Build Your Own Arcade Controls Forum
Main => Consoles => Topic started by: Howard_Casto on November 07, 2010, 11:11:41 am
-
I've noticed this trend on nearly every gaming site I've visited recently, with editors writing love letters about how you can navigate the 360's dash via voice command.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a tech head I see the appeal in the novelty of it all. Of course then common sense kicks in. I'm pretty sure the device won't turn on your tv or set it to the correct hdmi input, so when you start up your 360 you are going to have a remote and/or controller in your hand already. So you are telling me it is more convieniant to set these responsive, quick navigation tools YOU ALREADY HAVE IN YOUR FRIKKIN HAND down for some merely decent, slow, and round-about voice control?
I mean yeah, if m$ had designed the do-dad to controls everything in your house or at least everything in your entertainment center I could definately see the usefulness and appeal, but as-is it appears to be a exercise in "rube goldberg-ism."
-
voice command thing is just a stupid gimmick...
-
and here I thought kinect was the stupid gimmick
-
that too but it has potential. I dont have kinect yet so I really dont know how it works but if there is wiimote type of controller then we'll see better games in the future.
for example, wiimote made resident evil 4 a new game. yeah I want more of those.
-
They just may be geeked becuase it actually works correctly for a change.
-
I've noticed this trend on nearly every gaming site I've visited recently, with editors writing love letters about how you can navigate the 360's dash via voice command.
There are times when I am watching TV, and want to switch to streaming netflix through my Xbox. My setup auto switches when the xbox turns on, so not having to get the xbox controller out to make all that happen could be ok.
But yeah, mostly a gimmick.
-
Not that I'm aware of, but I don't follow it that closely. Yeah it seems odd to me that the 360 is the least hackable console out there. I mean yeah it's possible, but it's a rather silly hardware jimmy-rigg to get it working and then you can never really use live or update your console ever again without difficulty.
I agrre with snake in that I think kinect itself might have some potential. The thing is it'll be a very limited set of games and right now the tech is too expensive. (150 bucks for a glorified web cam so I can pet a tiger or dance like an idiot). Ironically I think that sony and microsofts entries will be qutie suggessful NEXT gen. Right now they are about as worthless as the wii motion plus, in that, while it's an impressive piece of tech, there aren't any games to use it with. Of course nintendo will fix this problem later next year with the new zelda game.
-
Zzzzz on this one until they invent a force feedback controller with suction.
:laugh2:
Seriously. If ever there was a window of opportunity for adult game making companies like Mystique it would be now.
-
I was playing virtual drums by standing in front of a camera and waving my arms around 20 years ago. The Halcyon had voice control.
Zzzzz on this one until they invent a force feedback controller with suction.
The product you seek exists. Rather than suction it uses conveyor belts, but it plugs into a USB port and is syncronized with porn. I read an article about it on Gizmodo (prob linked to Fleshbot) and the IIRC the writer pretty much said it was pretty effing amazing. It was super expensive, though. Like 2 or 3 hundred dollars or something. Also, it was probably a PITA to clean.
edit: It's called Real Touch. (http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2009/01/12/real-touch-interacti.html) (That link is SFW so long as people can't read your screen. No bad pictures or anything.
-
all I know is that you'd be inhere bitching how it doesnt have voice commands if it didnt have them.
-
Don't get me wrong, I'm a tech head I see the appeal in the novelty of it all. Of course then common sense kicks in. I'm pretty sure the device won't turn on your tv or set it to the correct hdmi input, so when you start up your 360 you are going to have a remote and/or controller in your hand already.
\
Actually it could, since all hardware these days is half-awake when turned off anyway. The PS3 and other hardware for example can send a 'Hey you, wake up and switch to me' command over HDMI to the TV as it powers on. So you just turn the PS3 on and the TV turns on. Of course assuming the TV supports this.
It'd be easy enough to have the 360 sit half asleep dedicating a minute ammount of CPU power to processing audio it hears in the room untill it hears 'Xbox, turn on' and brings the machine to fully boot while telling the TV over HDMI to turn on.
-
The product you seek exists. Rather than suction it uses conveyor belts, but it plugs into a USB port and is syncronized with porn. I read an article about it on Gizmodo (prob linked to Fleshbot) and the IIRC the writer pretty much said it was pretty effing amazing. It was super expensive, though. Like 2 or 3 hundred dollars or something. Also, it was probably a PITA to clean.
edit: It's called Real Touch. (http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2009/01/12/real-touch-interacti.html) (That link is SFW so long as people can't read your screen. No bad pictures or anything.
order one right now :laugh2:
-
If you don't think the Kinect is a fun and innovative technology, then you either A) are a Sony / Nintendo fan boy, B) Haven't played the games, and/or C) are one of those poor kids in gym class who couldn't do a proper jumping jack, but can occasionally convince both thumbs to do your bidding, so your videogaming life revolves around that basic limitation. ;D
It's pretty amazing stuff. I like the PS3 Move as well, but it's a very Wii like experience. Just one the Wii was aspiring to be, but never quite made it. The Kinect is a new gaming experience that really needs to be tried before one jumps to conclusions about it.
-
I think the Kinect looks pretty dumb, but I might just not be thinking outside the box enough. The dance game looks pretty damned cool, actually, and demonstrates a ton of potential. But in terms of the types of games that interest me, adventure / narrative heavy games, I think people will have a tough time making games with much depth to them. It seems like something that is going to be used primarily for party games or maybe adding a cool feature or two to a game that is primarily controlled with a traditional gamepad.
-
I think the Kinect looks pretty dumb, but I might just not be thinking outside the box enough.
I'm pretty sure that this is what will give the technology the biggest challenge to being accepted. Yes, you will probably look silly to others while playing. You are, after all, interacting physically with something that isn't physical. The most amazing thing about this, after playing a while, is the very real disconnect with the physical, which counterintuitively provides a more immersive experience. Would it be improved with true physical feedback? Sure, but a vibrating box in your hand doesn't really provide the feedback necessary to enhance the experience, and therefore becomes more of a distraction, serving to draw you out.
Obviously, this type of control will not lend itself well to all genres of gaming. I agree that it will be most effective as an augmentation device for many of them. I also agree that the potential is one of the most attractive things about the technology. It's a first step, by a company who has the resources to make the necessary commitment to properly advancing it. There's no reason that a physical item could not be used in front of the system, and to have that item be recognized and used for control, just like any body part.
Still, there is something incredibly satisfying about being able to accurately navigate the innovative menu system in Dance Central, without even speaking of the great entertainment value present in the game itself.
Shmokes's device already takes care of the other end.
:scared ;D
-
The main problem I see with making a Kinect game with much depth is it's inability to control character movement. It can see gestures, but not sustained movement. Because, of course, if you keep moving you end up walking/running out of the room. How do you make a Zelda or God of War or Mass Effect or Grim Fandango or Mario or Halo or . . . you get my drift. I suppose you could take a step forward and the character will keep walking forward till you step back to the dead-zone, like you're standing on an invisible DDR pad. But then you're getting into Power Glove levels of suck.
Thus, I think the device will be used almost exclusively for party games. And party games can be cool. But they're usually pretty shallow.
Also, the living room requirements for the Kinect are bombastically stupid. You can't have a coffee table? You need 8-9 feet for multiplayer, and if you don't have at least 7 you simply can't even use the device at all? That's just . . . are they serious? Who wants to move the coffee table every time they play videogames? In fact, that's just one more thing that will lead this device to be used exclusively for party games. Cos after the novelty wears off you're probably only going to move the coffee table out of the way for this thing when you have a bunch of friends coming over.
-
Only thing I can conceive of is some kind of giant trackball that you stood on.
The product you seek exists. Rather than suction a giant trackball it uses conveyor belts, lol.
It's called CyberWalk. (http://gizmodo.com/5528013/cyberwalk-virtual-reality-treadmill-this-is-the-holodeck) The good news is that it doesn't require any more space than the Kinect. ;D
-
The main problem I see with making a Kinect game with much depth is it's inability to control character movement. It can see gestures, but not sustained movement.
Yeah....um...it's not a "holodeck". Gestures are all that are needed, so long as the hardware can keep up. Walking in place is as good as walking. If it can recognize complex dance moves, it can sure as hell interpret movement gestures. Running, jumping, ducking, reaching for objects, climbing ladders, etc, are all well within the realm of this technology.
Because, of course, if you keep moving you end up walking/running out of the room. How do you make a Zelda or God of War or Mass Effect or Grim Fandango or Mario or Halo or . . . you get my drift. I suppose you could take a step forward and the character will keep walking forward till you step back to the dead-zone, like you're standing on an invisible DDR pad. But then you're getting into Power Glove levels of suck.
It's obvious that you have some pretty narrow definitions for how a game must be controlled, or even what types of games are worth playing. I think it's safe to assume that the Kinect, or anything like it, will not be your "cup of tea". But it's capable of a lot more than you seem to be convincing yourself is the case.
Also, the living room requirements for the Kinect are bombastically stupid. You can't have a coffee table? You need 8-9 feet for multiplayer, and if you don't have at least 7 you simply can't even use the device at all? That's just . . . are they serious? Who wants to move the coffee table every time they play videogames? In fact, that's just one more thing that will lead this device to be used exclusively for party games. Cos after the novelty wears off you're probably only going to move the coffee table out of the way for this thing when you have a bunch of friends coming over.
Meh. I think this is similar to saying "Who's going to bother to put on all that cold weather gear, just to go outside and ride a snowmobile?", or any other rhetorical question involving an activity which requires any sort of preparation. The fact is, this type of gaming is much more active, and therefore requires space in which to be that. It's not going to be something that will work well in a child's small bedroom, or a studio apartment. Likewise, a lot of jumping about or other physical activities wouldn't be very safe to do in such small confines either. It doesn't require much more space than one would normally need to be "physical", and that is what is important. Comparing it to the space required to twiddle a joystick is like comparing the space required to play tiddly winks and throwing a frisbee. They are distinctly different types of activities.
-
Randy, I don't mean to start an argument with you. I'd love to be proved wrong and I already said that I may simply be not thinking outside the box. However, I think you are being WAY too optimistic about what this thing can do, and you may also be flirting with confusing what it can do with what it is reasonable to expect it to actually do.
As far as walking in place to control, say, a third-person action game . . . that only sounds good at first blush. How do you gracefully handle turning? How do you run your character in an arc? How do you strafe an enemy? How do you turn around to face someone behind you? What you are describing would actually be unusably clunky in all but the slowest, simplest games.
As for the living room thing, it's not the same as having some thing to use outside. Cos it's not outside. It's meant to incorporate with your existing living room. That's a whole different dynamic. When someone sells you something that has to be used in your living room, you typically want it to be compatible with your living room. People do not like rearranging their living room furniture. And they don't like doing it over and over again every time they want to play a game. Of course some people will, but A LOT of people won't. This will hurt the Kindects adoption rate severely, as will the fact that people with small living rooms can't use it at all. I sure hope there aren't many people in the 18-35 year old range (largest demographic for videogames) who have small living rooms. Wait . . . where do college kids live again?
-
how do you walk in place? does it come with a mini treadmill too?
seriously that sounds awkward, it would be cool to see a fighting game take advantage of this. A basic fighting game without those special moves, just kicks, punches, uppercuts, and whatever a real person can do.
-
how do you walk in place?
In the military, it's called "marking time". It's marching without going anywhere. You can do it in "double time" as well (running).
seriously that sounds awkward, it would be cool to see a fighting game take advantage of this. A basic fighting game without those special moves, just kicks, punches, uppercuts, and whatever a real person can do.
Fighters Uncaged Kinect HD Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-r70amAQaI#ws)
...and you may also be flirting with confusing what it can do with what it is reasonable to expect it to actually do.
If it can do it, why is it unreasonable to expect it to?
As far as walking in place to control, say, a third-person action game . . . that only sounds good at first blush. How do you gracefully handle turning? How do you run your character in an arc? How do you strafe an enemy? How do you turn around to face someone behind you? What you are describing would actually be unusably clunky in all but the slowest, simplest games.
I don't expect full displacement of a traditional controller of some sort for those, or similar scenarios. But you sound like you have a need for the "gesture" to fully mimic the real-world act. It does not have to be that way at all. For example, you could turn right at a predetermined rate by simply turning your body at a 45 degree angle. It can actually pick this up. Strafing could be as simple as an arm extension in the direction you want to strafe. I'm not saying that these would be the best gestures, only that it's possible with the hardware. It sees in three dimensions, so extending an arm across the body, crossed legs, hands in front of face, etc, are all recognized. Realistically, a controller of some sort would help, though.
As for the living room thing, it's not the same as having some thing to use outside. Cos it's not outside.
No, it's not. Not sure why or how you connected the outdoors with the discussion. It's about preparation for a pastime. If you want to do something, you go through the steps required to do it. Saddle the horse, put on the B-Ball shorts and shoes and drive to the court, etc, etc.. Moving the coffee table is a small deal compared to what folks do for fun.
When someone sells you something that has to be used in your living room, you typically want it to be compatible with your living room.
While I understand and appreciate where you are coming from, honestly, if you don't have the space, move on, nothing to see here. But if the space can be "made" and someone wishes to "join the party", then that is exactly what they will do. How many people have the space for a video projector? That must kill projector sales, right? But it doesn't seem to be an issue for those who want one. The same will apply here.
-
While I understand and appreciate where you are coming from, honestly, if you don't have the space, move on, nothing to see here. But if the space can be "made" and someone wishes to "join the party", then that is exactly what they will do. How many people have the space for a video projector? That must kill projector sales, right? But it doesn't seem to be an issue for those who want one. The same will apply here.
Unfortunately (and I mean that sincerely), that's not really how it works. Kinect is incompatible with pretty much all of Manhattan. It's incompatible with every dorm room on the planet. It's incompatible with most college kids' apartments. It's incompatible with the living rooms of most poor people. But those people don't stop being relevant to Kinect. They matter because Kinect needs critical mass in order for developers to take it seriously. In order for Kinect development to be taken seriously, developers/publishers need to see that those games can be profitable. When Microsoft makes a product that necessarily splits the 360 market, but then voluntarily splits it again, and substantially, by making it simply incompatible with a huge chunk of potential customers living rooms . . . it hurts sales. Clearly. Obviously. There is simply no way you could seriously deny that. And this doesn't just have implications for those people who can't use Kinect. It has serious consequences for people who can and do use Kinect.
-
If it can do it, why is it unreasonable to expect it to?
Because it's not elegant. It may be capable of controlling a character in a 3rd person game by having you march in place and run in place and turn quickly 45 degrees to make the character, I don't know, turn around or turn 90 degrees or turn at a pre-selected speed until you face forward again (which would be awful, of course). And maybe you could run in place and then point your arm at the floor in a 45 degree angle to strafe, etc. But it's not graceful. It would be clunky and imprecise. What if you're holding a shotgun? How many other gestures must you learn that are entirely arbitrary (e.g., pointing at the floor has nothing to do with strafing). On a controller you have a set number of buttons and on-screen actions can be mapped to any one of those fixed buttons. On a person you have an infinite number of potential gestures. A game must use gestures that are either intuitive, like a frisbee throwing motion in order to throw an in-game frisbee, or they need to limit the gestures to what can be realistically learned and remembered by the average purchaser.
In other words, maybe it can be done. But if it's not a good idea, then it won't be done.
-
Unfortunately (and I mean that sincerely), that's not really how it works. Kinect is incompatible with pretty much all of Manhattan. It's incompatible with every dorm room on the planet. It's incompatible with most college kids' apartments. It's incompatible with the living rooms of most poor people. But those people don't stop being relevant to Kinect. They matter because Kinect needs critical mass in order for developers to take it seriously. In order for Kinect development to be taken seriously, developers/publishers need to see that those games can be profitable. When Microsoft makes a product that necessarily splits the 360 market, but then voluntarily splits it again, and substantially, by making it simply incompatible with a huge chunk of potential customers living rooms . . . it hurts sales. Clearly. Obviously. There is simply no way you could seriously deny that. And this doesn't just have implications for those people who can't use Kinect. It has serious consequences for people who can and do use Kinect.
Shmokes, I have a small living room, I own a Kinect, and I have about 5 hours on it so far. All this "needs too much space" idiocy almost kept me from buying one, but it turned out to be a total non-issue. It does help that I recently re-arranged my living space (to make playing the Wii more reasonable) and mounted the plasma over the fireplace, so the TV is literally on the wall. If I had my old 3-tube HD projection monster, it might have been a bigger issue. But probably not, as the distance required starts at the sensors. It's trivial to put small shelf on the wall, just above the TV, to gain the distance required.
I have seen complaints about the space all over, and they are primarily from the Wii and Sony fanboys who don't own one and don't care about reality. Did you know that the PS3 Move also has a camera? Did you also know that Sony recommends a distance of 5 - 9 feet from the camera for games that need to see your whole person? So there is no difference here. You are dealing with a camera, so physics necessarily come into play. Not everyone will be able to take advantage of this type of technology due to that, just as not every species on the planet will be able to fly under their own power. That's the breaks.
If it can do it, why is it unreasonable to expect it to?
Because it's not elegant. It may be capable of controlling a character in a 3rd person game by having you march in place and run in place and turn quickly 45 degrees to make the character, I don't know, turn around or turn 90 degrees or turn at a pre-selected speed until you face forward again (which would be awful, of course). And maybe you could run in place and then point your arm at the floor in a 45 degree angle to strafe, etc. But it's not graceful. It would be clunky and imprecise. What if you're holding a shotgun? How many other gestures must you learn that are entirely arbitrary (e.g., pointing at the floor has nothing to do with strafing). On a controller you have a set number of buttons and on-screen actions can be mapped to any one of those fixed buttons. On a person you have an infinite number of potential gestures. A game must use gestures that are either intuitive, like a frisbee throwing motion in order to throw an in-game frisbee, or they need to limit the gestures to what can be realistically learned and remembered by the average purchaser.
In other words, maybe it can be done. But if it's not a good idea, then it won't be done.
I'm not sure if you noticed, but reality isn't too elegant either. In "real life", you will never have the twitchy mobility you are capable of with a thumbstick. Again, you are applying the artificial limitation of real word analogs. Still "thinking in the box", so to speak. What is important in games is that all players are on equal footing, which they will be.
As for what can "realistically be remembered", it seems like you might be suffering from a little that yourself. Remember all those combos in virtually every fighter for the last 10 years? That hasn't slowed the sales of those games. If you can do that, you can remember a few motion gestures.
At this point, you are really just digging for reasons why not, rather than why to. It is unfortunate that some won't be able to use it, but that really doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been done. Folks in wheelchairs can't play soccer either. Does that make Soccer bad or not worth playing? Should the game be hobbled for all so those in wheelchairs can play as well?
-
Sigh . . . you take everything so personally, Randy. I don't want Kinect to fail. And I don't particularly want a Move (though I do have a PS3), certainly not enough to buy one. My comments about the space necessary for play come from Joystiq, Gizmodo and IGN reviews. Joystiq in particular wrote in-depth about it in their mostly-positive Kinect review.
By the way, a 5-foot minimum between camera and sensor is not the same thing as a 7-foot minimum. Particularly since it's actually an 8-foot minimum if you want to play multiplayer. There are very few people who have less than 5 feet between their tv screen and the front of their sofa. There are very many people who have less than 7-8 feet. The difference is that very few people have living rooms that are incompatible with the Move, while very many people have living rooms that are incompatible with the Kinect. That's hardly "no difference".
In any case, even if there was no difference, and the Move had an equivalent limitation, that would just mean that both systems were absurdly limited. I don't see how flaws in the Move can nullify flaws in the Kinect.
A huge percentage of the obvious market for Kinect have living rooms that are incompatible with it. I would not describe the percentage of wheelchair-bound people in the soccer market as huge.
What is important in games is that all players are on equal footing, which they will be.
No. what is important in games is that they are fun. And frustrating controls is not a recipe for success, even if the controls are equally frustrating for everyone involved. I simply think that rather than attempting to make an action/adventure game with frustrating controls, developers will simply make all such games for gamepads (as far as current hardware is concerned) and develop party games for the Kinect. And that just doesn't interest me much.
Also, you don't have a small living room. I don't care whether you have 8 feet between sensor and sofa or 800 feet. You have a living room that meets the requirements of the Kinect. Many people don't. What more is there to discuss?
-
Sigh . . . you take everything so personally, Randy.
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but I'm not the only one engaged in this "back and forth" ;)
By the way, a 5-foot minimum between camera and sensor is not the same thing as a 7-foot minimum. Particularly since it's actually an 8-foot minimum if you want to play multiplayer. There are very few people who have less than 5 feet between their tv screen and the front of their sofa. There are very many people who have less than 7-8 feet. The difference is that very few people have living rooms that are incompatible with the Move, while very many people have living rooms that are incompatible with the Kinect. That's hardly "no difference".
You still aren't grokking the limitations to camera based technology. These are going to be an issue regardless of the manufacturer, as it's a physics issue, not a design issue. The "5 feet" number which you are attaching to the Move, is the absolute minimum distance. This does not mean that you can play all of the Move games at a 5' distance. It's the same with the Kinect. If you are playing a driving game, or table tennis, or any game which does not require seeing the interaction your feet have with the floor, then the distance requirement shrinks considerably. You can't take the minimum for one type of game and apply it as a gauge for different one. But the "killer app" for the Kinect right now is Dance Central. So understandably, people want to play this title and more space is required.
In any case, even if there was no difference, and the Move had an equivalent limitation, that would just mean that both systems were absurdly limited. I don't see how flaws in the Move can nullify flaws in the Kinect.
It doesn't...unless you believe the insane chatter in the interwebz....
No. what is important in games is that they are fun. And frustrating controls is not a recipe for success, even if the controls are equally frustrating for everyone involved. I simply think that rather than attempting to make an action/adventure game with frustrating controls, developers will simply make all such games for gamepads (as far as current hardware is concerned) and develop party games for the Kinect. And that just doesn't interest me much.
If you mean "wouldn't interest you much if what you are predicting comes to pass", then that's fine. That's still an unknown, even to you. But your arguments indicate that you really don't see the true potential in the device, even though you say you do, and have damned it to "just party games". My experience with the device tells me something else.
Developers will make games for the Kinect, even if Microsoft has to pay them to do it, and you can be certain that a very watchful eye will be on the developers to make sure your concerns are, mostly, unfounded.
Also, you don't have a small living room. I don't care whether you have 8 feet between sensor and sofa or 800 feet. You have a living room that meets the requirements of the Kinect. Many people don't. What more is there to discuss?
I have a narrow living room which just meets the requirements lengthwise, and have modified the layout, as I have already stated, to better suit the Wii. No further changes to my space were necessary, other than moving the coffee table. The living room is small, but I adjusted the layout to support this type of activity. I did the same for my video projector. I also re-arranged a room so the pinball machine had a reasonable spot to reside. These are things you do if want to participate in these types of activities. If you don't wish to, then there really is little more to discuss.....but the discussion is meandering pointlessly on, regardless of that fact.
-
The Move camera doesn't track your skeleton. It tracks a glowing orb. It doesn't need to see your feet. Sony's published minimum is 5 feet. MS's published minimum is 7 feet. That's not the same. That's actually a huge difference. There's no more reason to think that Sony is lying than there is to think that Microsoft is lying.
Here is an example of the "insane chatter on the interwebz" (http://www.joystiq.com/2010/11/04/kinect-vs-our-living-rooms-a-survey/)
It doesn't sound that insane, actually.
-
The Move camera doesn't track your skeleton. It tracks a glowing orb. It doesn't need to see your feet. Sony's published minimum is 5 feet. MS's published minimum is 7 feet. That's not the same. That's actually a huge difference. There's no more reason to think that Sony is lying than there is to think that Microsoft is lying.
Here is an example of the "insane chatter on the interwebz" (http://www.joystiq.com/2010/11/04/kinect-vs-our-living-rooms-a-survey/)
It doesn't sound that insane, actually.
So, there's a whole slew of possibilities on the Kinect for the added distance that you will never see on the PS3 Move. Yet the Kinect will work in the same distance for those games Sony will be offering. You are correct. There is a huge difference, but not in the way you think. BTW, you haven't really played with either of these devices, have you? There's a 5' cord on the Move unit at my local BestBuy. I made the mistake of entering the calibration screen before trying a round of table tennis. I literally could not get far enough away from the machine, with the unit in hand, in order to complete calibration, and ended up stuck in the menu.
As for that space study, with the exception of maybe two of them, every one of those rooms could be altered to be more conducive to this type of entertainment. A good handful shown are larger than mine. This is exactly what I am talking about.
-
So, there's a whole slew of possibilities on the Kinect for the added distance that you will never see on the PS3 Move.
Of course there are. And vice versa. They're wildly different products. But the fact is, you need the extra space for Kinect and I think that will substantially hamper its success. And I think nearly every game released for the Kinect will be a party game, or something similarly shallow. There will be the occasional game with depth that can be achieved within the Kinect's limitations, like the Harmonix's dance game. But most will have little depth.
I really don't think that Kinect (or Move) will be very successful as peripherals, and frankly I don't think they're meant to be. I think Nintendo dramatically changed the face of the videogame market with the Wii and Sony and Microsoft can't afford to go up against Nintendo's second-generation product with first-gen stuff. Just compare Live with PSN if you have any doubt as to what happens when you try to do that. I think the point of both products is to gain technical legitimacy in the market, not market success. So when Xbox 3 and PS4 come out they will be coming at Nintendo on a level playing ground.
And, of course, you know how it goes. If it's not successful, developers support it less, which makes it even less attractive to consumers, which makes developers shy away even more, which makes consumers shy away even more, etc. I guess we'll see.
-
Sony's published minimum is 5 feet. MS's published minimum is 7 feet. That's not the same.
See, now you are just making stuff up..... :D
(http://www.groovygamegear.com/kinectspace.jpg)
-
I think Nintendo dramatically changed the face of the videogame market with the Wii and Sony and Microsoft can't afford to go up against Nintendo's second-generation product with first-gen stuff. Just compare Live with PSN if you have any doubt as to what happens when you try to do that. I think the point of both products is to gain technical legitimacy in the market, not market success. So when Xbox 3 and PS4 come out they will be coming at Nintendo on a level playing ground.
My opinion is that the Wii hit a brick wall with the technology. When you start seeing clones of clones in the software catalog, it's officially over. I also think Sony and Microsoft thought they had finally managed to squish Nintendo, and they pulled this stuff out of the bag. The Wii only made it because of the novelty of the technology. As an overall gaming system sans that novelty, it surely would have died. Both of the "big two" have made a stride into those waters that I think they hope will crush Nintendo once and for all. They now have technology that not only competes, but is better, and it's attached to a superior hardware platform. If anything keeps Nintendo alive, it will be price.
-
I think Nintendo dramatically changed the face of the videogame market with the Wii and Sony and Microsoft can't afford to go up against Nintendo's second-generation product with first-gen stuff. Just compare Live with PSN if you have any doubt as to what happens when you try to do that. I think the point of both products is to gain technical legitimacy in the market, not market success. So when Xbox 3 and PS4 come out they will be coming at Nintendo on a level playing ground.
My opinion is that the Wii hit a brick wall with the technology. When you start seeing clones of clones in the software catalog, it's officially over. I also think Sony and Microsoft thought they had finally managed to squish Nintendo, and they pulled this stuff out of the bag. The Wii only made it because of the novelty of the technology. As an overall gaming system sans that novelty, it surely would have died. Both of the "big two" have made a stride into those waters that I think they hope will crush Nintendo once and for all. They now have technology that not only competes, but is better, and it's attached to a superior hardware platform. If anything keeps Nintendo alive, it will be price.
And with one fell swoop you just proved that you have ZERO insight into the gaming industry. Nintendo will NEVER fail. They might have slumps from time to time but they have single handedly created every single innovation in modern video gaming. When m$ and sony finally surpass them on the motion controls department, they'll simply invent something new that blows them away. And the fact that you are calling the wii, one of the best selling consoles in gaming history with some of the best selling and highest rated games in history a gimmick shows that you might just be biased against the nintendo.
Let's be blunt here... the ps3 and wii are 4 years old, the 360 is 5. They all all getting a little old and it's about time for new consoles. Nintendo is at the point to where they make actual full-length games that integrate motion controls. The 360 and ps3 are still at the "glorified tech demo" level with their motion devices right now, with the 360's lineup in particular looking really weak. Eventually they will get the hang of it, and by then nintendo will have released a new console and it won't matter. Nintendo is incredibly smart about only using the needed technology and not the newest technology. Their success in the handheld department is proof of that.
-
Regarding schmokes arguments, I agree 100% with him. Kinect sounds great on paper... hands free gaming! Until you realize that in practically every gaming scenario the activity you are doing won't be hands free and you'll have to navigate across a map in some way.
Let's take a look at some major gaming genres and see how they apply to kinect.
Dance Games: While these aren't very popular, kinect is practically made for this 1 to 1 body tracking is perfect for the genere. The wii simply doesn't have the tech to deal with this. But hold up, the ps3 does! The move camera is just as good at tracking 2d as kienct so it could do this as well. Winners?? Ps3 and 360
FPS: OK you need to hold a gun... yes kinect could probably track a dummy gun, but you'll still need to pull the trigger. With the wii and ps3 setups you have controllers with triggers and gun shells to put them in with kinect, you'd have to either by a expensive accessory to go with your already expensive 150 dollar accessory to stand in as a gun or do some stupid motion gesture to indicate you want to fire that harkens back to the power glove. Also there is the problem of movement across the map. The 360 and ps3 are NOT equipped for this, but the wii's nunchuck if perfect for it. The metroid prime games and red steel 2 have proved that it works as well. Winner?? Wii.
Boxing games: Fails all around. The wii's motion tracking is too slow, ps3 doesn't handle multiple targets well and by all accounts the kinect does just as poorly. Winner?? Nobody.
Platformers: Here's the thing, aside from fps, platformers are the most popular genre of all time. If you can't use your motion controls with them, then your motion controls need work. Platforming requries fine movement on 3 axis which means full on motion controls are impossible. That being said nitendo has integrated motion control elements in all of it's most popular franchises with it's unique control layout (wiimote pointed at screen for jumping and motion movement and nunchuck for traditional movement across the map). The kinect doesn't even have a controller so it's out, the move can't be held sideways (but you can get some very limted motion control via the sixx axes). Winner?? Wii.
Rock Games: You need physical controls, sorry. Motion controls just won't work because you need buttons. That being said, the wii gets bonus points for making it's plasic instruments shells for the wiimote. Winner?? Tie.
Fighting Games: Kinect has a grown up fighting game. I was all excited about this until I saw the demo video. It's (UGH!) realistic fighting and the 360 has a hard time tracking the movement. "Marvel as you can sloppy punch your oppoenent with the speed and skill of an 80 year old man!" That aside fighting games are all the proof we need that full immersion motion control is NOT ready for prime time. Besides that, the best fighting games are totally unrealistic, and special guestures for moves is going to get into power glove territory again. That being said, the wii's unique nunchuck/wiimote layout has had MILD success integrating some motion control into the traditional fighters like brawl and Mk. Again, you can't hold the move sideways, so it's out. Winner?? The wii, barely.
Racers: First off let me confess that I think motion controls for racers is dumb. We've had wheels and pedals since the 16 bit era and they are the proper controls for racers. That being said.. Kinects lack of a controller doesn't let you control acceleration so it's out. The wiimote does a really good job as a mock steering wheel. It feels comforatble in your hand sideways and you can grip it like you would a wheel and the buttons are there for easy access to use as gas and brake. The move again, can't be held sideways. Again though the sixx axes can be used like this and it has the beneft of analog triggers. Unfortunately the grips on a playstation controller make it akward to twist. winner?? IMHO the wii because of how crappy the ps3 controller is, but in the interest of fairness we'll call it a tie between the Wii and Ps3.
Sports Games: First of, understand when I say sports games I mean sports mini games. With the possible exception of golf (which all three should handle quite well anyway) too much movement is involved to do a full fledged sports title. That being said, all three systems have a "sports" title or two. They all fair pretty well. Of course having the sensors in the virtual object you are holding makes for a more accurate swing so for most genres the ps3 and wii do better, but I can see where the kinect could accel at others. Winner?? Three way tie.
"Lightgun" games: Straight out, the move and wiimote are built for this. They both have lightgun titles and they both do well with the genre. The kinect simply can't do this. They aren't flawless though. The wiimote is often accused of accuracy issues. The move gun, according to recent reports, is a tad sluggish to respond. Winner?? Tie for the Ps3 and Wii.
What about genre breaking games like kinect animals? Well the thing is they aren't proven genres yet. Usually experimental genre games get critical acclaim but rarely sell well. Just look at seamen for the dreamcast. We can only go by what we now know and for now the kinect just plain sucks for most genres of gaming.
So to close, it's quite quantifiable in terms of determining which system is the best controller. The kinect is dead last. Going over every game genre of note, the kinect only out-performs the move and wii on one occasion and in most instances it performs much worse (or not at all). Yes the kinect is fun, yes the kinect could be a top seller, but is it an innovative controller? Well if you thought the power glove was innovate and by that I mean barely functional for controlling games then yes it is. ;)
-
Both of the "big two" have made a stride into those waters that I think they hope will crush Nintendo once and for all.
Sony and MS are not delusional. Nobody in their right mind could even entertain the suggestion that Sony or MS could beat Nintendo in this generation, particularly with an add-on peripheral 4-5 years into the product cycle. It's taken Nintendo 4 years to sell this many Wiis and they've been selling at an alarming rate throughout that entire 4 years. Either the move or Kinect would be an astronomical success if they managed to get even 10-20% of their users to buy the device. For christ's sake, we're talking about a $100-$150 add-on. I've seen a brand-new Xbox 360 arcade retail for that much!!!
Of course these products cannot compete with the Wii commercially. That's absurd. There are like 75 million Wii's in the wild. You think in the last couple years of the product life cycle Sony or Microsoft are going to be able to compete with that? You think Sony or Microsoft think that? You're mad! They just needed their engineers to catch up to Nintendo, and they needed consumers to see them going against the Wii 2 with a Move 2 and a Kinect 2 rather than with 1st generation products. That is all.
-
And with one fell swoop you just proved that you have ZERO insight into the gaming industry. Nintendo will NEVER fail.
:dizzy:
As much as you love them, Howard, wishing something like that won't make it so. They bet the farm on the Wii, and were lucky. If it didn't succeed, and there was no guarantee that it was going to, it would have been it for them. The PS3 Move performs the way Nintendo would have liked the Wii to have. It's not Nintendo's fault, Sony has the benefit of seeing what worked and what didn't, not to mention better technology to play with now. But the Nintendo catalog is filled with copies of copies of the same kinds of games. And many of them are still overpriced for what they are.
If Nintendo has another surprise up their sleeve (they don't) then maybe they can eek out one more generation. But if they can't keep up with the next generation platforms from Sony and MS, well, the writing will be on the wall. They will no longer have the motion technology to differentiate them.
-
Sony and MS are not delusional. Nobody in their right mind could even entertain the suggestion that Sony or MS could beat Nintendo in this generation, particularly with an add-on peripheral 4-5 years into the product cycle. It's taken Nintendo 4 years to sell this many Wiis and they've been selling at an alarming rate throughout that entire 4 years. Either the move or Kinect would be an astronomical success if they managed to get even 10-20% of their users to buy the device. For christ's sake, we're talking about a $100-$150 add-on. I've seen a brand-new Xbox 360 arcade retail for that much!!!
Of course these products cannot compete with the Wii commercially. That's absurd. There are like 75 million Wii's in the wild. You think in the last couple years of the product life cycle Sony or Microsoft are going to be able to compete with that? You think Sony or Microsoft think that? You're mad! They just needed their engineers to catch up to Nintendo, and they needed consumers to see them going against the Wii 2 with a Move 2 and a Kinect 2 rather than with 1st generation products. That is all.
I see. So you are saying that neither Sony, nor MS introduced these technologies to leverage the success of (i.e. compete with) Nintendo? That has to be one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard. If what you are positing were true, there is no way either of them would have bothered. You don't need to release technology to the masses at an astronomical cost "just to get their engineers up to speed". That's just silly.
-
Regarding schmokes arguments, I agree 100% with him. Kinect sounds great on paper... hands free gaming! Until you realize that in practically every gaming scenario the activity you are doing won't be hands free and you'll have to navigate across a map in some way.
I see you haven't played with one either.
Where to start.....
Let's take a look at some major gaming genres and see how they apply to kinect.
Dance Games: While these aren't very popular, kinect is practically made for this 1 to 1 body tracking is perfect for the genere. The wii simply doesn't have the tech to deal with this. But hold up, the ps3 does! The move camera is just as good at tracking 2d as kienct so it could do this as well. Winners?? Ps3 and 360
Well, until you consider that they are popular, just probably not on the Wii. And Kinect maps in 3D, using a specific technology designed for that task, not 2D, so there's a comparison fail on your part.
Kinect filmed with a night vision camera - HD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CFoOFZ6ifc#ws)
FPS: OK you need to hold a gun... yes kinect could probably track a dummy gun, but you'll still need to pull the trigger. With the wii and ps3 setups you have controllers with triggers and gun shells to put them in with kinect, you'd have to either by a expensive accessory to go with your already expensive 150 dollar accessory to stand in as a gun or do some stupid motion gesture to indicate you want to fire that harkens back to the power glove. Also there is the problem of movement across the map. The 360 and ps3 are NOT equipped for this, but the wii's nunchuck if perfect for it. The metroid prime games and red steel 2 have proved that it works as well. Winner?? Wii.
You could literally stick a current controller out in front of you and do the same thing. It doesn't have to be "all or nothing" with the Kinect. But I do see an add-on of some nature in it's future, for these types of situations.
Boxing games: Fails all around. The wii's motion tracking is too slow, ps3 doesn't handle multiple targets well and by all accounts the kinect does just as poorly. Winner?? Nobody.
Played boxing on the Wii and on the Kinect. Kinect is easily much better. Not perfect, but much better. Doesn't that equal a "win" for Kinect?
Platformers: Here's the thing, aside from fps, platformers are the most popular genre of all time. If you can't use your motion controls with them, then your motion controls need work. Platforming requries fine movement on 3 axis which means full on motion controls are impossible. That being said nitendo has integrated motion control elements in all of it's most popular franchises with it's unique control layout (wiimote pointed at screen for jumping and motion movement and nunchuck for traditional movement across the map). The kinect doesn't even have a controller so it's out, the move can't be held sideways (but you can get some very limted motion control via the sixx axes). Winner?? Wii.
