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:

JoeTheBro on 01 October 2013
PeterSilenced said:

As far as dev kits they have said that their indie program will include all the tools for cloud,kinect xbox one development.

To be honest you are not giving me any choice but to compare both cameras  if its IN the games developed for it will according to you be easily ported so i am saying that porting will be an issue due to the ps4 camera being worst, the things that i pointed out that the ps4 camera can do just fine have not been announced by sony probably to avoid those *tiny letter*in the screen saying "items sold separetly".

The heartbeat in ps4 camera when it comes to horror games would be severely compromissed since no one wants to play dead space 4 in a well lit room.

Ok then. Imagine PS4's camera was 100% identical to Kinect v2. Do you still believe that Microsoft packing it in would make more sense than Sony leaving it as an option, at least as far as game support goes?



Links

Around the Network
attaboy on 01 October 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:
attaboy said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
attaboy said:
I'm sure it's already been stated but--remember the PS3 vs 360? Fans were saying, "You had to buy a charger, HD DVD Player, Wi Fi adapter, etc. just to have that "PS3 experience" on Xbox 360". There are probably still TONS of youtube videos on the subject saying Xbox 360 costs more than PS3.

When Xbox 360 was letting consumers only pay for the parts they needed, Sony was offering everything for $500-$600. You can't just say it's okay for one side to do something and then condemn the other side for the exact same practice!


Those parts were actually a very small part of thr ps3  package. I spent far more dollars on my xbox than i ever did my ps3. Blu ray hiked up the price of the ps3 but it was a needed part of the ps3  and had a value so you could play larger games and larger discs with films and entertainment. MS launched before them so they knew nothing of what sony had up their sleeve in tech. When sony brought out the blu ray ms got hd dvd involved to try and snuff out blu ray. It was secondary as a format not primary. It failed along with hd dvd and ms felt no shame about it. Again, blu ray wasnt forced upon us. In fact a lot of peoplr bought ps3 consoles because they were the most affordable blu ray players on the market.

Not the point I was trying to make. I my PS3 and 360 sit a couple of feet from my router.  People were saying that i needed a $100 router to match the PS3. Personally, i didn't.  I was glad to have the option of not having a router forced upon me.  My PS3 had abuilt in wi fi router.  Never used it.  All of my consoles were wired.  I'm not discussing what's an integral part of the experience. I'm talking about being forced to buy something with one console that's optional with another.

 


When did the MS router come out, like what four years after the PS3 came out with a router in the box? The Xbox 360 was never meant to have Wifi. I heard people were using wifi dongles and stuff with the PS3 way before MS put those things ojn the market. Sony always thinks of hardware first. MS thinks of online first. When it comes to hardware MS is out of their element, which is why they always try to catch up with Sony. Sony element is not online, but they are learning, which is what they learn from MS. If Sony was ever to have an advantage it would always be hardware and format. I doubt rechargable batteries were on the market at launch for the 360 as well. It was only after Sony already had these things stock that MS started to respond.


The 360 had wired controllers, wireless controllers, charge and play kit, and Wi Fi adapter at launch in 2005. If I weren't on a cell phone, i would link you to the 2005 reviews.  

 

*steps off the S.T.A.G.E.*



PeterSilenced on 01 October 2013
JoeTheBro said:
PeterSilenced said:

As far as dev kits they have said that their indie program will include all the tools for cloud,kinect xbox one development.

To be honest you are not giving me any choice but to compare both cameras  if its IN the games developed for it will according to you be easily ported so i am saying that porting will be an issue due to the ps4 camera being worst, the things that i pointed out that the ps4 camera can do just fine have not been announced by sony probably to avoid those *tiny letter*in the screen saying "items sold separetly".

The heartbeat in ps4 camera when it comes to horror games would be severely compromissed since no one wants to play dead space 4 in a well lit room.

Ok then. Imagine PS4's camera was 100% identical to Kinect v2. Do you still believe that Microsoft packing it in would make more sense than Sony leaving it as an option, at least as far as game support goes?

 Let me run a scenario 

So Xbox One+kinect=499 

Ps4+ps eye 499 (offer the option of either 399 without camera or 499 with camera)

The result is a fragmented install base much less appealing to 3rd parties or even sony themselves in turn less support for casuals and less innovation towards motion gaming as an actuall core way to play like if the camera is just there to say "OH hey we have one too"

I vow for the development of the industry as a whole not just core gaming so yes it makes more sense for MS to include it in everybox making games for defsblind and handicapp people more reasonable in the future and pleasing developers of every genre thus making the box All in one wich is since the beggining MS proposition. 

