Snitchin Splatter
Working With The Feds
Playstanleys love half assed, half assed online network, half assed interface, half -assed Kinect knockoff with half-assed support since it won't be included in every system. They'll feel right at home
Sony Sacrificed the PlayStation 4 Camera to Beat Microsoft on Price
- Thread starter daze23
- Start date
Trust me, I get what you are saying. I just don't agree. That doesn't mean I don't get it. Lets not go thru this nonsense again. Just because you are saying it doesn't make it right.
The hell are you talking about? They are all controllers though. You are talkinga bout minor improvements. They were just adding buttons. I mentioned the analog stick because that was a pivotal moment. Going from 3 buttons to 6 to 8 wasn't that major. Just gave your more options. You can't compare adding buttons to something like Kinect. Stop it.
No it wasn't. They ended up making a classic controller and you could use your Gamecube controller as well.
Wait....you are seriously trying to make that argument? I can't take you seriously if thats the case. You at this point are just trying to say that you "won" the argument. Thats the only reason you would make such an asinine argument. So you are telling me, they looked at the success of the Wii, then urgently put out similar hardware only to not put out any good games because it was too late in the life of the console? They still had 3 years to go. 
Again, they have had ample time to sample what the Move and Kinect have to offer. On top of that they had dev kits. Do not try and convince me or yourself that none of the games at E3 centered around that technology because devs simply aren't sold on them.
Again, they have had ample time to sample what the Move and Kinect have to offer. On top of that they had dev kits. Do not try and convince me or yourself that none of the games at E3 centered around that technology because devs simply aren't sold on them.
so explain why do you think no kinect games were shown at E3? wait.... there was a game...wait...there were 2.
project spark
and that disney game.
now aside from that. why not other stuff? you tell me. i'm listening.
I've already told you, because devs aren't serious about it along with the fact that as far as gaming is concerned, its a gimmick, just like the Wii-Mote and devs aren't wasting time on gimmicks and they really don't have any ideas for it that would fit a triple A project. You have the Kinect which is coming with EVERY system, and not one killer app for the Kinect at E3? Not one person anywhere on the internet said "WOW....did you see [INSERT KINECT GAME HERE] I can't wait until that drops......that along with Titanfall is gonna make the Xbox One unbeatable....." Did you hear of anyone saying anything remotely close to that? You are coppin pleas and saying that the reason nothing was shown is because developers were waiting to see how good the Kinect 2.0 is.....bruh.....this isn't an argument about how good it is. IT COMES WITH EVERY SYSTEM.....according to you MS made that sacrifice so come hell or high water the devs would take advantage of it. Now you are trying to argue that they are sitting on their hands in order to see if its good. You can't have it both ways. Quit talking yourself into a corner.
I'm pretty sure ya'll be plenty comfortable with half assed graphics, half assed speed, half assed power, half assed exclusives and half assed privacy. I'm pretty sure the devs wont though with the half assed market share on the xbox one.
The majority of gamers arent interested in owning an invasive camera that will take up space and never get used so this is a smart move.
Not only did they choose not to exploit their users privacy like Microsoft when they easily could've gotten away with it.. but they removed it all together to the benefit of saving their users $100
The good folks at Sony doing what's right for its customers once again
Not only did they choose not to exploit their users privacy like Microsoft when they easily could've gotten away with it.. but they removed it all together to the benefit of saving their users $100
The good folks at Sony doing what's right for its customers once again
The Devil's Advocate
Call me Dad
if i want to buy one, i will buy one
if i do not want to buy one, i will not buy one
how is this even an argument or a loss? how is this a sacrifice?
if i want to buy a kinect, they will make me
if i do not want to buy a kinect, they will make me
again.. how is this a win?
you can say which is better (kinect). which will have more games exclusively made for it (kinect). but i, myself, along with a lot of other people.. do not want one.
when i get an xbox, i would prefer to not have one.. but i don't have a choice.