I love a good platformer as much as the next nerd, but really? In nearly 2011 we are going talk about "platformers"? Ok, Wii can have that one, regardless of how simple it is for any console to have a dozen decent ones in the library, and how the motion tracking stuff is really out of place in this genre to begin with.
Rock Games: You need physical controls, sorry. Motion controls just won't work because you need buttons. That being said, the wii gets bonus points for making it's plasic instruments shells for the wiimote. Winner?? Tie.
:laugh2: Really, Howard? I have every game in this genre for multiple systems. It's one of the simplest in terms of system requirements and dedicated controls are always better than a plastic shell meant for something else. And you don't need buttons...you just "think" you do because that's all you currently know. Imagine a game where you "strum" with the right hand and create "notes" by moving your left hand (as though holding a guitar) various distances from your body. And just for fun, get extra points by avoiding beer bottles thrown by the crowd when you start doing poorly. :)
Fighting Games: Kinect has a grown up fighting game. I was all excited about this until I saw the demo video. It's (UGH!) realistic fighting and the 360 has a hard time tracking the movement. "Marvel as you can sloppy punch your oppoenent with the speed and skill of an 80 year old man!" That aside fighting games are all the proof we need that full immersion motion control is NOT ready for prime time. Besides that, the best fighting games are totally unrealistic, and special guestures for moves is going to get into power glove territory again. That being said, the wii's unique nunchuck/wiimote layout has had MILD success integrating some motion control into the traditional fighters like brawl and Mk. Again, you can't hold the move sideways, so it's out. Winner?? The wii, barely.
Then it's not really "motion control fighting" on the Wii. And if you want to compare real fighting games for the PS3 and 360 to what's on the Wii, well, that's just not going to end well. As I stated above, the "release day" boxing on Kinect is much better than boxing is on Wii. The fighting game might take a couple tries to get it right. To me, that game looked very rushed, even from a graphical standpoint.
Racers: First off let me confess that I think motion controls for racers is dumb. We've had wheels and pedals since the 16 bit era and they are the proper controls for racers. That being said.. Kinects lack of a controller doesn't let you control acceleration so it's out.
Well, no. I like a real steering wheel better as well, but as the Kinect tracks in 3D, acceleration can be done by pushing your virtual wheel away from your body, and braking by pulling it toward you. You could even reach down and shift up or down a gear with similar, somewhat realistic motions.
"Lightgun" games: Straight out, the move and wiimote are built for this.
Meh. All of them will do poorly with this. I have yet to see a good implementation, meaning one which doesn't end up as a free air cursor control. I bought one of the "hunter" games for the Wii with the orange shotgun and regretted the purchase on the first play. If you want to "tie" PS3 Move and Wii with a "poor" mark for both, I am in full agreement. But the nod should probably go to the PS3 for this genre, specifically because it has the Guncon so you don't need the Move here.
What about genre breaking games like kinect animals? Well the thing is they aren't proven genres yet. Usually experimental genre games get critical acclaim but rarely sell well. Just look at seamen for the dreamcast. We can only go by what we now know and for now the kinect just plain sucks for most genres of gaming.
My daughters loved the Dreamcast game. But I can't see someone moving their coffee table so their kid can pet a virtual critter. Still, in the right setting, I can see kids getting into interacting with "virtual toys" through Kinect.
I'm too tired to bother with the conclusion based on your heavy Nintendo bias. That really says it all.
-
If Nintendo has another surprise up their sleeve (they don't) . . .
Well . . . um . . . they have Miyamoto. And . . . sort of . . . an incredibly valuable stable of IP like Mario and Pokemon and Zelda and Metroid. They've turned these into crazy popular franchises like Mario Kart and Smash Brothers. They also have a money printer that sometimes goes by the name of DS (and now 3DS, which is pretty damned cool actually). Also, they are the richest company in Japan. So . . . yeah . . . I don't think Nintendo is going anywhere any time soon.
More to the point, how the ---fudgesicle--- do you know that Nintendo doesn't have another surprise up their sleeve. Don't get me wrong. I have a Wii that I never, ever turn on (even though it's modded and I have free access to any game I want). I hate the Wii remote. I consider it a defective product. The Wii Motion Plus should be the result of a recall, not something from which Nintendo makes more money. But how could you possibly know that Nintendo has no more surprises up their sleeve aside from sheer fanboy faith?
You really love this idea you've cooked up in your head that the Kinect and Move are going to eat Nintendo's lunch . . . that's just cute.
-
Well . . . um . . . they have Miyamoto. And . . . sort of . . . an incredibly valuable stable of IP like Mario and Pokemon and Zelda and Metroid. They've turned these into crazy popular franchises like Mario Kart and Smash Brothers. They also have a money printer that sometimes goes by the name of DS (and now 3DS, which is pretty damned cool actually). Also, they are the richest company in Japan. So . . . yeah . . . I don't think Nintendo is going anywhere any time soon.
And that's about it. How many times can you repackage / change the color of / slap another screen on / use a lenticular grating on (like the "holographic" DVD covers) / etc. These aren't new technologies, they are repackaging and rehashing. That runs out after a while, and eventually you have to do better, especially when the the "dogs of war" are gnashing at your kiester. They were literally down for the count and they came up with the motion technology. They were saved because they struck a popular chord at the right time, and it was enough for consumers to overlook the limited power of the system. It also helped that they orchestrated a trickling rollout to manage machine demand, thus perceived value. If they can do that again, then my hat is off to them. But that type of event in the modern gaming marketplace would be like lightning striking twice in the same place.
More to the point, how the ---fudgesicle--- do you know that Nintendo doesn't have another surprise up their sleeve.
Of course I don't know. Take a valium :) It's purely my opinion, based on the state of current / breaking technology. The chips Nintendo leveraged for the Wii don't have a Nintendo logo on them. They have never been known for that particular kind of innovation. They also didn't particularly surprise anyone late in the game. It was talked about quite some time before the release, and what was delivered, didn't exactly live up to expectations. It was and still is nifty for the time, as it was first to leverage what is now very commonplace technology. But I haven't seen anything like that coming around the bend, and probably unlike you, I am always looking.
Don't get me wrong. I have a Wii that I never, ever turn on (even though it's modded and I have free access to any game I want). I hate the Wii remote. I consider it a defective product. The Wii Motion Plus should be the result of a recall, not something from which Nintendo makes more money. But how could you possibly know that Nintendo has no more surprises up their sleeve aside from sheer fanboy faith?
Console gaming is not an important enough aspect of my life to be any kind of "fanboy" for any system. I don't have to very carefully choose which system to buy, and then steadfastly commit to backing it for any reason whatsoever. I have them all and I know which ones impress me, and which don't. I know which ones I play, and like you, I almost never turn on my Wii anymore. I bought a bunch of games, but few had me coming back...except for one of the bowling games. It ended up being the only one I played on the system with any sort of regularity. Even bought the fancy "dual digital scale" peripheral (Wii Fit).
I like the idea of what Nintendo did with the Wii, but the results never really clicked with me. And I know I'm not alone there, based on your comment above, and the fact that you also own a PS3. Obviously they aren't meeting your gaming needs, and the big question is will they be able to in the future without another (unlikely, IMHO) "hook".
. . . that's just cute.
I always knew you were sweet on me. ;D
-
I also want to add that I just spent another hour or so with Kinect Sports, and I do have a couple of things that are not sitting well with me. Maybe it's just because it starts you out on the lowest difficulties, but the sports games seem to be big on affirmation. By that, I mean, they feel like they want you to do well, and it could be an intentional masking of the controls to make them seem better than they may actually be when used for these types of games. For example; I do miss in table tennis and I can't just do anything and succeed, but it seems like I should be doing not as well, more often.
I also don't like not having a single "release" button for some of the games. It assumes a "best case" release that removes what I feel is an integral part of a "sports" challenge. It's not something that is necessary for a number of genres, or adaptations of genres, but just like shooting, you need to be able to control a release when you throw something. At minimum, you should be able to use a normal controller to provide this input.
Something else is interesting; every time I've turned on the system (once a day for the last few days), either the console, the Kinect, or the game needed to go get an update. This tells me that there are a lot of busy folks at MS right now in Kinect development. I hope they are planning an "action" button :).
-
BTW, Howard, the Playstation Move has a nunchuck equivalent. I can't remember what it's called, but from your earlier post (which I somehow passed over without even noticing in spite of its length) I have the impression that you didn't know this.
-
You could literally stick a current controller out in front of you and do the same thing. It doesn't have to be "all or nothing" with the Kinect. But I do see an add-on of some nature in it's future, for these types of situations.
This is the key to me as a "hardcore" gamer.
I dont want dance games, I dont want wii sports games, I can do without exercising when I want to log 4 hours of the current action game or rpg.
What will sell me a kinect is the the ability to use it in conjunction with an already superb input device, the controller. I would love to see headtracking (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw#) added to FPS's, RPGs, adventure games etc. I think the real art of using the device will be in its subtlety of implementation. Unlike the Wii or the Move, this has the ability to be integrated into experiences that are already tried and true for the gaming experience. Hell most people lean into turns when playing racers anyway, what if the POV leans with you?
I think thats the sort of immersion that will really differentiate the Kinect and make it a compelling device to more traditional gamers.
I sure as hell dont want to play Mass Effect 3 by walking in place, and miming ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---. But if I can peer around corners, and get depth of field through head tracking, now you are getting my attention.
-
Right, but it hasnt been implemented into mainstream games at all (that I know of).
The kinect could do it, obviously hasn't yet, but its been shown in can read all the variables that are needed in its normal setup.
I dont think its practical for the Wii to have people mod their hardware, but if the kinect can make it work in the normal setup, and still let you use a controller for the precision input that hardcore games require, that is compelling.
-
I have all 3 platforms, and their respective motion controls, and I can easily say that Kinect is the most impressive.
As for voice controls... We aren't really talking anything all that advanced, but I have found them convenient to use a number of times.
You will not be playing a FPS with Kinect like you do with PS Move or Wii, but it is impressive in a different sort of way, and I think that we will see more unique uses of the tech.
As for the space requirements... Multiplayer spacial requirements are a bit steep, but the single player experience doesn't require much, if any, more space than either of the competitors.
-
That's the problem with kinect fans. They keep saying "it has a ton of potential". Well for what? I've went down the line with every gaming genre and shown how kinect as-is just isn't a match for them.
Like I said right in my reply, total immersion sounds great until you realize that virtually nothing you do gaming wise is totally hands free. I think it's going to be great for dance games and wierd niche games that just don't sell but for fps and platformers (and Randy with all due respect the platformer is STILL the bread and butter of gaming, just check those sales numbers) it won't work. Since fps and platformers do work with the wii/ps3 method they've already won the war.
That is unless some radical new game genre is introduced that is perfect for hands free gaming, whihc while possible is doubtful to happen in this generation.
The problem with randy's arguments, in particular is he seems to think the Kinect is made of magic unicorn poop and can perfectly track anything. His response to my argument about rock games is a perfect example. By me saying "they need buttons" what I was implying is that the current tech out there isn't accurate enough to detect finger movements. By his reply he seems to think the kinect is or will be capable of such a feat. Sorry but it isn't happening. Also he seems to misunderstand the point even if it is possible to do it hands free which one is better for the game. Can you honestly tell me that doing some very strict very robotic air guitar (and that's how it'd have to be for a camera to track your moevments well) is more fun and more accurate than holding a guitar-shaped controller with an accurate strum bar and buttons on it? Goes back to my voice commands argument.. a nice gimmick but not very practical.
Oh and schmokes, I didn't know about the nunchuck attachment for the ps3... they haven't really shown it. That would pretty much make the wii and ps3 on even ground then.
-
That's the problem with kinect fans. They keep saying "it has a ton of potential". Well for what? I've went down the line with every gaming genre and shown how kinect as-is just isn't a match for them.
Like I said right in my reply, total immersion sounds great until you realize that virtually nothing you do gaming wise is totally hands free. I think it's going to be great for dance games and wierd niche games that just don't sell but for fps and platformers (and Randy with all due respect the platformer is STILL the bread and butter of gaming, just check those sales numbers) it won't work. Since fps and platformers do work with the wii/ps3 method they've already won the war.
That is unless some radical new game genre is introduced that is perfect for hands free gaming, whihc while possible is doubtful to happen in this generation.
The problem with randy's arguments, in particular is he seems to think the Kinect is made of magic unicorn poop and can perfectly track anything. His response to my argument about rock games is a perfect example. By me saying "they need buttons" what I was implying is that the current tech out there isn't accurate enough to detect finger movements. By his reply he seems to think the kinect is or will be capable of such a feat. Sorry but it isn't happening. Also he seems to misunderstand the point even if it is possible to do it hands free which one is better for the game. Can you honestly tell me that doing some very strict very robotic air guitar (and that's how it'd have to be for a camera to track your moevments well) is more fun and more accurate than holding a guitar-shaped controller with an accurate strum bar and buttons on it? Goes back to my voice commands argument.. a nice gimmick but not very practical.
Oh and schmokes, I didn't know about the nunchuck attachment for the ps3... they haven't really shown it. That would pretty much make the wii and ps3 on even ground then.
Have you actually even used Kinect?
I am thrilled with what Kinect was already doing in these launch games, and the hardware itself is actually impressive. I am not a game designer, and I personally do not have any specific ideas outside of the box for what can be done with it, but the creative types that do make games now have a great new tool to use in some new and exciting ways.
The fact that just about everyone that actually does use it praises it, and is excited about what possibilities might be done with it, speaks volumes more than the negative poop soup that dribbles out of the mouths of blind haters that have never tried it.
-
Have you actually even used Kinect?
If course he hasn't. It doesn't come from a company whose name starts with the letter "N".
That's the problem with kinect fans. They keep saying "it has a ton of potential". Well for what? I've went down the line with every gaming genre and shown how kinect as-is just isn't a match for them.
You are obviously confused about the meaning of "potential". It matters little that it isn't great for every genre "as-is". It was released all of a week ago, and for what it is meant to do right now, it does extremely well. Potentially, an additional controller will be able to send it far ahead of anything else out there. That's not to say that I'm not impressed with the Move, but I see the Kinect as having more potential. What I see happening right now is a "differentiating stage" in their marketing approach. It would be much harder for MS to underscore the technology differences between the Kinect and the PS3 Move (and to a lesser extent, the Wii) if it had simultaneously released a controller to go with it. My prediction is that once people experience the Kinect for the amazing piece of technology it is, mainly by pushing the experience as one which can not be had in the same way on other platforms, then you will see the introduction of an add-on controller to help make it fit better with existing gaming genres. It also keeps the initial cost of entry lower.
Like I said right in my reply, total immersion sounds great until you realize that virtually nothing you do gaming wise is totally hands free. I think it's going to be great for dance games and wierd niche games that just don't sell but for fps and platformers (and Randy with all due respect the platformer is STILL the bread and butter of gaming, just check those sales numbers) it won't work. Since fps and platformers do work with the wii/ps3 method they've already won the war.
I think the point I was trying to make is that platformers don't need "total immersion". Sure you can hack something like that into one solely for the sake for doing it, but it's not really a genre that benefits from the technology.
That is unless some radical new game genre is introduced that is perfect for hands free gaming, whihc while possible is doubtful to happen in this generation.
Well, Dance Central is exactly that. You absolutely cannot compare the "dance pad" genre to this game. It is a whole new animal, primarily because it could not be done before the Kinect. The "Adventure" games illustrate this new genre as well.
The problem with randy's arguments, in particular is he seems to think the Kinect is made of magic unicorn poop and can perfectly track anything. His response to my argument about rock games is a perfect example. By me saying "they need buttons" what I was implying is that the current tech out there isn't accurate enough to detect finger movements. By his reply he seems to think the kinect is or will be capable of such a feat.
Still telling other people what they think, eh Kreskin? I never stated that in the slightest. But unlike you, I own the device and know what it is capable of. I never said a thing about finger recognition. It's not capable of that kind of fine recognition. But that doesn't mean that people have to play a game in a particular genre the way you think they do. It was an off-the-cuff example of the type of thing that's possible with this hardware and I came up with it in the same amount of time it took you to take a piss on it. There are more talented people than me, taking much longer than I did, attempting to manage your concerns. What say you give them a chance?
-
Well, i picked up a Kinect yesterday and here are my thoughts. I am quite impressed with the technology....just like i was the first time i played the wii. Nintendo clearly has targeted and captured the casual market with the wii and it has worked well for them. sure they have a few games that aren't casual waggle games, but they are few and far between. I think Kinect will help Microsoft grab a portion of the casual market, while still keeping their core audience. I am going to try to keep this as unbiased as possible. i own a wii, ps3 and 360..i do not yet have the playstation move, and probably wont get it...since it appears to be very similar to what the wii offers. however in the brief time i got to play with kinect last night, i enjoyed it. i was impressed with how well it tracked my motion.
i know some people complain because it takes too much space....if that is a problem for you, then quit your whining and don't buy it. (or move) thats like someone who lives in the middle of nowhere complaining about how slow dial up internet is. either accept the limitations of what you have, or move somewhere that doesn't suck.
personally, i dont have a space issue in my family room. my couch is about 12 feet from my screen, and i don't have a coffee table. the biggest problem i have, is that i use a DLP projector with a 102" screen. the kinect manual says to place the sensor centered with your tv and between 2 and 6 feet from the floor. You are also not supposed to put it on anythign that makes noise or vibrates, such as a speaker. well this is not an option for me. the bottom of my screen is 2ft from the floor. i have an av rack below the screen to hold all of my components, with my center channel speaker sitting on top, directly below the screen. i can't place it on or near the speaker becasue it will mess with the kinect microphone input, plus my children would destroy it in a matter of minutes. so i have to mount my sensor on top. the top of my screen is 6ft 9in from the floor, so it is a little higher than recommended, but it was the only choice. i had to make a little shelf for to sit on, since my screen frame is only about 3/4" thick. so, getting it set up was time consuming, but that shouldn't be the case for most standard setups. on a positive note, it seems to work fine from that height.
as for the tracking, it works very well for me and my wife. my 3 year old even has pretty good success with it, it does some times lose track of him, i'm not sure if it is because he is so little, or because it is up too high. i will do some testing with it sitting down low over the next few days to see if that makes any difference. (i hope not because i can't really move it down permanently).
the facial recognition is pretty slick, my 3 year old was playing the game where you hit the balls, i walked up beside him, it recongnized me and stuck my avatar in the game to play along side him. it was all seamless and awesome. if i walked out of view, withing about 2 seconds or so, it took me out...very cool technology.
i haven't done much with the voice commands, since it is still just faster and easier to use a remote. the same with the kinect hub, it is cool to control it with your hands, but is more gimmicky than anything. one thing i am dissapointed with is that during the e3 demos and various demos from microsoft, they showed you being able to launch netflix and facebook and various other things using connect...this is not the case. the kinect hub is pretty limited right now. I was expecting to pretty much control my xbox with my hands, and do pretty much anything i could do with a controler, usign my hands. right now the interface is slimmed down and quite limited. you can do zune content, espn, and lastfm, as well as customize your avatar , video chat, see your friends and that's about it. i'm sure this will be upgraded in the future, but it is disappointing that it is not ready right now.
as for gaming with kinect, I think people are expecting too much from it. it is awesome for casual/party/dancing/exercise type games, and in some aspects can give you a much better experience than the wii or ps move can. beign able to accurately track your entire body, as opposed to tracking a controller in your hand opens up the possiblilites for greatness in dancing and exercise games. having played the biggest loser game on the wii, it was very dependant on you being honest about what you are doing. it would tell you to do lunges and try to detect the best it could...it is easy to fool. however with kinect, if you are not bending down far enough, it can detect that, which makes it a better expereince.
i could see where kinect could be used to augment more hardcore games, but not to replace the controller entirely. seriously though, who wants to play a fps or 3rd person stealth game by standing up and doing all kinds of motions...that is just stupidity. that is the advantage that Microsoft has over nintendo. they have this device that allows for a great casual gameplay experience, but they also have an awesome controller that can be used for their more hard core games. the wii however is designed from the ground up for motion control...it works well for the casual games, but can feel limiting in other areas. there are good wii games that arent just waggle your wiimote style games, but they are few and far between. usually with stupid motion controls thrown in that could easily have been handled by a button press. and to be honest, 90% of the really good wii games are made by Nintendo...that is what keeps nintendo going, they have very good, established franchises.
i like my wii, i have had a good time with it. it is great when you have people over and you play bowling or somethign like that. and there are a few games that i sat down and played through by myself. however alot of the time when playing those games on the wii, i find my self thinking "i wish i just had a real controller".
9 times out of ten, if i am going to play a game by myself, it is going to be on the 360...it looks better, the controls are better and i just like the experience better. I'm not going to sit an play a bunch of kinect games all by myself, but when friends come over, i could see playing kinect somtimes instead of wii sports or rockband.
i rarely ever play games on my ps3, it is used mostly for watching movies. i dont see the need for playstation move because it is like a higher end version of the wii, without the killer franchises that make the wii awesome.
Nintendo has always had a strong user base that will buy their products...i think the wii was a great move for them because it allowed them to capture a new audience. the gamecube just could not compete with the ps2 and xbox for hard core games, but due to a small list of must have Nintendo titles, everyone bought a gamecube. people will buy nintendo systems because they want to play the new mario, zelda, metroid, and donkey kong games...but for anything other than casual use, the wii is just not enough.
-
Personally, I hope the future you are predicting for the Kinect won't actually come to pass. I would like to see the device being used to augment the game experience where it was useful to do so. I would like to be able to physically interact with a FPS in ways where it makes sense. Such as having it sense when you want to duck behind something and pop out shooting, or dodge some obstacle / projectile / butt of an enemy's weapon / etc. Even some of the basic "look" functionality being attached to head or body position (kind of like the head tracking functions mentioned earlier.) That's not to say that I think those games should be drastically altered, or only made available in the one version for Kinect users, but I'd like to see Kinect functionality offered as an option within select titles where it's use makes sense. Just like being able to map "look" to a joystick or mouse in a PC title, a user could optionally enable the Kinect for certain functions.
If they don't do this, I think it will be a big mistake which will relegate a cool piece of hardware to just the fate you describe. And I believe the general gaming public is going to expect more in the "post-Wii" marketplace.
-
i fully hope they do offer kinect functionality in more mainstream titles, as long as it isn't stupid stuff just for the sake of doing it....and as long as it is optional. i don't want to have to duck behind my couch to take cover in a shooter. sure it would be kinda fun for the first half hour or so, but once the novelty wears off, it would just be annoying. I'm all for games that get you up off the couch and moving around, but at the same time, i enjoy sitting on the couch with a controller and playing games and relaxing. i generally dont get to play games until after my kids go to bed, so i dont want to be bouncing around the room getting all sweaty before bedtime.
i think if they can tastefully implement some kind of kinect support in main stream titles, then it could be cool. but just adding motion controls for the hell of it is stupid, when most of those things can be accomplished with a button press in a quicker and easier way.
-
I can think of plenty with "mediocre" (imo) support, but none with fantastic support. You may be correct pbj.
-
I doubt you'll see any support in mainstream titles unless Microsoft bundles all 360s from now on with it. Has any peripheral in the history of consoles ever gotten any kind of real support? I can't think of anything.
guitar hero / rock band count?
-
I doubt you'll see any support in mainstream titles unless Microsoft bundles all 360s from now on with it. Has any peripheral in the history of consoles ever gotten any kind of real support? I can't think of anything.
N64 4mb expanded memory module. Also the rumble pack.
But that's still an anomaly, and those peripherals weren't $150.
-
Hrm... yeah, the Guitar Hero thing is a good point. But that was a fairly cheap controller and really only a couple of companies pumping out the same game over and over with different tracks. Rock Band seemed to be a real flash in the pan.
N64 rumble pack is a great example, but that was also a cheap one. Huge upgrade for the time for, what, $20? The memory module I really wouldn't say had a ton of support, though.
I dunno, dude at the sushi bar was raving about how he didn't like video games but Kinect was the way of the future and he loved it.
:dunno
Fairly cheap?
Not even.
You can get some pretty cheap now that they have saturated the market so much with release after release, but the new models are never what I would call cheap.
Guitar Hero or Rock Band bundled with one controller seems to run $100. Separately, those controllers cost more.
Kinect bundled with one game is $150. Yes, it is more expensive, but not really that much, and MS is treating Kinect as a new console launch. They are putting tons of advertising and support into ensuring its success.
Who the hell knows if it will succeed, but we aren't talking your typical peripheral.
-
IIRC, I paid ~$40 for brand new Rock Band Legends of Rock and some knockoff wired guitar 2 years ago, and I'd consider that fairly cheap.
:dunno
Not sure how you got a brand new Guitar Hero: Legends of Rock with guitar of any kind for $40, unless by brand new, you mean it had been out for about a year, and was brand new as in not used.
The game was $60 alone brand new (though there are many sales that come along I guess). To get the game and any kind of guitar controller, knock-off or not, for that price us certainly not the norm.
-
The only problem with Kinect is that Kinectimals doesn't have snow leopards. D:
-
I agree with Snaake that wii made Resident Evil 4 even better than it already was, which is saying something. But I ended up selling my Wii once the novelty wore off, which didn't take long. And the Kinect is STUPID! No controller in your hand, no BUTTONS, means it's not a video game. The technology may be impressive, but why, why, why would you want this thing if you are over the age of 10?
Also, did somebody say that the 360 is the least hackable system out? you can't be serious...
-
I agree with Snaake that wii made Resident Evil 4 even better than it already was, which is saying something. But I ended up selling my Wii once the novelty wore off, which didn't take long. And the Kinect is STUPID! No controller in your hand, no BUTTONS, means it's not a video game. The technology may be impressive, but why, why, why would you want this thing if you are over the age of 10?
Also, did somebody say that the 360 is the least hackable system out? you can't be serious...
It depends on what you are talking about.
You have to get a pretty old and not updated 360 for any meaningful hack.
Sure it is hackable in the sense that piracy is quite easy, but that is it. PS3 and Wii are both much easier to hack for homebrew.
Clearly you have not tried Kinect. I have definitely been playing some video games, and having fun doing so at 24 years beyond 10, without a controller with buttons. No you won't be playing games like Call of Duty without a controller, but then there is absolutely nothing stopping devs from making games that use a controller with Kinect.
-
In what way could you possibly say the 360 is as hackable as the Wii or PS3, even for piracy? Both those latter systems can run games from a hard drive and the systems can be hacked without physically opening the case. And, as already mentioned, PS3 and Wii are both wide open so you can run homebrew.
-
I doubt you'll see any support in mainstream titles unless Microsoft bundles all 360s from now on with it.
Hmmm...that's a tough one. One could consider external disk storage on the 360 "a peripheral", since MS offers units without one. It get's plenty of support. Granted, it's not a control peripheral, but it's something that isn't standard on all models.
Still, MS offers a "bundle" with this peripheral, which is something they have done with little else. MS is banking big on the device. If you think it will be left in the cold, you are kidding yourselves.
-
I don't think it will be left in the cold. MS has the pockets to go all in on a product even if it means losing a ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- ton of money on it for a very long time (the entire Xbox division is a prime example of this -- the original Xbox was never profitable; MS lost hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars on it). Because they're betting on a future that is years away.
But it's silly to think that the Kinect, on the 360, is going to be some kind of blockbuster success. We are 5 years into the 360's lifecycle. There are like 45 million 360's sold. As a publisher/developer, when you are considering making the enormous monetary investment in the development of a 360 game, just where do you think the vast majority of your money is going to go: 1) a game with a market-base of 45 million units, or 2) a Kinect game that is only compatible with maybe . . . mmmaaayyybbbeeeeeeeeeee . . . 10% of 360 users' hardware (the device costs $150 . . . 10% would be amazing)? Obviously the vast majority of serious development will go toward the market with the greatest potential for profit. Kinect on 360 has very little growth potential. The 360 only has maybe 2 years left before it's time to move on to Xbox 3. It doesn't make sense to invest heavily in it.
-
I don't think it will be left in the cold. MS has the pockets to go all in on a product even if it means losing a ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- ton of money on it for a very long time (the entire Xbox division is a prime example of this -- the original Xbox was never profitable; MS lost hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars on it). Because they're betting on a future that is years away.
But it's silly to think that the Kinect, on the 360, is going to be some kind of blockbuster success. We are 5 years into the 360's lifecycle. There are like 45 million 360's sold. As a publisher/developer, when you are considering making the enormous monetary investment in the development of a 360 game, just where do you think the vast majority of your money is going to go: 1) a game with a market-base of 45 million units, or 2) a Kinect game that is only compatible with maybe . . . mmmaaayyybbbeeeeeeeeeee . . . 10% of 360 users' hardware (the device costs $150 . . . 10% would be amazing)? Obviously the vast majority of serious development will go toward the market with the greatest potential for profit. Kinect on 360 has very little growth potential. The 360 only has maybe 2 years left before it's time to move on to Xbox 3. It doesn't make sense to invest heavily in it.
This is an extremely short sighted view. The Kinect will plug into the next XBOX just as easily as it plugs into the current one. The only thing which would give your scenario any amount of plausibility would be a Kinect II that comes with the next version of XBOX. Considering the amount of time this has been in the works, and the amount of money MS has already spent on it, I see that as unlikely. There is even some talk that there won't be enough of the things to go around this holiday season, but that's probably just attempting to borrow a page from Nintendo's book. I guess we will see. What happens this holiday season is going to be a major predictor.
BTW, the knowing that MS has incredibly deep pockets played heavily into my decision to purchase the original XBOX, and now the Kinect. It's not so difficult to believe that lots of folks understand the value of that kind of commitment and will act similarly.
-
The Kinect will plug into the next XBOX just as easily as it plugs into the current one. The only thing which would give your scenario any amount of plausibility would be a Kinect II that comes with the next version of XBOX.
Of course the next Xbox will come with a Kinect II. It's going to be two years down the line and they're going to have to compete with new technology from Sony and Nintendo. They would be mad going into the next generation without updating the hardware. They're not mad.
-
Of course the next Xbox will come with a Kinect II. It's going to be two years down the line and they're going to have to compete with new technology from Sony and Nintendo.
So now you're the one with the crystal ball. You don't know if the Kinect can even be made any better than it is with whatever the state of technology will be at that time. You might say that it's inevitable, but I heard the same thing about 3D technology so many years ago and watched the industry decide to "punt" and use 10 year old technology because they hit a brick wall. The way the Kinect works might even be specific enough so that the patents are tough to get around, making it nearly impossible for the others to compete.
You are also assuming that the Big N will remain viable in the console wars. They may pull a serious piece of hardware out of their kiester and teach the other two not to underestimate them again, or they could put out a "current generation Mario player" with slightly upgraded motion tech that will suffer a fate similar to the N64, maybe worse. And then decide to focus on the handheld market they seem to have a stranglehold on, while using their franchises to make serious coin by supporting the other systems. Who knows?
You are making a lot of assumptions. No more than just about anyone else at this point, but assumptions nonetheless.
-
Insert Quote
In what way could you possibly say the 360 is as hackable as the Wii or PS3, even for piracy? Both those latter systems can run games from a hard drive and the systems can be hacked without physically opening the case. And, as already mentioned, PS3 and Wii are both wide open so you can run homebrew.
Posted on: Today at 12:43:47 AM
Posted by: versapak
Insert Quote
Quote from: BurgerKingDiamond on Today at 12:19:36 AM
I agree with Snaake that wii made Resident Evil 4 even better than it already was, which is saying something. But I ended up selling my Wii once the novelty wore off, which didn't take long. And the Kinect is STUPID! No controller in your hand, no BUTTONS, means it's not a video game. The technology may be impressive, but why, why, why would you want this thing if you are over the age of 10?
Also, did somebody say that the 360 is the least hackable system out? you can't be serious...
It depends on what you are talking about.
You have to get a pretty old and not updated 360 for any meaningful hack.
Sure it is hackable in the sense that piracy is quite easy, but that is it. PS3 and Wii are both much easier to hack for homebrew.
I guess it's a toss up between the Wii and 360, because even I was able to mod my Wii with an SD card and install the homebrew channel and play emulators and such. And 360's have been able to be flashed and jtag'd for a while (i know you need an old version for jtagging), to play back up games, which is I think more useful than running homebrew. My objection to the comment was the implication that the PS3 was not the most difficult to hack. Which unless I am very misinformed is not the case. In the case of homebrew, if you're talking about Linux or something, that is not a mod/hack to me since SONY ALLOWED (at least for awhile) you to install Linux. Other than that, the only hole that anyone has found in the PS3 has been found VERY recently and is already closed up through a software update.
-
The 360 only has maybe 2 years left before it's time to move on to Xbox 3. It doesn't make sense to invest heavily in it.
It's got about 4 years left. It's been publicly stated that they expect the 360 to go through 2015.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/04/microsofts-kim-lays-out-ten-year-xbox-360-lifecycle/ (http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/04/microsofts-kim-lays-out-ten-year-xbox-360-lifecycle/)
-
Which unless I am very misinformed is not the case. In the case of homebrew, if you're talking about Linux or something, . . .
You are misinformed. A few months ago the PS3 was cracked wide open.
-
You are also assuming that the Big N will remain viable in the console wars. They may pull a serious piece of hardware out of their kiester and teach the other two not to underestimate them again, or they could put out a "current generation Mario player" with slightly upgraded motion tech that will suffer a fate similar to the N64, maybe worse. And then decide to focus on the handheld market they seem to have a stranglehold on, while using their franchises to make serious coin by supporting the other systems. Who knows?
You are making a lot of assumptions. No more than just about anyone else at this point, but assumptions nonetheless.
All of those thing may be true, Randy. In fact, maybe Nintendo will decide to go back to just playing cards and exit the industry altogether after the Wii. But that's not something on which MS can reasonably base it's strategy. There's nothing wrong with making assumptions, per se, Randy. The difference is that the ones you are making are unwarranted.
And I know Kinect can be better if for non other reason than that it was better when it was first shown. It initially had an onboard processor which was stripped last-minute to cut costs. The cameras are also pretty low-res. I'm no engineer, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that better cameras make for better tracking and identification.
-
All of those thing may be true, Randy. In fact, maybe Nintendo will decide to go back to just playing cards and exit the industry altogether after the Wii. But that's not something on which MS can reasonably base it's strategy. There's nothing wrong with making assumptions, per se, Randy. The difference is that the ones you are making are unwarranted.
And I know Kinect can be better if for non other reason than that it was better when it was first shown. It initially had an onboard processor which was stripped last-minute to cut costs. The cameras are also pretty low-res. I'm no engineer, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that better cameras make for better tracking and identification.
The on board processor was also cut because it was unnecessary. It uses 1% of the console processing resources without an on board processor, so the amount of "it could be better" that there actually is is pretty negligible.
-
when I said very recently I was talking about the window of a few months. Which is still very long after both the Wii and 360 were compromised. Anyway... Of course I updated my PS3 only to find out a few days later about the jailbreak, and that I was out of luck. Whatever though, I don't play my PS3 anyway.
-
All of those thing may be true, Randy. In fact, maybe Nintendo will decide to go back to just playing cards and exit the industry altogether after the Wii. But that's not something on which MS can reasonably base it's strategy. There's nothing wrong with making assumptions, per se, Randy. The difference is that the ones you are making are unwarranted.
And I know Kinect can be better if for non other reason than that it was better when it was first shown. It initially had an onboard processor which was stripped last-minute to cut costs. The cameras are also pretty low-res. I'm no engineer, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that better cameras make for better tracking and identification.
The on board processor was also cut because it was unnecessary. It uses 1% of the console processing resources without an on board processor, so the amount of "it could be better" that there actually is is pretty negligible.
Not to mention that, much like 3D technology, you are dealing with an optical engine (the part that's painting the room.) Looks like a holographic diffraction grating on a near IR laser. If you can't make that part better, then a higher resolution camera won't do you any good either.
And I think Hoopz estimate of 4 years is closer to the mark than yours. It's the number I was going to suggest. The 360 is holding it's own just fine against the PS3, and the PS3 has at least 4 years left before it gets "spent". The cycle times get longer with every new generation, and that's due to a slowing of technological breakthroughs. And, without new "wow, gotta have that" features, consumers hang onto the last generation much longer.
-
Looks like a holographic diffraction grating on a near IR laser.
I don't know what that means.
Anyway . . . MS is not going to go 9 years between major console releases. The next Xbox will come within 2 years. There may still be 360 support. There's still PS2 support, after all. But it's not going to be 4 more years before the next cycle. If nothing else, the Wii won't last that long. Nintendo, much to your surprise, is going to release a new system after the Wii. And Microsoft, much to your surprise, will take it seriously. The 360 cannot stand alone (or with Kinect) for 4 more years.
-
The 360 cannot stand alone (or with Kinect) for 4 more years.
If you say so ;). We shall see how it shakes out. To even infer the release of something before the PS3 has run it's course would be for MS to admit inferiority to it. I.e. not gonna happen. And, the PS3 has at least that long. Nintendo will be the one likely to release something within 2 years. Well, after they run out of different plastic colors. The big question is whether it will be above and beyond the current level of the other two players. If they don't, it's going to be difficult for them to sustain sales in the face of the new add-ons. And if they do, will it be enough to attract consumers who already have more advanced systems than the Wii, in the second half of those systems' life cycles? Ask Sega how well that worked for them. I think Nintendo has a bit of a quandary on their hands at this point, and it's probably one that will be resolved, one way or the other, before MS has to consider when to drop the next XBOX.
-
My post about the 360 going about another four years isn't my perspective. It's date that a Microsoft VP publicly stated. I've also read that Sony is going to keep the PS3 around that long (or longer). I'm sure that both companies, and Nintendo when they're ready, will make a big announcement about their next next-gen console. The other thing that they will do is make sure that the SDK is out in developer's hands well before the launch date to make sure that their is an abundance of titles available for their console.
-
Ask Sega how well that worked for them.
That's not a bad idea:
Dear Sega, how did the 32x add-on work out for you? How about the Sega CD? Wait . . . what? You mean . . . they were only purchased by a small percentage of users and had very little development support?
Yeah . . . Sega got back to me and told me that expensive peripherals tend to split the market badly and have a rich history of failure.
-
That's not a bad idea:
Dear Sega, how did the 32x add-on work out for you? How about the Sega CD? Wait . . . what? You mean . . . they were only purchased by a small percentage of users and had very little development support?
Yeah . . . Sega got back to me and told me that expensive peripherals tend to split the market badly and have a rich history of failure.
Don't forget the Wii Fit and the Wii Motion Plus...oh right, that was Nintendo. ;)
-
That's not a bad idea:
Dear Sega, how did the 32x add-on work out for you? How about the Sega CD? Wait . . . what? You mean . . . they were only purchased by a small percentage of users and had very little development support?