Does it make more sense in my opinion yes in your opinion maybe not but far FAR away from Anti-Consumer.



JoeTheBro on 01 October 2013
PeterSilenced said:
JoeTheBro said:

Ok then. Imagine PS4's camera was 100% identical to Kinect v2. Do you still believe that Microsoft packing it in would make more sense than Sony leaving it as an option, at least as far as game support goes?

 Let me run a scenario 

So Xbox One+kinect=499 

Ps4+ps eye 499 (offer the option of either 399 without camera or 499 with camera)

The result is a fragmented install base much less appealing to 3rd parties or even sony themselves in turn less support for casuals and less innovation towards motion gaming as an actuall core way to play like if the camera is just there to say "OH hey we have one too"

I vow for the development of the industry as a whole not just core gaming so yes it makes more sense for MS to include it in everybox making games for defsblind and handicapp people more reasonable in the future and pleasing developers of every genre thus making the box All in one wich is since the beggining MS proposition. 

Does it make more sense in my opinion yes in your opinion maybe not but far FAR away from Anti-Consumer.

But look at the vast history of add ons/gimmicks in the industry.

PS2 dual tap: wasn't forced yet a fair amount games supported this add on.

PS2 eye: wasn't forced and hardly any games supported this. Only ones that did were built around the eye itself.

PS2 dance mat: wasn't forced yet had lots of games made for it. All dance games, but still a very successful add on.

PS2 analogue buttons: forced and had hardly any support.

GameCube mic: wasn't forced and had hardly any support.

Xbox 360 headset: was forced and was supported by practically every game:

Xbox 360 kinect: wasn't forced yet is supported by most games after release and has tons of dedicated games:

Wii motion plus: was basically forced in later years yet received very little support:

PS3 six axis: forced yet had hardly any support:

PS3 camera: not forced and has ok support:

PS3 move: not forced and has ok/little support:

PSVita back touch: forced yet has very little support:

 

Of this list I count four of these that were very successful/well supported. Only one of them was forced. Of the four forced add ons, only one received tons of support. Basically it just shows there really isn't a correlation between being forced and being supported. Kinect v2 is the same way. Being packed in will of course help its chances of catching on, but it's not like it would necessarily be doomed if it was left optional.

I should note though that I agree with forcing it, for all the menu and multimedia aspects of the console.

 

Also I've spent lots of time working with handicapped and developmentally disabled people making modern games accessible to them. What makes you think full body tracking would be a better input for them?



Links

PeterSilenced on 02 October 2013
JoeTheBro said:
But look at the vast history of add ons/gimmicks in the industry.

PS2 dual tap: wasn't forced yet a fair amount games supported this add on.

PS2 eye: wasn't forced and hardly any games supported this. Only ones that did were built around the eye itself.

PS2 dance mat: wasn't forced yet had lots of games made for it. All dance games, but still a very successful add on.

PS2 analogue buttons: forced and had hardly any support.

GameCube mic: wasn't forced and had hardly any support.

Xbox 360 headset: was forced and was supported by practically every game:

Xbox 360 kinect: wasn't forced yet is supported by most games after release and has tons of dedicated games:

Wii motion plus: was basically forced in later years yet received very little support:

PS3 six axis: forced yet had hardly any support:

PS3 camera: not forced and has ok support:

PS3 move: not forced and has ok/little support:

PSVita back touch: forced yet has very little support:

 

Of this list I count four of these that were very successful/well supported. Only one of them was forced. Of the four forced add ons, only one received tons of support. Basically it just shows there really isn't a correlation between being forced and being supported. Kinect v2 is the same way. Being packed in will of course help its chances of catching on, but it's not like it would necessarily be doomed if it was left optional.

I should note though that I agree with forcing it, for all the menu and multimedia aspects of the console.

 

Also I've spent lots of time working with handicapped and developmentally disabled people making modern games accessible to them. What makes you think full body tracking would be a better input for them?

First of all i am going to focus on 2005 onwards,your list however in its entirety does not have 1 single device that like the kinect v2 has a console built with it in mind separating it its like giving you half of the product.

