless without any relative sources to back your "facts" up.

 

You didn't read the full article did you (not the one on the first post but it was a few posts down, destrutoid just picked out parts)? Sony was looking at 3D cameras before MS was thats a fact denying it is just ignorant 

Did Sony carry on with that? No. It's like saying someone was eyeing the last can of beans and I came along and took it.

No Sony didn't carry on with it for the exact reasons it states in the article, the technical limitations just didn't seem to bother MS as much since it seemed more futury 

Hello. Who is saying that? A Sony employed engineer. You wouldn't expect him to say something GOOD about the direct competitor in motion gaming, would you? 



Disconnect and self destruct, one bullet a time.

Edgeoflife on 13 February 2011
trasharmdsister12 said:
Edgeoflife said:

Microsoft said it and maybe you should re-read my post

My mistake. I read what you said wrong


So not all of it was directly for Kinect.

All of it was for kinect directly, but indirectly for other things 



fordy on 13 February 2011
Edgeoflife said:
fordy said:
Edgeoflife said:
fordy said:

I love the sense of ethos that this rep tries to convince the audience, with the outline, "We tried Kinect technology. Trust us, it's inferior", like any other companies that try it after them should have come to the same conclusion. When push comes to shove though, I'm sure Sony would LOVE to trade sales of Kinect over the Move.

This is where Sony failed to read the audience again. The userbase of these technologies are casuals, and casuals don't care what does 640x480 @ 60FPS etc. Look at the Wii, for example, the only console yet to go HD, but did that make sales drop or plummet?

This is where I think the Wii is getting it's first taste of competition in the same demographic. Casuals see Kinect as an evolution of the Wii, whereas they see Move as a copy of the Wii, even though it might not be. Casuals do not spend time looking at hardware specs.

Do you really think that Kinect would of sold what it did if Sony released it? It would have sold about the same as the ps eye, it's not about the tech it's about the marketing 


Really? I 've seen more Move ads in my region than Wii ads, despite the longer release timeframe. Guess which one is still outselling the other.

There are more factors to this than advertising, so you cannot come to the conclusion that Move was defeated purely because of marketing money. 

Who said move was defeated, move isn't defeated and marketing IS more then advertisement, it's also about hype and building up anticipation (sometimes with false promises *cough* milo *cough*) I'm pretty sure lifetime sales of move will surpass that of kinect 

On a similar note, I guess we could say that pure marketing was what caused Sony to win the PS1 and PS2 gens, right? After all, their competitors did have the more "superior technology"...

Casuals arent moved by hype as hardcore is, either. Many of them will be an impulse buy, or a buy based on seeing it in action elsewhere.

Move did alright, but they sacrificed the casual audience in order to appeal more to the hardcore, when the hardcore would rather do LESS movement.



Edgeoflife on 13 February 2011
NotStan said:
Edgeoflife said:
NotStan said:
Edgeoflife said:
NotStan said:

 

Edgeoflife said:
NotStan said:
[..]

How do you know that? Do you have internal sources? Cough them up, all I see is EDD division having it's best quarter ever, if you imply that MS should have already covered the cost of R&D and advertising in a space of 4 months I dread to think of your attitude towards most games that tend to justify their development over several months into their life cycle.

Fact is, EDD is profitable(By quite a margin btw), so whichever way you spin it, Kinect probably moved substantial amount of HW besides the stand alone unit itself. Btw, 8,000,000*~$100 = alot of f**king money.

last time I checked they were only making 50 on it per sale and half a billion on advertising is alot a hell of a lot of money and again this is off topic, the topic is about hte capabilities of kinect not the sales 

Hey I am not the one that started the whole sales thingy majig here, "MS is probably still in the red with Kinect because of advertising". Just had to disprove a statement or two made by you.

In terms of capabilities, if Sony could have made this kind of tech it would have. If you honestly believe that Sony would applaud it's competitor on launching a succesful product and not in anyway, trying to undermine it, you're dead wrong. I don't have Kinect personally so I can't comment on the capabilities or the scope that it provides, but the fact of the matter is, you're arguing about something completely pointless without any relative sources to back your "facts" up.

 

You didn't read the full article did you (not the one on the first post but it was a few posts down, destrutoid just picked out parts)? Sony was looking at 3D cameras before MS was thats a fact denying it is just ignorant 

Did Sony carry on with that? No. It's like saying someone was eyeing the last can of beans and I came along and took it.