Yeah . . . Sega got back to me and told me that expensive peripherals tend to split the market badly and have a rich history of failure.
Don't forget the Wii Fit and the Wii Motion Plus...oh right, that was Nintendo. ;)
Sweet Moses! Don't get him start on the Motion Plus again! :angry:
:lol
-
Don't forget the Wii Fit and the Wii Motion Plus...oh right, that was Nintendo. ;)
Okay . . . let's not forget about Nintendo. According to Wikipedia, Wii Fit is the third highest selling game in console history with more than 22 million sold (for comparison, that's half the size of Xbox 360's total market). Even with 22 million sold there has been hardly any development for the platform (no pun intended) and what few games have been made are almost invariably shovelware . . . just hastily thrown together crap to get something out there.
Motion Plus is no better. It helps that Nintendo is now making it just a standard part of the system so from here on out every new Wii sold, and every Wii remote sold will come with Motion Plus. I can't find sales numbers for it (though I didn't really look either), but I think it sold quite a bit, especially as a pack-in with Tiger Woods. Nevertheless, the device is not well supported at all. Very few games take advantage of it. Publishers/Developers seem incredibly reluctant to voluntarily shrink the market (by A LOT) for their games.
-
Okay . . . let's not forget about Nintendo. According to Wikipedia, Wii Fit is the third highest selling game in console history with more than 22 million sold (for comparison, that's half the size of Xbox 360's total market). Even with 22 million sold there has been hardly any development for the platform (no pun intended) and what few games have been made are almost invariably shovelware . . . just hastily thrown together crap to get something out there.
Motion Plus is no better. It helps that Nintendo is now making it just a standard part of the system so from here on out every new Wii sold, and every Wii remote sold will come with Motion Plus. I can't find sales numbers for it (though I didn't really look either), but I think it sold quite a bit, especially as a pack-in with Tiger Woods. Nevertheless, the device is not well supported at all. Very few games take advantage of it. Publishers/Developers seem incredibly reluctant to voluntarily shrink the market (by A LOT) for their games.
That's a lot of soured consumers. Good thing MS has a track record of ensuring the success of their console hardware, regardless of the cost, lest the Kinect finds itself similarly situated.
-
Shrug . . . maybe. I don't see it. But I've been wrong before.
-
Get a grip ladies! Last I checked no one was holding a gun to your head and telling you to buy the kinect. Like most other consumer affairs, the market will decide, not the tech. Randy is right. MS will sell a boatload, its the prevailing wind that will guide them thru the next 4 years. And the 'its incompatible with manhattan' comment is probably the snobbiest, and most elitist comment I've heard in this thread. The reality is that Manhattan is incompatible with the rest of the country in most respects, so who cares. The midwest will determine the fate of this product. This product was designed with McMansions in mind.... not the NYC hipster crowd. Go to a bar and play some ping pong or something for crissakes....
-
whether it sells or not it is LAME
-
whether it sells or not it is LAME
Blind ignorant statements like that are LAME.
-
I picked up Kinect last weekend for my kids just as soon as the new dashboard was JTAG compliant. Honestly, Kinect isn't that bad. I was surprised at how accurate the camera is even if you toss other bodies and animals at it. Not to mention it works when the lighting isn't perfect unlike the 360 Live! camera or even the PS3 Eye. The video quality of the camera is very good and the build quality of the product is pretty damn high.
The voice commands are actually pretty nice feature. I wish they had been able to incorporate the voice commands throughout the whole dashboard and not just the Kinect dashboard section. I'd love to be able to walk into the room and say "Xbox On" and when done "Xbox Off". I'm hoping that voice features might be added into Freestyledash eventually.
As far as the games go, right now all the games are a bit gimicky just like they were on the Nintendo DS, Wii and PS3 Move when first launched. I haven't had a chance to play them all yet, but Dance Central, Kinect Adventures and Kinectimals seem to be the kids favorites so far. I have all of the other games as well, but haven't had a chance to check them out just yet.
-
It's not a blind statement, I've seen it, and I've seen people play it. It's a gimmick.
-
And the 'its incompatible with manhattan' comment is probably the snobbiest, and most elitist comment I've heard in this thread.
Yeah . . . only an elitist snob would suggest that apartments in Manhattan tend to be too small to work with a Kinect. ::)
Also, I can't decide which part of your argument to favor . . . the first breath, when you said to stop making predictions and let the market decide, or your next where you predicted that it would be a giant success. Get a grip, indeed.
Btw, I think that your outright dismissal of Manhattan might be in contention for the title of snobbiest, most elitist comment in this thread. Or is a superiority complex only elitism when the other guys do it?
-
Well, they've sold a million of them already and if it's anything like the gimmicky ipad I'm sure I'll get stuck buying one sooner rather than later.
So . . . you're saying . . . you will most likely buy it if it sucks? I think that's what you're saying.
-
The midwest will determine the fate of this product.
Oh yeah . . . uh . . . like . . . why? Why in god's name would the fate of this product rest on the midwest and not . . . Texas? Not that I think Texas is the key to Kinect's success, but I suspect it makes as much sense as Indiana being the key. Why won't California determine the fate of Kinect? Why not New York or Florida? Oh . . . right . . . you don't live in any of those places. You live in Chicago. Maybe we have yet another contender for snobbiest, most elitist comments in this thread, lol.
-
He's probably alluding to the whole "if it plays in Peoria" thing which is basically the idea that if you get a bunch of dull and listless people (midwesterners) to buy into something, everyone's gonna like it.
Blind ignorant statements like that are LAME.
+1 to versapak
-
He's probably alluding to the whole "if it plays in Peoria" thing which is basically the idea that if you get a bunch of dull and listless people (midwesterners) to buy into something, everyone's gonna like it.
More or less spot on. I wasn't suggesting that midwesterners are dull and listless, more that they are averse to change and suspicious of new things/ideas. But the 'Peoria' thing is accurate. If it'll play there, it'll play anywhere. And yeah, I am prejudiced against people who think that they are the center of the universe, when they really only represent a very thin edge. And I happen to be in TX today, as a matter of fact. Nice people. Big houses. So unlike NYC.... But I digress. I love you.
-
So after skimming through 3 pages I think the idea of this thread is that Kinect's will fail because it's not real enough. It reminds me of that other gaming gimmick where you pressed a button to jump and tilted a joystick to move.
This must have been how your dads (or grand dads) sounded when pinball tables were being replaced with arcade cabinets.
Complaining about how fake these gaming peripherals feel, is idiotic.
You want a more realistic gaming experience, go to your local park with your real life friends.
-
So after skimming through 3 pages I think the idea of this thread is that Kinect's will fail because it's not real enough. It reminds me of that other gaming gimmick where you pressed a button to jump and tilted a joystick to move.
not real enough? If anything it's trying to be to real. Why jump around and pretend to hit virtual volleyballs? At that point why don't you go out and play real volleyball?
I see it as further dumbing down video games. Because you will never be able to get the precision needed to play a game of skill using motion controls (at least MOVE and Wii have buttons)... If this is the future of video games, it's gonna suck.
The tech is impressive, but I'm surprised that it's getting support from people on this forum who are into arcade games, which generally require way more skill to play than the majority of current gen games. The one positive thing I can see is the potential for hilarious videos of people getting knocked out while playing :)
-
is there a decent ping pong game for kinect??
sometime that WORKS and not retarded like the games on wii :dizzy:
-
is there a decent ping pong game for kinect??
sometime that WORKS and not retarded like the games on wii :dizzy:
If you want ping pong, then you want move. It is exceptional in Sports Champions.
I don't know if Kinect has one one, but there is no way it will work anywhere near as good as the one on move if it does.
-
The one positive thing I can see is the potential for hilarious videos of people getting knocked out while playing :)
See, there you go. Just when things were getting all divisive, you go and say something we can all agree on!! :burgerking: <> May your electric wheelchair never run out of batteries
-
So after skimming through 3 pages I think the idea of this thread is that Kinect's will fail because it's not real enough.
No . . . skimming clearly did not do the trick. Nobody says it won't be real enough. I don't think anyone has even suggested that. We're (the naysayers) saying it won't be fun enough (for a variety of reasons).
-
If you want ping pong, then you want move. It is exceptional in Sports Champions.
I don't know if Kinect has one one, but there is no way it will work anywhere near as good as the one on move if it does.
Strangely, table tennis is one of my favorites from Kinect Sports :dunno Definitely better now that I upped the skill of the computer opponent.
It is good on the Move as well, but the Move doesn't see 3D space in the same way that the Kinect version does. The swing on the Move seems more interpolated in that sense.
-
It's really not about whether realism is a good or bad thing. It's about whether it's fun. The shallowness of the games matters because most shallow games aren't very fun in the long run, even if they were quite fun to begin with. But it's not realism. I think everyone agrees that the Holodeck would be amazing--the pinnacle of videogames. But pantomiming actions while simultaneously having no way to gracefully move your avatar from point A to point B is a poor substitute for the Holodeck. Technology-wise I can see how Kinect is a step in the direction of the Holodeck, but experience-wise . . . it's just to limited.
-
It's really not about whether realism is a good or bad thing. It's about whether it's fun. The shallowness of the games matters because most shallow games aren't very fun in the long run, even if they were quite fun to begin with. But it's not realism. I think everyone agrees that the Holodeck would be amazing--the pinnacle of videogames. But pantomiming actions while simultaneously having no way to gracefully move your avatar from point A to point B is a poor substitute for the Holodeck. Technology-wise I can see how Kinect is a step in the direction of the Holodeck, but experience-wise . . . it's just to limited.
....because everyone knows that the moment you turn on the Kinect, every 360 wireless controller in your house turns into a fishbowl. And because of this strange anomaly, there isn't, and never will be, any kind of controller to augment the experience where such games might require one.
::)
-
For the most part, actually, yeah. The 360 controller is not designed to be used one-handed, or standing up. It's not ergonomic. And sitting down dramatically limits the what the Kinect can do. No need to pee your pants over it.
-
For the most part, actually, yeah. The 360 controller is not designed to be used one-handed, or standing up. It's not ergonomic.
I'm starting to think you've never actually held one. I can, pretty easily in fact, access the analog thumbstick, the D-Pad, the "back" button, the Left Trigger (and it's switch) and the Left Shoulder button while holding the controller only in my left hand....while standing on one foot.
-
And I'm starting to think you literally cannot separate what can be done with what will be done. Nobody is going to develop a game in which you are meant to hold the controller with one hand while standing up and moving around. It's heavy. It's not comfortable. What you are able to do for a few seconds so you can post your results to an arcade message board is not something that people want to do for an extended period of time while playing a videogame. It's just not the way the Kinect will be used. So basing any discussion about its potential for such use is worthless. It's not going to happen. It's clumsy and awkward. It is designed to be held by two hands.
-
And I'm starting to think you literally cannot separate what can be done with what will be done. Nobody is going to develop a game in which you are meant to hold the controller with one hand while standing up and moving around. It's heavy. It's not comfortable. What you are able to do for a few seconds so you can post your results to an arcade message board is not something that people want to do for an extended period of time while playing a videogame. It's just not the way the Kinect will be used. So basing any discussion about its potential for such use is worthless. It's not going to happen. It's clumsy and awkward. It is designed to be held by two hands.
I'll admit, I'm a big guy, so it probably feels different to me than it would you. But I could definitely use it just as I stated, with little to no difficulty. It's only a little more awkward than the "nunchuck" controller, but it is heavier.
BTW, Kinect...has...been...out...for...two...weeks.
Try re-reading my post about product differentiation likely being used as a marketing tool. If MS released a specialized controller now, it would be seen as a "me too" product, which would sell it's true capability short. It would also be seen as more expensive, because it would have been. By doing a staged release, and introducing consumers to it's unique capabilities, with games which use those capabilities exclusively, it differentiates the product immensely, and softens the eventual blow of a specialized controller purchase needed to do the things you think it never will.
But you're probably right...they probably just invested a brazillionty dollars in a new product like this with absolutely no thought or plan given to the obviousness of your concerns. ::)
-
Like I said, I think they're just looking to Xbox 3. They're getting their engineers up to speed, and positioning themselves in the market. MS thinks long-term. I doubt they have the time or inclination to try in make Kinect a success while also attempting to convince consumers to buy yet another peripheral, all within the relatively short time that the 360 will be relevant in the market.
-
Like I said, I think they're just looking to Xbox 3. They're getting their engineers up to speed, and positioning themselves in the market. MS thinks long-term. I doubt they have the time or inclination to try in make Kinect a success while also attempting to convince consumers to buy yet another peripheral, all within the relatively short time that the 360 will be relevant in the market.
You haven't been paying attention, so this is becoming cyclical I.e. you favor your own version of reality over both the market situation and what Microsoft has publicly stated. Not much further that can be discussed here.
-
Oh . . . I'm definitely cynical. But come on . . . what do you think, Microsoft is going to publicly say, "Look, everyone, we don't seriously think this product could be a success. You probably should not buy it and just wait for version 2 instead. Oh, and while you're thinking of what to buy your kids this holiday season, please also keep in mind that we are in the tail-end of our product cycle, so in a couple years we will shift 95% of our product support to Xbox 360's successor." What Microsoft has publicly stated means very little. What Microsoft says publicly . . . everything Microsoft says publicly . . . is marketing.
As for the market situation, I think I've been pretty realistic about that. I'm not favoring my own version of reality over the market situation. I'm favoring my market predictions over your market predictions. And my predictions, whether they turn out to be right or wrong, are pretty sound. As Nintendo proved with the Gamecube and N64, even the most successful videogame developer/publisher in history can't win without strong third party support. The Kinect can't succeed without strong third party support. Moreover, add-on peripherals have historically had dismal support from third parties. Common-sensically a publisher is going to be comparatively disinclined to finance a major blockbuster game for the 360 if it is only compatible with a small percentage of the Xbox 360s in the wild. This cuts against support. The device costs an extra $150 on top of the cost of a 360, which is a substantial barrier to entry. That hurts adoption rate. That cuts against publisher support. Many people cannot buy it who otherwise would because their living rooms are incompatible. Hurts adoption. Hurts developer support.
MS may be able to overcome all this stuff, but I have been paying attention. My "version of reality" is pretty well reasoned, even if I turn out to be wrong. And I probably won't.
-
My "version of reality" is pretty well reasoned, even if I turn out to be wrong.
If you do it won't have been. Can't have both.
It already has a "killer app" at release time, and it's from a 3rd party publisher. One with a background of very popular games behind it, which also, BTW, require you to buy expensive add-ons to play them. And, it's selling like hot-cakes based on reports from my nephew who works at Best Buy, as well as the empty displays I have been seeing.
Your "market" predictions smell of a vacuum. :)
-
If you do it won't have been. Can't have both.
Of course I can. We're dealing with probabilities. If you buy a lottery ticket and I tell you that you will probably not win the lottery, my prediction was really really solid and well reasoned even if it turns out that you go on to win the lottery with that ticket. Sometimes unlikely things happen. Usually not, though. That's what makes them unlikely.
-
MS definitely expects Kinect to be a success. They are spending a friggin half a billion dollars on advertising this launch.
Time will tell how well it does, but they are certainly planning on giving its best chances at succeeding.
-
Of course I can. We're dealing with probabilities. If you buy a lottery ticket and I tell you that you will probably not win the lottery, my prediction was really really solid and well reasoned even if it turns out that you go on to win the lottery with that ticket. Sometimes unlikely things happen. Usually not, though. That's what makes them unlikely.
Here's something that's even more unlikely; that you are better positioned than the leagues of professional folks at Microsoft to determine probabilities associated with the gaming industry and marketing decisions relating thereto.
-
MS has every intention of winning. Kinnect is just not gonna be big this generation. I really don't think I know more than the MS people. I think I agree with them.
-
my wife bought me kinect sports the other day, and we spent about 2 hours playing it tonight after the kids went to bed...it was alot of fun. i havent got to play ever mode on it yet, but here is what i see so far:
most of the events are alot of fun and the motion tracking works much better than i ever anticipated. so far, soccer is the only event that i didn't really care for. i had trouble with it not accurately tracking the direction of my kicks several times, and the game itself is just not that much fun. (however the target kicking soccer minigame is a ton of fun)
the track and field events are pretty fun, and exhausting...especially the hurdles. my wife and I enjoyed bowling and volleyball the best. i went through and played the main game mode the other day to try the events, tonight we spent a good bit of time trying out the minigames, most of which were alot of fun. it is alot like playing the wii, but just way cooler.
as for space issues, i don't really have any. in fact it is frequently telling me to move closer...apparently i just naturally want to stand back too far. I can't imagine this technology ever replacing a gamepad, and i dont think that is the intention. I certainly dont want to give up a controller for the majority of my games, however this makes casual/party gaming alot of fun. i can see this being a big hit at holliday parties this year. the only real downside i see to it is that you need to have the other people move out of the sensor area when you are playing, which could be a little awkward during a party. overall, i am very impressed with the way this works, and i am very happy to have one. it isn't going to replace all of my other gaming setups, but it is another cool thing to add to my collection.
for any of you who are bashing this thing, go play it. I was very skeptical at first, but after i played it....i am nothing but impressed. best of all, it is a way for my wife and I to spend some time together doing something different. usually if i am playing games, she is in the other room watching some stupid crap on tv, but with kinect (just like the wii) she asks me if I want to play, instead of me twisting her arm to do so. which is cool
-
The skill involved in playing this Kinect game is amazing:
Kinect GEL Ride (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWbLOFGSEDo#)
-
The skill involved in playing this Kinect game is amazing:
He made a part 2 to this video. It stopped doing this as soon as he stood up. Nobody is quite sure why, unless it is seeing him as a small child while he is sitting, and giving him assistance. I predict an update will be forthcoming for this title...quickly.
It also looks like MS has sold 1 million units in the first 10 days (http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2010/nov10/11-15NineMillionPR.mspx). That's already enough to pique the interest of third party developers, but they are predicting 5x that many before the end of the year. I kind of doubt that, but it will be interesting to see.
The "hackers" are also doing some pretty cool stuff with the hardware. Even seems to be some PC drivers out there already for those who want to play. I'm waiting for someone to make Theremin-style instrument software. :)
-
takes the term "computer assistance" to a whole new level.
-
its not like he got first place.
-
it's not like the car just rode the walls the whole time though. You can see it actually steering itself.
-
it's not like the car just rode the walls the whole time though. You can see it actually steering itself.
As I wrote above, it stopped doing this when he stood up.
It's pretty pathetic to see the fanboys jumping on this thing, as though it's some kind of proof that the Kinect hardware has a problem, when it's clearly something that is built into the scheme of that particular game for reasons only the developers seem to know at the moment.
But one thing wouldn't surprise me, and that is that these release games want you to be able to do well. Controllerless video gaming is new, and the very last thing MS wants to happen is that the player gets frustrated before they get a chance to get good at playing games in this manner. It reminds me of the difference between Wii Bowling, which people love, and the AMF title that everyone hates. The Wii pack-in bowling is lacking of any real control nuances, but allows novices to do well. I don't like it nearly as much as the AMF title, which feels much more like actual bowling, and when you suck at it, it allows you to fail. I think the game has been intentionally engineered to prevent utter failure, even if you are in a wheelchair, are a little kid, or have limited mobility. It could very well be that the game made a determination that because he was sitting, and didn't frigging move at all, that he was handicapped.
And if you watch the second video where he speaks, you'd see that the game was correct in the assumption. ;D
-
it's not like the car just rode the walls the whole time though. You can see it actually steering itself.
As I wrote above, it stopped doing this when he stood up.
It's pretty pathetic to see the fanboys jumping on this thing, as though it's some kind of proof that the Kinect hardware has a problem, when it's clearly something that is built into the scheme of that particular game for reasons only the developers seem to know at the moment.
But one thing wouldn't surprise me, and that is that these release games want you to be able to do well. Controllerless video gaming is new, and the very last thing MS wants to happen is that the player gets frustrated before they get a chance to get good at playing games in this manner. It reminds me of the difference between Wii Bowling, which people love, and the AMF title that everyone hates. The Wii pack-in bowling is lacking of any real control nuances, but allows novices to do well. I don't like it nearly as much as the AMF title, which feels much more like actual bowling, and when you suck at it, it allows you to fail. I think the game has been intentionally engineered to prevent utter failure, even if you are in a wheelchair, are a little kid, or have limited mobility. It could very well be that the game made a determination that because he was sitting, and didn't frigging move at all, that he was handicapped.
And if you watch the second video where he speaks, you'd see that the game was correct in the assumption. ;D
I was talking about "computer assistance", and the following quote:
You can pretty much beat the Burn Out games doing the same thing, except you have to hold down a 'gas' button.
I would assume that in Burnout for example the car would just bounce off walls when holding the gas button, not actually steer itself. As for computer assistance there is nothing more annoying than hearing that your win wasn't legit in Mario Kart or NBA JAM because the computer helps out the loser (even though it it true).
-
it's not like the car just rode the walls the whole time though. You can see it actually steering itself.
As I wrote above, it stopped doing this when he stood up.
It's pretty pathetic to see the fanboys jumping on this thing, as though it's some kind of proof that the Kinect hardware has a problem, when it's clearly something that is built into the scheme of that particular game for reasons only the developers seem to know at the moment.
Obviously its the game that auto-piloting the car, not the hardware. I don't even know how that could possibly be caused by the hardware (it somehow knows the correct movements to win the game?). I posted the video simply because I thought it was hilarious, not as some kind of statement about the hardware.
-
Obviously its the game that auto-piloting the car, not the hardware. I don't even know how that could possibly be caused by the hardware (it somehow knows the correct movements to win the game?). I posted the video simply because I thought it was hilarious, not as some kind of statement about the hardware.
Some of the comments attached to the video from the fanboys managed to turn it from funny into sad. Obviously, the hardware can't know what the game is doing, but they seem to think that the game is steering for you because it is compensating for the inability of the hardware to accurately determine your intentions while playing. If they bothered to look at what the hackers have been doing with the hardware already, they'd know it was a brain-dead conclusion.
-
Who knows if that video is even accurate? Maybe that was made by some Sony/Nintendo fanboy to denounce the damn Kinect. You cant trust anything now a days. There were so many points I wanted to make on this thread, but now I cant because its too damn long. The MS people have stated on numerous occasions they are going to keep the 360 (same with sony and the ps3) out as long as they can. They are going to milk the life out of those things for as long as they can, because they know everyone has them. You know why? Nobody would buy a damn next gen console that cost more than the Xbox and PS3 did when they first came out because they would be too damn expensive. Aside from the hardcore gamers who buy it when it first comes out, everyone waited until it dropped in price. I didnt buy an Xbox until it was out for 2 years already. Why do you think the Wii sold so well? Because they were cheaper, and appealed to kids. Thats the thing now a days. Kids. Young ones. Not teenagers. Kids. Of course Nintendo doesnt market for the hardcore gamers. They proved that with the launch of the gamecube. The ---goshdarn--- thing has handle, so you can take it to your friends house and play pokemon. MS and PS3 implemented these peripherals because they know damn well they need to steal consumers from the iron grip that Nintendo has them in, and they dont have anything looming on the horizon, because if they did, they would have unveiled something by now if it was supposed to come out in 2 years like shmokes said. Saying that Nintendo is dying or will die is blasphemy. They single handedly created the home gaming market. My grandma still calls my Xbox a nintendo. Its a household name. It will never die. I know my post sounds convoluted, but damn, there is so much ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- I wanted to say and just caught this thread now :lol
-
Personally, I think the Kinect could do great things for the home robotics crowd. If Macrosoft could produce an API for PC and a code library to do the speech recognition, vision, and depth perception stuff that it does with the 360, the possibilities are endless.
-
Personally, I think the Kinect could do great things for the home robotics crowd. If Macrosoft could produce an API for PC and a code library to do the speech recognition, vision, and depth perception stuff that it does with the 360, the possibilities are endless.
The speed in which this thing is being embraced by the "homebrew" community tells me that you won't need to wait for MS to do it, and it won't be long.
Who knows if that video is even accurate? Maybe that was made by some Sony/Nintendo fanboy to denounce the damn Kinect. You cant trust anything now a days.
It looks real enough. If it wasn't there's grounds for a defamation lawsuit there.
Saying that Nintendo is dying or will die is blasphemy. They single handedly created the home gaming market. My grandma still calls my Xbox a nintendo. Its a household name. It will never die.
You would have said the same about Atari in their heyday. And they, not Nintendo, created the home gaming market. They were usurped by Nintendo, who were the first to successfully achieve substantial market penetration after the big video game crash. They also lost their lead to Sega for quite a while, as they did again with Sony (most moms called every videogame a "playstation" and they were doing the buying). Nintendo is a tenacious, and some would argue very lucky, player in this market, but not infallible, and certainly not immune from market forces. Their brands don't get better with age, but the crowd they market them to revolves regularly. Most folks are kids for only so long, and when they are ready to move on to something else, there are as many (or more) kids entering the market to take their places.
Game sales are as large a part of what makes for successful systems as console sales. There seem to be less titles per system out there on the Wii than for other systems, which points to lower use. If people aren't using them, they probably won't be as likely to have the brand loyalty associated with other systems they do use regularly. So that's not a good sign.
-
You would have said the same about Atari in their heyday. And they, not Nintendo, created the home gaming market. They were usurped by Nintendo, who were the first to successfully
achieve substantial market penetration after the big video game crash. They also lost their lead to Sega for quite a while, as they did again with Sony (most moms called every videogame a "playstation" and they were doing the buying). Nintendo is a tenacious, and some would argue very lucky, player in this market, but not infallible, and certainly not immune from market forces. Their brands don't get better with age, but the crowd they market them to revolves regularly. Most folks are kids for only so long, and when they are ready to move onto something else, there are as many (or more) kids entering the market to take their places.
Game sales are as large a part of what makes for successful systems as console sales. There seem to be less titles per system out there on the Wii than for other systems, which points to lower use. If people aren't using them, they probably won't be as likely to have the brand loyalty associated with other systems they do use regularly. So that's not a good sign.
I knew someone was going to mention Atari. What I meant when I said "created the home gaming market" was that they lasted through it. I said that wrong and I apologize. I agree with you when they lost their lead during the PS1 days, but Nintendo already had a loyal fanbase to support them through that. Its not like they fizzled out like sega, making terrible systems(by terrible I mean from a commercial standpoint). They stayed relevent. Granted, I dont play my Wii as much as I want to, but, being 28, I bought the Wii for the old titles that you mentioned before, the metroids, DK's, Marios etc. Im not saying infallible, but look how many more sales there are with the Wii vs 360 or PS3. It just seems like there is more appeal on a broader market because everyone can use a Wii. My gf's mom (who isnt the smartest woman) can pick up a wii and start playing a game. She wouldnt know what to do if I sat her in front of an Xbox.
If people aren't using them, they probably won't be as likely to have the brand loyalty associated with other systems they do use regularly. So that's not a good sign.
I agree with you on that, but take me for example. I have bought (or asked for) every nintendo system except Virtual Boy since the orginal nintendo came out. Ill always buy a Nintendo because their games are fun. The console itself is cheaper. And it fills that niche market. Sony and MS are pretty much the damn same, and with the exception of a few titles, they have the same games.
Im with you on the orignal idea of this thread though, I think the Kinect is a cool item that has a lot of potential for the market. I wouldnt buy one myself, but if I was a husband trying to get my wife to justify buying an Xbox, Im sure the kinect would be a good way to swing her in the right direction because "the whole family can play".
Of course if I was married we would have one anyway cause Im not a sucker, but you get my point. I think the product has a chance to evolve, but right now, I think its just a ploy to steal customers from Nintendo, cause like you said, they arent playing their Wii's as much. MS wants to capitalize on that.
-
Im not saying infallible, but look how many more sales there are with the Wii vs 360 or PS3. It just seems like there is more appeal on a broader market because everyone can use a Wii. My gf's mom (who isnt the smartest woman) can pick up a wii and start playing a game. She wouldnt know what to do if I sat her in front of an Xbox.
There is still a learning curve for any of the "good" games. Regardless, much of the Wii's success is due to a great advertising campaign and a manipulative distribution model. I think people really liked the idea of an accessible system which let them play videogames with their kids, just like folks buy RV's because they like the idea of camping. But reality soon sets in, and practicality rears it's ugly head. It's a great marketing hook, but it's a hand that has been played. I'm not sure the Kinect can even rely on that one happening again.
I think the product has a chance to evolve, but right now, I think its just a ploy to steal customers from Nintendo, cause like you said, they arent playing their Wii's as much. MS wants to capitalize on that.
I think an awful lot of folks who have Wii's, also have an Xbox, or PS3. Many of those Wii owners aren't part of the normal market, and it's unlikely that they will be jumping to the Xbox if they didn't end up using their Wii much. It's more about extending the life of the current generation by giving the system more options for new types of games. In this case, games that weren't possible before. The fact that it will more than likely take a chunk out of Nintendo's hide is probably just a icing on the cake for them.
-
[citation needed] times about a thousand in this thread.
These forums would be an awful quiet place if they were truly "needed".
-
True. But after you said this, I couldn't really take anything else you said seriously:
If it wasn't there's grounds for a defamation lawsuit there.
::)
And why do you think that there's not? If it's fabricated with the intent to harm the sales of the product, then that's a pretty stupid thing to do, and it's actionable.
-
:laugh2:
Im kinda with PBJ on that one Randy. I kinda scoffed when you said that. Its not a big deal though, just thought it was kinda funny. Like something someones mom would have said. ;D
-
Im kinda with PBJ on that one Randy. I kinda scoffed when you said that. Its not a big deal though, just thought it was kinda funny. Like something someones mom would have said. ;D
Unfortunately, that's a how a lot of folks end up with empty bank accounts and a "funny" look on their faces ;) I only stated it as some support for the authenticity of the clip. You'd have to be pretty reckless (and none too bright) to do something as harmful as that to a corporation with a legal department the size of Rhode Island.
-
We all know you can 'cheat' on the wii by flicking your wrist. Would filming that be defamation?
No, because it's true, just like the Kinect clip most likely is. If it were presented as a "spoof" or "satire", or the assertion is so ridiculous that any reasonable person wouldn't think it was true, then it's a different situation. But if it were a manufactured lie to intentionally cause harm to the reputation of the company, there's a good chance the person would have a problem on their hands, especially given that the clip has gone "viral".
The fact that you asked that question rhetorically shows that you really don't understand as much as you think you do about this subject. But I'm sure shmokes will chime in soon enough.....:cheers:
-
I'm no IP lawyer and it's been a long time since I had an IP class. But I think the guy is in no danger of a suit. Defamation is hard to prove. And since this is a matter of public concern, they'd not only have to prove the typical elements of defamation, but also all the elements of negligence on the part of the guy who made the video. On top of all that, awards in defamation suits are typically small, so fighting the suit would cost a bunch of money that would probably not be recouped. The lawsuit itself would also bring a bunch of publicity and suddenly this defamatory video would gain a far bigger audience. And then, once MS lost the lawsuit, as they very well may, a lot of people would likely conclude that the video must be real, rather than that MS was just not able to prove one of the necessary elements (like that their reputation was substantially injured, or that the guy breached a duty).
But academically . . . the guy would be probably be guilty of defamation if he faked the video to hurt sales of their product. And they very likely would win a lawsuit against him*.
*IANAL (yet)
-
yep.
-
Holy ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---, man, if you think that Kinect video is fake, you clearly haven't played it.
I did some dumb beach volleyball thing. That was the most unresponsive have-nothing-to-do-with-what-I'm-doing mess I've played since Wii Sports Tennis. Just give a lurch and amazingly that character does what it should.
:laugh2:
I think everyone is thinking the opposite, actually.
And yeah, some titles are based heavily on the timing of what the instructions tell you the game is looking for. I.e. feet leaving the ground, arm swing, etc. So as long as you leave the ground and throw out an arm, the game is going to do what you would expect it to. In reality, it's not terribly different than what happens when you push a stick in a direction and hit a button with a similar kind of game which uses a normal controller.
-
I like the PS3 move commercial better. I know this is completely irrelevant but Im kinda over this thread now. :dunno
-
In reality, it's not terribly different than what happens when you push a stick in a direction and hit a button with a similar kind of game which uses a normal controller.
Then what's the point?
-
The point is to combat the Wii. Thats all I can think of. Hopefully to market to the Xbox and PS3 owners little brothers/sisters/girlfriends.
-
Then what's the point?
The point is to combat the Wii. Thats all I can think of. Hopefully to market to the Xbox and PS3 owners little brothers/sisters/girlfriends.
That is certainly part of it. But probably not the largest part. Not all games play it that loose with the control scheme. Try just doing anything in front of the camera while Dance Central is running and that will be proven to you pretty quickly. In fact, that particular game is so critical, I have yet to figure out how to do a few of the moves to the satisfaction of the software.
The other "points" are pretty obvious. It will get you off of your sofa and you can play it without a controller. Either you find value in those things or you don't.
-
you can play it without a controller.
But it's hard to think of that as a legitimate point. Like . . . you could play basketball without a ball, but it wouldn't be very fun. The point, after all, should be fun, right? Nobody wants to just play without a gamepad. They might be interested in a better control scheme than a gamepad. But if the new control scheme isn't better it seems silly to say, "Look . . . you can play without a gamepad!" Like, it might make more sense to say, "Oh . . . that sucks . . . there's no gamepad." And which of those things you say depends largely on whether it is fun.
-
But it's hard to think of that as a legitimate point. Like . . . you could play basketball without a ball, but it wouldn't be very fun. The point, after all, should be fun, right? Nobody wants to just play without a gamepad. They might be interested in a better control scheme than a gamepad. But if the new control scheme isn't better it seems silly to say, "Look . . . you can play without a gamepad!" Like, it might make more sense to say, "Oh . . . that sucks . . . there's no gamepad." And which of those things you say depends largely on whether it is fun.
The other "points" are pretty obvious. It will get you off of your sofa and you can play it without a controller. Either you find value in those things or you don't.
Honestly, if you don't understand the benefit of getting your kids (or yourself) off the couch while playing a game, or actually jumping, instead of pressing a button, to indicate to the game that you want to jump, then I'm not sure why you find any interest in the device at all. It's obviously not meant for you, so feel free to continue to lie on your back and flick your Wii controller to your hearts content. ;D
-
Honestly, if you don't understand the benefit of getting your kids (or yourself) off the couch while playing a game, or actually jumping, instead of pressing a button, to indicate to the game that you want to jump, then I'm not sure why you find any interest in the device at all.
Maybe you should discourage your kids from reading too. Or maybe you could rig up a projector that projects the pages on the wall but moves the image around the room so the kids don't stay sedentary while reading.
There's benefit in it to the extent that it makes you actually want to get up off the couch and jump around. If it's not fun, you won't do it. For example, when was the last time you turned on your Wii*?
* That's a rhetorical question.
-
you can play it without a controller.
But it's hard to think of that as a legitimate point. Like . . . you could play basketball without a ball, but it wouldn't be very fun. The point, after all, should be fun, right? Nobody wants to just play without a gamepad. They might be interested in a better control scheme than a gamepad. But if the new control scheme isn't better it seems silly to say, "Look . . . you can play without a gamepad!" Like, it might make more sense to say, "Oh . . . that sucks . . . there's no gamepad." And which of those things you say depends largely on whether it is fun.
It isn't just about playing without a controller. It is about playing with you as the controller.
There is a difference.
It is hard to explain Kinect, but it isn't like all the masses that are trying it and having a great time are somehow wrong and confused. It really is unique and fun.
It won't replace my controller, and I doubt we'll see any true "hardcore" games for it, but it is something new. I could care less if I can play Gears of War or Call of Duty with it. I am perfectly fine playing those how I have been, but I am always open to new and creative gaming options. I love the music games and their various instruments. I love playing Ping Pong and Bocce Ball with PS Move. I am having a lot of fun dancing around with Kinect.
If new ways to game scare you, or just don't interest you, then so be it.
-
Maybe you should discourage your kids from reading too. Or maybe you could rig up a projector that projects the pages on the wall but moves the image around the room so the kids don't stay sedentary while reading.
Heh. If you could make it so they had to move to a different room to get to that next page of a Harry Potter novel, that might be a good idea. Still, kids used to go outside and actually play the sports they now sit on their butts playing. I know I did....when I wasn't playing Zaxxon on my ColecoVision ;D But, I don't recall a time when reading was done differently and where the difference had such a profoundly negative effect on their health.
There's benefit in it to the extent that it makes you actually want to get up off the couch and jump around. If it's not fun, you won't do it.
But it is fun. The assumption you keep making that it's not is just wrong, based on the positive reports from actual owners.
For example, when was the last time you turned on your Wii*?
Since it got disc-less Netflix, every night. I even bowled a couple of games a few days ago, since it was on already. :dunno
-
you can play it without a controller.
But it's hard to think of that as a legitimate point. Like . . . you could play basketball without a ball, but it wouldn't be very fun. The point, after all, should be fun, right? Nobody wants to just play without a gamepad. They might be interested in a better control scheme than a gamepad. But if the new control scheme isn't better it seems silly to say, "Look . . . you can play without a gamepad!" Like, it might make more sense to say, "Oh . . . that sucks . . . there's no gamepad." And which of those things you say depends largely on whether it is fun.
Well said. This thread isn't really going anywhere, but want to say 1 more thing. The Wii isn't totally worthless. RE4 was AWESOME, and any gun game could theoretically benefit from WII style (including MOVE) controls. Also, I think that killzone 3 with MOVE in 3D could be cool... I would at least like to try.
-
Since it got disc-less Netflix, every night. I even bowled a couple of games a few days ago, since it was on already. :dunno
LOL . . . look up the meaning of rhetorical question, Randy. You know what my point was. The fact that your Wii has primarily become a glorified Netflix player illustrates it perfectly.
edit: spelling
-
It won't replace my controller, and I doubt we'll see any true "hardcore" games for it, but it is something new. . . .
If new ways to game scare you, or just don't interest you, then so be it.
You are not entirely understanding my position. This thing MS has made is definitely new. And it has lots of potential in future products. This product just won't be particularly successful commercially, and for that reason it also won't be particularly successful critically, both as a result of the commercial failure (because publishers won't invest the resources necessary for blockbuster titles), and because it is so hampered in terms of creating deep experiences. I have no doubt that I could have a blast playing the thing. I've had a blast playing my Wii on many many many occasions. But like the Wii, the novelty will wear off soon (probably sooner than the Wii, since at least the Wii is outfitted with a perfectly capable gamepad).