Now compare the headset in the xbox 360 and the headset in the ps3 the fact that one was IN, enabled a better social experience for all,the six-axis was forced and it didnt have alot of support still Killzone 2,GTA 4,Heavenly Sword and more importantly Heavy Rain used this feature for better or worst,if it was not forced if a supposed dualshock 3 model without sixaxis was packed in instead do you even for a second think that these titles would even have considered adopting the sixaxis especially since the reviews for this model would have been horrible since the technology was like the first kinect a bit of a fail.

The ps3 camera according to vgchartz was only "widely" adopted when sony pushed the ps move with a ton of money because before that you had what? eye of judgement and some other guimick stuff the same thing can be said about the xbox previous camera nobody used it and titles for it failed miserably or failed to interest devs.

The ps move again sold alot riding sonys marketing campaign and it also drinked alot from MS own marketing push ,was it sucessfull yes what about games for it HELL NO !Outside of Sport Champions franchise there wasnt a single game that was sucessfull for it.

The PS vita back touch is not being supported since the entire VITA is not being supported enough!

The wii motion plus was "basically forced in later years" whats the point of that the audience is already fragmented .

Now the Kinect is really interesting because that was made by the same company and they knew that in order for it to be successfull they needed a wave of support so the idea was an original concept "so to speak" that would seem new to people  advertise it like the new wii and trow a billion dollars at it in order to be sucessfull,was it sucessfull yes sucessfull games yes but it was just smoke and mirrors at the end of the day the kinect is catching more dust than a vacuum cleaner because in order for it to sell like it did MS compromised several parts of it like the res of the camera in order to bring price down limiting its capabilities.  They also changed the Xbox 360 dash a couple of times so that it would work better with the device angering some of the core that did not purchase the device.

So the above is solved by making a sistem that is built from the ground up to include that technology and both will evolve as one,will it catch dust "so to speak" at least in the inicial phase of the device the interface of the console should make users use it alot after that well  is all in the hands of devs,Fantasia looks cool tough.

Now about your handicap experience didnt know that im not going to argue vs your experience i still think that the kinect could expand the overall way that they have to interact with the game , like voice recognition and sound combined (possibly) with a Braile-esque controler or since its more mainstream technology make it cheaper but i dont know how those situations work so i will refrain from that issue.



Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. on 03 October 2013
attaboy said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
attaboy said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
attaboy said:
I'm sure it's already been stated but--remember the PS3 vs 360? Fans were saying, "You had to buy a charger, HD DVD Player, Wi Fi adapter, etc. just to have that "PS3 experience" on Xbox 360". There are probably still TONS of youtube videos on the subject saying Xbox 360 costs more than PS3.

When Xbox 360 was letting consumers only pay for the parts they needed, Sony was offering everything for $500-$600. You can't just say it's okay for one side to do something and then condemn the other side for the exact same practice!


Those parts were actually a very small part of thr ps3  package. I spent far more dollars on my xbox than i ever did my ps3. Blu ray hiked up the price of the ps3 but it was a needed part of the ps3  and had a value so you could play larger games and larger discs with films and entertainment. MS launched before them so they knew nothing of what sony had up their sleeve in tech. When sony brought out the blu ray ms got hd dvd involved to try and snuff out blu ray. It was secondary as a format not primary. It failed along with hd dvd and ms felt no shame about it. Again, blu ray wasnt forced upon us. In fact a lot of peoplr bought ps3 consoles because they were the most affordable blu ray players on the market.

Not the point I was trying to make. I my PS3 and 360 sit a couple of feet from my router.  People were saying that i needed a $100 router to match the PS3. Personally, i didn't.  I was glad to have the option of not having a router forced upon me.  My PS3 had abuilt in wi fi router.  Never used it.  All of my consoles were wired.  I'm not discussing what's an integral part of the experience. I'm talking about being forced to buy something with one console that's optional with another.

 


When did the MS router come out, like what four years after the PS3 came out with a router in the box? The Xbox 360 was never meant to have Wifi. I heard people were using wifi dongles and stuff with the PS3 way before MS put those things ojn the market. Sony always thinks of hardware first. MS thinks of online first. When it comes to hardware MS is out of their element, which is why they always try to catch up with Sony. Sony element is not online, but they are learning, which is what they learn from MS. If Sony was ever to have an advantage it would always be hardware and format. I doubt rechargable batteries were on the market at launch for the 360 as well. It was only after Sony already had these things stock that MS started to respond.