No Sony didn't carry on with it for the exact reasons it states in the article, the technical limitations just didn't seem to bother MS as much since it seemed more futury 

Hello. Who is saying that? A Sony employed engineer. You wouldn't expect him to say something GOOD about the direct competitor in motion gaming, would you? 

They weren't talking about their competitor they're talking about why they didn't pursue 3D cameras, they would of said the same things before kinect was annouced, hell if you dig up their research and reports on 3D cameras that they gave to Sony they probably did, and if it wasn't for those limitations then why didn't Sony pursue 3D cameras?



Around the Network
Edgeoflife on 13 February 2011
fordy said:
Edgeoflife said:
fordy said:
Edgeoflife said:
fordy said:

I love the sense of ethos that this rep tries to convince the audience, with the outline, "We tried Kinect technology. Trust us, it's inferior", like any other companies that try it after them should have come to the same conclusion. When push comes to shove though, I'm sure Sony would LOVE to trade sales of Kinect over the Move.

This is where Sony failed to read the audience again. The userbase of these technologies are casuals, and casuals don't care what does 640x480 @ 60FPS etc. Look at the Wii, for example, the only console yet to go HD, but did that make sales drop or plummet?

This is where I think the Wii is getting it's first taste of competition in the same demographic. Casuals see Kinect as an evolution of the Wii, whereas they see Move as a copy of the Wii, even though it might not be. Casuals do not spend time looking at hardware specs.

Do you really think that Kinect would of sold what it did if Sony released it? It would have sold about the same as the ps eye, it's not about the tech it's about the marketing 


Really? I 've seen more Move ads in my region than Wii ads, despite the longer release timeframe. Guess which one is still outselling the other.

There are more factors to this than advertising, so you cannot come to the conclusion that Move was defeated purely because of marketing money. 

Who said move was defeated, move isn't defeated and marketing IS more then advertisement, it's also about hype and building up anticipation (sometimes with false promises *cough* milo *cough*) I'm pretty sure lifetime sales of move will surpass that of kinect 

On a similar note, I guess we could say that pure marketing was what caused Sony to win the PS1 and PS2 gens, right? After all, their competitors did have the more "superior technology"...

Casuals arent moved by hype as hardcore is, either. Many of them will be an impulse buy, or a buy based on seeing it in action elsewhere.

Move did alright, but they sacrificed the casual audience in order to appeal more to the hardcore, when the hardcore would rather do LESS movement.

Not sure about ps1 but ps2 it was a big part of it, the other part though was getting all the 3rd parties in exclusivity contracts, but if it wasn't for marketing and those deals dreamcast would of kicked its ass 



Edgeoflife on 13 February 2011
trasharmdsister12 said:
Edgeoflife said:

All of it was for kinect directly, but indirectly for other things

So those other things needed less or no marketing as a result. IE. Kinect needed less adverts and the Kinect related games needed no additional marketing. Also, could you provide a link where MS said it was all for Kinect?

And as a result, shouldn't we also count money made off of games in the "how much MS has made off Kinect" category and also some portion of Xbox hardware?

point taken, I just really don't like kinect it sold on hype, lies and advertisement the actually technology has little usefulness outside of yoga games but people pretend it does 



NotStan on 13 February 2011
Edgeoflife said:
NotStan said:
[..]

Hello. Who is saying that? A Sony employed engineer. You wouldn't expect him to say something GOOD about the direct competitor in motion gaming, would you? 

They weren't talking about their competitor they're talking about why they didn't pursue 3D cameras, they would of said the same things before kinect was annouced, hell if you dig up their research and reports on 3D cameras that they gave to Sony they probably did, and if it wasn't for those limitations then why didn't Sony pursue 3D cameras?

Because they didn't see it as a viable market? Whereas MS did and took the opportunity to create a periphial that will is likely boosting the sales of 360 and is likely to squeeze another year out of it. Again, I don't get how you say that sales have no relevance to the capabilities of Kinect and then go off talking about why Sony did what it did.

Final like is, capabilities are capabilities. Do you have Kinect? No "Around a friends house" or "I was at gamestop once.. browsing some games and played Kinect for 5 minutes" experiences. Just because Sony didn't pursue it doesn't mean that this tech is not compatible, if you google some of the hacks on Youtube you'll see how much of the potential is just waiting to be unlocked, again, if you expected one of Move engineers to give a truthful unbiased view on Kinect, you were mad. Ofcourse they would say something along the lines of "We tried it, but man it was rubbish!". It's called downplaying the competition, I hear that's quite common.