I'm not saying that the Kinect can't be fun. I'm saying that its technical limitations combined with a high price and bad market timing (five years into 360's product cycle, splitting the market, etc.) mean it will never gain widespread adoption and thus will never gain widespread developer/publisher support and thus will never gain a library of good titles. I'm sure Microsoft knows this. They're looking to the next system. Kinect owners are nothing more than beta (alpha?) testers for the next, probably pretty awesome, product.
-
LOL . . . look up the meaning of rhetorical question, Randy. You know what my point was. The fact that your Wii has primarily become a glorified Netflix player illustrates it perfectly.
I know what it means quite well. It's just that your "rhetorical question" actually had an answer which belied your intent in asking it that way. I still had some fun with my favorite title on the machine, even though I do use it much more for Netflix. It goes to show that a good game is a good game, no matter what the system, and if the unique control method helps make it that, then there is value there.
-
They've sold 2.5million Kinects thus far. How about you guys let this arguement be settled the old fashioned way; Let the market decide if it lives or dies.
If it's bad, it'll flounder after it runs out of early adopters to buy it. If it's good, then sales and software support will continue. So let's just wait and find out.
-
It's just that your "rhetorical question" actually had an answer which belied your intent in asking it that way.
Actually it didn't. I expressly pointed out that it was rhetorical because I know that you can't help yourself. And, of course, you couldn't. When you first bought your Wii you played Wii sports like crazy and had a ball. Then you found yourself playing less and less and being more and more disappointed and pretty soon your Wii was gathering dust like just about all the others. You just have to argue with everything I say even when you don't disagree. Which is, of course, why I included the asterisk, for all the good it did. C'est la vie.
-
How about you guys let this arguement be settled the old fashioned way; Let the market decide if it lives or dies.
Cos we like arguing. :cheers:
If it's good, then sales and software support will continue.
I think this is probably not true. Not all good things succeed . . . ahem . . . Dreamcast . . .
-
Actually it didn't. I expressly pointed out that it was rhetorical because I know that you can't help yourself. And, of course, you couldn't. When you first bought your Wii you played Wii sports like crazy and had a ball. Then you found yourself playing less and less and being more and more disappointed and pretty soon your Wii was gathering dust like just about all the others. You just have to argue with everything I say even when you don't disagree. Which is, of course, why I included the asterisk, for all the good it did. C'est la vie.
You truly overestimate your telepathic abilities. None of what you just stated is even close. I played Wii Sports about twice, and I don't think I could say that I ever "had a ball" with it. It seemed I was always looking for a title to justify the space being taken up by the machine, and spent a fair amount of money looking for it. As I have already stated, AMF PinBusters Bowling (http://wii.ign.com/dor/objects/952395/amf-bowling-pinbusters/images/amf-bowling-pinbusters-20080326024550866.html) was the title that finally did that for me. And I still play it on occasion, so the machine has value to me. More so, now that Netflix has a home on it, but that might not even last if I get a Netflix capable BD player for the living room which will let me get HD (lacking on the Wii).
I only argue with you because you have a hard time dealing with the idea that your version of things isn't everyone's, as you have just painfully demonstrated. But I guess I'm still arguing because I agree ::)
-
It's a difference without a difference. I said:
If it's not fun, you won't do it. For example, when was the last time you turned on your Wii*?
That's all. And, as you've just said yourself, that jives perfectly with your own experience. There was no need for you to argue. But I knew you would, hence the asterisk.
-
It's a difference without a difference. I said:
If it's not fun, you won't do it. For example, when was the last time you turned on your Wii*?
That's all. And, as you've just said yourself, that jives perfectly with your own experience. There was no need for you to argue. But I knew you would, hence the asterisk.
You crack me up :). I'm not arguing with your premise, flawed as it is in the context you are presenting it, rather the example you provided. I "turned on" the Wii to play a game the last time I wanted to play the game that, so far, hasn't been done better on any other system.
So here's what you seem to keep missing; even if there's only one fun experience that can only be done with the Kinect (and there already is), then it's enough justification for a lot of people to not only pick one up, but hang onto it. In reality there are already a few that I really enjoyed playing, and look forward to revisiting. Surely, more will follow.
So yes, if it's not fun, people won't use it. But it is fun, and there are gaming experiences that (currently) only it can provide. That, and 2.5 million users in 2 weeks, means a lot more than naysaying from folks who haven't really spent any time with one. But even I still think it needs one button. ;D
-
one button...so I was wondering the other day - can kinect be used in conjuction with additional (tactile) controls, and are any games announced/available which are examples?
-
I think this is probably not true. Not all good things succeed . . . ahem . . . Dreamcast . . .
This is the most acurate thing said during this entire thread.
-
Seems to me like you either like it or you dont. If you dont, then it probly wasnt meant for you anyway.
Heres my story i thought i would share:
My family got a PS Move. We play some golf game on it. I was intrigued by the technology and wondered how it worked. From what i could tell the back swing started the POWER meter, and the foward swing ended the power meter. All other controlls were done by button presses. Wanted to change clubs? press buttons. Wanted to change directions? Press buttons. The only point of moving the Motion controller was to start and stop a power meter, something that could have easily been done with buttons as well. You could tape the trigger buttong down, and litterly play the game by just swinging the controller back and forth. The motion controller was pointless
I tried to show this to my family, but they were too busy having fun! They were bending their knees and wiggling their butts trying to get into a real golfing stance, looking at each other and laughing it up...They were doing this despite knowing full well that it had NO impact on the gameplay whatsoever.
In the end i let them have their fun. Its just not for me lol
-
I "turned on" the Wii to play a game the last time I wanted to play the game that, so far, hasn't been done better on any other system.
Randy, I pulled this from Wikipedia for you:
A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question posed for its persuasive effect without the expectation of a reply
I never cared when was the actual last time that you turned on your Wii. Do you seriously not understand this or are you playing dumb? I'm pretty sure you're pretending, but you are just so insistent that one has to wonder. For crying out loud, I told you beforehand that it was a rhetorical question. Surely even you understand this.
-
That, and 2.5 million users in 2 weeks
The Dreamcast had the most successful launch of any system in history. A (relative) handful of people standing in line to spend $150 on an item that they have never used do not make for a successful system. Given enough marketing those people will buy anything, lol. Let's see how the January and February sales numbers look. By summer, Kinect sales will have dried up almost completely.
-
A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question posed for its persuasive effect without the expectation of a reply
I never cared when was the actual last time that you turned on your Wii. Do you seriously not understand this or are you playing dumb? I'm pretty sure you're pretending, but you are just so insistent that one has to wonder. For crying out loud, I told you beforehand that it was a rhetorical question. Surely even you understand this.
Just because you said it was rhetorical, doesn't mean I cannot respond to it as something other. In doing so, I have questioned it's persuasiveness, regardless of your expectation of a reply.
I.e. you provided a bad example, because there are fun games on the Wii, if one looks hard enough, and I provided an example. But getting burned by "shovelware" more than a few times prevents a lot of folks from finding them, and that, more than anything else, can make an otherwise decent system go unused. I simply disagree with the "rhetorical question" you offered as support for the validity your statement.
The Dreamcast had the most successful launch of any system in history. A (relative) handful of people standing in line to spend $150 on an item that they have never used do not make for a successful system. Given enough marketing those people will buy anything, lol. Let's see how the January and February sales numbers look. By summer, Kinect sales will have dried up almost completely.
I made the same prediction about the Wii......I still feel that my conclusion to the Wii scenario is accurate (lots of people taken in by the marketing, but few who actually favor the system over the other options, due to the hardware limitations of the console), but I was way off in my estimation of how many people would "jump on the bus". These things tend to have a snowball effect. The more numbers, the more developers start to join in. The more developers, the higher the likelihood of "killer apps" (or at least an increased perception of broad support). The more "killer apps", the more Kinect sales. Rinse, repeat.
And in this case, the Kinect is a peripheral, not a console system dedicated to the control scheme which forces the consumer to live with it's shortcomings in order to experience it. So there is a lower "purchase justification bar". Do you really think that people balked at buying those plastic guitars because they worried about whether any other publishers would be making games which used it?*
*That was a rhetorical question, but you can treat it any way you wish....that's just how I roll ;D
-
Just because you said it was rhetorical, doesn't mean I cannot respond to it as something other.
But if you respond by simply answering the question it just makes you prat. The only way you questioned my questions persuasiveness is if it was trying to persuade people that you personally have not recently turned on your Wii. Obviously the point was that people in general (but including you) do not play their Wiis much. You knew that was my point. You don't disagree with it. You are just being a prat.
And if the Wii was so much fun you'd play it more. Period. I know there are good games on the Wii. And yet . . . here we are, rarely playing our Wiis. It's not rocket science. You don't play the Wii because it tends to suck. That's not to say nothing is good on it. It's just not good enough to keep bringing you back.
-
You are just being a prat.
And you are being pedantic.
And if the Wii was so much fun you'd play it more. Period. I know there are good games on the Wii. And yet . . . here we are, rarely playing our Wiis. It's not rocket science. You don't play the Wii because it tends to suck. That's not to say nothing is good on it. It's just not good enough to keep bringing you back.
The Wii doesn't suck. I know it can do good things and I do still go back to it. If the rich folks can have a bowling alley in their home, I can afford the space for a console which gets me as close as possible with the medium, even if I don't use it for much else. I stopped buying new titles because most of them don't have the value I expect. It just costs too much money to sift through the hastily thrown together titles which don't truly take advantage of it's unique capabilities, for which I overlooked the sub-par system specs. I think that the real reason people don't play their Wii's boils down to high priced, low return software. If the titles were $10, one could be more forgiving and be happy with a $10 experience. The problem is that with most of the software, you get a $10 experience from a $30 price tag. There's much more "bang for buck" in a $20 PS3 or 360 title from the "pre-owned" rack, so that's where the focus goes. Fun, yes. Value, no.
-
And you are being pedantic.
Oh . . . I don't know. I don't think rhetorical questions are above the comprehension of the common man. I think you're just being a prat.
BTW, more bang for buck = less suck . . . true story
-
BTW, more bang for buck = less suck . . . true story
Jeez, make up your mind. Not fun or no value? If you said the latter in the first place, we wouldn't be here now.
-
Fun seems like a fairly important part of the value calculation . . .
-
Why dont you just rent games instead of buying them? Most games you can beat when you rent them anyway. In that regard you get the most bang for your buck, and if the game sucks, you dont feel robbed of anything.
And man Shmokes, you can tell youre a lawyer. Jesus. :lol
-
Fun seems like a fairly important part of the value calculation . . .
Those $50 a seat rides at the amusement park are fun for about 5 minutes too. If you chance to observe the length of the lines for those, I think you would conclude that the "fun level" of something tends to be a secondary concern in the value calculation.
-
What in god's name are you talking about?
-
What in god's name are you talking about?
*sigh* really?
Consider this scenario then...
Mom: How come you aren't playing that game I bought you a couple of days ago?
Billy: I played it already.
Mom: But it cost $40. I thought you said it would be fun.
Billy: It was.
Mom: So you don't want to play it any more?
Billy: Not really.
How much value will Mom find in that "fun" game?
-
Mom: Why aren't you playing that game I bought you a couple days ago?
Billy: Because it was lame.
Mom: But it was expensive.
Billy: . . .
How much value will mom find in that "not fun" game?
Shmokes: Who cares? What's your point? That the Kinect is a great value proposition even if it's not fun? That it's super fun even if it's not a great value proposition? Or substitute Kinect for Wii in those sentences? Or PS3/360? I honestly have no ---smurfing--- idea what you're talking about. And if you're saying any of those . . . well . . still . . . what in god's name are you talking about?
-
I honestly have no ---smurfing--- idea what you're talking about. And if you're saying any of those . . . well . . still . . . what in god's name are you talking about?
Fun seems like a fairly important part of the value calculation . . .
The cost is the primary consideration in determining value. It's the thing all other things are weighed against. This lack of value in much of the software, not the hardware, is the thing that is, IMHO, killing the Wii. If MS allows the same thing to happen with the Kinect, by allowing developers to release games which don't use the technology well, or which provide a gimmicky and substanceless gaming experience that might be fun at the onset, but without real replay value, then the Kinect will follow the path you have predicted for it. MS appears to be savvy enough, and concerned enough about the reputation of the product, to prevent this from happening. But only time will tell.
-
If MS allows the same thing to happen with the Kinect, by allowing developers to release games which don't use the technology well, or which provide a gimmicky and substanceless gaming experience that might be fun at the onset, but without real replay value, then the Kinect will follow the path you have predicted for it. MS appears to be savvy enough, and concerned enough about the reputation of the product, to prevent this from happening. But only time will tell.
Well, I haven't played it so take this with a grain of salt, but the launch lineup doesn't exactly inspire confidence. I have the impression that Dance Central and maybe Kinectibles are the only games offering much more depth than, say, Wii Sports. And even with those, it's not like we're talking Mass Effect or Mario Galaxy levels of depth. So not only does Microsoft seem plenty content to release shallow, quick-fix experiences, but it seems that developers are struggling with the same box that I seem to be unable to see beyond. How to make great games with only gestures and no need to move characters from point A to point B.
-
Well, I haven't played it so take this with a grain of salt, but the launch lineup doesn't exactly inspire confidence. I have the impression that Dance Central and maybe Kinectibles are the only games offering much more depth than, say, Wii Sports. And even with those, it's not like we're talking Mass Effect or Mario Galaxy levels of depth. So not only does Microsoft seem plenty content to release shallow, quick-fix experiences, but it seems that developers are struggling with the same box that I seem to be unable to see beyond. How to make great games with only gestures and no need to move characters from point A to point B.
I have the same concern at the moment, but probably not to the same extent.
Xbox 360 Kinect - Your Shape Fitness Evolved (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-iZjILgm8E#ws)
Compare this title to Wii Fit, and there's no comparison. No $70 add-on required either. There's just a lot more to work with for this type of game / application. And that may be the key to a richer experience. The Wii, and even the Move, can really only sense what is happening at the controller. The Kinect is able to map your entire body into the game. This gives designers a lot more input to deal with, which can lead to richer experiences in motion control type games. Whether it will, remains to be seen.
I'm willing to be more forgiving with release titles. Not all of them are great and much of the reason for that is probably due to tight time constraints. But the depth and focus upon user experience of a good portion of the release titles is pretty impressive, and I think it has a lot to do with MS's influence upon developers. It's reasonable to expect that things will improve more as developers get better with the hardware, and can move at their own pace.
-
I actually agree with pretty much all of that. Except that I don't expect developers to do much until the next gen Xbox.
-
can you guys stop now?
-
We could. Although I'm not sure we should. What we are writing appears to be so compelling that you are unable to resist coming in this thread to read it.
-
I actually agree with pretty much all of that. Except that I don't expect developers to do much until the next gen Xbox.
I agree with shmokes not many developers are going to take the Kinect seriously. For one it's a major risk on their part, and the reason for that is the software is bound by the hardware and it would be impossible to port titles over to the other platforms. This is were the Move has the advantage because all those WII games like No more Heroes, and Dead Space Extraction can be ported over with no real cost to the developer.Also the kinect has no viable control control scheme, Sony already went down that path with the original Eyetoy. So basically as I see it now microsoft is after as much money as they can get once the holiday ends expect a few more titles then lots of clones and shovelware.
-
I hate moving!
-
i have one, its fun.
and very interested to see what is gonna come out.
-
Sony already went down that path with the original Eyetoy.
No, they didn't.
-
Sony already went down that path with the original Eyetoy.
No, they didn't.
The original PS2 Eyetoy was a controller less interface that failed miserably. On the PS3 the new eyetoy has a ton of added features and the most important part with Move a way to precisely interact with any object on screen. With the Kinect it does not have that level of precision. hence, it is basically a glorified original PS2 Eyetoy, and don't expect anything on the same level control wise as Killzone 3.
-
Sony already went down that path with the original Eyetoy.
No, they didn't.
The original PS2 Eyetoy was a controller less interface that failed miserably. On the PS3 the new eyetoy has a ton of added features and the most important part with Move a way to precisely interact with any object on screen. With the Kinect it does not have that level of precision. hence, it is basically a glorified original PS2 Eyetoy, and don't expect anything on the same level control wise as Killzone 3.
The Eyetoy was a camera, and nothing more.
To say that Sony already tried what MS is trying is like saying that someone wrote a greeting card, so they already tried writing a book.
Kinect isn't just a camera, and it is controller free gaming.
Anyone that thinks that the two are even kind of the same hasn't played Kinect.
-
I've actually played Kinect. I'm not impressed, while it's a nice motion tracking camera again it is not precise. Simply falling into the same category as the PS2 Eyetoy a nice motion tracking camera that was imprecise. Basically you need a device to interact with the camera (Move) to give you a needed level of precision and a way to interact (buttons).
-
I've actually played Kinect. I'm not impressed, while it's a nice motion tracking camera again it is not precise. Simply falling into the same category as the PS2 Eyetoy a nice motion tracking camera that was imprecise. Basically you need a device to interact with the camera (Move) to give you a needed level of precision and a way to interact (buttons).
You need a device to interact with the camera why?
For any hardcore games the standard gamepad is better than any of the motion controls. Playing a FPS with a wiimote or move is just as worthless as Kinect in comparison to a dual analog controller or mouse/kb.
The problem that everyone seems to have is that they think of them all as just motion controls.
When you think of gamepads as controls, do you only think of d-pad and buttons like a SNES controller, or do you think of dual analog sticks, a d-pad, some triggers, and a bunch of buttons like the 360 or Dual Shock controllers?
Not all gamepads are the same, and one that is good for one type of game will not be good for another. The exact same can be said about Move and Kinect. There will be similar games on both, but where they will shine is in games that cater to their different strengths.
-
I've actually played Kinect. I'm not impressed, while it's a nice motion tracking camera again it is not precise. Simply falling into the same category as the PS2 Eyetoy a nice motion tracking camera that was imprecise. Basically you need a device to interact with the camera (Move) to give you a needed level of precision and a way to interact (buttons).
The Eye Toy is a webcam. Logitech used to pack in silly little "bounce-off-your-outline-as-long-as-you-were-well-lit-and-aptly-contrasted-to-your-mostly-plain-background" games with their PC webcams many years ago. Whoever thought that was worth marketing as a full fledged gaming control should have been drawn and quartered.
The difference between interaction with a 2D outline and a real-time 3D construction of whatever portion of your body the game needs, not to mention the eventual ability to include in the game what you happen to have in your hand (a capability that was always intended for the Kinect, but not being used by release titles), is tantamount to the difference between playing Green Beret and Call of Duty 4.
And I don't know what game you played (you didn't say), but the release titles don't all take great advantage of the controller. This is a learning curve thing for the developers to overcome. When one does play a title that utilizes it well, it's capabilities become obvious to anyone but the most ardent of fanboys.
-
The release titles don't all take great advantage of the controller. This is a learning curve thing for the developers to overcome. When one does play a title that utilizes it well, it's capabilities become obvious to anyone but the most ardent of fanboys.
Unfortunately, What was illustrated in the release titles is probably evident of what we will continue to see in future titles. The Kinect is extremely laggy and imprecise. Basically the Kinect can discern large mass and shape but any complex shape (your own Hand) or extremely large mass (couch) around confuses the device hence the need for alot of space. As seen in this video the individual fingers are lost in the movement and become one large mass. Also the camera is having trouble following any fast motion without a delay as you apparently see with the IK skeleton.
What Kinect Sees (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk_cQVjqFZ4#ws)
I Almost forgot the game I experienced was Kinect Sports
-
Unfortunately, What was illustrated in the release titles is probably evident of what we will continue to see in future titles. The Kinect is extremely laggy and imprecise. Basically the Kinect can discern large mass and shape but any complex shape (your own Hand) or extremely large mass (couch) around confuses the device hence the need for alot of space. As seen in this video the individual fingers are lost in the movement and become one large mass. Also the camera is having trouble following any fast motion without a delay as you apparently see with the IK skeleton.
I play with my sofa directly behind me. It doesn't even come into the situation, because it's mapped in 3D, the device knows where in space it is (behind me) and it's stationary. The IK skeleton is also mapped in 3D space. What you see in the image is just a fraction of the information available to the system. And if you are thinking finger position is important, you aren't thinking about the device correctly. That kind of capability is probably a decade away...at least.
Also, don't get hung up on the real-time "what the camera sees" videos. The tiny amount of lag is not the problem you think it is. With this amount of data, the programs can use predictive algorithms to compensate for it. I.e. if your arm is in a trajectory that would put your hand in a specific position 20 ms later if that trajectory were continued, and that position is the correct one, it would be exactly the same result as a "lag-less" system. You don't have the ability to significantly alter trajectory of your heavy, slow body parts in such a small amount of time.
I Almost forgot the game I experienced was Kinect Sports
There are about 30 different gaming experiences in that title. Which one(s)?
-
I play with heaps of crap behind me in my room . no problems. although I did smash my lightbulb with my hand playing volleyball lol
-
Randy, why do you have such a boner for this thing?
I don't. But there's a special place in hell for fanboys who malign really cool technology, which they obviously don't understand, that will most likely be an important stepping stone in the evolution of how we interact with computers in the future.
It takes hundreds (if not thousands) of extremely talented people and untold resources to put something like this into the hands of average people. It takes much less effort to make sure that it never happens again.
-
And if you are thinking finger position is important, you aren't thinking about the device correctly. That kind of capability is probably a decade away...at least.
This sort of sounds to me like saying, "If you are thinking accurate, reliable motion tracking is important, you aren't thinking about the Wii remote correctly." But, again, it seems like the real question is, "Is it fun?" And when it comes to motion games on the Wii the answer is almost invariably, "No." Almost every fun Wii game that utilizes an innovative control scheme uses the pointer, rather than the motion control, because the motion sensors are too crude to provide an experience that isn't totally frustrating and obnoxious.
The Xbox Kinect needs to be exactly sensitive enough to provide the experience that it should provide. And, importantly, you've said that it's designed to implement in-game what the user has in his hand, but what good is this if the camera cannot tell when you manipulate the thing? Doesn't it need to know when you pull the trigger or whatever? Or do you mean that in order to play these types of games you will need to buy specialized game-pads with electronics and wireless transmitters inside them?
-
Oh yeah . . . and the lag evident in the video of that fighting game you posted earlier appeared to be serious. Maybe that's just a bad developer, though.
-
And if you are thinking finger position is important, you aren't thinking about the device correctly. That kind of capability is probably a decade away...at least.
This sort of sounds to me like saying, "If you are thinking accurate, reliable motion tracking is important, you aren't thinking about the Wii remote correctly."
It does. And you'd be correct. It's all about managing expectations. If MS said it could track finger movements, then it had darned well better. But they didn't.
The Xbox Kinect needs to be exactly sensitive enough to provide the experience that it should provide. And, importantly, you've said that it's designed to implement in-game what the user has in his hand, but what good is this if the camera cannot tell when you manipulate the thing? Doesn't it need to know when you pull the trigger or whatever? Or do you mean that in order to play these types of games you will need to buy specialized game-pads with electronics and wireless transmitters inside them?
That is absolutely true. What it should provide is a fun, innovative gaming experience. I have seen that it can and does do exactly that.
You know those plastic golf clubs, tennis rackets, steering wheels, swords, bowling balls, etc... everyone likes to stuff Wii controllers into? Those are the kinds of things we are talking about, not an M-16 with a functional forward assist, bolt latch and safety switch that you expect the visual system to recognize you operating. This is akin to saying that we shouldn't even be gaming because we are (*gasp*) trying to simulate real world activities with joysticks and buttons. Ludicrous, isn't it?
But even though it does those other things well, I would also like to see it augmented with some electronics. There's plenty of time for that.
Oh yeah . . . and the lag evident in the video of that fighting game you posted earlier appeared to be serious. Maybe that's just a bad developer, though.
Probably more rushed or inexperienced than "bad". Pretty much the case with all of the developers for this technology, with the possible exception of MS, who has been exposed to it for much longer. Probably explains why the first party titles are better.
-
That is absolutely true. What it should provide is a fun, innovative gaming experience. I have seen that it can and does do exactly that.
I'm not talking about something so abstract. I'm sure it does provide a fun, innovative gaming experience. Wii Golf and Wii Bowling both provided fun, innovative gaming experiences. But the Wii (and those games) still didn't do many things that it should do. When players tried to make a short put in Wii Golf they expected their movement to be registered and not have to try over and over again until suddenly it over-registered and sent what should have been a 1-foot put 18 feet across the green.
I'm not just talking about managing expectations. Nintendo couldn't have resolved the issue simply by running a public awareness campaign to let people know beforehand that the putting game would suck. Because what the game should do is not 100% tied to expectations. The putting game objectively sucked, and expecting something to suck can only go so far into making a sucky product enjoyable.
There's only so much managing of expectations MS can do, anyway. If people try and do something with Kinect and end up saying, "Oh . . . that's dumb. They should have made it so it could do _______," that's what it should do for that person. And if enough people are saying the same thing, that's what it should do, full stop.
Sometimes it's not about managing expectations, it's about anticipating and meeting them.
-
I'm not talking about something so abstract. I'm sure it does provide a fun, innovative gaming experience. Wii Golf and Wii Bowling both provided fun, innovative gaming experiences. But the Wii (and those games) still didn't do many things that it should do. When players tried to make a short put in Wii Golf they expected their movement to be registered and not have to try over and over again until suddenly it over-registered and sent what should have been a 1-foot put 18 feet across the green.
I think that's my biggest point regarding this technology. You aren't dealing with accelerometers which have minimum g-force requirements to even register that something has happened. The only question is whether the depth information being made available by the Kinect is adequate to register the granularity you expect. From what I have seen from the tech demos, it is.
I'm not just talking about managing expectations. Nintendo couldn't have resolved the issue simply by running a public awareness campaign to let people know beforehand that the putting game would suck. Because what the game should do is not 100% tied to expectations. The putting game objectively sucked, and expecting something to suck can only go so far into making a sucky product enjoyable.
IMHO, the over exuberant Wii marketing is what led to your expectations of being able to putt with some sort of predictability. Now that just about everyone owns one, it's clear to most that it's capabilities were a bit overstated. From a marketing standpoint, it's "mission accomplished". But it may work against them the next time they try it.
Sometimes it's not about managing expectations, it's about anticipating and meeting them.
True that. BTW, how's that 75mpg flying car working out for you? ;)
-
True that. BTW, how's that 75mpg flying car working out for you? ;)
It's like the Kinect.
Looks like it could be cool, but in reality it's very disappointing.
-
It's like the Kinect.
Looks like it could be cool, but in reality it's very disappointing.
So, not terribly unlike your attempts at pithiness?
-
The technology is very cool, but I've yet to see any games on it that I have even the slightest bit of interest in. Frankly I think the games will mostly suck this generation, but the next generation of the technology should be capable of truly great things.
One of the biggest limitations on the current hardware is how the kinect uses close to 1/3 of the processing power of the 360. This means we're unlikely to see any games too complicated to become available for it (they'll have to make sacrifices on things like AI, physics, number of characters on-screen, etc.).
-
One of the biggest limitations on the current hardware is how the kinect uses close to 1/3 of the processing power of the 360. This means we're unlikely to see any games too complicated to become available for it (they'll have to make sacrifices on things like AI, physics, number of characters on-screen, etc.).
Got any references for this statement? I'm not doubting that it will take a fair amount of horsepower to get meaningful control data for a specific game, but that number is much higher than anything else I have seen cited (http://www.maxconsole.net/content.php?42467-Microsoft-No-Need-For-Kinect-Processor).
-
One of the biggest limitations on the current hardware is how the kinect uses close to 1/3 of the processing power of the 360. This means we're unlikely to see any games too complicated to become available for it (they'll have to make sacrifices on things like AI, physics, number of characters on-screen, etc.).
Got any references for this statement? I'm not doubting that it will take a fair amount of horsepower to get meaningful control data for a specific game, but that number is much higher than anything else I have seen cited (http://www.maxconsole.net/content.php?42467-Microsoft-No-Need-For-Kinect-Processor).
The engine lead at my last job (I was a videogame programmer) as he was working on the 360 engine to support the Kinect. Granted this was around 6 months ago, so it's possible they've further optimized their software, but I doubt by much.
-
The engine lead at my last job (I was a videogame programmer) as he was working on the 360 engine to support the Kinect. Granted this was around 6 months ago, so it's possible they've further optimized their software, but I doubt by much.
Why do you doubt that? When the libraries are first developed, they are very "dirty" and designed only to get the job done and be in the hands of developers at the earliest opportunity possible. If you are saying that the 1% figure is a lie, then it's going to be a hard one to contain.
Or are you referring to this particular developer's control engine?
-
One of the biggest limitations on the current hardware is how the kinect uses close to 1/3 of the processing power of the 360. This means we're unlikely to see any games too complicated to become available for it (they'll have to make sacrifices on things like AI, physics, number of characters on-screen, etc.).
Got any references for this statement? I'm not doubting that it will take a fair amount of horsepower to get meaningful control data for a specific game, but that number is much higher than anything else I have seen cited (http://www.maxconsole.net/content.php?42467-Microsoft-No-Need-For-Kinect-Processor).
The engine lead at my last job (I was a videogame programmer) as he was working on the 360 engine to support the Kinect. Granted this was around 6 months ago, so it's possible they've further optimized their software, but I doubt by much.
No.
"Tsunoda also said that in the end, Kinect only uses "less than one percent" of the 360's processing power." (http://www.1up.com/news/microsoft-no-need-kinect-processor)
-
Yeah a lot of inaccurate statements flying around here, from people who I suspect haven't hardly touched it, if at all
-
The engine lead at my last job (I was a videogame programmer) as he was working on the 360 engine to support the Kinect. Granted this was around 6 months ago, so it's possible they've further optimized their software, but I doubt by much.
Why do you doubt that? When the libraries are first developed, they are very "dirty" and designed only to get the job done and be in the hands of developers at the earliest opportunity possible. If you are saying that the 1% figure is a lie, then it's going to be a hard one to contain.
Or are you referring to this particular developer's control engine?
At that late of stage in the development cycle, libraries generally don't get optimized that much. If they did, it would screw over any developer currently working on the game since they would of made crazy cuts to account for the lack of horsepower.
Anyways, that 1% could easily be a lie (why would the guy who created the system only say good things about it?), or maybe the dev system they sent our company is crap, all I know is that when one of the best programmers I've ever known tells me something, I tend to believe it. Obviously I don't expect you (or anyone else here) to believe me since it's just something I've been told by someone smarter then myself working with the unit, and not something I can point to online blogs or microsoft execs to back me up.
-
Obviously I don't expect you (or anyone else here) to believe me since it's just something I've been told by someone smarter then myself working with the unit, and not something I can point to online blogs or microsoft execs to back me up.
He may be right. If he is, there will be plenty of those things to back up the comment in short order. Lots of folks are using it, though, on machines other than the 360. If it was a resource hog, it seems like someone, somewhere, would be talking about it by now.
As for the development cycle, that doesn't seem to be the case. Based on some recent digging, MS was working out pretty significant stuff, pretty late in the cycle. One in particular was the base node being re-located from the tailbone, to the base of the neck to better accommodate sitting players, who would have their "base node" buried in a sofa. This was apparently an 11th hour change.
Also, I read that MS dropped a lot of the node information from the original system, as it was considered extraneous to the mission at hand. This supposedly freaked out a number of developers who, again supposedly, thought it was a good decision once it was demonstrated to them that the extra nodes did not add anything meaningful for gaming. It may be that the extra processing power requirement was a result of using the earlier "more nodes than necessary" system. But this does add a level of support for the idea shmokes and others are promoting, that a more capable system is possible and will likely be used with the next generation system that is unlikely to feel the burden.
-
Come to think of it, companies often do make huge changes to their libraries late in the game that I suppose that is possible it had some big optimizations. I remember I had to completely rewrite how we interfaced with the motion plus library shortly before it came out, which sucked. I think that no matter what, the 1% remark is a hugely inaccurate, but it could be much better then 30%. It would also help explain that lack of anything technically impressive in the initial game lineup (impressive in the game, not in the controls).
-
But this does add a level of support for the idea shmokes and others are promoting, that a more capable system is possible and will likely be used with the next generation system that is unlikely to feel the burden.
BTW, while I do see various technical issues keeping this thing from greatness, I think that if this system, exactly as it is, were released as a default part of a next-gen system, we'd see a lot of great stuff for it and it would probably be an enormous commercial success. It couldn't be a replacement for the gamepad, for reasons stated over and over again already. But it would be a fantastic supplement and also enable new types of games (e.g., Dance Central).
My argument about technical shortcomings is by far secondary to simple economic realities for publishers and developers. Kinect is WAY too late in the game. But when Wii 2 comes out, it will be competing against Kinect 2, not Kinect. That's important--not just in terms of the way it is perceived by consumers, but in terms of how good it actually is (see: Xbox Live vs. PSN)
-
But when Wii 2 comes out...
I'm glad you brought this up. Much has been made about a statement made by Yoshio Sakamoto;
At Nintendo we always have the obligation to surprise users with a new console. We have never done what others have done. We prefer to create something new that catches attention, and I think this will continue at this time. Surely the new Nintendo machine will leave you all with your mouths open.”
This probably deserves a new thread, but all the speculation surrounding this statement is probably a pointless exercise. It very much sounds like he was spouting general hyperbole, rather than referring to something specific. But if he wasn't, what do you think he could possibly be referring to, that would have such an effect?
-
if you think about it it's kind of funny.
The Wii is like last generation consoles, but it's inputs were like next generation consoles, so it kicked Sony and Microsoft's butt.
I think PS3 and Xbox are both offering to little too late. They both feel like Guitar Hero competing with Rockband. I did buy Guitar Hero's band package only to be disappointed because it was only slightly better than RB and then RB2 was a leap ahead of both.
I really wanted the PS3 Move to be good, but I've grown tired of the Wii and I really don't think the PS3 Move(or Kinect for that matter) is going to be anything more than a novelty. They are both different enough to be a burden for game developers to develop for the motion technology on both platforms so they’ll just stick to developing for the basic setup of the systems.
I'll wait for at least three "must have" motion games I can't play on the Wii before buying the Move and so far there isn't even one. That dance game gives Kinects a one game advantage, but XBox would need two more games before I'd think it was worth it.
-
At Nintendo we always have the obligation to surprise users with a new console. We have never done what others have done. We prefer to create something new that catches attention, and I think this will continue at this time. Surely the new Nintendo machine will leave you all with your mouths open.”
. . . what do you think he could possibly be referring to, that would have such an effect?
It sounds like something that he might say even if he had no idea what Nintendo R&D were working on. Basically, "Nintendo always does something awesome, thus the next thing they do will be awesome."
Beyond that, who knows? They're into touch screens and they admire/fear Apple. Maybe the next controllers will be touch screens. Or maybe they figured out how to make a holodeck. Maybe their next innovation will be the elimination of friend codes. ;D
-
Or a new R.O.B. with an intelligence.
Not only will the new generation console stop your kids from playing with others outside, your kid will stop playing with others online too.
-
I've got a Wii, a PS3 and a 360. I stopped using the wii; not because it's a limited system, not because I prefer standard analog based controller gameplay, rather just because I got bored with it. I've now purchased a Move and again, it's a nice tech but it took even less time to be bored with it. Finally, I bought the Kinect and to my surprise, we're still having fun with it at home.
This doesn't mean the kinect is better than the Move or the Wii; but the difference in the full body tracking certainly has given it a fresh feeling. Although the Wii felt fresh for a cup of coffee, anyone who's played it understands not long after that if you're sitting on the sofa and flicking your wiimote, you'll be just as good at table tennis as if you're standing up doing full arm swings and lunges for balls. THat's not a knock against the wii, its' just inherent lazyness prevailing :). At this moment, the Move kind of feels the same way. My favourite game is probably that PSN mini-putt game. It's pretty well done but can be done sitting down. Note that its my favourite game probably for that very reason :) :).
So what is it about Kinect that seems to be working for me, and especially for my daughter? I don't know, probably because for the first time, the promise of motion gaming maybe is hitting home. IMHO, Sony's and Nintendo's solution is more akin to "motion detection", then "motion tracking" and there is a clear difference. I'll also right out and say it; for the typical existing gameplay type we all love dearly, the Move has the biggest potential for hitting a homerun as I do think Metroid Prime 3 has shown that FPS games could potentially be better with the Move controller, than a standard controller. Time, and I suspect Killzone 3, will tell.
However, as much as someone could state "but Kinect can't translate well to hardcore gaming", I can also postulate that potentially, kinect could be opening up to different types of gaming not before conceived. I don't know, wishful thinking? Or rather an understanding that it really does something different.
Whatever the case, as long as nobody videotapes me doing "the torch" while dancing to "poker face", I'm cool for the ride. I just know that at the end of the day, I appreciate the chance MS took with this tech. At least its different, up to the devs to see if it has legs.
-
My argument about technical shortcomings is by far secondary to simple economic realities for publishers and developers. Kinect is WAY too late in the game. But when Wii 2 comes out, it will be competing against Kinect 2, not Kinect. That's important--not just in terms of the way it is perceived by consumers, but in terms of how good it actually is (see: Xbox Live vs. PSN)
Time to take another look at this discussion.
As several owners of the units here have expected, it looks like the Kinect has surpassed MS's expectations and has sold 8 million units in just 2 months (http://www.next-gen.biz/news/microsoft-hails-kinect-sales-figures), and it's still driving 360 sales. That's what you call an untapped growth market that you can be sure all the developers are eyeing, given the continuing decline of every other segment of the videogame market.
If that's not enough to drive innovation in the way of new software, then I'm not sure what it would take. Looks like "Wii 2" will have it's hands full just answering this call, let alone anything beyond. ;)
-
It has sold faster than I expected. I still don't feel much differently about it. I still don't see any software that provides a very deep experience with the possible exception of Dance Central, if this doesn't change Kinect fatigue will occur more quickly than Wii fatigue did.
And developers are still faced with the same question: How do I justify creating a 360 game that is unplayable by the vast majority of 360 owners (51 million vs. 8 million)? How do I justify voluntarily cutting 43 million potential customers out of my market? It seems to me that there are two obvious answers to this question. 1) Get a game out quick and get some extra sales based on the lack of competition (because there are so few Kinect games) or 2) rush shovelware to market that is cheap to produce so can turn a profit with low sales.
Either of these will turn out crap games. But the alternative is to take the time and invest the enormous capital in a game that has a small fraction of the potential market available to it. It doesn't make much sense, especially since the 360 is in its twilight years.
Nintendo is/would be able to overcome some of this because they can develop whatever they want. There's no stronger game developer in the world than Nintendo's own in-house studios. Microsoft doesn't have this. Kinect will never have a large library of compelling games.
