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:

irstupid on 01 October 2013
thismeintiel said:
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?

You last reply did nothing.  How do you guys not get yet that blu ray is just a storage disc, or format.  It could be replaced by a flash disc, flash drive, dvd, cd, floppy disc, hd-dvd, any other random disc propriety out there.  What the game on doesn't change how its played.  Heck being on a flash drive or cartridge or something like that would actually make the game run BETTER.    So if we want to be 100% consumer friendly, then wouldn't the best and/or cheapest method be consumer friendly?  Isn't Sony using a more expensive method than available anti-consumer?

How many games on 360 required more than one disc?

We are talking about PS3 here, not ps4/one/wii u.

You guys say Kinect is an unneeded expense cause you won't use it for games.  I'm saying in that argument then so is blu ray on ps3.  It wasn't needed for games.  Even if you dislike switching discs blu ray wasn't needed.  There were very few games that made you switch discs on 360.  VERY FEW.  



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

DS4 is a terrible example as well. It's 5 bucks more than the DS3. I don't think anyone will lose sleep over that. Again, the cameras in phones are added there because it's economical now. The DS4 is economical to include those features. The Kinect? not so much



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

DS4 is a terrible example as well. It's 5 bucks more than the DS3. I don't think anyone will lose sleep over that. Again, the cameras in phones are added there because it's economical now. The DS4 is economical to include those features. The Kinect? not so much

The argument just seems to be "if it isn't required for me to game, then it's anti-consumer"

Besides the DS3 could be cheaper if it removed six-axis and rumble as well, both features not needed to play games.   you could cut costs vastely if you cut out those things.  Imagine a bare bones controller.  No rumble, no six-axis, no light thing, no gyroscope, no touch pad, no whatever else controllers have these days.  I could easily play Call of Duty without any of those features.  You could buy a controller for like $10 instead of like $60, or whatever rediculous prices controller are these days.  man I used to think back when I was younger that a $30 controller was expensive.

 

But here is a question I would like answered cause I don't actually know, since I haven't had a disc drive in like 5 years on my computer.   Any PC gamers can you answer me this.  What kind of drive do we need these days to play/install a game on the computer?  Do I need  Blu Ray drive on my computer to play/install Battlefied 4 when it comes out?  Or can I just buy a standard DVD drive?

If not, then there's my point.  

How can PC's, which are more powerful than the PS4 and Xbox One, play these new games with only a DVD drive and yet ps4/one NEED a blu ray drive?



Sevengen on 01 October 2013

this has to be one of the dumbest arguments i've seen on here in a while. page after page of completely biased and subjective reasoning to defend an opinion about whether or not something 'is' or 'isn't' a peripheral.
Sony fans, or at the very least Microsoft detractors, are simply CHOOSING to see the Kinect 2 as an add-on.. this way they can keep arguing ad nauseam till the end of time.
But the simple, unavoidable truth is, it's not a peripheral.
It's an alternative controller that comes with every system. Period.
That's the package Microsoft is releasing.
A new console that comes with two, very different types of controllers.
No argument here.
move along.



Zappykins on 01 October 2013

But a forced light on the back of the controller that causes a glare in people trying to play a game isn't?

It's sour grapes, if they could do the same with their camera they would - they even just said it could do some voice recognition.

Just like have a Blu-ray was in the PS3 the new Kinect 2.0 is an important nice thing in the Xbox One.



 

Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. 

Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon!

 

Tell me a funny joke!
Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. on 01 October 2013
arcelonious said:

Kinect is included with every Xbox One because it is one of the primary elements that Microsoft is using to set its console apart from the rest. Without it, many of their talking points would be lost, like Skype, television voice commands, voice/motion integration into the UI, and so on. Of course, many gamers don't care about voice commands, motion control, or Skype, but Microsoft sees potential in attracting the people that do, and is gambling on that with the increased price of having Kinect in each box.

