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

Forums - Sony Discussion - 'Forced Camera Anti-Consumer' Says Sony

Tagged games:

NobleTeam360 on 01 October 2013
NinjaHanzo said:
NobleTeam360 said:
wick said:
NobleTeam360 said:
I guess the forced camera on your phone and laptop is anti-consumer also? Lol give me a break.


Camera's were included on phones and laptops due to demand for them.

I still don't see the screaming demand for Kinect 2.0 apart from the most dedicated Microsoft followers.

Considering the fact that you don't even have to use the Kinect I don't see the problem.

Lets consider also the fact that you have to pay for it.

That's the problem.

And well... Kinect 2 isn't cheap at all.

A Xbox One without Kinect is a matter of time, mark my words.

Then just wait for a kinectless SKU or a price drop pretty simple solution.



Around the Network
irstupid on 01 October 2013
Max King of the Wild said:
irstupid said:

Nintendo doesn't use Blu Ray.  

Blu Ray was anti-consumer last gen if kinect is this gen.  It was an extra added that was NOT needed.  PS3 could have still worked with a dvd drive instead of blu ray.  The Blu Ray drive was an un-NEEDed expense.  It was not NEEDED.  No arguing over if it was a good thing or wanted, the fact was it was not NEEDED to play games.  A cheaper alternative would have worked (dvd drive) or any drive, hell Nintendo hasn't ever even had a dvd drive.  Not sure what you call them, but they have never been able to play dvd's or blu rays or any type of movie format.

So is adding something not NEEDED anti-consumer?

OR

is what you guys seem to be arguing "Whatever I don't like is anti-consumer"  You liked blu ray and thus thinks its a bonus gift, you don't like kinect and thus think its anti-consumer.  So OPINION it is.   But difference is, some games REQUIRE kinect to play.  No games require blu ray to play.



How many times do I need to repeat myself before people like you get the picture?

1. no one said kinect was anti consumer

2. If blu-ray was not needed last gen then niether was 512mb of RAM last gen and 4gb of RAM this gen... but that argument is 100% asinine and no one would make it.

2. totally wrong.  the ram and so on are REQUIRED to run a game.  A disc is just a storage device used to well store data.  A game can be on a usb drive, digital, dvd, blu ray disc, whatever disc nintendo uses, cartridge, ect.  It doesn't matter what the game is on storage wise, BUT it does matter that the console has the power to play the game.

can you not download games on your PS3?  Are multiplat games for 360/ps3 both playable yet are on different formats blu ray/dvd or whatever 360 uses.  The blu ray is just as stated a format that data is stored on.  You could still play ff13 on 100,000,000 floppy discs if the ps3 had a floppy disc drive.  The blu ray drive was an unneeded thing.  

Lets say you download a game on your PS3 and also have the game in hard copy (ie blu ray).  You can play BOTH on your ps3, either digitally or hard.  Now open up your ps3 and remove the ram or the gpu.  Now try and play your game.  Neither the digital or blu ray version will work at all.  THUS those are needed.  The blu ray drive is not.   It could have been left out completly such as PSP Go, or it could have been switched with a CHEAPER alternative such as a standard dvd drive.  



Max King of the Wild on 01 October 2013
irstupid said:
Max King of the Wild said:
irstupid said:

Nintendo doesn't use Blu Ray.  

Blu Ray was anti-consumer last gen if kinect is this gen.  It was an extra added that was NOT needed.  PS3 could have still worked with a dvd drive instead of blu ray.  The Blu Ray drive was an un-NEEDed expense.  It was not NEEDED.  No arguing over if it was a good thing or wanted, the fact was it was not NEEDED to play games.  A cheaper alternative would have worked (dvd drive) or any drive, hell Nintendo hasn't ever even had a dvd drive.  Not sure what you call them, but they have never been able to play dvd's or blu rays or any type of movie format.

So is adding something not NEEDED anti-consumer?

OR

is what you guys seem to be arguing "Whatever I don't like is anti-consumer"  You liked blu ray and thus thinks its a bonus gift, you don't like kinect and thus think its anti-consumer.  So OPINION it is.   But difference is, some games REQUIRE kinect to play.  No games require blu ray to play.



How many times do I need to repeat myself before people like you get the picture?

1. no one said kinect was anti consumer

2. If blu-ray was not needed last gen then niether was 512mb of RAM last gen and 4gb of RAM this gen... but that argument is 100% asinine and no one would make it.