i'm literally paying 100 extra for the one feature i do not want.
that's a sacrifice.. literally
if i do not want to buy one, i will not buy one
how is this even an argument or a loss? how is this a sacrifice?
if i want to buy a kinect, they will make me
if i do not want to buy a kinect, they will make me
again.. how is this a win?
you can say which is better (kinect). which will have more games exclusively made for it (kinect). but i, myself, along with a lot of other people.. do not want one.
when i get an xbox, i would prefer to not have one.. but i don't have a choice.
i'm literally paying 100 extra for the one feature i do not want.
that's a sacrifice.. literally
Or more like PS fans don't care about a gimmick spy cam on their system which will shut off a movie if too many people are in the room... In fact, eye toy existed BEFORE kinect on ps2, so tell me how is eyetoy a knockoff when it existed first?
Live actually had an advantage over PSN during its initial stages, but what real advantage does it have now, especially with the discounts and free games PSN has been giving away? Party chat? That'll be in the new PS.
THIS!!!!!!!! A lot of the "Better with Kinect" features should work nicely with "PS Camera compatible" titles.
so you're admitting devs dont yet understand how to implement it in their games where its not just a cheap gimmic? thats on them to figure out. MS supplied them the tools. its their turn.
do you know how many games didnt use the ability to PRESS down on the analog sticks, even though that was available. thats because they didnt see any non gimmicky way to use it. some games were using it as a gimmick. something that could've been left out or something that people would rarely if ever use.
the more people started using it though. the better ideas came from it. and the more devs started using it for legit purposes and not gimmicks. thats what MS hopes will happen with the kinect 2.0. if its there to be used. you will go the gimmic route first. then you will start to figure out other non gimmicky ways to use it. if it was just an accessory you would never have any sort of priority to mess with it. so you would never get around to it.
and back to my example.
do you think it would be a silly gimmick. for you to play madden, call audibles , say hike(which you can do now with the old kinect). and also stand up and throw the ball with a throwing motion to the point where it may be more accurate then the controller knowing where you thru the ball.
to get people use to it. use a madden mini game with you as the qb throwing thru tires, then throwing thru circles, then throwing to receivers.
There is a difference between not understanding how to use it and there just not being any true viable uses for it. They fully understand how to program for and use the kinect. You want them to shoe horn uses for it simply because its there. You can't just come up with a product and expect people to use it. There has to be something missing and that product has to fill a gap. As the gaming worlds switched from 2D to 3D environments, there was a need for the analog stick. People felt that need for it, even if they weren't 100% sure what they needed. Thats why when they received it, they took to it like a fish to water. The best you have been able to do is come up with a scenario where you are standing up in your living room and pretending to throw an invisible football. What the fukk are you talking about bruh? They couldn't see a use for the analog stick being used as a button? You REAAAALLY want to "win" this argument don't you? It means that much to you? You are seriously trying to argue that developers couldn't wrap their brain around finding a way to use the analog stick as an extra button? You are seriously trying to equate that to developers not coming up with a non gimmicky way to use Kinect? Go back to the drawing board and find a better example. The ability to use the analog stick as an extra button was there to use when devs needed it. It wasn't forced on them. It didn't intefere in any way. If they needed an extra button it is there. Hell some still don't use it. It doesn't alter the play style of the game. It doesn't change how a dev needs to approach designing or coding the game. Its something very minor added to an input device that is already there. STOP trying to use it as some sort of valid example that has anything to do with comparisons to the Kinect and its uses.
Your first problem is that you are getting too specific. Yeah, that may be fun for a party game or something but we are looking for solutions as a whole. A way to change the way you interact with games as a whole. The problem with what you propose is that with a sports game like Madden, you are controlling people that are better than you. If I stand up to throw the ball, then a few things have to be settled as far as the outcome is concerned. If the completion of the pass is dependent on my physical skill, the game is no longer about who you pick as a QB. It becomes about YOUR skill. While that may be an interesting option to some, in all fairness we are playing an NFL game. The only position that can be duplicated off hand is the QB. So despite the team that we pick, everything would come back to the physical skill of the person using the kinect to throw the ball.