The 360 had wired controllers, wireless controllers, charge and play kit, and Wi Fi adapter at launch in 2005. If I weren't on a cell phone, i would link you to the 2005 reviews.  

 

*steps off the S.T.A.G.E.*


Sorry for responding so slowly, but I have been having internet troubles lately. Anyway, the play and charge kit was launched in 2007 and recreated in 2010. Thats when I picked up my first play and charge kit for my Xbox 360 when I was still primarily gaming on the 360. I'll give you the Wifi part, but you must concede that after they saw Sony got good response from having Wifi stock in the box they made the wifi stock in the Xbox 360 slim. Why? Because they did. :)



attaboy on 04 October 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:
attaboy said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
attaboy said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
attaboy said:
I'm sure it's already been stated but--remember the PS3 vs 360? Fans were saying, "You had to buy a charger, HD DVD Player, Wi Fi adapter, etc. just to have that "PS3 experience" on Xbox 360". There are probably still TONS of youtube videos on the subject saying Xbox 360 costs more than PS3.

When Xbox 360 was letting consumers only pay for the parts they needed, Sony was offering everything for $500-$600. You can't just say it's okay for one side to do something and then condemn the other side for the exact same practice!


Those parts were actually a very small part of thr ps3  package. I spent far more dollars on my xbox than i ever did my ps3. Blu ray hiked up the price of the ps3 but it was a needed part of the ps3  and had a value so you could play larger games and larger discs with films and entertainment. MS launched before them so they knew nothing of what sony had up their sleeve in tech. When sony brought out the blu ray ms got hd dvd involved to try and snuff out blu ray. It was secondary as a format not primary. It failed along with hd dvd and ms felt no shame about it. Again, blu ray wasnt forced upon us. In fact a lot of peoplr bought ps3 consoles because they were the most affordable blu ray players on the market.

Not the point I was trying to make. I my PS3 and 360 sit a couple of feet from my router.  People were saying that i needed a $100 router to match the PS3. Personally, i didn't.  I was glad to have the option of not having a router forced upon me.  My PS3 had abuilt in wi fi router.  Never used it.  All of my consoles were wired.  I'm not discussing what's an integral part of the experience. I'm talking about being forced to buy something with one console that's optional with another.

 


When did the MS router come out, like what four years after the PS3 came out with a router in the box? The Xbox 360 was never meant to have Wifi. I heard people were using wifi dongles and stuff with the PS3 way before MS put those things ojn the market. Sony always thinks of hardware first. MS thinks of online first. When it comes to hardware MS is out of their element, which is why they always try to catch up with Sony. Sony element is not online, but they are learning, which is what they learn from MS. If Sony was ever to have an advantage it would always be hardware and format. I doubt rechargable batteries were on the market at launch for the 360 as well. It was only after Sony already had these things stock that MS started to respond.


The 360 had wired controllers, wireless controllers, charge and play kit, and Wi Fi adapter at launch in 2005. If I weren't on a cell phone, i would link you to the 2005 reviews.  

 

*steps off the S.T.A.G.E.*


Sorry for responding so slowly, but I have been having internet troubles lately. Anyway, the play and charge kit was launched in 2007 and recreated in 2010. Thats when I picked up my first play and charge kit for my Xbox 360 when I was still primarily gaming on the 360. I'll give you the Wifi part, but you must concede that after they saw Sony got good response from having Wifi stock in the box they made the wifi stock in the Xbox 360 slim. Why? Because they did. :)

I'll agree with you on the Wi Fi. the 360S did address a lot of complaints we had with the 360 when compared to the PS3.  Made it more reliable, quiet, bigger HDD, and of course, the built in Wi Fi.  I got my 360 in '07 with a play and charge so, to be honest, I didn't know.  Just took a gamnle since I did know about the Wi Fi thingy from EGM's launch coverage.  You caught me.

 

See, I not a hard guy to get along with!

 

*edit* Hey! I just googled Xbox 360 launch accessories and the Play and Charge kit WAS amongst them in 2005! I take it all back!!