2. totally wrong.  the ram and so on are REQUIRED to run a game.  A disc is just a storage device used to well store data.  A game can be on a usb drive, digital, dvd, blu ray disc, whatever disc nintendo uses, cartridge, ect.  It doesn't matter what the game is on storage wise, BUT it does matter that the console has the power to play the game.

can you not download games on your PS3?  Are multiplat games for 360/ps3 both playable yet are on different formats blu ray/dvd or whatever 360 uses.  The blu ray is just as stated a format that data is stored on.  You could still play ff13 on 100,000,000 floppy discs if the ps3 had a floppy disc drive.  The blu ray drive was an unneeded thing.  

Lets say you download a game on your PS3 and also have the game in hard copy (ie blu ray).  You can play BOTH on your ps3, either digitally or hard.  Now open up your ps3 and remove the ram or the gpu.  Now try and play your game.  Neither the digital or blu ray version will work at all.  THUS those are needed.  The blu ray drive is not.   It could have been left out completly such as PSP Go, or it could have been switched with a CHEAPER alternative such as a standard dvd drive.  

Youre not even addressing the points. Youre babbling about nonsense. The point that RAM is needed is exactly my point. 4gbs of RAM? Well, Wii U uses 1gb of RAm and you used Wii U doesn't use blu-ray as proof that it wasn't needed. Now accept defeat

You also aren't look at the year it was released. No, in 2006 niether Sonys nor MS online store was really any good. Hell MS didn't even have a HD in one of their models.



superryo on 01 October 2013
burninmylight said:
If Sony is really about being pro consumer, then why did it make the Vita have those expensive proprietary memory cards? Why not issue an update or release a newer model that allows it to use common, off-the-shelf SD cards and memory sticks?


Stop making sense.  ;)



Talal on 01 October 2013
J_Allard said:
NobleTeam360 said:

Considering the fact that you don't even have to use the Kinect I don't see the problem. It's not like someone is holding a gun to your head telling you to use the Kinect. 

You do still have to pay for it though, even if you aren't going to use it. Some people are upset about that, which is fine. But it's a far stretch to cry that it goes against consumer choice.


It does go against consumers choice, but a lot of things go against the consumers choice.



Around the Network
thismeintiel on 01 October 2013
irstupid said:
thismeintiel said:

The 360's muilti-disc games, as well as MS switching to Blu-ray, disagrees with you.

Nintendo doesn't use Blu Ray.  

Blu Ray was anti-consumer last gen if kinect is this gen.  It was an extra added that was NOT needed.  PS3 could have still worked with a dvd drive instead of blu ray.  The Blu Ray drive was an un-NEEDed expense.  It was not NEEDED.  No arguing over if it was a good thing or wanted, the fact was it was not NEEDED to play games.  A cheaper alternative would have worked (dvd drive) or any drive, hell Nintendo hasn't ever even had a dvd drive.  Not sure what you call them, but they have never been able to play dvd's or blu rays or any type of movie format.

So is adding something not NEEDED anti-consumer?

OR

is what you guys seem to be arguing "Whatever I don't like is anti-consumer"  You liked blu ray and thus thinks its a bonus gift, you don't like kinect and thus think its anti-consumer.  So OPINION it is.   But difference is, some games REQUIRE kinect to play.  No games require blu ray to play.

Nintendo isn't using Blu-ray?  You may want to look that up again.  The fact is they are using Blu-ray tech, however, in order to not have to pay any fees, they don't allow playback of movies.  Same thing with the Wii and DVD.  I mean you didn't think it is just a coincidence that single-layer Blurays are 25GB, the EXACT same amount as a Wii U disc?  And their console is slightly more poweful than the PS3, so I guess they felt the larger sized Blu-ray was necessary for 7th gen, as well.



 

tiffac on 01 October 2013

Does anybody here actually knows what Anti-Consumerism is? Because its clearly not the same with "Consumer's Choice" Seriously guys, stop getting carried away by the sensationalist title.

Kinect, Blu-Ray or the Vita memory card is not Anti-Consumer. If they where then we would have no new products being sold in the world market today because with that logic every succeeding technology is anti-consumer which they are not.