Disconnect and self destruct, one bullet a time.

Edgeoflife on 13 February 2011
NotStan said:
Edgeoflife said:
NotStan said:
[..]

Hello. Who is saying that? A Sony employed engineer. You wouldn't expect him to say something GOOD about the direct competitor in motion gaming, would you? 

They weren't talking about their competitor they're talking about why they didn't pursue 3D cameras, they would of said the same things before kinect was annouced, hell if you dig up their research and reports on 3D cameras that they gave to Sony they probably did, and if it wasn't for those limitations then why didn't Sony pursue 3D cameras?

Because they didn't see it as a viable market? Whereas MS did and took the opportunity to create a periphial that will is likely boosting the sales of 360 and is likely to squeeze another year out of it. Again, I don't get how you say that sales have no relevance to the capabilities of Kinect and then go off talking about why Sony did what it did.

Final like is, capabilities are capabilities. Do you have Kinect? No "Around a friends house" or "I was at gamestop once.. browsing some games and played Kinect for 5 minutes" experiences. Just because Sony didn't pursue it doesn't mean that this tech is not compatible, if you google some of the hacks on Youtube you'll see how much of the potential is just waiting to be unlocked, again, if you expected one of Move engineers to give a truthful unbiased view on Kinect, you were mad. Ofcourse they would say something along the lines of "We tried it, but man it was rubbish!". It's called downplaying the competition, I hear that's quite common.

Read the full article before commenting again here I'll link it http://www.videogamer.com/news/sony_on_why_ps_move_has_greater_appeal_than_kinect.html



fordy on 13 February 2011
Edgeoflife said:
fordy said:
Edgeoflife said:
fordy said:
Edgeoflife said:
fordy said:

I love the sense of ethos that this rep tries to convince the audience, with the outline, "We tried Kinect technology. Trust us, it's inferior", like any other companies that try it after them should have come to the same conclusion. When push comes to shove though, I'm sure Sony would LOVE to trade sales of Kinect over the Move.

This is where Sony failed to read the audience again. The userbase of these technologies are casuals, and casuals don't care what does 640x480 @ 60FPS etc. Look at the Wii, for example, the only console yet to go HD, but did that make sales drop or plummet?

This is where I think the Wii is getting it's first taste of competition in the same demographic. Casuals see Kinect as an evolution of the Wii, whereas they see Move as a copy of the Wii, even though it might not be. Casuals do not spend time looking at hardware specs.

Do you really think that Kinect would of sold what it did if Sony released it? It would have sold about the same as the ps eye, it's not about the tech it's about the marketing 


Really? I 've seen more Move ads in my region than Wii ads, despite the longer release timeframe. Guess which one is still outselling the other.

There are more factors to this than advertising, so you cannot come to the conclusion that Move was defeated purely because of marketing money. 

Who said move was defeated, move isn't defeated and marketing IS more then advertisement, it's also about hype and building up anticipation (sometimes with false promises *cough* milo *cough*) I'm pretty sure lifetime sales of move will surpass that of kinect 

On a similar note, I guess we could say that pure marketing was what caused Sony to win the PS1 and PS2 gens, right? After all, their competitors did have the more "superior technology"...

Casuals arent moved by hype as hardcore is, either. Many of them will be an impulse buy, or a buy based on seeing it in action elsewhere.

Move did alright, but they sacrificed the casual audience in order to appeal more to the hardcore, when the hardcore would rather do LESS movement.

Not sure about ps1 but ps2 it was a big part of it, the other part though was getting all the 3rd parties in exclusivity contracts, but if it wasn't for marketing and those deals dreamcast would of kicked its ass 

Marketing does not always imply success. Microsoft threw a ton of money towards the Xbox last gen, and it barely managed to scrape into second. There are always multipkle factors.

For instance, which one would you consider an average consumer to stop at with interest at a department store: a Move setup with The Fight, or a Kinect setup with Kinect Adventures?

One thing I would give Sony credit for, and that is trying to make motion more appealing to the hardcore, but I don't think it's going to work, as stated before, plus on top of it, there's a risk of alienating potential casual buyers, which is supposed to be the base for this kind of tech.