-
It has sold faster than I expected. I still don't feel much differently about it. I still don't see any software that provides a very deep experience with the possible exception of Dance Central, if this doesn't change Kinect fatigue will occur more quickly than Wii fatigue did.
At this point, it's primarily Dance Central, IMHO, that is driving those sales. When my daughters visited on Christmas Eve, that title took center stage for over two hours, at which point I had to force them to turn it off so we could give out presents. My youngest, whose husband owns a 360, bought a Kinect for it and DC about a week later.
And developers are still faced with the same question: How do I justify creating a 360 game that is unplayable by the vast majority of 360 owners (51 million vs. 8 million)?
This is like saying "There are only 8 million 360's in the world, so why should anyone waste any time making a game everyone wants if we can only make 200 million dollars." If developers really thought this way, there would be no games for any system. And the game that is mostly responsible for the 8,000,000 units sold was created when there were 0 units sold. It's not like the moment you make a game good enough to drive sales of hardware, it can only be used on the hardware that was sold before you released it.
Either of these will turn out crap games. But the alternative is to take the time and invest the enormous capital in a game that has a small fraction of the potential market available to it. It doesn't make much sense, especially since the 360 is in its twilight years.
360 consoles are still in a growth stage as sales are concerned. It's therefore hard to consider these "twilight years" for the machine. In fact, MS is claiming (if you wish to believe them)
that they are the only one of the 3 major players who can boast this growth, while the others are losing momentum.
Nintendo is/would be able to overcome some of this because they can develop whatever they want. There's no stronger game developer in the world than Nintendo's own in-house studioso. Microsoft doesn't have this. Kinect will never have a large library of compelling games.
This is, at minimum, very subjective commentary. I'm not sure you noticed, but the latest "big thing" from Nintendo was a drawing tablet for the Wii. And while I do enjoy some of Nintendo's games, I certainly would not put them at the top of the heap when discussing strength of a game developer. It's just measured in too many ways, based on too much subjective criterion, for anyone to make that claim with a straight face. For example:
Top sellers of 2010
1. Call of Duty: Black Ops (Activision Blizzard) - Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, PC, DS - more than 12 million
2. Madden NFL 11 (Electronic Arts) - Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, PS2, PSP
3. Halo: Reach (Microsoft) - Xbox 360
4. New Super Mario Bros. Wii (Nintendo) - Wii
5. Red Dead Redemption (Take-Two Interactive) - Xbox 360, PS3
6. Wii Fit Plus (Nintendo) - Wii
7. Just Dance 2 (Ubisoft) - Wii
8. Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (Activision Blizzard) - Xbox 360, PS3, PC
9. Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood (Ubisoft) - Xbox 360, PS3
10. NBA 2K11 (Take-Two Interactive) - Xbox 360, PS3, PS2, PSP, Wii, PC
...Nintendo makes this list only twice, at 4 and 6, with 6 being an unfair boost as the list is based on revenue and the Wii Fit Plus is a hardware software bundle that sells for much more than a normal game.
-
What are you trying to say, that someone else has as much talent at their Disposal as Nintendo? And that chart somehow supports this? Who cares? Is that someone Microsoft? The point is that if Developers don't support Kinect in a big way, MS can't pick up the slack the way Nintendo could. Have your fanboy wars till you're blue in the face, you can't change that.
And the numbers don't work out for you even ignoring the absurdity of a developer thinking that his as-yet undeveloped game can achieve %50 percent attach rate. Cos developers have limited resources. Not just money, but everything. They can only work on as many projects as they can staff (but money too). So that same dev who says, "%50 percent of hardware owners will buy my game if I make it so I'll make $200 million with Kinect," follows up with, "but I'll make $1.5 billion if I make the game for the wider 360 market." They can't make them both, and the wider market is going to win that argument the vast majority of the time for largely the same reason we see so many more sequels than original IP. Businessmen like to play it safe with their millions and millions of dollars.
-
What are you trying to say, that someone else has as much talent at their Disposal as Nintendo? And that chart somehow supports this? Who cares? Is that someone Microsoft? The point is that if Developers don't support Kinect in a big way, MS can't pick up the slack the way Nintendo could. Have your fanboy wars till you're blue in the face, you can't change that.
And the numbers don't work out for you even ignoring the absurdity of a developer thinking that his as-yet undeveloped game can achieve %50 percent attach rate. Cos developers have limited resources. Not just money, but everything. They can only work on as many projects as they can staff (but money too). So that same dev who says, "%50 percent of hardware owners will buy my game if I make it so I'll make $200 million with Kinect," follows up with, "but I'll make $1.5 billion if I make the game for the wider 360 market." They can't make them both, and the wider market is going to win that argument the vast majority of the time for largely the same reason we see so many more sequels than original IP. Businessmen like to play it safe with their millions and millions of dollars.
Yet Harmonix did just that with Dance central, and it is now not only achieving extremely high attach rates, but also seems to be selling hardware. So what is your point? That good games will sell well and bad games won't? In a new, and growing, market such as this, users who have already invested in the add on will be hungry for another great experience. Where there are currently few choices, unlike the glut in the standard market, there is much greater potential for a good game to sell. Developers know this and the first ones to take advantage of the opportunity will be the ones who stand to profit the most.
As for talent, you don't need it when you can buy it, and MS can certainly do that. Not to mention, Microsoft was in the #3 slot in that list, so apparently they have some of their own as well. So that particular "advantage" you cited really isn't one.
Have your fanboy wars till you're blue in the face...
This seems to be more your M.O. than mine. You stated that you didn't see the numbers happening for the Kinect, yet they have surpassed the rosiest of predictions. You keep referring to the 360 in the past tense, yet the adoption numbers are on the rise, likely fueled by the Kinect, while the others are declining. You keep referring to Nintendo as the mother of all software developers, yet the sales figures don't back that notion up. And you still hang onto the notion that the hardware won't "make it" because...well because, in your eyes, Nintendo is the only one who can pull something like that off. :P
-
I already mentioned that MS specifically does not have that talent. They lost Bungie. And that list is retarded anyway. Your going to judge the overall strength of a software developer based on a list of software sales from a single year (a list that apparently omits DS sales)? Why not show a list of the highest rated games of 2010? I suspect Nintendo probably tops that list. Or if sales concern you, why not expand beyond 2010? How about a list showing the highest selling games of all time. Nintendo owns 22 of the top 25 slots on that list, including slots 1-16. And more than half of those titles are current gen (Wii or DS).
This is so stupid. Why are you even arguing this point? Microsoft needs third party support far more than Nintendo does. It's indisputable, but more to the point, why do you even want to dispute it? Even arguing that Microsoft's deep pockets negates any in-house talent disparity between the two companies is absurd. Nintendo's pockets are just as deep. It's not like the Xbox division has access to the entire value and cash reserves of Microsoft. Some of that money has to pay for, you know, the rest of the company.
-
Why not show a list of the highest rated games of 2010? I suspect Nintendo probably tops that list.
lol wut?
wii and ds games are terrible (except maybe 4 - 5 games) they are not high rating at all, sell heaps, but no ones rating them
-
I already mentioned that MS specifically does not have that talent. They lost Bungie. And that list is retarded anyway. Your going to judge the overall strength of a software developer based on a list of software sales from a single year (a list that apparently omits DS sales)? Why not show a list of the highest rated games of 2010? I suspect Nintendo probably tops that list. Or if sales concern you, why not expand beyond 2010? How about a list showing the highest selling games of all time. Nintendo owns 22 of the top 25 slots on that list, including slots 1-16.
Highest rated by whom? And feel free to post it, and the source ( it's free ;D). Also, we are talking about the present.
This is so stupid. Why are you even arguing this point? Microsoft needs third party support far more than Nintendo does. It's indisputable, but more to the point, why do you even want to dispute it? Even arguing that Microsoft's deep pockets negates any in-house talent disparity between the two companies is absurd. Nintendo's pockets are just as deep. It's not like the Xbox division has access to the entire value and cash reserves of Microsoft. Some of that money has to pay for, you know, the rest of the company.
Well, no it's not "absurd" and it is those very same deep pockets that muscled MS into the video game industry and later allowed it to not only survive through probably one of the worst hardware debacles in video game history, but continue to thrive in the face of it. What is "absurd" is your notion that they can't (or won't) fund software development, should the need arise. And I do agree that Nintendo has some great talent, but the scope of what they do is so limited to franchises that they expect to "sell themselves", because they often do (just like Halo and COD), that it's unlikely we will ever see them actually going "toe-to-toe" with other developers in the mainstream. Sega has had to do this, and things aren't going the best for them. Until Nintendo leaves the safety of their own environment, it's difficult to really make an apt comparison.
BTW, if you think the discussion is "stupid" then stop discussing it. Unless you only feel that way when I don't agree with you :cheers:
-
Super Mario Galaxy 2 has a Metacritic rating of 97, so by everyone. And I know we're talking about the present. That's why I pointed out that more than half of those 22 top-selling games are on current gen systems, or do you think that Nintendo's 2010 dev teams are not as good as their 2009 and 2008 teams. Maybe I should point out that in the last week neither Blizzard nor Valve have released top-selling games. While those teams have excelled in the past, they have clearly lost their touch . . . you know, speaking of the present, I mean.
-
And, by the way, there are limits to the amount of money even MS can throw at top-tier third parties to bend them to it's will. It cost them $50 million to get Rockstar to make (temporarily) exclusive DLC for GTA 4. Bioware, Valve and 2K Boston (their better-known name is escaping me for some reason, but think Bioshock) once developed exclusively for 360 and all have jumped ship (and don't forget Bungie). Obviously MS would love to keep them all on board. The obvious answer is that it's too expensive. Even for Microsoft.
-
Super Mario Galaxy 2 has a Metacritic rating of 97, so by everyone. And I know we're talking about the present. That's why I pointed out that more than half of those 22 top-selling games are on current gen systems, or do you think that Nintendo's 2010 dev teams are not as good as their 2009 and 2008 teams. Maybe I should point out that in the last week neither Blizzard nor Valve have released top-selling games. While those teams have excelled in the past, they have clearly lost their touch . . . you know, speaking of the present, I mean.
Well, those two companies are surely profitable, but I wouldn't put them at the top nowadays. Of course you may also want to keep in mind that developers like Valve license out their engines to other developers to make great games with, which may or may not have done as well without Valve's work.
Also, as I alluded to above, is it really surprising that lots of Wii owners really like Super Mario Galaxy 2? If my primary, or only, gaming system was a Wii, then there would be a very good possibility that I was a big fan of Nintendo franchises, or that mom and dad bought it for me for Christmas. Like I said, until they put their software out onto a level playing field (meaning cross platform) Nintendo is "shooting fish in a barrel". It's not overly difficult to shine brightly in a catalog for a specific system which is rife with shovelware. Outside of such an environment, it becomes considerably more difficult.
-
Metacritic scores are not surveys of regular game owners. It's an aggregation of critic scores. That 97 rating comes from IGN, 1Up, Joystiq, Gamespot, etc., etc. And if I'm not mistaken, it's the highest rating of any game in 2010. Even if it was just user scores, why would Wii owners be happier about their Wii games than 360 or PS3 owners would be about the games on their respective platforms. I can certainly say the opposite has been true for me. I much prefer playing my PS3 to my Wii. It seems to me that the Wii would go into critical reviews with an automatic handicap rather than an advantage. If so, that would make those top marks all the more a testament to the skill of Nintendo devs.
And while Nintendo releases A LOT of sequels, they are no more tied to franchises than any other major developer. They release new IP at least as frequently as the others, and they create or popularize new genres probably more frequently than anyone.
-
And, by the way, there are limits to the amount of money even MS can throw at top-tier third parties to bend them to it's will. It cost them $50 million to get Rockstar to make (temporarily) exclusive DLC for GTA 4. Bioware, Valve and 2K Boston (their better-known name is escaping me for some reason, but think Bioshock) once developed exclusively for 360 and all have jumped ship (and don't forget Bungie). Obviously MS would love to keep them all on board. The obvious answer is that it's too expensive. Even for Microsoft.
Of course, this assumes that one would need one of those companies in order to make a great game, which we all know isn't true. If an upstart had a great idea, and showed they could deliver on it, MS would pull them into the fold. They did it with Bungie, and understandably, Bungie would want to broaden their horizons once they matured as a company. That's simple business, and it's why contracts aren't "forever". But to think that there's no worthwhile talent out there, which isn't already part of a conglomerate, is a pretty narrow view.
As an example, one of the most addictive games I have played in a long time is Angry Birds, which was just recently released for the PC. It plays fantastically on my tablet PC and it cost me $5. It also came from an unknown developer, which, from what I understand, was scooped up by one of the big software houses (EA?). Anyway, proof that great games come from many sources, even those from outside the established super-corporations, and are much easier to "mold" than the examples you gave.
-
If Angry Birds was on Kinect I bet it would get a 98 Metacritic score.
-
Metacritic scores are not surveys of regular game owners. It's an aggregation of critic scores. That 97 rating comes from IGN, 1Up, Joystiq, Gamespot, etc., etc. And if I'm not mistaken, it's the highest rating of any game in 2010.
Meh. Critics will be critics. They have biases and specialty interests, just like any other consumer. If a Wii game comes in, they will hand it to the "Wii guy" to do the review. To do it any other way would probably end up unfair to the game, as a hard-core MMORPG / FPS fanatic would likely look at Super Mario Universe Eleventy with little more than passing interest.
Even if it was just user scores, why would Wii owners be happier about their Wii games than 360 or PS3 owners would be about the games on their respective platforms.
Because it's like eating gruel for breakfast for 3 months and one day getting a bowl of Cap'n Crunch. Chances are, you'd think that the Cap'n Crunch is the "food of the gods", when really, it's still just Cap'n Crunch.
And while Nintendo releases A LOT of sequels, they are no more tied to franchises than any other major developer. They release new IP at least as frequently as the others, and they create or popularize new genres probably more frequently than anyone.
Such as? And how successful are these diversions from their stable? Also, if Mario or Donkey Kong shows up in it, it's probably not much of a diversion.
-
Wii Sports, something of a success. Mario Kart and Mario Party. Pikmin. Advance Wars. Nintendogs. Animal Crossing. Smash Brothers. Super Mario 64 (not to mention practically every other Mario game). Wii Fit. That's off the top of my head. I'm sure Google can help me out with more if you like.
-
Meh. Critics will be critics. They have biases and specialty interests, just like any other consumer. If a Wii game comes in, they will hand it to the "Wii guy" to do the review.
But when a 360 game comes in and they hand it to the 360 guy his biases and specialty interests don't encourage similar score inflation? ::)
-
By the way, judging by his top 2010 picks, I'd say that at least the Joystiq reviewer is not the "Wii guy". Yet he thinks Mario Galaxy 2 was the best game of 2010.
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/01/02/best-of-the-rest-randys-picks-of-2010/ (http://www.joystiq.com/2011/01/02/best-of-the-rest-randys-picks-of-2010/)
Maybe there is actual professionalism in game journalism and, more importantly, maybe a lot of journalists are just in love with great games and have long grown out of giving a ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- about the platform on which they get to play them.
-
By the way, judging by his top 2010 picks, I'd say that at least the Joystiq reviewer is not the "Wii guy". Yet he thinks Mario Galaxy 2 was the best game of 2010.
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/01/02/best-of-the-rest-randys-picks-of-2010/ (http://www.joystiq.com/2011/01/02/best-of-the-rest-randys-picks-of-2010/)
Maybe there is actual professionalism in game journalism and, more importantly, maybe a lot of journalists are just in love with great games and have long grown out of giving a ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- about the platform on which they get to play them.
And of course, you didn't cherry-pick that individual's list, from the hundreds or more on the web, simply because it supports your assertions, right? It did seem to have made the droves of Wii fanboys who left comments about it happy enough. Here's another one (http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/best-video-games-of-2010/), where that title made the list, but was at the bottom. Still positive comments, but not nearly as gushing. Basically stated "if you own a Wii, then get this game", which is quite different from saying the game was worth buying a Wii for.
But when a 360 game comes in and they hand it to the 360 guy his biases and specialty interests don't encourage similar score inflation? ::)
Of course it does. That is exactly my point, and that is the reason why when someone makes a statement like "There's no stronger game developer in the world than XXX", especially when that developer only develops for it's own system, and produces games only of fairly specific genres, there's strong reason to suspect "fanboyism".
-
Randy, what is your point? There are a bunch of game reviewers. When you average them all together, Super Mario Galaxy was the best reviewed game of 2010. The year before it was probably Grand Theft Auto IV. It's not a conspiracy.
My point, if you're wondering, is that using a list of top game sales for a single year is a bombastically stupid way to evaluate the quality of particular game publisher/developer (especially when the developer you're trying to derogate makes at least as good a showing as any other on the list, and the developer you're evangelizing has only one showing from a development house it no longer controls).
By the way, I "cherry picked" that individual list for one reason: cos I read Joystiq daily so I'd already seen it. I didn't need to go searching for something to illustrate the absurdity of your claims because I already knew exactly where to find it. Who cares, though? Did I cherry pick Metacritic too? You asked me to give you a source for my claim that Nintendo would top a list of best-reviewed games of 2010. You need to see a counselor. Give it up.
-
. . . and produces games only of fairly specific genres, there's strong reason to suspect "fanboyism".
Fairly specific genres, let's see what those are:
Platform
Action RPG
RPG
Tennis
Golf
Football
Basketball
Soccer
Fighting
Strategy
Pet simulator?
Kart racing
Party Games
Stadium fighting/collection (or whatever the hell Pokemon is)
Animal Crossing (I think that's it's own genre)
Brain training :)
Casual sports
Fitness
Drawing
Music
Puzzle
Flying, of sorts (Pilotwings)
Snowboarding
Jet Ski racing
Boxing
Lol . . . pretty narrow focus, I have to admit. And again, that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure Google could help me add to that list. Randy, I haven't played a Nintendo game in at least a year, maybe a couple. Wait . . . strike that, I played New Super Mario, but only for about an hour. Fanboyism is blindly refusing to see the merits of a company that you don't support. Think about it.
edit: Here are a few more, with Google help:
Pinball
Lightgun
Motorcycle racing
Traditional racing
Powerpad stuff
Baseball
Wrestling
Skiing
Volleyball
Ping Pong
Ice Hockey
R.C. car racing
Speedboat racing
Demolition (Blast Corps)
Hovercraft racing
City building
3d scrolling shooter (Star Fox)
Casino gambling
First person shooter (duh, how could I forget Goldeneye)
Competitive bomb throwing :) (Bomberman)
Survival horror (Eternal Darkness)
Dancing
Casual table games
Scuba diving/underwater photography
Rhythm
Granted, there are a couple of unfair entries in the list--games that were published by Nintendo but developed by a third party over whom Nintendo has no control (like Bomberman), but overall it seems like this list definitely shows what a narrow focus Nintendo has--ya know, what with always sticking to the same genre.
-
By the way, I "cherry picked" that individual list for one reason: cos I read Joystiq daily so I'd already seen it. I didn't need to go searching for something to illustrate the absurdity of your claims because I already knew exactly where to find it. Who cares, though? Did I cherry pick Metacritic too? You asked me to give you a source for my claim that Nintendo would top a list of best-reviewed games of 2010. You need to see a counselor. Give it up.
Meta-who? I had never even heard of that site until this thread. But hey, on the front page, it showed a 38 for the movie Green Hornet, and the few people I know who have seen it said it was pretty good. I guess the "critics" are always right. BTW, when the users of that site were asked, the game was number 3, with only half the "points" of Red Dead Redemption and Mass Effect 2. And BTW, I didn't "go searching" either. The link I posted was the first "top ten" list Google handed me.
As for your "genres", you forgot the word "cutesy" in front of each of them. Would you seriously put Super Smash Brothers up against Mortal Kombat, Tekken, and similar fighting games? Or Mario Golf against Tiger Woods PGA? If you like Nintendo stuff, then you are a fan of the "cutesy" genre of gaming. How about Mario Kart against Gran Turismo? Do you think Nintendo could even produce a game of the likes of Gran Turismo? Because if they can, they sure as heck haven't demonstrated the ability.
Do they make good games? Yes, in fact they do. But you give them a heck of a lot more credit than they deserve, and it's because your taste in games coincides with the the type of games they produce. Personally, I would sooner buy COD than "Super Mario anything" at this moment in time. But that's me (and apparently, a hell of a lot of others.)
-
edit: Wow . . . sorry. This post turned out to be really really long. There's no excuse for that. :cheers:
Lol . . . Metacritic is not obscure, Randy. And users said Super Mario Galaxy was only the 3rd best game made in 2010? Wow, 3rd? Nintendo does suck!!! Seriously, you're just grasping at straws now.
Anyway, an average of critical scores is probably going to have a helluva better track record than the opinions of a few people you know, unless those people happen to share extremely similar taste in movies with you. At any rate, you asked for a list of top-reviewed games for 2010. What ---smurfing--- better list could I possibly give you? It is a 100% unbiased source. It just aggregates data. Critics gave it better reviews last year than they gave any other game, the end. And, frankly, critics would tend to be more reliable indicator of quality in my opinion since that's what they're doing for a living. They are exposed to far more games than the users who chimed in. In particular the gamers who voted for Red Dead Redemption and Mass Effect haven't played Galaxy unless they own both systems and vice versa. But either way, whether you're talking about critics or users, sales or reviews, past or present, Nintendo is clearly making some of the very very best games in the world. Consistently. And are able to do it in-house. Microsoft can't do that (to bring this whole digression back on point)
I wouldn't put Smash Brothers up against Mortal Kombat unless you were talking strictly about fun, since Mortal Kombat has almost always been awful. But Killer Instinct is clearly the same genre. And while I don't think that Nintendo has made a non-cutesy golf game (though they have published some exclusives, like Waialae Country Club: True Golf Classics), they have made non-cutesy baseball, basketball and football. And Mario Golf is a deep game that is better than many of the Tiger Woods entries. They've never made a racing sim (though they published an F1 Sim for the N64), but they've made plenty of non-cutesy racing games: Excitebike 64, Waverace, Excite Truck, 1080 Snowboarding. How about Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Eternal Darkness, Metroid Prime, Blast Corps, Fire Emblem, Geist, Sin & Punishment?
Nintendo obviously has a specialty in cutesy games, but they've also made a ton of non-cutesy ones--really really really really good non-cutesy games. And I doubt that you consider Rockstar or Irrational or Valve or Blizzard or BioWare inferior developers because they haven't developed cutesy games. This requirement for a develope to cover all the bases seems to be a bit of a double-standard for you since it only appears to be a one-way street. I will grant you that Nintendo will probably never develop a game as gratuitously violent as a Grand Theft Auto, but Eternal Darkness is one of the best survival horror games ever made and there was plenty of horror in that game, blood,violence and all.
-
Lol . . . Metacritic is not obscure, Randy. And users said Super Mario Galaxy was only the 3rd best game made in 2010? Wow, 3rd? Nintendo does suck!!! Seriously, you're just grasping at straws now.
Never said "Nintendo Sucks"....Next.
Anyway, an average of critical scores is probably going to have a helluva better track record than the opinions of a few people you know, unless those people happen to share extremely similar taste in movies with you. At any rate, you asked for a list of top-reviewed games for 2010. What ---smurfing--- better list could I possibly give you? It is a 100% unbiased source. It just aggregates data. Critics gave it better reviews last year than they gave any other game, the end.
And the users who frequent that site handed points to two other titles at a ratio of 4:1 (http://features.metacritic.com/features/2011/users-poll-results-best-of-2010/). So either there are a lot more "non-cutesy-genre" gamers hanging out on Metacritic, or the aggregation of the critics scores is far removed from the feelings of people who actually have to purchase their games (reviewers, of course, do not). And if you look at the point spread of the user ratings, it's pretty close to the sales numbers. That's very telling.
Something else to consider: There are a good number more Wii consoles out there than 360's and PS3's combined, meaning that, as far as sales of a supposed #1 $50 game are concerned, they should be able to easily make the top of a chart based on sales. But the fact is that it didn't. So this has to be explained somehow. Lack of user confidence? Poor marketing of said game by Nintendo? Did 3/4 of the purchasers of the Wii throw them in the trash? You tell me.
And, frankly, critics would tend to be more reliable indicator of quality in my opinion since that's what they're doing for a living. They are exposed to far more games than the users who chimed in. In particular the gamers who voted for Red Dead Redemption and Mass Effect haven't played Galaxy unless they own both systems and vice versa. But either way, whether you're talking about critics or users, sales or reviews, past or present, Nintendo is clearly making some of the very very best games in the world. Consistently. And are able to do it in-house. Microsoft can't do that (to bring this whole digression back on point)
The critics have been bombarded by FPS, MMORPG, and Strategy games. The major companies know these types of games sell well, so the reviewers end up seeing a lot of them. Because the critics have so much exposure (which costs them nothing, BTW) they are happy when someone does what few do anymore, and releases a feel-good platformer (or similar "blast from the past"), and no-one does that kind of game better than Nintendo. But not everyone likes that kind of game, especially if they feel like they have bought it several times before. The latest Mario game may be the best, super-duperest Mario game ever made, but for those who have moved on, it's not going to be enough to bring them back. The reviewers, on the other hand, never left.
If Nintendo wants to win this gamer back (don't worry, they don't) they will need to stop plastering their mascots on everything and take a serious stab at competing at the same level as other developers. Let them show who they are by ditching their mascots and offering a cross platform title that competes head-to-head with other developers in the same game genre. If they are able to make it to the top with that one, they will have shown that they can kick-ass and take names with the best of them. But what they are doing now only shows that they aren't comfortable when they are not "preaching to the choir".
Nintendo obviously has a specialty in cutesy games, but they've also made a ton of non-cutesy ones--really really really really good non-cutesy games. And I doubt that you consider Rockstar or Irrational or Valve or Blizzard or BioWare inferior developers because they haven't developed cutesy games. This requirement for a develope to cover all the bases seems to be a bit of a double-standard for you since it only appears to be a one-way street. I will grant you that Nintendo will probably never develop a game as gratuitously violent as a Grand Theft Auto, but Eternal Darkness is one of the best survival horror games ever made and there was plenty of horror in that game, blood,violence and all.
Hmmm....Eternal Darkness or Resident Evil 5? Granted, different style games, but the contrast between the two would be mind numbingly obvious. And while Rockstar and Valve may not make cutesy games, I don't recall seeing the characters from their successful series being put into games which they have no real business being in, as a cheap attempt to make an average game more marketable than it would otherwise be. But I have to admit, it would be funny to see Gordon Freeman in his bio-hazard suit playing tennis or golf against a Vortigaunt on the roof of the Black Mesa Research Facility. But probably not funny enough for me to want to buy it.
And I don't expect other developers to excel in all gaming genres. Likewise, I don't try to peddle their names as god's gift to the videogame. You'd probably have noticed that if you weren't so busy trying to stuff words in my mouth.
-
Girls, girls, you're both pretty. Now give it a rest.
-
Super Mario Galaxy 2 was derivative crap. I guess kids liked it, I've yet to meet an adult that did (well, except you and your friends at meta-critic).
Granted, some of this aggression is couched in the fact I fired up Demons' Souls a few days ago... still not sure what to make of you and your love for that one. :-\
You didn't play Super Mario Galaxy 2, at least not for any extended length of time. You're just being your usual ass self. Neither did I, though. I've never so much as seen a video of gameplay from it. For all I know, I would hate it. Keep in mind, though, that its average critical score was 97, but it was also ranked the 3rd best game of the year by users according to Randy. So my friends are a pretty large and diverse lot, I guess. Or maybe Metacritic is just a major attraction for small children . . .
As for Demon's Souls . . . it's probably too difficult for you. I warned you that it was punishing. You should probably give Mario Galaxy an actual shot, which we both know you haven't done. I'm sure it's easier.
-
[Okay, Okay . . . Nintendo is good, but you, sir, go to far!]
At any rate, if third party developers don't jump on Kinect in a big way, Microsoft cannot pick up the slack the way Nintendo could.
Hell, even if developers all decide to jump on the bandwagon today, a serious game has, what, a minimum 18 month development cycle? The Xbox will be like 7 years old by the time any of this stuff is coming out. You're going to be in party-game heaven until Xbox 3, my friend. :cheers:
-
this is one entertaining fanboy vs fanboy thread.
I wanna chime in:
" How about Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Eternal Darkness, Metroid Prime, Blast Corps, Fire Emblem, Geist, Sin & Punishment?"
Do you consider the Publisher the person who makes games? 3 games by RARE (Golden Eye, Perfect Dark, Blast Corps they also developed both Killer Instincts, RC Pro AM, and SOOOO many more), 1 by Retro Studios (Metroid Prime), n-Space did Geist; and Intelligent Systems does the Fire Emblem series. Treasure did the Sin & Punishment game (and lets not forget the fabulous GunStar Heroes, Radiant Silvergun, and Ikaruga)
Also, of that list only golden eye and blast corps were any fun to me.
-
Do you consider the Publisher the person who makes games? 3 games by RARE (Golden Eye, Perfect Dark, Blast Corps they also developed both Killer Instincts, RC Pro AM, and SOOOO many more), 1 by Retro Studios (Metroid Prime), n-Space did Geist; and Intelligent Systems does the Fire Emblem series. Treasure did the Sin & Punishment game (and lets not forget the fabulous GunStar Heroes, Radiant Silvergun, and Ikaruga)
Also, of that list only golden eye and blast corps were any fun to me.
Yes, I would say that anything developed by Rare while Nintendo owned 49% of the company and had an exclusive publishing agreement with them (i.e., Rare could not make games for anyone but Nintendo even if they wanted to) = 1st Party. Same goes for Left Field, which Nintendo owned a minority stake of and which developed exclusively for Nintendo. Retro is a wholly owned Nintendo first party developer so that one's easy. Intelligent Systems is another easy one, wholly owned first-party developer. N-space is a little more difficult because I thought they were partially owned by Nintendo, but I haven't been able to verify that. Wikipedia says they're a Nintendo 2nd party, though. Sin & Punishment was co-developed by Treasure and Nintendo's internal R&D1. The IP is owned by Nintendo and Nintendo included a character from that game in Super Smash Bros. (though I think Solid Snake made it into one of the Super Smash Bros. too, so that doesn't necessarily mean anything :) )
Also, you didn't like RC Pro AM? How black is your heart? :cheers:
-
I found it more bleak and depressing
Wow . . . I was initially just taking a jab at you with the Super Mario Galaxy recommendation, but now it's really starting to seem like just the thing for you ;D
-
You didn't mention RC Pro AM I did :) Also , I own Killer Instinct 1 and 2 dedicated cabs.
I didnt mention Left Field. I know they made the Slam And Jam games ( closest thing to Run and Gun on the home consoles) but I looked it up and Nintendo used to own part of them, but they bought back the stake and are 3rd party.
As for RARE, they released an RC Pro AM (Championship Pro-AM) game for genesis. After 1992 they started released more games for other systems (mostly battle toads on everything with a CPU and a screen). So yes, NES ERA RARE was a nintendo first party; but after that (especially the GameCube/Wii eras) not so much. Even though now they are wholly owned by Microsoft Game Studios they still develop for the DS. Im guess because M$ lacks a handheld.
Championship Pro Am - Genesis/Mega Drive (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc32xqCBiG0#)
tell me that's not RC Pro-AM,lol
N-Space was bought by nintendo before giest, I'll give ya that one. They only made nintendo exclusive games prior to being bought, I didnt even know nintendo bought them until this thread. I thought they just did nintendo exclusives like they always did.
I didnt know Treasure co-devved S&P with Nintendo; but I'll be honest Im not big into rail shooters (panzer dragoon being the exception) but that game doesnt look bad, maybe I'll get it for my VC.
Intelligent Systems....well yeah they too are first party, but with that one I was stressing they only make fire emblem and the series, in my eyes, is terrible.
I guess I was alone in not liking either Super Mario Galaxy game. I didnt like Super Mario Sunshine either. But I <3 Super Mario World and Super Mario 3
-
Even if it was just user scores, why would Wii owners be happier about their Wii games than 360 or PS3 owners would be about the games on their respective platforms.
Because it's like eating gruel for breakfast for 3 months and one day getting a bowl of Cap'n Crunch. Chances are, you'd think that the Cap'n Crunch is the "food of the gods", when really, it's still just Cap'n Crunch.
Are you saying that PS3 and 360 games are the gruel for 3 months..? Then a new Wii game comes out like Cap'n Crunch.. I thought you were defending ms.. idk you lost me. If you're talking about Wii games being gruel I still don't see how that answered the question, being that I could just give your answer for 360 games as well..
-
He's saying that almost everything released for the Wii is gruel, so when a mediocre game comes out, Wii owners think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. It's sort of absurd, but at least that's consistent with the position you thought he was taking.
-
That's what I figured.. it was just such a ridiculous answer I was pointing out that I could say the same about any other platform. Sure the Wii has a lot more shovelware than 360 (probably) ..but that doesn't mean I go and play them all (eat the gruel) until something good (cap'n crunch) comes out for the Wii.. I only play the games I know I would enjoy, just like I do for the PS3 ...and the 360 a friend gave me ..because it RROD 3x and he got tired of sending it back and forth to MS so he just bought the new "better" one and gave me the "fixed" one.. which IMO is probably why their console sales are still on the rise :lol
-
Well, and it is a good system that is on par with the PS3 in terms of hardware capabilities and has a far better online component. And it manages to be less expensive to boot. That probably helps.
-
and the online hasn't been hacked up to buggery in the last couple weeks,want to play against people with god mode in an online shooter anybody? didn't think so.
-
At least that's not a permanent problem. It applies to Modern Warfare, but Black Ops (and presumably any future game) is unaffected. But anyway, the pros of having a system hacked wide open by the hacker community far outweigh the cons (for the consumer). The first Xbox was one of the best consoles I've ever owned thanks to the homebrew community.
-
Well, and it is a good system that is on par with the PS3 in terms of hardware capabilities and has a far better online component. And it manages to be less expensive to boot. That probably helps.
Yehhhhh buutt... did you happen to read that topic "Microsoft SUCK ROD" in this consoles section.. only the second post in the thread.. the very first line he says...... it's pretty textbook example. "oh well consoles don't last, just go buy the new one bundled with Kinect" .....I wonder how many 360 users bought the new one just because of this
-
I wonder how many 360 users bought the new one just because of this
Probably not very many in the whole scheme of things. Certainly not enough to account for the kind of sales the 360 has right now. Don't get me wrong, the early model had a way higher failure rate than it should have. But that's not why it's selling well.
-
I was thinking of getting a new 360 just for the wireless, and the HD support. My old one doesnt have HDMI inputs. But, I just got a PS3 so Im probably not going to touch the 360 for awhile.
Just ordered Demon Souls btw. Hopefully it gets here soon! ;D
-
Just ordered Demon Souls btw. Hopefully it gets here soon! ;D
You should have just bought it on the cheap from pinballjim. :)
-
I wasnt even aware you bought it. Did you not like it?
-
I'm going to go against my better instincts and agree with shmokes.
I'm a PS3 owner so maybe it's easier for me to see the truth since the Move was much more underwhelming than the Kinects. Both add-ons are too little too late.
Nintendo is about to release a 3d hand held and they've got a Wii2 with God knows what features in the works, so while Sony and MS are trying to keep their consoles alive on Wii scraps, Nintendo will be feasting on another untouched market.
-
Wow. I've been going on about how dismal Kinect's software lineup was doomed to be, but it only just now occurred to me to actually look at what is definitely in the pipeline, and it is even worse than I expected.
There are apparently only 20 unreleased games currently announced. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kinect_games) 3 have firm release dates, 3 have release windows, the rest are TBA. Comically almost every game on the list that sounds like it could have any chance of being remotely interesting (there are only a few) is being published by Microsoft, so at least Randy's right inasmuch as Microsoft apparently has to pay any serious developers to develop for the platform. ;)
Edit: Just for fun I thought it would check that against the list of games announced for the 3DS, a system that won't be released until the end of February. More than 100. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nintendo_3DS_games)
-
Wow. I've been going on about how dismal Kinect's software lineup was doomed to be, but it only just now occurred to me to actually look at what is definitely in the pipeline, and it is even worse than I expected.
There are apparently only 20 unreleased games currently announced. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kinect_games) 3 have firm release dates, 3 have release windows, the rest are TBA. Comically almost every game on the list that sounds like it could have any chance of being remotely interesting (there are only a few) is being published by Microsoft, so at least Randy's right inasmuch as Microsoft apparently has to pay any serious developers to develop for the platform. ;)
Edit: Just for fun I thought it would check that against the list of games announced for the 3DS, a system that won't be released until the end of February. More than 100. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nintendo_3DS_games)
Whole lot of TBA for announce dates in your list. I think this is probably a more accurate reflection on what will be available:
Wondering what games the Nintendo 3DS will launch with in March? Considering the handheld’s hefty $250 price tag, it’s going to have to launch with some pretty good stuff in order for people to want to toss out their beloved DS Lite/DSi/DSi XLs.
The good news is that the release list is looking relatively strong at the moment, with 30+ titles promised for the “launch window” (March 27 – the E3 Expo June). Not all of those will necessarily launch on day one though. Also, this list does not include Virtual Console titles, though we know some (like the GameBoy’s Super Mario Land will be available).
First-Party:
* Pilotwings Resort
* nintendogs + cats
* Steel Diver
* The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D
* Star Fox 64 3D
* Kid Icarus: Uprising
* Mario Kart
* Animal Crossing
* Paper Mario
Third-Party:
* Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor Overclocked (Atlus)
* Super Street Fighter IV 3D Edition (Capcom)
* Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D (Capcom)
* Madden NFL Football (EA SPORTS)
* The Sims 3 (Electronic Arts)
* Pro Evolution Soccer 2011 3D (Konami)
* LEGO Star Wars III: The Clone Wars (LucasArts)
* Ridge Racer 3D (Namco Bandai Games America)
* Dual Pen Sports (Namco Bandai Games America)
* Super Monkey Ball 3D (Sega)
* Thor: God of Thunder (Sega)
* CRUSH 3D (Sega)
* BUST-A-MOVE UNIVERSE (Square Enix)
* Samurai Warriors Chronicles (Tecmo Koei America)
* Dead or Alive Dimensions (Tecmo Koei America)
* Asphalt 3D (Ubisoft)
* Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Shadow Wars (Ubisoft)
* Combat of Giants: Dinosaurs 3D (Ubisoft)
* Tom Clancy’s Splinter Cell 3D (Ubisoft)
* Rayman 3D (Ubisoft)
* Rabbids Travel in Time (Ubisoft)
That makes for 9 games from Nintendo and 21 from third-party developers, not including any downloadable titles. Again, those are all in the “launch window”.