At the same time, games like Guitar Hero, Rock Band, Wii Fit, and so on, have shown that people will buy accessories for software, so I wouldn't count Sony's optional approach out either. Additionally, if a multiplatform game that utilizes motion control is easy to port between the Xbox One and PS4, then developers may still support motion control games on the PS4, even if it has a smaller install base for the Eye and Move.

With that said, the anti-consumer remark in the headline was obviously trying to sensationalize what wasn't really a controversial article.


At best the kinect is a great hands free multimedia controller and an  on rails/dancing game piece of tech. Its existence much like they eyetoy is purely secondary and ms lied to you and admitted it is not needed as a primary for the xbox one to function. They force bundled it to get a quick profit regardless of whether the consuñer base is for or against it.



S.T.A.G.E. on 01 October 2013
irstupid said:
thismeintiel said:
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?

You last reply did nothing.  How do you guys not get yet that blu ray is just a storage disc, or format.  It could be replaced by a flash disc, flash drive, dvd, cd, floppy disc, hd-dvd, any other random disc propriety out there.  What the game on doesn't change how its played.  Heck being on a flash drive or cartridge or something like that would actually make the game run BETTER.    So if we want to be 100% consumer friendly, then wouldn't the best and/or cheapest method be consumer friendly?  Isn't Sony using a more expensive method than available anti-consumer?

How many games on 360 required more than one disc?

We are talking about PS3 here, not ps4/one/wii u.

You guys say Kinect is an unneeded expense cause you won't use it for games.  I'm saying in that argument then so is blu ray on ps3.  It wasn't needed for games.  Even if you dislike switching discs blu ray wasn't needed.  There were very few games that made you switch discs on 360.  VERY FEW.  

Your argument is completely off base and makes little sense. Without blu ray the ps3  wouldve been without a format. Kinect is a secondary device which isnt primary use and can be disconnected at will. The xbox 360 and the xbone can both survive without the kinect much like the ps3 can exist without the eyetoy and move. Blu ray is the primary format and since its survival has been ensured the xbone and wii u followed suit. The ps3 cannot play disc based games nor movies without it. primary so learn the difference. Thats like saying the Xbox 360  having a dvd player as a format for its large games is secondary when that couldnt be any further from the truth.



orniletter on 01 October 2013

Bwahaha, this Blu-Ray debate seems to come straight out of `06 !



phinch1 on 01 October 2013
JazzB1987 said:
phinch1 said:
JazzB1987 said:
PSvita forced memory cards = pro consumer then?


just as much as microsofts exclusive HDD for the 360


Which you dont even need if you own a flash drive. And even if you would need HDDs you can avoid official MS products  by buying western digital harddrives and china HDD cases that cost 1 dollar. 

Voila 360 harddrive.

BTW a harddrive is not mandatory like the memory card in the vita is  so  its 2 different scenarios.

if you bought a 4gb xbox 360 you cannot play gta 5...... soooo yeah



phinch1 on 01 October 2013
PeterSilenced said:
phinch1 said:
PeterSilenced said:
wick said:
PeterSilenced said:
It would be anti consumer in the case of sony since that camera is well lets say outdated and the ps4 interface wasnt built around it.
The kinect 2 however screams potential and it only adds value.


That's opinion not fact.

I have no interest in Kinect, hence why I didn't buy the first one for my 360.

How does forcing me to pay for it add value for me?


MS is taking the cost seperatly you would have to spend what 300 dollars just for kinect how does that add value to me the consumer who actually wants kinect? Its a choice and no one is forcing you to buy an xbox one


exactly , but if you want a xbone for certain games that arent camera related, like COD or gta, they are saying you have top pay extra and HAVE our camera or get a ps4, i know which id rather

Games that arent camera related can very easily or more easily be camera related improving various aspects of them that is if the camera is included in every box .

Frankly its a promise a bet for the consumer but if it goes right devs will see value (especially indies) and unique titles will start appearing,titles that would had never existed with just the decision of not having the camera in every box so in the end gamers win core gamers at that.

 


but your doing exactly what microsoft are doing....complelty ignoring the fact that some gamers DO NOT WANT IT, even if they give it me for free i would never use it playing cod or gta