This is not DRM.



irstupid on 01 October 2013
thismeintiel said:
Max King of the Wild said:
TruckOSaurus said:

If you wanna see it that way go ahead but that means that in your view, Kinect on XBO is just an extra bonus too. My point is that having Kinect with every XBO is the same than having a Blu-Ray player in every PS3 and it still stands. They're both unnecessary components that every consummer is forced to buy whether they want it or not.


Not at all. Both RAM and a Disc Drive are essential components to a gaming machine. Increasing specs the following gen is not the same as forcing someone to buy a peripheral

I think this is the main point of the argument.  Blu-ray was a step up in something that was NECESSARY for the console to even operate.  Kinect is a peripheral that is 100% UNECESSARY to play games, yet you have to buy just to get the system (at least this year).  Blu-ray has proved itself necessary, as games continue to get larger and larger.  And if Sony didn't bite the bullet this gen (the PS3 actually cost $800+ to make, but launched at the same price as the One is launching at, $499), then we would be seeing those upfront costs/losses added to this gen.  This would mean Sony would have to charge more for the PS4 or take a larger loss.  And MS would have most likely stayed with DVDs, again, causing almost all of their games to require 2 or more DVDs.

Like I said earlier, though, I fully expect most of these posters to bactrack when MS releases a Kinectless SKU.  You will no longer hear about how "everyone has the same console experience" or that "the One is built around Kinect."  Instead you will hear them praise MS for "lowering the price" and "it's a great business decision" and "they are giving consumer's a choice."

1.How is it necessary?

You can download games and play them correct?  Are they using the blu ray drive in any way?

How come every single game is not exclusive that is on the PS3.  If a Blu Ray drive was NECESSARY then how can those games be available for the 360?  The 360 doesn't have a Blu Ray drive, so obviously those games can't work then right.   Blu Ray was not needed.  There were cheaper ways, such as dvd's.

 

2.  Nintendo doesn't use Blu Ray, yet its disc hold like 50+ gigs i believe.  Isn't that about what Blu Ray holds?  So Blu Ray format again is NOT NEEDED. There are substitutes.  Now for the PS4 and Sony, Blu Ray probbaly is the cheapest thing to use, but back when PS3 was launched it was not.

Personally i don't think Blu Ray is needed anyway.  I think that these large disc sizes has just made developers lazier and taking up useless space.  Heck look at some of Nintendo gamecube games.  Look how freaking small they were in size and some of th emost impressive games barely even used that size.  Then look at some pathetic games on the 360/ps3 and they are using up almost the entire disc space.  I see this often too when buying a pc version of a game.  A PC exclusive i'll have takes up like 5-10 gigs of my hard-drive and then I buy a mediocre console port to pc and it takes up like 25 gigs.  It's like wtf.



irstupid on 01 October 2013
thismeintiel said:
irstupid said:
thismeintiel said:

The 360's muilti-disc games, as well as MS switching to Blu-ray, disagrees with you.

Nintendo doesn't use Blu Ray.  

Blu Ray was anti-consumer last gen if kinect is this gen.  It was an extra added that was NOT needed.  PS3 could have still worked with a dvd drive instead of blu ray.  The Blu Ray drive was an un-NEEDed expense.  It was not NEEDED.  No arguing over if it was a good thing or wanted, the fact was it was not NEEDED to play games.  A cheaper alternative would have worked (dvd drive) or any drive, hell Nintendo hasn't ever even had a dvd drive.  Not sure what you call them, but they have never been able to play dvd's or blu rays or any type of movie format.

So is adding something not NEEDED anti-consumer?

OR

is what you guys seem to be arguing "Whatever I don't like is anti-consumer"  You liked blu ray and thus thinks its a bonus gift, you don't like kinect and thus think its anti-consumer.  So OPINION it is.   But difference is, some games REQUIRE kinect to play.  No games require blu ray to play.

Nintendo isn't using Blu-ray?  You may want to look that up again.  The fact is they are using Blu-ray tech, however, in order to not have to pay any fees, they don't allow playback of movies.  Same thing with the Wii and DVD.  I mean you didn't think it is just a coincidence that single-layer Blurays are 25GB, the EXACT same amount as a Wii U disc?  And their console is slightly more poweful than the PS3, so I guess they felt the larger sized Blu-ray was necessary for 7th gen, as well.

I just knew Wii U disc dont' look like Blu Ray disc, and the Wii U can't play Blu Ray discs so I didn't know what they were.

But that kind fo proves my point.  They found a cheaper alternative.  