Some other titles we’ve learned about are:
* DECA SPORTS EXTREME (Hudson) – Sumer 2011
* Bomberman (Hudson) – Fall 2011
* Nikoli’s Pencil Puzzle (Hudson) – Fall 2011
* Pet Zombies in 3D (Majesco) – Fall 2011
* Face Kart: Photo Finish (Majesco) – Fall 2011
That’s everything for now! Hopefully we’ll learn more about the launch dates within the window, so we’ll know for sure which games will actually be available on the 3DS’ March 27th release date.
Source: http://www.geek.com/articles/games/nintendo-3ds-launch-titles-for-north-america-20110120/ (http://www.geek.com/articles/games/nintendo-3ds-launch-titles-for-north-america-20110120/)
-
That list is launch window games. It's just what is planned to be available in the first 1.5 months of the DS launch. Why would I compare that list against a list of every game currently announced for Kinect? There are a ton of 3DS games in serious development that will reach the market, but aren't launch titles.
Anyway, 14 of 20 games on the Kinect list are TBA. Why would TBA disqualify a 3DS dev but not a Kinect dev?
-
Why in the hell are we comparing the number of to be released titles of a full handheld console agianst what's an accessory for a home console?
Kinect is an accessory and no one expects the entire user base to get one. So this is a pointless discussion.
-
Why in the hell are we comparing the number of to be released titles of a full handheld console agianst what's an accessory for a home console?
Kinect is an accessory and no one expects the entire user base to get one. So this is a pointless discussion.
Because we are discussing the chances of it's success, which depend on game development, same as a console.
-
3ds will me HUGE
-
Kinect will come to PCs, says Microsoft CEO (http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/kinect-will-come-to-pcs-says-microsoft-ceo/)
Now that Kinects will be an option for me, I might be changing my opinion about it.
;)
-
Kinect will come to PCs, says Microsoft CEO (http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/kinect-will-come-to-pcs-says-microsoft-ceo/)
Now that Kinects will be an option for me, I might be changing my opinion about it.
;)
It always was. It's USB, after all. If you mean, "official MS OS support features", then that should have been expected.
There are apparently only 20 unreleased games currently announced. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kinect_games)
You should pay more attention to what is in the links you post to support your conclusions :). The very first line from that wiki is "This is an incomplete list..."
Comically almost every game on the list that sounds like it could have any chance of being remotely interesting (there are only a few) is being published by Microsoft, so at least Randy's right inasmuch as Microsoft apparently has to pay any serious developers to develop for the platform. ;)
I don't know how you are coming to that conclusion. Fanboy logic, I guess. What's more accurate would be to state that I was correct in my assertion that MS, having spent a great deal more time with the hardware, has learned how to make more interesting games with the functionality of the Kinect as a component. Or that MS does indeed have the resources and know-how to support the hardware at the same level that you think only Nintendo can.
As for the 3DS, I think time will tell. There will always be fans of Nintendo, who will buy the latest handheld, even if the only difference is a little larger, or little brighter screen. A mediocre 3D effect will be more than enough to fuel sales to those folks. Lots of parents of little kids to sell to as well. My 5 and 6 year old niece and nephew love their DS, and it wouldn't surprise me if they think the 3D component is cool. Not hard to impress at that age.
On the other hand, my 23 year old daughter, who received a DS for Christmas, had a more mixed take on it. She enjoyed it until the novelty wore off and she stopped using it because she felt like everything about it was aimed at kids (became disenfranchised). Nintendo will have a hard time getting traction in the market segment she is part of, and a 3D gimmick won't help that. But there are enough "fish" in the "Nintendo Barrel" that it probably won't matter. I don't, however, expect every DS owner to chuck their current unit in the trash in favor of it, any more than TV owners have chucked their current flat panel sets in favor of the new 3D capable ones. The TV market has showed not only poor adoption of 3D, but downright rejection of it. It will be interesting to see if that's a trend that carries over to the 3DS.
-
You should pay more attention to what is in the links you post to support your conclusions :). The very first line from that wiki is "This is an incomplete list..."
It's Wikipedia. Both lists are incomplete. What are you saying, that someone accidentally left 80+ games off the Kinect list? That publishers are dumping money into this platform that they believe will be an enormous success, but they don't want to build hype for the games or let their stockholders know?
My point about MS publishing almost everything compelling is that 3rd party developers are not interested.
-
My point about MS publishing almost everything compelling is that 3rd party developers are not interested.
Or, that they are not interested in tipping their hands to other developers yet. They are businesses, after all.
-
So it's good business to tip your hand with 3ds development, but not with Kinect development?
-
So it's good business to tip your hand with 3ds development, but not with Kinect development?
No, it's good to wait until the time is right. And honestly, the two are as far apart as night and day when it comes to ideas which will differentiate and ultimately lead to the success of a game. The Kinect is a control scheme, while the 3DS is a display gimmick. More to keep "close to the vest" with the Kinect development, some of which will likely be patentable.
-
The Kinect is a control scheme, while the 3DS is a display gimmick.
That's funny. I thought the Kinect was a control gimmick, while the 3DS was a display scheme. Live and learn, I guess.
-
The Kinect is a control scheme, while the 3DS is a display gimmick.
That's funny. I thought the Kinect was a control gimmick, while the 3DS was a display scheme. Live and learn, I guess.
Really? So how exactly is that 3D display going to change the manner in which a game is played? Remember, you are talking to someone who spent about 7 years in the 3D display business and has their name on 3 patents related to it. ;)
-
Are you sure you know the definitions of "scheme" and "gimmick"? I mean, clearly you know that one is a pejorative and the other isn't . . .
-
Are you sure you know the definitions of "scheme" and "gimmick"? I mean, clearly you know that one is a pejorative and the other isn't . . .
Clearly, it can be taken that way, but you are incorrect in your assertion that it is implicit to the word. You can answer the question any time though.
-
Well . . . the problem with answering the question is that I do think that the 3D in the 3ds is a gimmick, though I've never seen one nor even read much about them. My point was that labeling one a gimmick and the other a scheme doesn't make it so. And changing the manner in which a game is played (something that 3D can, of course, do by the way) does not exempt a technology from being gimmicky.
-
Well . . . the problem with answering the question is that I do think that the 3D in the 3ds is a gimmick, though I've never seen one nor even read much about them. My point was that labeling one a gimmick and the other a scheme doesn't make it so. And changing the manner in which a game is played (something that 3D can, of course, do by the way) does not exempt a technology from being gimmicky.
3D can change the way a game is played, but the burning question is whether a particular 3D technology implementation is capable of that feat. And I will agree with your statements, however, a very good example of how a game is not "gimmicky" is one like Dance Central or fitness games which rely on the ability to recognize the position or movement of your body. Controlling games like that through any other means would actually be "gimmicky", and I guess I am asking for an example in 3D that the 3DS might actually be able to accomplish, that was comparable in practical use.
-
But we're not talking about the 3ds, so I'm not that inclined to provide your answer. We both agree that the 3D implementation will not be very compelling, and may be utter crap.
And once again, while the Kinect has serious hardware shortcomings preventing it from being very versatile, IMO, I'm sure you know that my primary reasons for thinking it will be a failure are market related. Comparing the list of Kinect games in development to the list of 3ds games in development was not an endorsement of the quality of the 3ds. It was simply illustrating how lackluster Kinect's horizons appear to be. The Xbox 360 will be taking arthritis meds and wearing adult undergarments by the time developers have a chance to do anything serious with it, even if they were inclined to.
-
The 360 and PS3 are already old consoles. It's time for a new system.
-
They say that the Xbox has a life until at least 2015. Sony hasnt commented about it. Frankly, I like that there arent any new systems out. I hate shelling out all kinds of money every 5 or so years for a new system, especially since the price tag keeps going up. I hope these systems last as long as they can. The only company I see coming out with a new system is Nintendo, but they havent even announced anything, well, except for the 3DS but Im not getting one of those, and I wouldnt really count it as a "new system" how you mean it DD.
-
Not to mention that as long as any system is in a growth phase, and it can still play games people want to play, it still has plenty of life left in it. They are still producing the PS2! I wouldn't even think about seeing a next generation until they turn off the presses for the one prior to this one.
We are also still seeing games which push the envelope, which means that there is still untapped potential in the units. History has shown that until this has been exhausted, and most of the games being released are taking advantage of all the machines have to offer, they won't be retired.
No, this current generation is well into the "good enough" zone for this time period, just as the PS1 was for it's time, that you can expect it to be the focus for several more years.
-
No, this current generation is well into the "good enough" zone for this time period, just as the PS1 was for it's time, that you can expect it to be the focus for several more years.
:laugh2:
The sales numbers don't lie. You are not the majority of the market, and you wouldn't buy a next gen system anyway until you could get a broke-ass one on ebay for $200 :laugh2:
-
Not to mention that as long as any system is in a growth phase, and it can still play games people want to play, it still has plenty of life left in it. They are still producing the PS2! I wouldn't even think about seeing a next generation until they turn off the presses for the one prior to this one.
We are also still seeing games which push the envelope, which means that there is still untapped potential in the units. History has shown that until this has been exhausted, and most of the games being released are taking advantage of all the machines have to offer, they won't be retired.
No, this current generation is well into the "good enough" zone for this time period, just as the PS1 was for it's time, that you can expect it to be the focus for several more years.
good cause I want to keep using my new ps3 damn it. Wow, I did not know that they are still making ps2's. Thats crazy.
-
Randy, the picture you're painting is appealing, don't get me wrong. But there are more considerations than just how successful your current system is. Sony may still be producing the PS2, but it's not seriously supported and, of course, the PS3 has been Sony's (and every 3rd party's) focus for years.
When Sony and Nintendo have new consoles on the market Microsoft can't just sit on its hands and say, "What? The 360 still has life left in it." Microsoft can't compete against Sony's next machine if Microsoft's first gen titles are going up against 2nd and 3rd gen Sony titles on a machine that already has a 30 or 40 million strong install base thanks to it's 2-3 year head start. The successor to the 360 will come out within a year of the PS4 (including the very likely scenario that it will beat the PS4 to market) regardless of how successful the 360 is at the time.
The 360 will presumably stay on the market for a while after Xbox 3 comes out, but you know as well as anyone that software development will dry up shortly thereafter and very soon all you will see of new releases are budget shovelware. All the AAA development dollars will go to the new systems.
-
When Sony and Nintendo have new consoles on the market Microsoft can't just sit on its hands and say, "What? The 360 still has life left in it." Microsoft can't compete against Sony's next machine if Microsoft's first gen titles are going up against 2nd and 3rd gen Sony titles on a machine that already has a 30 or 40 million strong install base thanks to it's 2-3 year head start. The successor to the 360 will come out within a year of the PS4 (including the very likely scenario that it will beat the PS4 to market) regardless of how successful the 360 is at the time.
The 360 will presumably stay on the market for a while after Xbox 3 comes out, but you know as well as anyone that software development will dry up shortly thereafter and very soon all you will see of new releases are budget shovelware. All the AAA development dollars will go to the new systems.
I agree, but the discussion really isn't about "if", but about "when". As long as the 360 is "on top" (whatever that means nowadays) they really can take their time. There is no need to rush to market with a system that isn't quite ready (this is currently Nintendo's possible course of action). Sony also doesn't seem to be in a hurry. There is still great untapped potential in the PS3, and they are nowhere near market saturation with the unit. The damn thing is still $300! The pricing alone, and the fact that Sony hasn't yet shrunk it down to PSONE proportions, should tell you that they are also in no hurry to retire the unit.
Then there are the socio-economic reasons to keep the current generation going. How many folks in the current economic environment are in the position to pony up $400 for a state-of-the-art game console? One of the major adoption hurdles for the PS3 has always been the cost of entry, and it's still a problem for it today. It's easier for someone to come up with $40 for a game on a system that most are still content with (remember, it's the games, not the eye-candy and there's no shortage of the latter) than 10x that amount to start playing one.
Of course, all of the big three are working on the next generation hardware, even if it's only in the planning stages. But for them to go too far, too soon, would be for them to put out a system that was obsolete upon release. So it makes sense for them not to do anything that they can't reverse, or won't allow them to change course without it costing them a fortune, until it was very much required. And that isn't as long as the sales are up and the competition isn't pressuring them. The only wild card is Nintendo, and if they were to rock the gaming world with something new, it could accelerate the plans of the other two. But honestly, I think that's a million to one shot.
-
There is no need to rush to market with a system that isn't quite ready (this is currently Nintendo's possible course of action). Sony also doesn't seem to be in a hurry. There is still great untapped potential in the PS3, and they are nowhere near market saturation with the unit.
I had no idea you were present in Microsoft and Sony board meetings. ::)
Your thinking about 'how is a game system going to do in a recession' is completely backwards, too. We're not talking about 5 carat diamond rings and Caribbean vacations. We're talking one-time $500 purchases that continue to provide entertainment long after you've paid them off. There's plenty of textbooks you can read on this subject provided you're not too busy writing up more hologram patents.
Randy does have a point though. The cost is a big factor. I would rather have a new system come out 3 years from now and have it be 300 bucks than have it come out now and be 500. The older I get, the harder it is for me to justify spending that much money on a console. My sister got me a PS3 for Christmas, and 300 bucks was still a whopper of a gift. At launch werent the damn things 600 bucks?! Thats freakin outlandish.
-
There's plenty of textbooks you can read on this subject provided you're not too busy writing up more hologram patents.
Feel free to quote them, or provide sources...current ones please. People don't have the credit they used to, unemployment is at it's highest rate in decades, and you can't spend what you don't have. You seem more concerned about that kind of thing than most, so it's a bit odd to see you taking this position.
-
There's plenty of textbooks you can read on this subject provided you're not too busy writing up more hologram patents.
Feel free to quote them, or provide sources...current ones please. People don't have the credit they used to, unemployment is at it's highest rate in decades, and you can't spend what you don't have. You seem more concerned about that kind of thing than most, so it's a bit odd to see you taking this position.
I think he said that because he has said before he is "wealthy". ;D
-
You can google your own industry statistics. Needless to say, video games are doing quite well.
You haven't been paying attention. MS is the only one of the 3 showing growth. The others are showing major decreases in sales, and a number of developers have bit the dust or are not as strong as they were years prior.
So try again.
-
I would rather have a new system come out 3 years from now and have it be 300 bucks than have it come out now and be 500.
What could possibly lead you to believe that these are the only two (or even the most likely two) choices? Why couldn't Microsoft release a system now and have it cost $300 or 3 years from now and have it cost $500. Absolutely none of what you said makes any sense at all.
One thing is for sure, though. No videogame company is going to develop their new videogame hardware to completion and then just set it on a shelf for 3 years until the price comes down. That would be ridiculous.
-
You can google your own industry statistics. Needless to say, video games are doing quite well.
You haven't been paying attention. MS is the only one of the 3 showing growth. The others are showing major decreases in sales, and a number of developers have bit the dust or are not as strong as they were years prior.
So try again.
The videogame industry had been doing spectacularly well in spite of the economy. Not that the ---smurfy--- economy has had no negative effect whatsoever on it, but it's nothing to get worked up over. For every bad story in the industry you've got a Gamestop fiscal results or the like to balance it out.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/08/video-game-industry-growth-runs-circles-around-us-economy.ars (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/08/video-game-industry-growth-runs-circles-around-us-economy.ars)
-
The videogame industry had been doing spectacularly well in spite of the economy. Not that the ---smurfy--- economy has had no negative effect whatsoever on it, but it's nothing to get worked up over. For every bad story in the industry you've got a Gamestop fiscal results or the like to balance it out.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/08/video-game-industry-growth-runs-circles-around-us-economy.ars (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/08/video-game-industry-growth-runs-circles-around-us-economy.ars)
You also haven't been paying attention. That article only talks about the situation up to 2009. The 2010 picture is not as rosy.
-
It looks like 2010 was down 6% from 2009 if you're looking only at retail box sales. If you include digital downloads and mobile games growth was flat. That's not great, but its not catastrophic. If anything I would think the big console manufacturers would accelerate their new console release plans when they start seeing interest in their systems wane. Regardless, though, compared to the entertainment industry as a whole the videogame industry has weathered this economy relatively unscathed.
-
I would rather have a new system come out 3 years from now and have it be 300 bucks than have it come out now and be 500.
What could possibly lead you to believe that these are the only two (or even the most likely two) choices? Why couldn't Microsoft release a system now and have it cost $300 or 3 years from now and have it cost $500. Absolutely none of what you said makes any sense at all.
One thing is for sure, though. No videogame company is going to develop their new videogame hardware to completion and then just set it on a shelf for 3 years until the price comes down. That would be ridiculous.
First off, I was at work and I had to rush that response. Second, it makes perfect sense. If the current systems DO have a shelf life of a few more years, why put out another system then? I would want to milk as much as I can from the current gen before I put something else out, wouldnt you? Who knows, the big 3 could each have a new system just waiting to be unveiled, but why do that when the current system is still kicking? The reasons they ARE kicking is because they are the ones in control. I know damn well if a new system came out tomorrow, I sure as ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- wouldnt buy it because the damn price tag would be insane. Besides, we are in a recession, nobody is going to shell out wads of cash for a new console anyway. Im wondering how much better they can even be...
Why couldnt they? If their current stuff starts to tank against the competetion, then bam. Release a new one they already have been working on. The thing is, is that they control the market. Who knows, maybe they arent all even competing. Maybe MS, Sony and Nintendo said "hey, lets not all release any new home consoles until 2015". You never know.
-
It looks like 2010 was down 6% from 2009 if you're looking only at retail box sales. If you include digital downloads and mobile games growth was flat. That's not great, but its not catastrophic. If anything I would think the big console manufacturers would accelerate their new console release plans when they start seeing interest in their systems wane. Regardless, though, compared to the entertainment industry as a whole the videogame industry has weathered this economy relatively unscathed.
The only reason their systems would "wane" is if the flow of good games stopped. Thats the whole reason we have these right? To play games on them? I wouldnt just stop playing my PS3 just because I figured the tech was old. Hell, we are in a arcade controls forum :lol
-
It looks like 2010 was down 6% from 2009 if you're looking only at retail box sales. If you include digital downloads and mobile games growth was flat. That's not great, but its not catastrophic. If anything I would think the big console manufacturers would accelerate their new console release plans when they start seeing interest in their systems wane. Regardless, though, compared to the entertainment industry as a whole the videogame industry has weathered this economy relatively unscathed.
Well, I'm not only looking at retail box sales, I'm referring to the industry as a whole. We were also talking about consoles, and sales of those is down a lot more than 6% from years prior.
Here's an excerpt from a recent Game Informer issue;
This year, the games industry felt the effects of the economic downturn in a big way. Only a few years ago, analysts and publishers laughed off the global financial crisis, declaring that video games were somehow recession-proof. But studio bloodletting began in 2009, and continued at a furious pace in 2010 with a depressing number of studios suffering layoffs, closings, and publisher-mandated restructurings. Victims included Red Octane, Krome Studios, Visual Concepts, Neversoft, Raven Software, Realtime Worlds, Budcat, Luxoflux, Radical Entertainment, and Propaganda Games.
So again, just the beginning of what is to come if the current financial crisis continues, and certainly no climate in which to release new $400-$600 game consoles.
-
I put the over/under on Randyt devolving into someone standing on the sidewalk arguing with clouds at 6 months. Any takers?
Why, do you need some company on your street corner? And that sounded like a backhanded dis to shmokes.
You are so overwhelmingly negative about everything, I'm taking action on you putting a revolver in your mouth in the same time period. Get some help before it's too late, lil' buddy!
-
Just... wow.
I knew you would like that one ;D
If you are done attacking the messenger, maybe you have something to add to the discussion?
-
If you are done attacking the messenger, maybe you have something to add to the discussion?
This was your proevious post:
You are so overwhelmingly negative about everything, I'm taking action on you putting a revolver in your mouth in the same time period. Get some help before it's too late, lil' buddy!
Speaking of not getting your own point...
If these current consoles are so "solid" why did we need these new controllers?
If the technology behind these new controllers improve the consoles' game play, wouldn't creating a new console around this technology deliver even better game play improvements instead of limiting these technologies to out dated consoles?
-
Speaking of not getting your own point...
Quid pro quo. PBJ has become one of the more mean spirited here as of late, so a little of his own medicine will do him some good. It was a good natured jab, and I didn't mean to make him cry. You ok, Jimmy ? ;D
If these current consoles are so "solid" why did we need these new controllers?
If the technology behind these new controllers improve the consoles' game play, wouldn't creating a new console around this technology deliver even better game play improvements instead of limiting these technologies to out dated consoles?
They are exactly the point I have been making. The economy may not be able to sustain an entirely new console at a price of up to 6x more than the cost of an add-on, but add-ons which breathe new life into the existing consoles will allow the manufacturers more time before the inevitable.
The 360 showed a 42% hike in Dec. 2010 sales over the same in 2009, while the PS3 fell 11% and the Wii 38%. Purely speculative, but one would probably need to attribute the relative continued success of the 360 to a couple of things:
1) The novelty of the Kinect. The PS3 Move is probably the best control of it's kind, but the Wii did it so long ago. There is nothing very novel about the Wii anymore and most folks who were going to buy one, probably did already.
2) Price point. The Wii has this in spades, but it would be a stretch to consider it a "Next Gen" system, compared to the other two. The PS3 has more multi-media punch than either of the others, thanks to the Blu-ray drive, but lots of folks already have Blu-ray players nowadays, and may be loathe to spend that extra $100 for it's inclusion. The PS3 is still $300, and another $150 for the Move gizmos. The 360 is likely seen as giving consumers the best overall bang for buck in a gaming system. Again, driven in no small part by the current economy.
This doesn't speak to the quality of online play (which even my "Sony fanboy" nephew concedes is better on the 360) or the quality of the game libraries (where he will never concede anything is better ;) ). But there is a lot of real evidence out there that the video gaming sector is not recession proof as many have thought (and apparently still do, judging from some of the posts here). It is complete naivety to think that what is currently happening in the industry, and the country/world as a whole, won't affect the timing for the release of the next console. Timing is literally everything....just ask Sega.
-
Well, I'm not only looking at retail box sales, I'm referring to the industry as a whole. We were also talking about consoles, and sales of those is down a lot more than 6% from years prior.
The Google search "video games down 6% npd 2010" returned 186,000 results. There must be something to it. Here's a clip from a random result I clicked on (from Gamespot, IIRC):
"Overall retail sales of non-PC hardware, software, and accessories slid 6 percent in 2010, falling from $19.7 billion in 2009 to $18.58 billion in 2010. Despite surging sales of the Xbox 360, hardware saw the biggest decline, falling 13 percent from $7.19 billion to $6.29 billion. Non-PC retail software sales also slipped, dropping 6 percent from $9.92 billion to $9.36 billion. Accessories, on the other hand, saw a 13 percent increase to $2.93 billion, thanks to the introduction of the PlayStation Move and Kinect motion-sensing systems."
-
Why couldnt they?
Because it would make them extraordinarily uncompetitive. What do you do when you develop a console for one market, and then put it on the shelf and two years later the market begins to shift dramatically (think Wii) and all you have is this uncompetitive aging product that's been sitting on the shelves for two years. Moreover, that product that you have had sitting on the shelf for two or three years would have cost a fraction of R&D costs if you'd just waited 2-3 years and developed it then, when hardware prices had come down, and designers and engineers had had 2-3 more years of experience with that type of technology. What you're talking about is just totally unrealistic from a business point of view. If a new console takes 2 years to develop, and you're planning on releasing it 3 years later you're talking about basing all your development decisions on what you think will be most successful five years down the road. That would be an extraordinarily risky, expensive, unnecessary business model.
-
The Google search "video games down 6% npd 2010" returned 186,000 results. There must be something to it. Here's a clip from a random result I clicked on (from Gamespot, IIRC):
"Overall retail sales of non-PC hardware, software, and accessories slid 6 percent in 2010, falling from $19.7 billion in 2009 to $18.58 billion in 2010. Despite surging sales of the Xbox 360, hardware saw the biggest decline, falling 13 percent from $7.19 billion to $6.29 billion. Non-PC retail software sales also slipped, dropping 6 percent from $9.92 billion to $9.36 billion. Accessories, on the other hand, saw a 13 percent increase to $2.93 billion, thanks to the introduction of the PlayStation Move and Kinect motion-sensing systems."
That may be true for the dollar amount, as an average. But the hardware side was hardest hit, and it would have been much worse, were it not for the Kinect, and perhaps to a lesser extent, the Move. When you subtract the Kinect from the picture, which you say is not going to succeed, the hardware side of things looks much more grim. This is the reason why I think you will see some concentrated efforts to support it. The sales of it are not only offsetting lost console revenues, but it's helping to sell systems, thereby preventing them (at least for Microsoft.) If the Kinect fails, as you, again, predict it will, and the economy doesn't improve, there will likely be little to offset faltering hardware sales in 2011 like there was this past year. That could spell real problems for the industry in 2011 and the losses will likely end up much higher than 6%.
Also, 6% doesn't sound like much, but it's 1.2 billion dollars! That has already accounted for lost jobs and restructuring of several companies. Regardless of the numbers, though, the actions taken within the industry are starting to move in line with what other sectors do in rough times; close, restructure and/or downsize. There's no reason, without some change in the financial climate, to expect that trend to cease.
Of course the optimistic picture is that the add-ons continue to do well, which keeps console sales strong thereby creating additional incentive for developers to create innovative games for them, which continue to raise demand for the add-ons, etc... And that software developers can keep game sales high overall, in spite of the tough economy. I guess we will have to wait and see.
-
Randyt, until this thread, the only person I'd encountered that was never wrong despite the facts was myself.
A 6% downturn in this economy is nothing.
Here are some facts broken down so you can understand them;
Software: 2010 should have been a big year for software sales with major releases of a number of popular franchises like Halo, COD, Mario, God of War, etc... Still, receded 6% and a number of companies finally gave way under the weight of the economy.
Hardware: Wii was the biggest loser with 38% fewer sales than the year prior, even though they made them in different colors :) and did some decent bundling. The PS3 down 11% in spite of the addition of the Move hardware. It's not much of a reach to think that sales of the PS3 would have been worse without it, but that would be speculation. The Xbox360, however, propped up the entire industry with 42% growth. They were literally the only one not to have slid backwards. An intelligent person looks at patterns like this and understands that there must be reasons. I'm still waiting for your hypothesis, if it differs from mine.
Accessories: Up from last year, but this would be obvious. Move and Kinect are major accessory items and they aren't cheap. Cheaper than a new "next gen" system by a long shot, but still costly enough to drive the numbers from previous years.
So while 6% downturn in this economy may be "nothing" relative to other industries, it's significant for a couple of reasons. This should have been a banner year for video games, with big growth. There was a perfect storm of new games based on the major franchises, and new hardware for two of the big three, to expand their capabilities. Yet the industry, as a whole, slid backwards, with some sliding much more than others.
And the other reason it's significant, is that it shows, in a big way, IMHO, that industry analysts and general industry cheerleaders were wrong in their assertion that the video gaming industry was somehow immune from economic pressures that have negatively affected virtually every other industry which produces non-essential goods. It's a wake-up call.
-
I'm still waiting for your hypothesis, if it differs from mine.
I think it's a combination of things. One, there was a bunch of hype built-up around the Kinect which pushed systems. Two, the Xbox 360 and the PS3 offer virtually identical experiences (both of which are better than the Wii) and the Xbox 360 is substantially cheaper than the PS3.
Keep in mind, though, that this 42% growth you're speaking about doesn't support your doom & gloom stuff about the video game industry. Of course the economy has affected the industry, but as a whole, it's been comparatively unaffected by the recession. Many companies had huge years. And one of the big three saw major growth. Videogame sales were flat if you include digital distribution (and why wouldn't you). Compared to the rest of the economy, the videogame industry has weathered this recession incredibly well.
And then . . . like . . . of course a console manufacturer would prefer that the economy is booming when they release a new machine, but they can't just not release a machine until they have that luxury. There are too many other factors controlling the schedule, like R&D schedules, competitive timing considerations (i.e., beat the other guys to the market or, barring that, at least don't come in so late that you can't catch up), credit rating (at one point you need to start making a return on your investment), stock price (see previous parenthetical), working capital, software development (internal and external software developers need at least a year's head's up re: release date so they can allocate their development teams accordingly), etc. I'm sure there are a million other factors. This is just the stuff I've pulled out of ---my bottom--- just now.
-
I think it's a combination of things. One, there was a bunch of hype built-up around the Kinect which pushed systems. Two, the Xbox 360 and the PS3 offer virtually identical experiences (both of which are better than the Wii) and the Xbox 360 is substantially cheaper than the PS3.
There was just as much hype surrounding the Move. I'm still being inundated by it while watching TV. Didn't keep the PS3 from losing ground, though. So all things being equal, consumers went for the "cheap" option. Financial crunch at work.
Keep in mind, though, that this 42% growth you're speaking about doesn't support your doom & gloom stuff about the video game industry. Of course the economy has affected the industry, but as a whole, it's been comparatively unaffected by the recession. Many companies had huge years. And one of the big three saw major growth. Videogame sales were flat if you include digital distribution (and why wouldn't you). Compared to the rest of the economy, the videogame industry has weathered this recession incredibly well.
First off, you can't include digital distribution because it's not included in the previous year's numbers either. If you want to compare, you need to add it to the last years numbers as well. So unless you are asserting that digital distribution was much greater this year than last, that comment doesn't make any sense. You are also ignoring the fact that the line-up in 2010, more so than the previous year's, should have guaranteed bigger numbers. It didn't. The 42% increase for MS is great news, but you have been positing that the thing responsible for that increase is destined for failure. So you, in particular, would have to view that increase as a "bump" that isn't really indicative of the overall health of the industry, and one which won't be there next time around. Without that offset, the picture is not as rosy.
And I don't disagree that they have been doing well. Receding sales is not the same as "big losses", but it's still an indicator. The question in my mind is; when the industry puts it's best foot forward, which it really did in 2010, and sales still decline 6% overall, what else can they do to prevent that from becoming worse in a year where they don't, and the economy hasn't improved?
And then . . . like . . . of course a console manufacturer would prefer that the economy is booming when they release a new machine, but they can't just not release a machine until they have that luxury. There are too many other factors controlling the schedule, like R&D schedules, competitive timing considerations (i.e., beat the other guys to the market or, barring that, at least don't come in so late that you can't catch up), credit rating (at one point you need to start making a return on your investment), stock price (see previous parenthetical), working capital, software development (internal and external software developers need at least a year's head's up re: release date so they can allocate their development teams accordingly), etc. I'm sure there are a million other factors. This is just the stuff I've pulled out of ---my bottom--- just now.
I would expect that there has already been quite a bit of groundwork done on the next systems for all of the players. They pretty much start conceptualizing the next one before the first is even on the shelves. But like Mike wrote, they aren't going to ditch a current system until virtually every drop of coin is squeezed out. That would just be bad business. That's not to say that a competitor couldn't cause that to happen more quickly either. And having a system designed and sitting in the wings works to the manufacturer's benefit when they can squeeze more time out of the current system, as technology tends to cost less as more time passes, and the time to market will be greatly reduced. But at some point, the manufacturer has to commit. That is when the designs get completely finalized, factories get fired up, and the developers are put on final notice and supplied with development equipment, etc. But they aren't going to do this until they absolutely have to in a poor economy. Companies get very conservative in rough times, and again, videogame companies are no exception. In rough times, if they can put off massive cash outlays associated with manufacturing and introducing a new system for an extra year by simply knocking another $50 off the price of the current console, or packing in the motion control hardware at the same price, you can be sure that they will do that first. And you are correct that there are plenty of other logistical considerations, but they pale in comparison to the consideration as to how the machine will be received, or if it can even be adopted in reasonable quantities by the market, given the current economic climate.
-
There was just as much hype surrounding the Move.
You're insane. Microsoft marketed the ---fudgesicle--- out of that thing. Oprah was giving it away on her show to all her housewife spectators. Jimmy Kimmel too, I think. There are probably 10 Kinect ads to every Move ad. The hype surrounding Move wasn't even close.
And you can include digital distribution because otherwise you're left with something retarded. If I buy Burnout from PSN it's a ---smurfing--- game sale just as much as if I buy Burnout on disc (both are available--I have the disc-based one). Criterion and EA lose money when I buy a pair of pants in lieu of the Burnout disc. When I buy Burnout via PSN in lieu of the the Burnout disc that money sort of has to be counted, ya know? Otherwise your numbers tell a lie. Your numbers say the videogame industry has slipped 6% when in reality people are just paying them with a different form of legal tender.
Also, I haven't looked anything up, but yeah, digital distributions were much greater this year than last. I mean, obviously I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt it.
-
Moreover, you keep saying that they put their best foot forward in 2010, but I don't really see how that's true. The 360 is more than 5 years old. The other two are more than 4 years old. You said that companies get conservative when times are tough, and that includes software publishers. EA, Activision, Ubisoft . . . everyone is scaling back on original IP and putting all their resources into tentpole sequels. Everything about 2010 practically begs gamers to get bored with the current generation. It's aging and the publishers aren't giving us anything new. They're almost exclusively just putting ever-shinier layers of polish on proven games.
Note: I'm speaking in generalities. I know that there are exceptions to every rule and there were probably a few really creative releases here and there. And for ---fudgesicle---'s sake, yes, I know about Dance Central. I agree. It looks really innovative. It looks fun. I wish I had a Kinect and a 360 right now so I could dance my heart out. It doesn't erase the rest of the world, though, unfortunately. Also, I'm not going to buy a Kinect just for that. Even if I had a 360. For reasons stated.
-
You're insane. Microsoft marketed the ---fudgesicle--- out of that thing. Oprah was giving it away on her show to all her housewife spectators. Jimmy Kimmel too, I think. There are probably 10 Kinect ads to every Move ad. The hype surrounding Move wasn't even close.
I don't watch Oprah or Jimmy Kimmel. In fact, I don't think I have seen more than 3 commercials on TV for the Kinect. PS3, with the Move, OTOH, more than I can remember, and still counting. Was it mostly during daytime soaps?
Also, I haven't looked anything up, but yeah, digital distributions were much greater this year than last. I mean, obviously I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt it.
Well, feel free to look it up. At this point you are "freestyling", and regardless, you still have to do a 1:1 to make it meaningful. Otherwise, what is the point?
-
Moreover, you keep saying that they put their best foot forward in 2010, but I don't really see how that's true. The 360 is more than 5 years old. The other two are more than 4 years old. You said that companies get conservative when times are tough, and that includes software publishers. EA, Activision, Ubisoft . . . everyone is scaling back on original IP and putting all their resources into tentpole sequels. Everything about 2010 practically begs gamers to get bored with the current generation. It's aging and the publishers aren't giving us anything new. They're almost exclusively just putting ever-shinier layers of polish on proven games.
Note: I'm speaking in generalities. I know that there are exceptions to every rule and there were probably a few really creative releases here and there. And for ---fudgesicle---'s sake, yes, I know about Dance Central. I agree. It looks really innovative. It looks fun. I wish I had a Kinect and a 360 right now so I could dance my heart out. It doesn't erase the rest of the world, though, unfortunately. Also, I'm not going to buy a Kinect just for that. Even if I had a 360. For reasons stated.
If you look at the top game sales, those "polished antiques" are at the highest positions. They are the best-selling franchises, and pretty much all of them hit in 2010. On the hardware side, there were 2 add-ons for the systems, that weren't there the previous year, and significantly added to the types of games both could play. This should be easy stuff to understand.
If you are saying that the industry is getting bogged down in the remix, like the movie and music industries, I would tend to agree. That also doesn't bode well for the future. Still, they pretty much guarantee sales, so a lot of focus is put on them. I think you have hit on a crucial component for stability, and it was confirmed in 2010. People want something fresh, and a new system with little more than snazzier graphics and better frame rates might not be enough to get them to buy in.
-
Well, feel free to look it up. At this point you are "freestyling", and regardless, you still have to do a 1:1 to make it meaningful. Otherwise, what is the point?
Randy, you don't have to cite everything you say. You'd have to be retarded to not see that digital distribution is increasing rapidly at the expense of boxed retail games. Have you ever heard of Steam? But here's something if you must see scientific facts to confirm the absurdly obvious. (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-electronic-arts-bright-future-loss.html)
And you don't have to do a 1:1 to make it meaningful. The percentage of games that are purchased digitally vis-a-vis retail box is growing. Rapidly. Growing. That means that citing 6% (you say it's way higher than that, actually) is misleading. Because it makes it look like sales declined 6%, when in reality a lot of that was simply growth in digital distribution. 1:1 ignores the growth in digital distribution. In any case, 6% ain't even bad in this economy.
-
Randy, you don't have to cite everything you say. You'd have to be retarded to not see that digital distribution is increasing rapidly at the expense of boxed retail games. Have you ever heard of Steam? But here's something if you must see scientific facts to confirm the absurdly obvious. (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-electronic-arts-bright-future-loss.html)
That article made my head hurt. They showed a 4x loss (322million) on lower revenues, yet "the future is bright" because they made 60 million more in downloaded games than the year before. Did I get that right? If so, they still lost over 5x what they gained, so it's hard to see the direct game downloads as capable of making that much difference. And while Steam may be popular for PC games, I don't think digital distribution is quite that popular on consoles. It's hard impossible to trade in a downloaded game for 60% of what you payed for it.
-
I didn't read the article. I did a google search and grabbed a random link with an appropriate headline. But there are lots of games doing really really well on Live, PSN and Wiiware, not to mention Android, iOS, etc. Digital game distribution is getting kinda big. Fast. And not just on PCs (which isn't to say PCs don't count; they do, of course).
-
I didn't read the article. I did a google search and grabbed a random link with an appropriate headline. But there are lots of games doing really really well on Live, PSN and Wiiware, not to mention Android, iOS, etc. Digital game distribution is getting kinda big. Fast. And not just on PCs (which isn't to say PCs don't count; they do, of course).
If I can buy a game cheaper because I'm only paying for the game itself (not for the case, disc burning, and for it to be shipped to my local store) I can see how digital would be important to factor into all these numbers you guys are throwing around. Impulse buys when your credit card is hooked up to Steam (really cheap bundles of games you are never going to play) will result in quick sales especially if the content is reduced in price.
I can't help thinking of Sega in this situation, though that isn't really an accurate comparison since these are merely controllers instead of direct improvements to the actual hardware.
-
Wait, what's this? Good financial news for Sony too? (http://www.joystiq.com/2011/02/03/sony-posts-strong-q3-profits-135-in-playstation-group/) Maybe the videogame industry really is weathering this storm pretty well.