S.T.A.G.E. on 04 October 2013
attaboy said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:


Sorry for responding so slowly, but I have been having internet troubles lately. Anyway, the play and charge kit was launched in 2007 and recreated in 2010. Thats when I picked up my first play and charge kit for my Xbox 360 when I was still primarily gaming on the 360. I'll give you the Wifi part, but you must concede that after they saw Sony got good response from having Wifi stock in the box they made the wifi stock in the Xbox 360 slim. Why? Because they did. :)

I'll agree with you on the Wi Fi. the 360S did address a lot of complaints we had with the 360 when compared to the PS3.  Made it more reliable, quiet, bigger HDD, and of course, the built in Wi Fi.  I got my 360 in '07 with a play and charge so, to be honest, I didn't know.  Just took a gamnle since I did know about the Wi Fi thingy from EGM's launch coverage.  You caught me.

 

See, I not a hard guy to get along with!

 

*edit* Hey! I just googled Xbox 360 launch accessories and the Play and Charge kit WAS amongst them in 2005! I take it all back!!


Give it back! JK I saw an article that confirmed it. The Wifi wasn't on the list though.  I'll be back but my point still stands. Doesn't change the fact that with all accessories included MS made a killing because they knew people needed them.  HD-DVD was never stock in the 360 and MS rode on the back of that sinking ship. 

Launch 360- $399

HD-DVD- $199

Play and Charge Kit- $19.99

Xbox Live: $49.99

Xbox Wifi Adapter: $99.99

 

$770 in total accessories along with the Xbox 360 to make up at launch for what the PS3 already had stock offered at a cheaper bulk price. With the PS3 you saved yourself essentially $170 without tax. That and the reoccuring Xbox Live fee well if you count that then the disparity of payment actually continues to grow. MS nickeled and dimed. This time the Xbox One is $100 more but MS is unwilling negotiate, because they know they want an early profit and regardless of what their fanbase wants they will give it to them. The fat PS3's also should be worth even  more today than new PS3's because of the BC factor. None of my friends are giving up their fat PS3's. I refused to pay for a launch PS3. i waited until it dropped down to $299.

With sales tax in the states thats easily over $800.

Here is the article before the official wifi adapter for the Xbox 360 launched from 2009. I think you had a third party wifi adapter.

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/10/05/gamestop-lists-november-3-release-100-price-for-xbox-360-wirel/

 

LOL MS was doing no one any favors and they never will. At least with Sony you got a discount all things considered.

 

P.S.

No seriously....give it back...I want it back.



attaboy on 04 October 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:


Give it back! JK I saw an article that confirmed it. The Wifi wasn't on the list though.  I'll be back but my point still stands. Doesn't change the fact that with all accessories included MS made a killing because they knew people needed them.  HD-DVD was never stock in the 360 and MS rode on the back of that sinking ship. 

Launch 360- $399

HD-DVD- $199

Play and Charge Kit- $19.99

Xbox Live: $49.99

Xbox Wifi Adapter: $99.99

 

$770 in total accessories along with the Xbox 360 to make up at launch for what the PS3 already had stock offered at a cheaper bulk price. With the PS3 you saved yourself essentially $170 without tax. That and the reoccuring Xbox Live fee well if you count that then the disparity of payment actually continues to grow. MS nickeled and dimed. This time the Xbox One is $100 more but MS is unwilling negotiate, because they know they want an early profit and regardless of what their fanbase wants they will give it to them. The fat PS3's also should be worth even  more today than new PS3's because of the BC factor. None of my friends are giving up their fat PS3's. I refused to pay for a launch PS3. i waited until it dropped down to $299.

With sales tax in the states thats easily over $800.

Here is the article before the official wifi adapter for the Xbox 360 launched from 2009. I think you had a third party wifi adapter.

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/10/05/gamestop-lists-november-3-release-100-price-for-xbox-360-wirel/

 

LOL MS was doing no one any favors and they never will. At least with Sony you got a discount all things considered.

 

P.S.

No seriously....give it back...I want it back.


Nah, here's the one that came before:  http://www.ign.com/articles/2005/11/14/official-x360-launch-titles-accessories-revealed

Wireless Networking Adapter

It was available at launch.  Made by Microsoft, too.  Still, out of all of the things Microsoft charged for (that was available in some form for PS3) that I actually bought was the Charge and Play Kit and Xbox Live.  It still wound up being more affordable for me.  I got my 80 GB PS3 in 2008 for $400 and it was worth the money for me, too.

I'm actually not sure what we're even discussing anymore!  I was just saying that I preferred M$'s practice with the Xbox 360 opposed to the PS3 and now I prefer the PS4's approach over the Xbox One's mandatory Kinect.  And you can't have it back.  I sold it for drugs.  :(