According to you guys anything that is not needed to PLAY GAMES and adds cost to the console is anti-consumer.  So if Nintendo used real blu rays, then that would be anti-consumer acording to you guys since it WASN'T needed to play games.  

At least that is the argument I'm hearing in regards to Kinect.  It's not NEEDED to play games, so its anti-consumer.  Just like Blu Ray was back on PS3.  It wasn't needed.  They could have gone with a cheaper disc drive and still been able to play games.  Thus anti-consumer right?

NOw this isn't what I believe.  By your definition industries would become 100% stagnate.  You coudl never introduce new tech cause in your opinion you could play games before.  We should all still be playing with nes controllers or atari sticks or wahtever you want to say.  Those controllers worked right, no need to ever bring in new methods.  Why does the PS3/4 controller have the whole six-axis things.  You could play games forever without needed to tilt the controller.  Why is there a touch pad on the ps4 controller.  You got by for how many years without needing to rub off your controller.  

Btw to those who brought up Blu Ray, a better argument would have been the touch pad on the DS4 controller in comparison to Kinect.  oh and also the tech inside the DS4 controller that is used when you have a camera.  If I never buy a pseye then isn't that tech just a useless expense I paid for?  Isn't that what your arguing Kinect is.  A useless expense you will NEVER use.  Well i want my DS4 controller to be cheaper and you to remove six-axis and the light sensor thing, vibration and touch pad.  none of those are needed for gaming.  I have pc controllers with none of those and play games fine.  My mouse and keyboard have one of those and I play games fine, heck even better than fine, better than a controller in most cases.



thismeintiel on 01 October 2013
irstupid said:
thismeintiel said:
Max King of the Wild said:


Not at all. Both RAM and a Disc Drive are essential components to a gaming machine. Increasing specs the following gen is not the same as forcing someone to buy a peripheral

I think this is the main point of the argument.  Blu-ray was a step up in something that was NECESSARY for the console to even operate.  Kinect is a peripheral that is 100% UNECESSARY to play games, yet you have to buy just to get the system (at least this year).  Blu-ray has proved itself necessary, as games continue to get larger and larger.  And if Sony didn't bite the bullet this gen (the PS3 actually cost $800+ to make, but launched at the same price as the One is launching at, $499), then we would be seeing those upfront costs/losses added to this gen.  This would mean Sony would have to charge more for the PS4 or take a larger loss.  And MS would have most likely stayed with DVDs, again, causing almost all of their games to require 2 or more DVDs.

Like I said earlier, though, I fully expect most of these posters to bactrack when MS releases a Kinectless SKU.  You will no longer hear about how "everyone has the same console experience" or that "the One is built around Kinect."  Instead you will hear them praise MS for "lowering the price" and "it's a great business decision" and "they are giving consumer's a choice."

1.How is it necessary?

You can download games and play them correct?  Are they using the blu ray drive in any way?

How come every single game is not exclusive that is on the PS3.  If a Blu Ray drive was NECESSARY then how can those games be available for the 360?  The 360 doesn't have a Blu Ray drive, so obviously those games can't work then right.   Blu Ray was not needed.  There were cheaper ways, such as dvd's.

 

2.  Nintendo doesn't use Blu Ray, yet its disc hold like 50+ gigs i believe.  Isn't that about what Blu Ray holds?  So Blu Ray format again is NOT NEEDED. There are substitutes.  Now for the PS4 and Sony, Blu Ray probbaly is the cheapest thing to use, but back when PS3 was launched it was not.

Personally i don't think Blu Ray is needed anyway.  I think that these large disc sizes has just made developers lazier and taking up useless space.  Heck look at some of Nintendo gamecube games.  Look how freaking small they were in size and some of th emost impressive games barely even used that size.  Then look at some pathetic games on the 360/ps3 and they are using up almost the entire disc space.  I see this often too when buying a pc version of a game.  A PC exclusive i'll have takes up like 5-10 gigs of my hard-drive and then I buy a mediocre console port to pc and it takes up like 25 gigs.  It's like wtf.

Your whole argument is voided by my last reply.  Nintendo's Wii U discs are based on Blu-ray tech.  No Blu-ray, no Wii U discs.  Of course, like you said, they could have just used DVDs.  I mean if they just wanted to start having every game come with more than 1 disc, which raises costs, too.  But, it looks like Nintendo, and MS for that matter, have now deemed Blu-ray to be necessary.  I guess it's a good thing Sony helped invent that, huh?