-
Wait, what's this? Good financial news for Sony too? (http://www.joystiq.com/2011/02/03/sony-posts-strong-q3-profits-135-in-playstation-group/) Maybe the videogame industry really is weathering this storm pretty well.
The two are not related. No-one said there weren't profits being made, only that sales are slipping, and that as an indicator that the industry isn't immune to economic woes, as so many wingnuts have been saying.
You are also looking at the result of Sony's re-design of the PS3. Of course when it costs less to build one, you are going to make more money for every one sold. I'll bet ditching the memory card slots, the door to cover them, and backward compatibility from the first models made them more money as well. That just goes to show you that Sony could, if they wanted, charge a lot less for the new PS3, which is good, because soon they will need to.
This is also straight from Sony, so they need to report something good to investors after the pummeling they took from the 360 (relatively speaking.)
-
The two are not related. No-one said there weren't profits being made, only that sales are slipping, and that as an indicator that the industry isn't immune to economic woes, as so many wingnuts have been saying.
We're not just talking about sales revenues in isolation. There was a larger point to the discussion. You're suggesting that nobody's going to release a new console in this nightmare of a videogame economy. And I'm saying the videogame economy is fine. It has taken a relatively slight hit thanks to the recession, but overall it is still extremely healthy.
We've come full-circle, now. This is exactly how this discussion got started:
You can google your own industry statistics. Needless to say, video games are doing quite well.
You haven't been paying attention. MS is the only one of the 3 showing growth. The others are showing major decreases in sales, and a number of developers have bit the dust or are not as strong as they were years prior.
So try again.
The videogame industry had been doing spectacularly well in spite of the economy. Not that the ---smurfy--- economy has had no negative effect whatsoever on it, but it's nothing to get worked up over. For every bad story in the industry you've got a Gamestop fiscal results or the like to balance it out.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/08/video-game-industry-growth-runs-circles-around-us-economy.ars (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/08/video-game-industry-growth-runs-circles-around-us-economy.ars)
-
We're not just talking about sales revenues in isolation. There was a larger point to the discussion. You're suggesting that nobody's going to release a new console in this nightmare of a videogame economy. And I'm saying the videogame economy is fine. It has taken a relatively slight hit thanks to the recession, but overall it is still extremely healthy.
But you are trying to use profits made as a result of a matured (read: 3rd major hardware revision) console as support for that. Don't you think they want to finally start reaping the rewards of that for as long as possible before putting themselves in the hole again? And don't you think that they will be very concerned about whether they are able to climb out of said hole as quickly the next time around, if the economy doesn't improve? The economy has only really started getting bad (more widespread and less credit available) in the last year or so, and these consoles had a pretty good head start on the problems. Releasing a new one into this climate would be suicide, and don't think for a second that they don't understand this.
You will see a lot of bundling and price reductions well before you see a new console from anyone. It's already been stated what the tentative new console release schedules are, so you can expect them to be at least that far out. If they economy gets worse, you might see it go out even further.
-
The 3DS isn't a console?
No, it's a handheld. But Nintendo does have it's work cut out for it on the console front. What it does in the next year and a half will give you a good idea as to the direction of the other two. It's probably too late for them to drop something by Christmas 2011, but if they experience the same drop in sales this year, they will need to do something by the end of 2012. I see Nintendo as being key in what happens, as schedules are concerned. They can't wait much longer, so they will need to show their hand first. If they come up with a "full house", there will be much activity from the others. But if they show a "pair of sevens", the other two won't do a thing until they are good and ready.
-
:blah: :blah: :blah:
::)
-
I dunno, Randy, I like your encoders but your shop consists of a lot of stuff people don't want or need (your new ClassX buttons in particular are a real head scratcher but at least they're cheap) so I don't think you've got any kind of enhanced insight into the game industry.
Do you think it's a good business practice to deliberately argue with people over fine details when we're all just speculating anyway?
You haven't a clue about my customer base or what people order from our store every day. And frankly it's pretty sad, but expected from someone like you, to make statements like the one above for no other reason than to try to hurt me financially, simply because you disagree and are unable to articulate exactly why.
Stop being a troll. If you don't find the discussion interesting, move along.
-
His blah blah blahs have a point Randy. For the purposes of our discussion the 3ds is a console. Pointing out otherwise is just grating. Of course it isn't a console, it's a handheld, but it is a closed videogame platform that uses proprietary media. It's made by one of the big three console manufacturers and all the videogame publishers develop for it. And it's $250. And it's subject to the same economy as the rest of the videogame industry. You ought to reign in your compulsive need to argue every single solitary point to your last breath (often even when you agree with your opponent).
Also, take a look at what's out there about Kinect's marketing. $500 million marketing budget! It eclipses Move's. I watch almost no TV at all, and I've seen a bunch of Kinect ads. I don't think I've ever seen a Move ad on TV. We were buried in Kinect marketing over the holidays. I don't know what planet you live on to have not seen it (though considering that you were an early adopter, I suspect that all that marketing might have reached you too).
-
His blah blah blahs have a point Randy. For the purposes of our discussion the 3ds is a console. Pointing out otherwise is just grating. Of course it isn't a console, it's a handheld, but it is a closed videogame platform that uses proprietary media. It's made by one of the big three console manufacturers and all the videogame publishers develop for it. And it's $250. And it's subject to the same economy as the rest of the videogame industry. You ought to reign in your compulsive need to argue every single solitary point to your last breath (often even when you agree with your opponent).
:blah: :blah: :blah:
Was that a helpful response? I didn't think so either, so I'll respond by stating that you have answered every post here as well, not only the ones from me, so it's one of those "pot, kettle, black" situations. And add to that the fact that the 3DS is based heavily upon the DS that is in it's name and it is an entirely different market. The product is an evolutionary step in the current product line and has no bearing on the console market. But it's "trial by fire" is about to begin and it will be interesting to watch.
Also, take a look at what's out there about Kinect's marketing. $500 million marketing budget! It eclipses Move's. I watch almost no TV at all, and I've seen a bunch of Kinect ads. I don't think I've ever seen a Move ad on TV. We were buried in Kinect marketing over the holidays. I don't know what planet you live on to have not seen it (though considering that you were an early adopter, I suspect that all that marketing might have reached you too).
Sorry, I can only tell you my experience. Ads run more heavily in different markets. I watch a fair amount of Comedy Central, and all I see are PS3 ads. Over and over and over. Also keep in mind that a marketing budget isn't just TV ads. Those big release events come from that money as well.
-
Ive never seen a kinect ad, but I have seen Move ads. The PS3 commercials are hit or miss, sometimes "Kevin Bulter" is hilarious, other times its kinda stupid. Other then that I cant believe this thread is still going. Lets say we let it go for like 4 months or so and see whats what?
-
The 3DS is an evolutionary step to the DS the same as the Playstation 2 was an evolutionary step to the Playstation. The DS was released six years ago. The DS will not play 3DS software. The 3DS is the successor to the DS full stop.
As for it being an entirely different market, what of it? First, it's not an entirely different market. It's a segment of the videogame market, and there's a ton of overlap between console and handheld gamers. For example, the percentage of DS-owning households that also have one or more of the consoles is probably astronomically higher than, say, the percentage of gun-owning or sewing-machine-owning houses.
More importantly, who cares? Why would this terrifying economy prevent a new videogame console launch, but not a new videogame handheld launch?
-
Ive never seen a kinect ad, but I have seen Move ads. The PS3 commercials are hit or miss, sometimes "Kevin Bulter" is hilarious, other times its kinda stupid. Other then that I cant believe this thread is still going. Lets say we let it go for like 4 months or so and see whats what?
Why are you guys still talking about this (as I chime in with my own two cents)? :cheers:
-
I dunno, Randy, I like your encoders but your shop consists of a lot of stuff people don't want or need (your new ClassX buttons in particular are a real head scratcher but at least they're cheap) so I don't think you've got any kind of enhanced insight into the game industry.
Do you think it's a good business practice to deliberately argue with people over fine details when we're all just speculating anyway?
PBJ, what do you do exactly? For an occupation I mean. Please dont gimme some smart ass answer either :lol
-
More importantly, who cares? Why would this terrifying economy prevent a new videogame console launch, but not a new videogame handheld launch?
I think it's a stretch to consider the 3DS "new" compared to the DS, DSLite, DSi, etc... in the the same way that the PS3 was "new" compared to the PS2. There is full backward compatibility between the units. From everything I have read, it's a DSi with added parts (analog control, gyroscope, accelerometer, a new graphic processor powerful enough to support the 3D effect, and an extra camera...several of which are apparently taking a toll on the battery life... did I miss anything?) So there's a lot to do here with extra controls and peripheral function, but I'm not sure it qualifies as a "new" system, any more than a Kinect bundled with a 360 makes it a new system. The PS3 got an update recently to allow it to play 3D games on 3D enabled TV's. Is the PS3 new now as well? (only sort of joking on that last one.)
-
Well, first of all, I compared the Playstation 2 to the original Playstation, so there was full backward compatibility, not that the existence of backward compatibility somehow relegates a system to minor evolution instead of "new". Last I checked there was a healthy amount of backward compatibility on the Xbox 360. Was the 360 just an evolutionary step in the Xbox line rather than a brand new generation machine?
Second, the DSi has a 133 Mhz ARM9 CPU. The 3DS has two 266 Mhz ARM11 CPUs. The 3DS has 64 MB of RAM, compared to the DSi's 16. The 3DS has a 133 Mhz PICA200 GPU, compared with the DSi's complete lack of a discrete GPU. The 3DS also has 4 MB of dedicated video RAM which the DSi obviously didn't have. And, like you said, the 3DS introduces analog control, gyroscope, accelerometer, an extra camera.
It qualifies as a "new" system.
-
Well, first of all, I compared the Playstation 2 to the original Playstation, so there was full backward compatibility, not that the existence of backward compatibility somehow relegates a system to minor evolution instead of "new". Last I checked there was a healthy amount of backward compatibility on the Xbox 360. Was the 360 just an evolutionary step in the Xbox line rather than a brand new generation machine?
I know you don't know this, because the 360 isn't your "bag", but every original XBOX game the 360 can play requires a specific emulator tweaked for that particular game. Kind of like the way BLEEM was able to play PSX games on the Dreamcast. It's the reason why you can play some of the old games pretty well, and you'll never be able to play others. I don't know enough about the way the the PS2 did it, but I seem to recall that a good chunk of the PSX was actually present inside the PS2 as a separate device which used the PS2 parts where it could (and were improved as a result). It did not, to my recollection, share the same architecture, and a number of PSX games don't work on the PS2. You also can't save game data from the PSX side to PS2 memory cards, which underscores the hardware difference when playing a PSX game.
Second, the DSi has a 133 Mhz ARM9 CPU. The 3DS has two 266 Mhz ARM11 CPUs. The 3DS has 64 MB of RAM, compared to the DSi's 16. The 3DS has a 133 Mhz PICA200 GPU, compared with the DSi's complete lack of a discrete GPU. The 3DS also has 4 MB of dedicated video RAM which the DSi obviously didn't have. And, like you said, the 3DS introduces analog control, gyroscope, accelerometer, an extra camera.
It qualifies as a "new" system.
It actually sounds like a dual-core ARM11, not two distinct processors, plus a GPU. The DSi has an ARM9 and an ARM7. And yes, the system got beefed up for the 3D stuff. But the architecture did not change dramatically. The full backward compatibility is a testament to that. It's no different than putting a faster (or additional) CPU, memory and graphics card in your PC. It's still gonna run Windows and all of your apps when you are done. It may feel like a new system to you, relative to what you had in the past, but it's still just a faster PC with better graphics. When a new console comes out, the architecture is usually quite different from it's predecessor. There was a huge learning curve on the PS3 because it was so different, not only from the PS2, but from pretty much everything else as well. But if you want to consider the 3DS a "new" system, that's your prerogative.
I have to admit that I am a bit excited to see where Nintendo goes with this one. With the price tag and the built in features of the 3DS, one has to feel a little like they may finally be attempting to shed the "kid's toy" image and push into the more "adult gamer" market where Sony has tried to position the PSP devices. It will be fun to follow.
-
Randy, your criteria for what makes a "new" system are totally arbitrary and self-serving, not to mention shifting. So . . . If Microsoft had stuck with Intel instead of going with IBM for the 360, it wouldn't have been a "new" system? First the 3DS wasn't new because they just added 3D and analog and gyroscope. Now that you see that it is significantly more than twice as powerful we learn that in order for a console to be "new" the processor must use a different architecture than the last-gen device. And backward compatibility is okay so long as it's done through emulation or or by including dedicated hardware, but if your main CPU is capable of natively running the old code, you're out of luck . . .
So apparently if one console ran on a 286 and a future system ran on an quad-core i7 you couldn't really consider the second one a "new" system. Cos, you know, x86.
-
The DSi has an ARM9 and an ARM7.
Maybe. The vast majority of sources say it's a single 133 Mhz ARM9. A couple say it's a 67 Mhz ARM9 coupled with a 33 Mhz ARM7. Regardless, upgrading to dual proc (or a dual core) 266 Mhz ARM11 plus a 133 Mhz PICA200 GPU is a substantial upgrade. At least a two or 3-4 fold bump in processing power based on clock speed alone, not taking into account advances in the architecture and the benefits of using a specialized GPU rather than doing everything with a general purpose chip.
-
Randy, your criteria for what makes a "new" system are totally arbitrary and self-serving, not to mention shifting. So . . . If Microsoft had stuck with Intel instead of going with IBM for the 360, it wouldn't have been a "new" system? First the 3DS wasn't new because they just added 3D and analog and gyroscope. Now that you see that it is significantly more than twice as powerful we learn that in order for a console to be "new" the processor must use a different architecture than the last-gen device. And backward compatibility is okay so long as it's done through emulation or or by including dedicated hardware, but if your main CPU is capable of natively running the old code, you're out of luck . . .
So apparently if one console ran on a 286 and a future system ran on an quad-core i7 you couldn't really consider the second one a "new" system. Cos, you know, x86.
You are just talking around what I stated. I didn't change my position. I don't think you can play a 16-bit game on a 64-bit system without emulation, but that may be software related more than hardware. In true 64-bit mode, you don't get 16-bit compatibility. In the purest sense, though, it's kind of true. The migration path is much simpler as the architecture is very similar, with the latter supposedly being a superset of the former. And yes, if the successor to the 360 is fully backward compatible, and just has an upgraded processor and GPU, I'll view it in the same way.
Maybe. The vast majority of sources say it's a single 133 Mhz ARM9. A couple say it's a 67 Mhz ARM9 coupled with a 33 Mhz ARM7. Regardless, upgrading to dual proc (or a dual core) 266 Mhz ARM11 plus a 133 Mhz PICA200 GPU is a substantial upgrade. At least a two or 3-4 fold bump in processing power based on clock speed alone, not taking into account advances in the architecture and the benefits of using a specialized GPU rather than doing everything with a general purpose chip.
The DSi supposedly has a 133mhz ARM9 with a 33mhz ARM7. The graphics system is listed as "Nintendo proprietary", so I am assuming (yeah, I know) that the secondary processor was used to accelerate the graphics, as is done on some cell phones.
No doubt that it will be faster and more capable, at least in 2D viewing mode. In fact, I stated this in another thread already. In 3D mode, the system is going to have to render at least two different images (maybe more, depending in the number of viewing zones...any idea about that one?), which it must calculate on the fly and then interlace them vertically for display. Folks who are questioning the value of high resolution on a small screen, don't understand that you have to divide the number of views into that resolution, making it more coarse. Without the ability to do this much pixel-pushing, it simply would not work. This was always the bane of the technology we found ourselves competing with. It was hard to make a marketable system due to the high costs associated with the processing and display requirements, which were multiplied because customers expected multiple 3D views based on a viewers angle to the screen.
I think one unfortunate thing is that all this power that would be great in 2D, will be attached to display that might not look so great because of the 3D optical element. It's hard to say at the moment, because there aren't any to examine, but I hope that's not the case. The one video I saw with an "nVidia-style" graphics demo looked quite nice! Not exactly PS3 or 360 nice, as some are claiming, but still great for a hand-held.
-
And yes, if the successor to the 360 is fully backward compatible, and just has an upgraded processor and GPU, I'll view it in the same way.
That doesn't make sense. You're saying that the Super Nintendo was a full-on next-generation system. But if it was identical in every way, same as powerful, played all the same games, but additionally happened to use a similar enough architecture that it could also play all of the NES games, that it would suddenly become less than what it is without that feature. That makes absolutely no sense.
By the way, this means that the DS was not a true successor to the Gameboy Advance. It's fully backward compatible. For that matter, the Gameboy Advance was not a next generation system either. It could play the entire libraries of Gameboy and Gameboy Color.
This position is just totally indefensible. There is nothing inherently superior about changing architectures with each new system. What matters is the performance you're able to achieve for your dollar. If Intel gives you the most compelling options two generations in a row it would be utterly moronic to go with ARM or PowerPC or some other architecture solely to mix things up and make sure you're not just releasing a v1.5 instead of a v2.0.
-
This position is just totally indefensible. There is nothing inherently superior about changing architectures with each new system. What matters is the performance you're able to achieve for your dollar. If Intel gives you the most compelling options two generations in a row it would be utterly moronic to go with ARM or PowerPC or some other architecture solely to mix things up and make sure you're not just releasing a v1.5 instead of a v2.0.
Of course you don't do it "just because". But what you should expect from a "next gen" system is some sort of advance in the way that the thing is designed to offer performance geared specifically to the gaming experience. Wider pathways to memory and GPU, multiple GPU's tied directly to I/O lines on the processors, or even on the same die, with optimized instruction sets and gobs of dedicated fast video and texture memory, etc., which usually renders the previous approach obsolete. And, of course, it should do it at a price befitting such a specialized, mass market, closed system device. If you look, you will see that pretty much every new console of the past has done that within the limits of the technology (and cost) for the time. If you want to play the "incremental upgrade" game, just get a PC and you can have a "next gen" gaming platform whenever you think your wallet can handle it. :)
Funny, I had to research the following, but I was right on the money with my suspicions. The Gameboy Advance actually has an on-board Z-80 processor to handle the GB and GBC backward compatibility (which it cleverly uses to augment audio functions when not needed for GBC gaming.) The Advance was the first to start using the ARM RISC processors, so it does seem that starting with the advance, the architecture has been similar with incremental additions and upgrades. If you want to boil it down...if you have to emulate hardware of the previous generation, or actually include the physical hardware alongside the current hardware, in order to offer backward compatibility, then you have made more than an incremental step. Of course, if you add enough stuff and/or crank up the speed significantly, the first incarnation pales compared to the last, but they are still of the same "family".
-
If you want to boil it down...if you have to emulate hardware of the previous generation, or actually include the physical hardware alongside the current hardware, in order to offer backward compatibility, then you have made more than an incremental step. Of course, if you add enough stuff and/or crank up the speed significantly, the first incarnation pales compared to the last, but they are still of the same "family".
Still makes no sense. Changing architectures in and of itself is irrelevant. The more than incremental step could just as well be a lateral step or a step backwards.
Still of the same "family"? Like that matters one iota. What if changing architectures from ARM to RISC or x86 or something else would have resulted in a less capable 3DS for the same amount of money? Changing architectures every time so you can be of a different "family" would be retarded.
You know, the reason you're having to explain your position with made up terms surrounded by quotation marks ("family" "new") is that you're pulling all this out of your ass. It is completely ridiculous. The 360 is a next-gen system, but if it was indistinguishable in every way, identical processing power, identical sound/video hardware, etc., but did all this with an x86 processor it wouldn't be next gen. It's just comedy. Completely indefensible.
-
Still makes no sense. Changing architectures in and of itself is irrelevant. The more than incremental step could just as well be a lateral step or a step backwards.
Still of the same "family"? Like that matters one iota. What if changing architectures from ARM to RISC or x86 or something else would have resulted in a less capable 3DS for the same amount of money? Changing architectures every time so you can be of a different "family" would be retarded.
You know, the reason you're having to explain your position with made up terms surrounded by quotation marks ("family" "new") is that you're pulling all this out of your ass. It is completely ridiculous. The 360 is a next-gen system, but if it was indistinguishable in every way, identical processing power, identical sound/video hardware, etc., but did all this with an x86 processor it wouldn't be next gen. It's just comedy. Completely indefensible.
It's just your perversion of what I stated that makes no sense. Stop twisting it, and you might understand.
-
I don't see at all how I'm twisting it. I only see how ridiculous what you're saying is. Your problem is that you made a completely erroneous statement about the 3DS (that the only difference was a 3D GPU, analog stick, and a gyroscope so it wasn't a true next-gen, but more of a minor upgrade to the existing DS). But when I showed you that you were factually wrong you went into IMPOSSIBLE-I-cannot-be-wrong-about-anything-when-speaking-to-shmokes mode.
So you're desperately trying to posit some bizzaro-land criteria for next-gen-system qualification rather than simply saying, "Oh . . . I didn't realize they were upgrading the CPU and RAM too." Which it is clear that you simply didn't realize. Which is, ya know, no ---smurfing--- big deal. Get over it. You just didn't know.
-
I don't see at all how I'm twisting it. I only see how ridiculous what you're saying is. Your problem is that you made a completely erroneous statement about the 3DS (that the only difference was a 3D GPU, analog stick, and a gyroscope so it wasn't a true next-gen, but more of a minor upgrade to the existing DS). But when I showed you that you were factually wrong you went into IMPOSSIBLE-I-cannot-be-wrong-about-anything-when-speaking-to-shmokes mode.
So you're desperately trying to posit some bizzaro-land criteria for next-gen-system qualification rather than simply saying, "Oh . . . I didn't realize they were upgrading the CPU and RAM too." Which it is clear that you simply didn't realize. Which is, ya know, no ---smurfing--- big deal. Get over it. You just didn't know.
I actually asked if I was missing anything, if you recall. And you can't implement a 3D display without extra memory for the additional processing of the multiple views. That really goes without saying, and more memory doesn't automatically change the way the system works. And if we are keeping score, you have been off base on technical details a lot more than I have in this thread.
It's obvious that technical nuances are not your (or Jim's) forte, so I'll leave it at that. There are reasons why things are the way they are inside these machines, past and present, and until you actually understand the differences between generations of hardware, this is a pointless discussion (not that it isn't anyway).
Cheers! :cheers:
-
The main problem I see with making a Kinect game with much depth is it's inability to control character movement. It can see gestures, but not sustained movement. Because, of course, if you keep moving you end up walking/running out of the room. How do you make a Zelda or God of War or Mass Effect or Grim Fandango or Mario or Halo or . . . you get my drift. I suppose you could take a step forward and the character will keep walking forward till you step back to the dead-zone, like you're standing on an invisible DDR pad. But then you're getting into Power Glove levels of suck.
Thus, I think the device will be used almost exclusively for party games. And party games can be cool. But they're usually pretty shallow.
Also, the living room requirements for the Kinect are bombastically stupid. You can't have a coffee table? You need 8-9 feet for multiplayer, and if you don't have at least 7 you simply can't even use the device at all? That's just . . . are they serious? Who wants to move the coffee table every time they play videogames? In fact, that's just one more thing that will lead this device to be used exclusively for party games. Cos after the novelty wears off you're probably only going to move the coffee table out of the way for this thing when you have a bunch of friends coming over.
I agree with this but ya know what you deal with it. My girlfriend got me the Kinect a few months ago and its a huge blast for parties. On New Years we had about 20 people over..moved the coffee table out of the way and had Dance Central on the projector. We only have about 6 or 7 feet between the screen and the couch but it worked just fine. Our living room is longer than wider and so we do lose some visibility I guess but hey i'm in an NYC apartment. You just have to be flexible and work around it. We just move the ottoman out of the way and there is a our playfield. I definitely agree this is mostly for party play or having people over...I can't see myself turning it on and playing dance central solo....or can I :lol . Definitely can't see RPG type games on it though unless they get creative. I'm really interested to see how Star Wars will be. Its either going to be amazing or a total gimmick. We shall see....
-
I bought a PS3 because of RockBand and I've never regretted it. I played RockBand for months. I still play it every once in a while.
I see Kinects and Move the same way I see the RockBand experience. They're probably fun with a handful of games, but I already own the Wii + 3 controllers and 2 nunchucks, the Wii Fit, PS3 + 2 controllers, RockBand, Singstar and Guitar HeroIV. I have enough console junk cluttering up my living room.
The last device I may or may not get for my PS3 is the Cabella's Dangerous Hunts rifle and I won't be buying that unless I can get it for under $50.
If the new generation console is released before then with an accurate light gun/controller that doesn’t look like a glowing sucker I’ll be able to avoid buying this last add-on for my PS3.
-
And if we are keeping score, you have been off base on technical details a lot more than I have in this thread.
It's obvious that technical nuances are not your (or Jim's) forte, so I'll leave it at that. There are reasons why things are the way they are inside these machines, past and present, and until you actually understand the differences between generations of hardware, this is a pointless discussion (not that it isn't anyway).
No, I haven't been. But even if I had, it wouldn't make the claims you're making now any less absurd. And if you're talking about the discrepancy in DSi specs, cite your sources because there's a conflict on the internet and the bulk of the sources support what I said about it. But it's all academic, the 3DS utterly trounces the DSi specs regardless of which of us was right about them.
So, summarize for me please: how is the 3DS not a full-fledged successor to the DSi.
It has 4 times more RAM, at least 4 times more powerful CPU, a GPU that is either at least 4 times more powerful or infinitely more powerful (if the DSi had no dedicated GPU), adds analog control, adds accelerometer and gyroscope control, adds a 3D camera (though I have no idea what this will be used for aside from novelty). What, specifically, is holding this back from qualifying as "new"?
For that matter, will the PSP2 (or NGP as it is being called now) be a new system? It also will be backward compatible?
Ya know . . . you can climb out of this ridiculous hole you've dug for yourself w/r/t "new" system qualification any time. All ya gotta do is admit that it was sort of a foolish thing to say.
-
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/02/15/sesame-street-once-upon-a-monster/ (http://www.joystiq.com/2011/02/15/sesame-street-once-upon-a-monster/)
Okay, this could make me retract all the bad things I said. A kinect Sesame Street game. No seriously, a Double Fine produced Kinect Sesame Street game.
-
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/02/15/sesame-street-once-upon-a-monster/ (http://www.joystiq.com/2011/02/15/sesame-street-once-upon-a-monster/)
Okay, this could make me retract all the bad things I said. A kinect Sesame Street game. No seriously, a Double Fine produced Kinect Sesame Street game.
Dunno if you are joking or not, but I am really looking forward to this one. I love Double Fine, and I think this could probably be a great gaming experience for my daughter.
-
Not joking. I have a four-year-old daughter and I love Tim Schafer. I don't have a 360, though (or a job), so even if it's amazing I'll probably never have it.
-
Could not a DSlite or a DSi be converted to 3d by simply placing the retarded corrugated plastic lens over the screen?!
How is garbled graphics meant to be displayed through a lens any different than regular graphics? Anybody who's peeled apart one of those 3d pictures knows what I'm talking about... I can't see needing ANY additional processing power here.
I can lie and say the new systems have a kajillion processing points and X amount of this and Y this. How is anybody going to know?
How DO we know the 3D version of the DS is not just regular DS with a plastic cover over a screen??
-
Um . . . you should just delete that whole post.
-
Hey Shmokes....
Microsoft Kinect thrashes iPad and iPhone to become the fastest-selling electronic device of all time (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1365009/Microsoft-Kinect-thrashes-iPad-iPhone-declared-fastest-selling-electronic-device-record.html)
Are 10 million units (so far) now worth the attention of developers? Although it is worth noting that only ~10 million titles have sold as well, indicating that the library isn't very strong yet. There's a lot of money to be made for the producer of the next killer app on this thing.
...and it looks like industry analysts have recently come to the conclusion I came to in this thread over a month ago (http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=107125.msg1158097#msg1158097)....
Wii 2 Needs to Be Unveiled at E3 to 'Catch Up' with PS3, 360 (http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/wii-2-needs-to-be-unveiled-at-e3-to-catch-up-with-ps3-360/)
-
Are 10 million units (so far) now worth the attention of developers?
Well, the answer to that question is complex, but I still think it's mostly "no", though I will certainly admit that the Kinect has sold far better than I expected.
First, triple A titles need to sell 3-4 million+ copies to be a success, meaning the developers of those titles need to sell that many to stay in business. So for games like God of War, Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed, etc., an installed base of 10 million is still pretty risky. And it's all the riskier considering that with all the same resources you can develop for an installed base pushing 50 million. For this reason we will continue to see shallower (aka less expensive to produce) experiences on the Kinect.
Second, no matter how many Kinects are sold, even if 100 million are sold, there is no escaping it's physical restrictions. It is crippled by a lack of means to gracefully move avatars from one location to another. Great games can be made in which you don't have to go from point A to point B (Dance Central, Tetris), or games can be put on rails to great effect (Typing of the Dead). But it is nevertheless severely limiting and while there will be some novelty here and there, like with that forthcoming puppeteer gunslinger game, mostly it will just lead to a glut of mini-game collections and the like. The Kinect has sold well, but guess what else has sold well that mostly just sits gathering dust . . . the Nintendo Wii . . . like to the tune of 70 million units or something. There is an abundance of time for the novelty of Kinect to wear off if there isn't a steady stream of triple A content available for it.
I agree that Nintendo unquestionably has to release a new system soon, but it's not as a result of the Kinect or Move. It's just that the Wii sucks and the novelty of it's fairly crappy motion controls has warn off (long before the advent of Kinect and Move). Wii sales were in a nosedive all last year, and attach rate has been abysmal. Kinect didnotcause this.
-
First, triple A titles need to sell 3-4 million+ copies to be a success, meaning the developers of those titles need to sell that many to stay in business. So for games like God of War, Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed, etc., an installed base of 10 million is still pretty risky. And it's all the riskier considering that with all the same resources you can develop for an installed base pushing 50 million. For this reason we will continue to see shallower (aka less expensive to produce) experiences on the Kinect.
If you are expecting a "triple A title" for any motion control hardware, you probably are expecting too much. That doesn't mean, however, that developers can't produce decent games with broad appeal and high sales figures.
The Kinect has sold well, but guess what else has sold well that mostly just sits gathering dust . . . the Nintendo Wii . . . like to the tune of 70 million units or something. There is an abundance of time for the novelty of Kinect to wear off if there isn't a steady stream of triple A content available for it.
I'm not sure even Dance Central, the current "killer app" for the hardware, has anywhere near the production values of any of the games you mentioned. Still, it has made the developer a couple hundred million dollars. It doesn't take huge production values to make a good game, so getting hung up on that aspect of things is a bit of a "straw man". What still remains to be seen, is whether a different type of game can achieve that level of success. I think Yoostar2 will do pretty well when it's released.
I agree that Nintendo unquestionably has to release a new system soon, but it's not as a result of the Kinect or Move. It's just that the Wii sucks and the novelty of it's fairly crappy motion controls has warn off (long before the advent of Kinect and Move). Wii sales were in a nosedive all last year, and attach rate has been abysmal. Kinect didnotcause this.
It did not cause it, but both the Kinect and the Move are responsible for the urgency in which Nintendo must now act. As I stated before, the Wii no longer has a "hook", and they do not have the same luxury of time currently being afforded to MS and Sony. The ball is now in Nintendo's court, and what they do will have a big effect on the new system timeline for all of them.
-
If you are expecting a "triple A title" for any motion control hardware, you probably are expecting too much. That doesn't mean, however, that developers can't produce decent games with broad appeal and high sales figures.
Agreed. Entirely. Smaller titles are great and often very successful. But without the triple A tentpoles, the system will fail. People will forget about it.
It did not cause it, but both the Kinect and the Move are responsible for the urgency in which Nintendo must now act. As I stated before, the Wii no longer has a "hook", and they do not have the same luxury of time currently being afforded to MS and Sony. The ball is now in Nintendo's court, and what they do will have a big effect on the new system timeline for all of them.
Honestly, I think this more or less parallels exactly my position on the true raison d'etre for these devices. I think it would be crazy to think (especially during the proposal and development phases) that either of these devices would be succesful in the market. I mean, they're professionals. They understand the consequences of splitting markets and the historical success rate of expensive add-ons, etc. Even if these devices turn out to be successful, it would be crazy to predict that beforehand. I think the whole point of these devices was to give Sony and MS consumer mindshare. They just didn't want people to percieve Nintendo as a generation ahead of the rest of them. In this respect, I have no doubt that the devices, particularly the Kinect, are successes.
-
But without the triple A tentpoles, the system will fail. People will forget about it.
I think this is where our opinions diverge. The Kinect is simply a specialized controller. It doesn't need anything other than to be there when a new game which requires it, is released. And in the meantime, it acts as an non-contact controller which will have more function as time goes on (dashboard and Netflix navigation, speech recognition, web-chat, etc...) There's little to fail here, and if people have it (and they do) it will get supported...especially by MS.
-
Of course, the question remains, what games? Will Kinect see a steady stream of deep experiences? It needs to. It is novel now, but it won't remain so. Without some core titles (especially on a core-centric console like the 360), people will lose interest. As consumer excitement dwindles, so will developer excitement (what little there is). An extreme example of this is the Wii Balance Board. It, too, is just a specialized controller that needn't do anything until a new game that supports it is released. And during the Wii Fit fad there were a slew of games with Balance Board support (more than 30 (http://www.wiibalanceboardgames.com/wii-board-games-list.aspx)). And before you think this comparison is too retarded for words, remember that Nintendo has sold more than 20 million of those little slabs. I'll readily grant that the Kinect is a far more compelling device than the balance board, but nevertheless publishers were releasing a bunch of software for the balance board early on. But now, in spite of the more than 20 million balance boards in the wild, it is totally ignored by developers. Once the novelty wore off, the lack of deep experiences caused consumers to forget about it. And once they forgot about it, so did the developers.
All those balance boards are still out there. Nothing stops the intrepid developer from putting together a spectacular balance board game and taking advantage of those 20 million balance boards gathering dust. Why doesn't it happen? I don't think you can answer that question without predicting Kinect's failure, in spite of the differences between the two devices. 10 million is an impressive number. But also a largely irrelevant one, IMO.
-
All those balance boards are still out there. Nothing stops the intrepid developer from putting together a spectacular balance board game and taking advantage of those 20 million balance boards gathering dust. Why doesn't it happen? I don't think you can answer that question without predicting Kinect's failure, in spite of the differences between the two devices. 10 million is an impressive number. But also a largely irrelevant one, IMO.
It's an "apples to oranges" comparison. The balance board has no utility value, unless you want to use it as a bathroom scale. The Kinect is a general input device which, as I already stated, will become a more intrinsic part of the dashboard and multimedia experience on the 360. This it will do full-time, according to MS, and be used for gaming, video chat, etc. as well. There are far greater possibilities to be tapped by developers with the Kinect than there are with what amounts to a glorified digital scale. And if you consider the fact that that rather unimpressive piece of hardware was supported with over 30 titles, then there should be plenty for the Kinect, with more depth by virtue of the considerably higher capabilities inherent to the hardware.
-
Shrug . . . even if the utility pans out and MS is able to make the gesture/voice UI compelling (so far it is decidedly not compelling), I don't really see how this will have a substantial impact on developer support for games. Regardless, I simply don't believe that many games with much gameplay or narrative depth will be released. And that will be that. Time, of course, will tell.
-
You know, the reason you're having to explain your position with made up terms surrounded by quotation marks ("family" "new") is that you're pulling all this out of your ass.
:duckhunt
You need to get used to adding 'my learned friend' now your a lawyer ;D
-
Shrug . . . even if the utility pans out and MS is able to make the gesture/voice UI compelling (so far it is decidedly not compelling), I don't really see how this will have a substantial impact on developer support for games.
It already has. Part of the allure of the device is the "Minority Report-style" interaction with media, etc. The promise of this has helped to drive the sales, and more numbers means more likely support from developers.
Regardless, I simply don't believe that many games with much gameplay or narrative depth will be released. And that will be that. Time, of course, will tell.
From what I have personally seen, gameplay is abundant on the unit, where the capabilities have been used well by the developer. This is more of a software than hardware limitation currently. Narrative depth is something you personally see as necessary in it's games for it to succeed, and my opinion is that the notion is misplaced in this particular instance. Most of the classic games folks are still playing today (especially on this forum) had little, if any narrative at all. Angry Birds is a good current example of a wildly successful, addictive and fun game that doesn't need any.
-
The Kinect has a pretty cool Sesame Street game out.
I'm more concerned that the only lightgun game for the 360 is a hunting game. I understand the limited appeal of this genre (lightgun games I mean) but I'm sure the controller would sell better if bundled with another type of shooting game. The kinect should have come with a controller that the sensor bar can easily identify and that can act as a trigger for shooting games.
-
"Narrative depth" is something you personally see as necessary in it's games for it to succeed, and my opinion is that the notion is misplaced in this particular instance. Most of the classic games folks are still playing today (especially on this forum) had little, if any narrative at all. Angry Birds is a good current example of a wildly successful, addictive and fun game that doesn't need any.
Angry Birds would no doubt be successful on Kinect, but the Kinect will not be successful with only Angry Birds (and similarly shallow titles). You see that. It's like a movie theater that only showed Pixar films. It would fail. And that's not disparaging Pixar films at all. They're great. But nobody wants to live on a diet consisting of nothing but candy, especially when they're paying $60 a pop for their games.
Narrative depth is essential. That's not to say that it's essential in every game. But it needs to available. Obviously casual games can be great too, but if that's all the Kinect offers (or almost all it offers), it will fail.
p.s. Angry Birds sucks balls . . . what a piece of crap waste of time of a game. :cheers:
-
The Kinect has a pretty cool Sesame Street game out.
I don't think that comes out till this fall. It'll probably be pretty cool, though, since it's coming from Double Fine.
-
p.s. Angry Birds sucks balls . . . what a piece of crap waste of time of a game. :cheers:
Now I know you are just posting stuff to try to goad me into insulting you. ;D
-
Just got the April edition of GameInformer magazine... page 37, under the DataFile section:
And I quote:
"Microsoft on Kinect: We're So Busted If you're one of the eight million Kinect owners looking forward to the second wave of releases, Microsoft has some bad news for you. There aren't any. "We didn't anticipate that people would want to continue playing Kinect, so we never planned any more games." said Microsoft's Kudo Tsunoda. "We're mystified by the device's success. Frankly, the whole project was just an elaborate tax dodge." "
*edit* -- just noticed it was under the "parody" section.. lol.
-
Lmao, I was reading that thinking, "WTF, whoever said that is gonna get fired!"