Now lets say the outlined scenario is not the case. Lets just say the throwing motion is not dependent on my skill but instead dependent, like it is now, on the skill of the player that I've picked. Well, the Kinect's value is diminished. Me standing up to do this outlandish throwing motion won't be any different than me pressing the button. Nothing innovative has happened. The Kinect just understood that I was standing up to throw the ball and not scratch my nuts. You see how bogged down all of this has just gotten? And you haven't even addressed the rest of the field of play. How are you going to incorporate the Kinect into running and tackling and kicking? Are you gonna use hand and body motions at some times and then the controller during other points? Its a ridiculous example to use as a "what if" for the Kinect. This is an example of trying to shoe horn a use into a system of functionality that does not need it. There are a lot of things that Madden needs, but Kinect controls are not it.
I've indulged you in that example, but to me, it's getting off topic. Let me give you an example that'll better help explain my thoughts on this. At my company we are currently planning on testing the Kinect as a security device for each user's PC. This is something MS has been planning on implementing natively into their OS, but until it happens we are thinking of going with our own solution. Each PC would have a Kinect device attached to it. Instead of user's logging into their system, the Kinect would recognize them and log in for them. When they get up to go get a glass of water the Kinect would recognize that they aren't there and would lock the machine for them. I won't go into full details because right now we are in the beginning stages of planning and there would be a number of other tasks that the device would accomplish as well but I've just highligted the point that I'm trying to make. Those functions that I mentioned would be seemless. It fits a real need and nothing is shoehorned into use just for the sake of it. When the end users finally get their hands on it, they will understand very quickly what the device is accomplishing and they will feel like it improves their user experience. THAT is why so far, devs have not created a vast array of "features" that the games we have been playing take advantage of when it comes to using the Kinect. Mainly because there isn't a whole lot of feedback that the player isn't already getting. So the Kinect has very little to add in that regard. So we end up here, thinking about and discussing scenarios where we are again.....throwing an invisible football in our living room
Everyone has just assumed that the Kinect has a boatload of usefulness, simply because it was a new cool device. Apple is in part to blame for those type of expectations. But the truth is, the functionality of the Kinect as it is now, as far as gaming is concerned, may be all there is to it, and thats fine. It just should be optional.
Your first problem is that you are getting too specific. Yeah, that may be fun for a party game or something but we are looking for solutions as a whole. A way to change the way you interact with games as a whole. The problem with what you propose is that with a sports game like Madden, you are controlling people that are better than you. If I stand up to throw the ball, then a few things have to be settled as far as the outcome is concerned. If the completion of the pass is dependent on my physical skill, the game is no longer about who you pick as a QB. It becomes about YOUR skill. While that may be an interesting option to some, in all fairness we are playing an NFL game. The only position that can be duplicated off hand is the QB. So despite the team that we pick, everything would come back to the physical skill of the person using the kinect to throw the ball.
Now lets say the outlined scenario is not the case. Lets just say the throwing motion is not dependent on my skill but instead dependent, like it is now, on the skill of the player that I've picked. Well, the Kinect's value is diminished. Me standing up to do this outlandish throwing motion won't be any different than me pressing the button. Nothing innovative has happened. The Kinect just understood that I was standing up to throw the ball and not scratch my nuts. You see how bogged down all of this has just gotten? And you haven't even addressed the rest of the field of play. How are you going to incorporate the Kinect into running and tackling and kicking? Are you gonna use hand and body motions at some times and then the controller during other points? Its a ridiculous example to use as a "what if" for the Kinect. This is an example of trying to shoe horn a use into a system of functionality that does not need it. There are a lot of things that Madden needs, but Kinect controls are not it.
I've indulged you in that example, but to me, it's getting off topic. Let me give you an example that'll better help explain my thoughts on this. At my company we are currently planning on testing the Kinect as a security device for each user's PC. This is something MS has been planning on implementing natively into their OS, but until it happens we are thinking of going with our own solution. Each PC would have a Kinect device attached to it. Instead of user's logging into their system, the Kinect would recognize them and log in for them. When they get up to go get a glass of water the Kinect would recognize that they aren't there and would lock the machine for them. I won't go into full details because right now we are in the beginning stages of planning and there would be a number of other tasks that the device would accomplish as well but I've just highligted the point that I'm trying to make. Those functions that I mentioned would be seemless. It fits a real need and nothing is shoehorned into use just for the sake of it. When the end users finally get their hands on it, they will understand very quickly what the device is accomplishing and they will feel like it improves their user experience. THAT is why so far, devs have not created a vast array of "features" that the games we have been playing take advantage of when it comes to using the Kinect. Mainly because there isn't a whole lot of feedback that the player isn't already getting. So the Kinect has very little to add in that regard. So we end up here, thinking about and discussing scenarios where we are again.....throwing an invisible football in our living room
Everyone has just assumed that the Kinect has a boatload of usefulness, simply because it was a new cool device. Apple is in part to blame for those type of expectations. But the truth is, the functionality of the Kinect as it is now, as far as gaming is concerned, may be all there is to it, and thats fine. It just should be optional.
who said party game? see there you go. i wasnt talking about party game at all. i'm talking about legit usage for that kinect 2.0 in a legit game.
like i said before. what do you think would happen when the word got out. that the most accurate qb passing happens when you physically use a throwing motion via kinect. even more accurate then the controller.
what do you think would happen? i'll tell you, people would start to migrate over to using it for real. not just for some party gimmick.
i wasnt talking about party game at all. i'm talking about legit usage for that kinect 2.0 in a legit game.
like i said before. what do you think would happen when the word got out. that the most accurate qb passing happens when you physically use a throwing motion via kinect. even more accurate then the controller.
what do you think would happen? i'll tell you, people would start to migrate over to using it for real. not just for some party gimmick.
It's clear you're slow bro. Either that or very childish.
The Devil's Advocate
Call me Dad
And there you have the problem with kinect. And why it will always be a gimmick. Well. I won't say gimmick. It will ALWAYS be limited because the CONTROLLER
Take madden. I can call plays and audibles. Take mass effect. I can yell out powers.
What can I not do? I can't run, jump, juke, spin move, tackle, switch players, etc without the controller. I can't crouch, shoot, switch weapons, investigate a box, etc without the controller
So you think nikkas gonna select the play. Hot route by voice. Set in motion. Fake hike. All that good shyt. Then suddenly drop the controller, stand up and hit a throwing motion, then pick up the controller and continue the play????
And they'll do this faster or at the same speed as the guy who's controller only?? What if you both playing on the same system??? How about I know every time you gonna throw cause I'm watching your ass drop the controller to make a throwing motion
Now a mini game. Yes. But a 50/50 game. Never. Now apply this to the top selling games. How you gonna work controller and motion into say.... Gta, madden, gears, halo, assassin creed, FIFA, titanfall, elder scrolls, etc etc
The only way it will work, is just like its been working for the past 2 years. Voice command support. Which I do like on some games. Or complete games built on kinect where some actions are automated, like kinect sports, nba ballers, etc. or mini games or mini missions on games
People act like kinect 2 is something new. It's an UPGRADE. It's not a new idea. Devs known and played with and brainstormed for YEARS on the possibilities and uses. They came up with what they came up with. Voice commands and PLACES you use motion. Seamless integration with COMPLEX controller games and the use of motion AT THE SAME TIME still hasn't happened
It would appear they don't give 2 shyts or 2 million dollars to figure it out. MS can want them to figure it out all they want. Sony wanted them to figure out how to program for their system. In the end the devs gonna do what's cheap, easy and profitable.