-
p.s. Angry Birds sucks balls . . . what a piece of crap waste of time of a game. :cheers:
Now I know you are just posting stuff to try to goad me into insulting you. ;D
Heh . . . I'm totally serious. I don't see why so many serious people are into this game. I mean, it's engaging for a short while, but I don't understand how people stick with it. First, the sound effects are so grating. And there's like 5 of them. The birds make the same obnoxious noise over and over and over and over and over and over. On every level. Every bird. They all sound the same. And it wouldn't be so bad if the noise that the bird made wasn't so annoying, but it is. And it's just repeated, literally hundreds of times, in the time it takes to play a five-minute session.
Second, you can't get good at Angry Birds. You can improve slightly, but skill very quickly plateaus and the game devolves into simple trial and error. You'll look at a level and see exactly what needs to be done to kill all the pigs. Then you play the level fifty times until you finally get that elusive five star or three star or whatever the perfect score is, but if you tried to do it again it would take you another fifty tries. Because it's not skill-based. It's just a matter of pulling the sling-shot back to exactly the right pixel, which is just something that eventually happens if you pull the it back enough times. That's just stupid. It's like playing a slot machine. You just pull the lever over and over again until you get lucky. How is that fun?
Granted, a small number of people apparently disagree with me, but I think there's just something wrong with them. :)
-
Heh . . . I'm totally serious. I don't see why so many serious people are into this game. I mean, it's engaging for a short while, but I don't understand how people stick with it. First, the sound effects are so grating. And there's like 5 of them. The birds make the same obnoxious noise over and over and over and over and over and over. On every level. Every bird. They all sound the same. And it wouldn't be so bad if the noise that the bird made wasn't so annoying, but it is. And it's just repeated, literally hundreds of times, in the time it takes to play a five-minute session.
Second, you can't get good at Angry Birds. You can improve slightly, but skill very quickly plateaus and the game devolves into simple trial and error. You'll look at a level and see exactly what needs to be done to kill all the pigs. Then you play the level fifty times until you finally get that elusive five star or three star or whatever the perfect score is, but if you tried to do it again it would take you another fifty tries. Because it's not skill-based. It's just a matter of pulling the sling-shot back to exactly the right pixel, which is just something that eventually happens if you pull the it back enough times. That's just stupid. It's like playing a slot machine. You just pull the lever over and over again until you get lucky. How is that fun?
Granted, a small number of people apparently disagree with me, but I think there's just something wrong with them. :)
Yes, but you think something is wrong with anyone who doesn't agree with your rather myopic take on things :). The fact that you don't even know how many stars are max, that they aren't that "elusive" and very repeatable once you know what you are doing (with a few exceptions), just shows that you are once again dissing something you have had not enough exposure to. If you don't know what you are doing, you can take the wingnut approach and play "slot machine style". That's what a lot of people do when they start. But as you get better at the game, and understand how all of the parts interact, you don't do that anymore. After I finished all of the levels with a crummy star or two (rarely), I started over and found that I started getting 3 star scores, repeatably, on levels I did poorly on originally.
The allure of the game is that it is physics based, so every game is a little different. It's difficult, but not impossible, to set a shot up the exact same way as the one previous. There's even a trail from the previous bird, to help you gauge the next shot. If you don't like Angry Birds, you probably don't like any of the bowling, golf, pinball, horseshoes, etc... style games, as the play mechanics of these games are very similar to what you are complaining about, with the exception that AB has more play depth due to the variety of birds and structures. I paid $5 for my copy, as I run it on an XP Tablet PC, but it's free on Android (ad supported). I don't think I have ever had as much enjoyment from a purchased game at such a low price point.
But if your idea of a great game is a super butch mechanoid in metal chaps running around saving mer-men in distress, because it has a deep storyline, then thats fine ;D. We don't all need that level of escapism in order to enjoy what the vast majority consider to be a very well made game.
BTW, to bring this back on topic a little, YooStar2 is cute, and will be great fun at parties, or for fledgling actor-types who want to practice a bit. But it requires even more set-up with the Kinect, lighting, etc, and add-on content is ridiculously priced for what it is. The quality of the result when playing isn't anywhere near what they show on the commercials, which IMHO, border on false advertising in that regard. So my hopes for this one have mostly evaporated. Can probably be done just about as well with a crappy web cam, so it's not even fair to consider it a true Kinect Game. It's also on the PS3.
-
The fact that you don't even know how many stars are max, that they aren't that "elusive" and very repeatable once you know what you are doing (with a few exceptions), just shows that you are once again dissing something you have had not enough exposure to.
Or . . . it could be that it's been a long time since I played it. I'm just sayin'
-
Anybody wanna buy a 360/kinnect? PM me. Seriously, I'm done with it.
-
I played Kinect Sports a bunch over the weekend. Was visiting family and my nephew has it. It was retarded. Also very laggy. Unfortunately he didn't have Dance Central (or any other game, as far as I know--actually I guess he has Kinect Adventures, or whatever comes with the camera, but I didn't play it).
-
Or . . . it could be that it's been a long time since I played it. I'm just sayin'
Two of the most commonly used phrases said when there's nothing left to back up their argument and ultimately give up w/o admitting defeat:
"I'm just sayin" and "Yeh but still"
;)
-
Or when you are forced to state the obvious, like in this case . . .
-
Yeah but still, when you are forced to state the obvious, like in this case . . . I'm just sayin'
there i fixed your post for you.. :laugh2:
-
Yeah but still, when you are forced to state the obvious, like in this case . . . I'm just sayin'
there i fixed your post for you.. :laugh2:
:laugh2:
-
Lilshawn, putting aside the strangeness of advertising your broadband speed in every single post, what is up with your internet? What kind of crazy service gives you 40 megs down but only 1/2 a meg up? I mean it's
always usually lopsided, but . . .
Also, when a sentence ends with, I'm just sayin' it always means the same thing as 'I hate to state the obvious'. I'm just sayin'. :cheers:
-
I just played Angry Birds for almost half an hour. It's so ---smurfing--- bad. Randy, what in god's name is wrong with you? How can you like this game? It's one of the worst games I have ever played. Dora for Nintendo Wii is better.
-
Dora for Nintendo Wii is better.
Sure it is.
-
;D
-
Lilshawn, putting aside the strangeness of advertising your broadband speed in every single post, what is up with your internet? What kind of crazy service gives you 40 megs down but only 1/2 a meg up? I mean it's always usually lopsided, but . . .
Also, when a sentence ends with, I'm just sayin' it always means the same thing as 'I hate to state the obvious'. I'm just sayin'. :cheers:
it's supposed to be 50/3Mbs but I actually have the upload speed capped on my network firewall so my torrents don't get out of hand. if I go overboard on the upload, they'll shut it down. i don't do much uploading, so i's no big deal to have it at .5mb when all you sent out is HTTP requests
-
I finally got a chance to play the Kinects.
Wow!
...I mean WOW!!!
There may not be any good games for it yet, but it's one heck of a gimmick.
If I had an xBox I'd buy it.
Luckily I own a PS3 and a Wii.
The PS3 cancels out any interest in buying an xBox and the Wii cancels out any interest in buying the Move.
-
Also, when a sentence ends with, I'm just sayin' it always means the same thing as 'I hate to state the obvious'. I'm just sayin'. :cheers:
Yeh but still, I was jus sayin'...
So I'm stating the obvious now
-
I love how this thread is still kicking. :laugh2:
-
So, Randy, seeing as more than a year has gone by, I'm interested to know if your prognosis for the Kinect has changed.
-
I ended up getting one, with 4 games GunStringer, Fruit Ninja, and Kinect Adventures came with it for $100ish, also got Dance Central 2. I think its pretty accurate and the kind of games made for it work well, but I still prefer a controller in my hands and I cant really say I like dancing (I am white after all)
-
So, Randy, seeing as more than a year has gone by, I'm interested to know if your prognosis for the Kinect has changed.
Uncanny. I was just thinking earlier today that I should resurrect this trainwreck of a thread. In answer to your question; not really. I don't often shell out $50+ for the latest releases, so I can't comment on what's out there now. A few have caught my eye though.
But here's some recent updates on the tech in general.
66 million 360's and 18 million Kinects sold. (http://www.neowin.net/news/66-million-xbox-360-units-and-18-million-kinect-units-sold)
Kinect for Windows (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16836031)
Kinect for mobile devices (http://www.tgdaily.com/mobility/61169-microsoft-eyes-kinect-for-windows-8-mobile-devices)
Kinect SDK (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2399691,00.asp)
Interesting $10 Kinect diversion (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2012/02/double-fine-happy-action-theater-redefines-what-a-kinect-game-can-be.ars)
Microsoft is still demonstrating an extremely strong commitment to the technology, and states "they are only starting to scratch the surface". Must be something the consumer likes in that little black box. ;)
-
Oh, I never had any doubts that MS planned to do big things with it. If you'll recall, I simply didn't think it would be a success in the current generation. But I always thought, and said in this thread, that the tech would feature heavily in Xbox 3.
I'll freely admit that 18 million units is a good three times what I expected, but as an add-on peripheral that puts it at substantially shy of the success of the Wii Balance Board. Publishers are still faced with the same problem--focus the budget on the 66 million strong market, or spend the same amount of money on a game that is incompatible with 48 million of those 66 million Xboxes.
And like clockwork, the software support seems to be exactly what I predicted. MS is not seriously supporting the device. Neither are third parties. Still not a single AAA title for the device after like 14 months on the market plus however long dev kits were out prior to release. It's not taken seriously in this generation. Just a bunch of low budget party games and exercise programs.
With that said, there's an absolutely brilliant commercial for the upcoming Kinect Star Wars. I'd link to it, but I'm on an iPad and if I change tabs the stupid thing will reload the page when I switch back to this tab and I'll lose everything I wrote. The commercial is awesome, though. I recommend tracking it down. If the game is half as good as the commercial you may finally have your game with depth that I was hounding you about way back when. The commercial shows no gameplay, so there's no reason to think that will be the case. But it's awesome.
Edit: here it is (http://i.joystiq.com/2012/01/31/kinect-star-wars-trailer-is-cute-in-an-awkward-bumbling-kind-of/)
-
I hate to burst your bubble, but that game is going to be crap. It was previewed all the way back at E3, and unless they managed to completely change gameplay mechanics it isn't all that great.
Ever played the swordfighting mini game in Wii Sport Resort? It's that. The only difference is you have all of these unintuitive "force power" gestures that you have to deal with and because the Kinect sensor is involved instead of a proper wand/wiimote it often has problems tracking your movements, especially with the saber fighting.
I still see Kinect being dropped completely. Yes it has had a high adoption rate, and yes microsoft seems to be investing a great deal of time and money into getting the thing utilized.... but has that ever stopped them from dropping a product cold-turkey, without warning, before?
Sidewinder gamepads, Sidewinder joysticks, xbox-classic peripherals, true force-feedback, the 360 racing wheel, heck direct input!
These were all immensely popular hardware tech and software tech that Microsoft just up and ended support one day, without warning or reason.
It seems to me that the problem lies in M$'s huge bank account. They'll string along a product for ages debating on if it's worth supporting. One day they'll just decide to move on, because they can afford to do so.
Now if Kinect was doing fantastic then this would be less of a concern, but as you said, it doesn't even have the adoption rate of the balance board, and boy was that thing a flop.
I think the Kinect could be popular on the PC for home theater applications, but that's about it.
Oh and the funny thing is... I was going to resurrect this train-wreck as well, because of the original title and what Tyco and Gabe made a couple of weeks ago:
(http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/i-wDXQbxt/0/L/i-wDXQbxt-XL.jpg)
-
Heh . . . it doesn't burst anything of mine. I'm just here for the awesome commercial.
-
There goes Howard with his often times myopic "crystal ball" again :)
Comparing the Kinect to the Wii's "balance board", simply through the sales numbers, is just fanboi excrement. I too bought one of those boards and played around with it a total of twice. The Kinect, however, has seen a great deal of use, and I still like to play some of the games I have for it (when I can find the time.) It's always a fun and satisfying experience.
As for MS dropping support, a handful of items were mentioned that were poorly adopted, and which still actually work without extra support required. I do admit, though, that I have yet to plug my Sidewinder force feedback joystick into my Win7 machine to see if it recognizes it. I'm guessing it will still work at some level. Pretty sure my 360 racing wheel still works as well.
There are currently 74 games or "experiences" in the Kinect catalog. It's not uncommon to see a new game with the Kinect sticker on it nowadays.
I still think they need to hybridize the control scheme with a simple "power glove" type device, with a button or two, to get the best use of the tech. But I get the feeling they are doing everything possible to avoid the "Wiimote through the LCD TV" scenario. I still believe they, or a third party publisher, will do this at some point.
The Kinect will not be "dropped completely", at least not until some better tech comes along to replace it. The sales numbers show that quite a few folks bought a 360 because of the Kinect. Few peripherals can tout this kind of popularity. It's also an open ended item, as there is a lot one can do with 3D vision technology, with the right software. Compared to a rudimentary 2.5 axis pressure sensor like the Wii balance board.....well, there's no comparison. Also bear in mind that no-one here knows exactly what the capabilities of the Kinect hardware truly are. How much more refined can the system become with the right software support? Look at the first year titles from any video game system and compare them to those 3 years later. Will the Kinect enjoy this kind of refinement? Only Howard can tell you :)
It's not going to be for everyone, and it's obvious that those who view the technology as a "problem" fall into that group. But developers are finding new things to do with it, and will continue to as long as the demand is there and they learn new ways to harness the data being generated by the hardware.
And regardless of the Star Wars game itself, the teaser is a riot :lol I think it will have to be a decent title, considering the franchise and the control it's owners have over the products bearing it's name.
-
The Kinect will not be "dropped completely", at least not until some better tech comes along to replace it. The sales numbers show that quite a few folks bought a 360 because of the Kinect. Few peripherals can tout this kind of popularity. It's also an open ended item, as there is a lot one can do with 3D vision technology, with the right software. Compared to a rudimentary 2.5 axis pressure sensor like the Wii balance board.....well, there's no comparison. Also bear in mind that no-one here knows exactly what the capabilities of the Kinect hardware truly are. How much more refined can the system become with the right software support? Look at the first year titles from any video game system and compare them to those 3 years later. Will the Kinect enjoy this kind of refinement? Only Howard can tell you :)
A mate works for Microsoft and he said there will be a new Kinect coming out for corporate desktops soon.
Supposed to interact with Office. Minority Report gestures? (http://www.pcworld.com/article/213126/minority_report_meets_kinect_thanks_to_mit.html)
-
I think it will have to be a decent title, considering the franchise and the control it's owners have over the products bearing it's name.
Maybe it'll be decent, but not for the reason you said. There have been plenty of crap Star Wars games (and films) over the years. Hopefully it'll be great. From what I've seen of it, though (one screenshot), it doesn't seem to be getting triple-A treatment--at least not in the graphics department. But it might just be early. I think the game's not scheduled to come out till the end of the year.
-
There goes Howard with his often times myopic "crystal ball" again :)
Well if you would go back and look at some of the things I've predicted, I'm like 75-80% accurate. The truth hurts sometimes.
You like Kinect I get it... but don't desperately try to defend you purchase by predicting that such an off the wall device will ever be a huge success. The fact that you like it and you are getting enjoyment out of it is more than enough. ;)
-
Umm...
How is 18 million sold in just over a year not a huge success?
-
Umm...
How is 18 million sold in just over a year not a huge success?
Well . . . don't get me wrong. As a product at market 18 million is nothing to shake a stick at. But one way it has not been a success is as a platform on which developers can make fun games. In this way it is quite comparable to the Wii Fit. That peripheral sold 22 million, so at first blush it seems like the thing would be ripe for development. But publishers have for the most part just thrown together inexpensive crap for it. They don't commit big budgets to it. And of course they wouldn't. It costs the same to develop for the Balance Board as it does to develop for the normal Wii Controller. But while the Balance Board has a 22 million person market, the regular Wii has like 100 million or something. Kinect is in the same boat. It's a huge success when taken out of context. But it's a failure at doing what it's ostensibly meant for--to be a legitimate and compelling development platform. It's not nearly the success that it would need to be to overcome the problem of splitting the market. 18 million is a lot. But not enough to be taken seriously.
Thus, of the 74 games Randy mentioned, only two (Dance Central 1 and 2) have a >80 rating on Metacritic. I see no reason to think this situation will change between now and the end of the 360's life.
-
Umm...
How is 18 million sold in just over a year not a huge success?
If you mean successful in that M$ has made a lot of money from selling it, then that may be true, but otherwise it hasn't been sucessful thus far because:
1. There are far more xbox 360's then there are Kinects
2. The numbers sold figure is tainted by the fact that it includes console bundles. It's like measuring the success of the number of wiimotes sold when one wiimote comes with every wii. ;)
3. Only two games thus far have been released for the device (excluding pack-ins of course) have been successfull, namely dance central and dance central 2.
Measuring the success of a controller is tricky. Sales is definately important, in that low sales usually mean failure, but high sales doesn't always mean success. That being said 18 million isn't high considering they sold roughly half a million 360's last march alone. This is just a rought estimate, but in general a hardware accessory needs to have at least a 60-70% attachment rate before a lot of developers will start making games for it. As Shmokes said earlier, it just doesn't make good business sense to develop for a controller that most of your users don't have. Historically speaking... throughout the entire history of video game consoles, the only time a controller that wasn't shipped with the console has been successful is if the controller shipped with the console was "broken" in some way (like the genesis 3 button controller, or the ps1 digital-only controller).
Just to give you an example, they have sold a metric ton of WiiMote Plus remotes, but I wouldn't consider the WiiMote Plus a success. Why? Well only two commercial games of any promenance use the device (Red Steel 2 and Tiger Woods) and in the first party department Nintendo has only released two Party Games (sports resort and wii play motion) and and Single Successful "real" title. (Skyward sword.) The wiimote+ is good tech, but it isn't a success, at least not this gen. Boy it's lineup sure does sound familair doesn't it? It's almost as if I picked that example on purpose. ;)
That being said, the wiimote+ will be successful in the long run because Nintendo is no longer producing the classic wiimote and any wiimote sales for the wii U will be wiimote+.
Microsoft has this out as well. If they force adoption by bundling the kinect sensor with every xbox 720 then it might be possible to get it popularized. It's tricky though because even then it wouldn't be your primary controller. Regardless, Microsoft, thus far, has been pretty bad about their optional components. Even now they sell some 360's without a harddrive! The wii U, on the other hand, is pretty much expecting consumers to buy wiimotes if they want to play multiplayer games, so it will be successfull.
It's insainely complex, unfortuantely.
-
Heh... shmokes replied while I was preparing mine...
I agree 100% with what you said, of course we basically said the same thing. ;)
I think I found of a good example to put things into context and it mirrors EXACTLY what is happening to the Kinect. The NES Zapper.
The NES zapper was heavily backed by NOA upon the nintendo's release. It was even promenantly bundled with the console. There were bundles that didn't include the zapper though and the gamepad was the primary controller that was included with every nes, bundle or no.
The zapper was praised by critics and gamers alike because of the potential it had, and everyone expected it to go far.
Initially get got two top tier games directly from nintendo, Duck Hunt and Hogan's alley. Things were looking up... until the third parties decided to give it a go.
The third parties were scared to fully commit to a controller so they optionally supported it, with the zapper support being far worse than the standard gamepad (Operation Wolf), made it a secondary part of gameplay that's basically forgettable (bayou billy) or just ignored it completely.
Meanwhile, Nintendo was struggling to figure out what to do with the device besides shooting targets on the screen. They experimented with games like gumshoe, but ultimately a standard gamepad would have been more efficient.
Then then started to waine support themselves, going for the optional route (balloon fight). Eventually they stopped making games for it and the third party developers did as well.
In the end you have a dozen or so games with partial support and a handfull with full support. Out of that handfull, only two or three are considered to be good.
This is EXACTLY what is going on with the Kinect right now..... Microsoft's first-party lineup has been really short and really limited. Thrid party support is either supplimental to a a gamepad game, shoddy, or non-existant, and everybody is trying to figure out just what the heck a 3d-camera is good for game-wise besides full body tracking, which isn't as useful as it sounds on paper.
Now of course, the sales are larger, but these days consoles sell a lot better, and of course 74 is a lot bigger number than a dozen, but this isn't the 80's when you had hurdles like quality control and getting a game burned onto a 80 dollar cart to overcome. I mean hell, fruit ninja was originally an ipad game. ;)
My point isn't that the Kinect is a terrible controller, far from it in fact, it's just that it's a specilized controller that isn't the default controller for the console, and those almost never do well.
-
Of course I am measuring the success buy how well it has sold and made money for MS. Any other measuer of success is nothing but the opinion of an individual, and as such can have no real measurement. Just because you or any other individual doesn't like a game means nothing if the games continue to sell. They are successful, regardless of your or anyone elses personal opinion of them.
A direct comparison of the number of Kinect sold to the number of 360 sold is an unbalanced comparison. For starters the 360 has been selling alone without the Kinect for 5 times as long. Secondly, the number of 360 sold is not at all a realistic estimate of how many 360 are actually out there working. I personally have 4 360 that are not working along with my 2 that do work, but I personally count as 6 of those 360 sold. Obviously 4 of those 360 absolutely will not have a Kinect purchased for them, and of those two that do function, only 1 will ever have a Kinect connected to it.
Also, to dismiss Kinects sold in bundles is ridiculous. It is not like the 360 only somes with Kinect now. The Kinect bundle is only one of a few different choices that a consumer has when purchasing a 360, and anyone purchasing that bundle is doing so specifically to buy a Kinect.
-
Of course I am measuring the success buy how well it has sold and made money for MS. Any other measuer of success is nothing but the opinion of an individual, and as such can have no real measurement.
Oh . . . I don't know. I think we could come up with an example where looking exclusively at units sold doesn't necessarily paint an accurate picture of success. For example:
the number of 360 sold is not at all a realistic estimate of how many 360 are actually out there working.
BTW, what would possess you to keep buying those things? I mean, one breaks and you're just unlucky. But when the second one does the same thing . . . doesn't that tell you something? No? Well surely when the third one broke you realized there was something wrong. Wait YOU BOUGHT A FOURTH ONE? And that one, like the previous three, broke. And yet you still bought numbers five and six? WTF is wrong with you, LOL?
Anyway, of course there are all sorts of legitimate and useful ways of looking at things besides absolute units sold. Attach rate, for example, is a very important metric for the success of videogame consoles, independent of console sales. Developer support is another (if for no other reason than the effect it has on attach rate). Developer support for Kinect is, objectively, poor.
-
Of course I am measuring the success buy how well it has sold and made money for MS. Any other measuer of success is nothing but the opinion of an individual, and as such can have no real measurement.
Oh . . . I don't know. I think we could come up with an example where looking exclusively at units sold doesn't necessarily paint an accurate picture of success. For example:
the number of 360 sold is not at all a realistic estimate of how many 360 are actually out there working.
BTW, what would possess you to keep buying those things? I mean, one breaks and you're just unlucky. But when the second one does the same thing . . . doesn't that tell you something? No? Well surely when the third one broke you realized there was something wrong. Wait YOU BOUGHT A FOURTH ONE? And that one, like the previous three, broke. And yet you still bought numbers five and six? WTF is wrong with you, LOL?
Anyway, of course there are all sorts of legitimate and useful ways of looking at things besides absolute units sold. Attach rate, for example, is a very important metric for the success of videogame consoles, independent of console sales. Developer support is another (if for no other reason than the effect it has on attach rate). Developer support for Kinect is, objectively, poor.
Ummm...
Those sales are still a sign of success, because I liked it enough to keep buying them. ;)
Do you have official numbers to show poor developer support for Kinect? Do you have official numbers showing a low attatch rate for Kinect? I agree that you can measure degrees of success based on those, but they are only part of the picture? Was the N64 a failure? I don't think so. I loved that thing, but support for that was mostly poop.
It is not a core gaming device, and it will never have the kind of support that the console alone will have. I can't see that as a measure of its success, because it is something different. Core gamers don't want their core games to control that way, and even if it had been a part of the system from the very first day, you would not see it as the dominant form of control for the system.
I personally have:
Dance Central
Kinect Sports
Kinect Sports 2
Cheerleading (Don't remember the actual name of the game. It is my daughter's who is a cheerleader)
Your Shape Fitness
UFC Personal Trainer
Gunstringer
Kinectimals
Fruit Ninja (Freebie with Gunstringer, but I do play it)
Kinect Adventures (Freebie obviously, and I actually don't like it much at all)
Am I out of the norm with my 10 Kinect Games? I would think that 10 games a year is decent for an attatch rate.
-
Well if you would go back and look at some of the things I've predicted, I'm like 75-80% accurate. The truth hurts sometimes.
Name some of your predictions that have come to pass, and some which haven't. I'm genuinely curious about your accuracy, and can help you with the latter.
You like Kinect I get it... but don't desperately try to defend you purchase by predicting that such an off the wall device will ever be a huge success. The fact that you like it and you are getting enjoyment out of it is more than enough. ;)
Howard, I do like it. It represents a leap in interaction with games and computers that was not possible to this extent before. It's technology that has captured the imaginations of innovators. It's also responsible for the sales of a ton of 360's, simply because it was the only way to experience it. It is, by any reasonable measure, a huge success. You are simply applying a personal standard of "success" that it cannot measure up to. I personally don't like much about the Wii I own. The only reason it's not collecting dust is because I put it back into the box I bought it in. I will not, however, argue that it was not a huge commercial success. I am simply far too jaded to be enamored by the technology it uses, or the experience it provides. That in no way means that there aren't millions of folks who think it, and the company which built it, are the best thing since toast. The most telling thing in this discussion is that a couple of the main detractors are folks who personally own neither the 360 or the Kinect.
Oh . . . I don't know. I think we could come up with an example where looking exclusively at units sold doesn't necessarily paint an accurate picture of success. For example:
Please do.
BTW, what would possess you to keep buying those things? I mean, one breaks and you're just unlucky. But when the second one does the same thing . . . doesn't that tell you something? No? Well surely when the third one broke you realized there was something wrong. Wait YOU BOUGHT A FOURTH ONE? And that one, like the previous three, broke. And yet you still bought numbers five and six? WTF is wrong with you, LOL?
Have you never replaced an optical drive or hard drive in your PC? If you have, what possibly possessed you to do so? In the early days of CD-ROM drives, I replaced one after 6 months that cost the same as TWO 360's. Why? Because I wanted to use the capabilities that device could deliver. The fact that so many continue to purchase 360's regardless of the failure rate should be telling you something. Also keep in mind that few of the units end up in the trash. They can be, and often are, very successfully repaired, to live long and useful lives. I have two, and the one very early production model that failed took me two times to get it right, but it's fully functioning and in it's 5th year of operation. Good luck doing that with a wonky hard drive.
Anyway, of course there are all sorts of legitimate and useful ways of looking at things besides absolute units sold. Attach rate, for example, is a very important metric for the success of videogame consoles, independent of console sales. Developer support is another (if for no other reason than the effect it has on attach rate). Developer support for Kinect is, objectively, poor.
You are simply applying a Howard-esque personal measurement. Had you used the word "subjectively", your statement would have been more credible. 74 titles with many more on the way, indicates a good deal of developer support. Your yardstick seems only to have quantities of "A's" on it, starting with three. If the Kinect was only supported by a pile of fun $5 360 Arcade titles, it would be considered by any rational metric as "successful and supported". Fortunately for those who have bought in, it goes well beyond.
-
Tell that to Metacritic, Randy. Every system has shovelware. Kintect has it exclusively (almost).
Please do.
Next time you are looking for an example of something, it might help to look at the part that comes immediately after the words, "For example:"
But maybe this will help: Grim Fandango, Psychonauts, Beyond Good and Evil. We could leave videogames too. Arrested Development, Shawshank Redemption. Sales is not the only measure of success.
Anyway, without context absolute sales doesn't tell you much. You need context for the number to have any meaning. 18 million is a lot if you're talking about the number of dollars in your bank account, but not so much if you're talking about the number of dollars an oil company made in a year. The context here is a console add-on, a la the Sega 32x, Sega CD, N64 Memory Pack, etc. I just don't see you providing any compelling evidence that 18 million is enough to render irrelevant the split market. 18 million is a subjectively large number. But 60 million is objectively larger. Publishers will put their money wherever they think it will generate the largest return. That seems pretty obvious. .
Now . . . if after all this time Kinect had a stable (or even a handful) of good games, I might be inclined to think that maybe 18 million really did surpass the magic number. But . . . Dance Central (1 and 2) is all there is. They are the ONLY games that made it out of 7 territory (which in Videogame review language is about the equivalent of a C or D grade). I guess I just don't see what in the world you're basing your position on.
-
Sorry guys, you all seem to think I'm forming an opinion of the Kinects success when I'm stating facts.
When shmokes and myself are talking about "poor developer support" that is qualtifiable.
Of your 74 games, 34 of them are ports form other systems.... since the kinect is such a unique device, those are obviously developers/games that aren't utilizing the devices potential. Regardless, those games had poor sales and/or poor metacritic scores, so they can be ignored.
Of the 50 remaining, you have roughly 6 developers supporting the device, excluding microsoft... Ubi, Activision, ThQ, Sega, Konami and Mtv. I also need to point out that many of the "original 50" are merely re-works of other games.... ubisoft has a rabbids party game, and thq has a biggest loser game, for example.
You can look up the games the support kinect, their sales figures and how well they sold. As he already stated the only ones with a good metacritic score are the dance central games. Those are the only non-pack-in games that have sold really well as well. So you have two successful games in a year. That isn't that great. They did do amazingly well those two, I think about 3 mil a piece, but to put things into perspective, the "failure" that is the wii-balance board managed to push over 18 million copies of wii fit after it's first year.
Also just to dig the knife in a little deeper (because I'm awful that way. >:D )
From M$'s latest press conference "Kinect has shipped over 18 million units worldwide - that's shipped, not sold."
So the 18mil reference might not even be that valid.
I'm sorry Randy, but your love for a basic 3d camera literally makes me laugh out loud whenver you talk about it. Yes... a hd, 3d, camera is a pretty neat toy and you can do some really great things on it... if you hack it.... and run it on a pc... which actually has enough horsepower to do something with all the data it churns out. Name one innovative thing it's done IN A GAME, over it's year run. You can't.... because it hasn't. The things it's being used for now were essentially done last gen via the eyetoy. Mind you the kinect does a much better job, but you get my point.
-
Tell that to Metacritic, Randy. Every system has shovelware. Kintect has it exclusively (almost).
If you need a website to tell you what to like and dislike, then I'm sure you can find some which are more favorable to the Kinect and it's games. Would that change your mind about it?
Next time you are looking for an example of something, it might help to look at the part that comes immediately after the words, "For example:"
Next time you ask me to look at the example you provided, you might also note that I successfully disputed the one you provided, and which you conveniently ignored. :)
But maybe this will help: Grim Fandango, Psychonauts, Beyond Good and Evil. We could leave videogames too. Arrested Development, Shawshank Redemption. Sales is not the only measure of success.
No, but a major one. One you are willing to conveniently ignore, unless discussing the Wii.
Anyway, without context absolute sales doesn't tell you much. You need context for the number to have any meaning. 18 million is a lot if you're talking about the number of dollars in your bank account, but not so much if you're talking about the number of dollars an oil company made in a year. The context here is a console add-on, a la the Sega 32x, Sega CD, N64 Memory Pack, etc. I just don't see you providing any compelling evidence that 18 million is enough to render irrelevant the split market. 18 million is a subjectively large number. But 60 million is objectively larger. Publishers will put their money wherever they think it will generate the largest return. That seems pretty obvious. .
Now . . . if after all this time Kinect had a stable (or even a handful) of good games, I might be inclined to think that maybe 18 million really did surpass the magic number. But . . . Dance Central (1 and 2) is all there is. They are the ONLY games that made it out of 7 territory (which in Videogame review language is about the equivalent of a C or D grade). I guess I just don't see what in the world you're basing your position on.
Again, you are basing this on marks given by game reviewers who have a metric similar to your own. Are you going to tell me that a title like Kinectimals, or other diversionary games aimed at a younger crowd, are unsuccessful because you are not part of that particular demographic? Or that a game like Kinect Sports is unsuccessful because it does not hit high marks on your reviewers scale, even though it is fun and enjoyed by most who purchase it? I think you just might.
And by the way, I wouldn't have an N64 without the memory upgrade, the Sega 32x made one of my then favorite games (Virtua Fighter) playable on the system, and the Sega CD was one of the first to offer FMV, and larger games in general, to video gaming. All of these things were pre-cursors to the modern gaming experience you are enjoying right now, and developed the market for products later introduced by their respective manufacturers. If you want to look at non-sales metrics of success, you just mentioned 3 wildly successful items. ;)
-
When shmokes and myself are talking about "poor developer support" that is qualtifiable.
Of your 74 games, 34 of them are ports form other systems.... since the kinect is such a unique device, those are obviously developers/games that aren't utilizing the devices potential. Regardless, those games had poor sales and/or poor metacritic scores, so they can be ignored.
Of the 50 remaining, you have roughly 6 developers supporting the device, excluding microsoft... Ubi, Activision, ThQ, Sega, Konami and Mtv. I also need to point out that many of the "original 50" are merely re-works of other games.... ubisoft has a rabbids party game, and thq has a biggest loser game, for example.
Just more "caveats" and artificial metrics of your own design ;)
You can look up the games the support kinect, their sales figures and how well they sold. As he already stated the only ones with a good metacritic score are the dance central games. Those are the only non-pack-in games that have sold really well as well. So you have two successful games in a year. That isn't that great. They did do amazingly well those two, I think about 3 mil a piece, but to put things into perspective, the "failure" that is the wii-balance board managed to push over 18 million copies of wii fit after it's first year.
So the balance board was a resounding commercial success. The difference, however, between the balance board for the Wii and the Kinect is that there is still ongoing support and innovation happening for the Kinect. Ergo, the Kinect is a much more successful product than the very commercially successful Wii balance board. Correct?
I'm sorry Randy, but your love for a basic 3d camera literally makes me laugh out loud whenver you talk about it. Yes... a hd, 3d, camera is a pretty neat toy and you can do some really great things on it... if you hack it.... and run it on a pc... which actually has enough horsepower to do something with all the data it churns out. Name one innovative thing it's done IN A GAME, over it's year run. You can't.... because it hasn't. The things it's being used for now were essentially done last gen via the eyetoy. Mind you the kinect does a much better job, but you get my point.
And I chuckle every time a fanboi compares the Kinect to an Eye Toy. ;)
-
And I chuckle every time a fanboi compares the Kinect to an Eye Toy. ;)
And because Fanboy is spelt with an "i", you know it was written by someone who isn't a fanyboy themself. ;D
-
And by the way, I wouldn't have an N64 without the memory upgrade, the Sega 32x made one of my then favorite games (Virtua Fighter) playable on the system, and the Sega CD was one of the first to offer FMV, and larger games in general, to video gaming. All of these things were pre-cursors to the modern gaming experience you are enjoying right now, and developed the market for products later introduced by their respective manufacturers. If you want to look at non-sales metrics of success, you just mentioned 3 wildly successful items. ;)
This has been my position all along. MS knew from the beginning that Kinect could never overcome the market split in this generation. The point was to legitimize the technology and position them, both from a technical and marketing standpoint, to compete in the next generation which would necessarily feature motion-based gaming. Same goes for Sony with the Move.
You're seriously misreading my posts if you think I'm applying a different standard to the Wii. When I point to the Balance Board's 22 million sold, I'm pointing that out as a failure as a development platform, in spite of selling even more than Kinect has sold. I guess I thought it pretty well goes without saying that nobody is releasing good content for the Balance Board.
BTW, critics have no problem giving good marks to good kid products. Have a look at the reception most Pixar films have received from the critical press. Or if you want to stick to videogames, look at the scores for many of the Lego games, or Pokemon games, or Mario Kart, or Kirby's Epic Yarn. I have no problem with games aimed at children. Hell, I run a website dedicated to reviewing videogames for children.
-
And I chuckle every time a fanboi compares the Kinect to an Eye Toy. ;)
Randy, Howard is about the biggest Microsoft fanboy on the planet. You're barking up the wrong tree.
-
And because Fanboy is spelt with an "i", you know it was written by someone who isn't a fanyboy themself. ;D
If I know you are an adult you get the "i". :lol
Randy, Howard is about the biggest Microsoft fanboy on the planet. You're barking up the wrong tree.
I don't see it. I'm not the biggest fan of MS on, oh, about 100 topics, but when I see them dump a ton of cash at great risk, into something innovative that pushes the envelope, then I have to give them credit. There were a lot of folks who scoffed at MS when they entered the video game market as well. Lots of hiccups along the way, and they kept pumping resources into it. In the end, the gamers benefited. The Kinect is on the same path.
-
And because Fanboy is spelt with an "i", you know it was written by someone who isn't a fanyboy themself. ;D
If I know you are an adult you get the "i". :lol
Just as long as I don't have to pronounce it like a wannabe ganster. :cheers:
-
The Kinect is on the same path.
Very likely true. But my question is do you still think that is going to happen on the 360? Do you still believe that you will see big-budget games with deep gameplay and narrative rather than exclusively casual gaming stuff. Or even smaller budget games that manage to accomplish the same.
Although I have criticized the tech, and I continue to think that its implementation on the 360 has several serious limitations, my assessment throughout this thread has been primarily a market analysis. I've said over and over that the tech has a lot of potential but it cannot be realized until the next gen. It's limited on the 360 by the tech (super laggy, implementation only lends itself to casual gaming), but especially by simple economics, i.e., it is an expensive hardware add-on that shipped like five years into the 360's life.
If the answer to the above question is yes, the secondary question is why, or how do you believe this. I mean, is there some game in particular that you anticipate will change everything? Because so far there is nothing. Literally nothing. there are some good experiences to be had, but they are Dance Central good, not Mass Effect good. Those are two radically different standards of good.
Keep in mind, I'm not asking you what you think Kinect is capable of on the 360. I'm asking you what you expect that it will do on the 360.
-
Just as long as I don't have to pronounce it like a wannabe ganster. :cheers:
Whatever "fires your rockets"...moving along....
Very likely true. But my question is do you still think that is going to happen on the 360? Do you still believe that you will see big-budget games with deep gameplay and narrative rather than exclusively casual gaming stuff. Or even smaller budget games that manage to accomplish the same.
Using the original XBOX analog, I would say not only "yes", but that it needs to in order to show that it is a viable "next step" for any new platform MS puts out which includes the technology (either as it is, or in a more refined form.) If it cannot show itself to be more than a gimmick (I believe it has already gone beyond that, but for the sake of discussion...) it will not have succeeded in developing the market for the future of that genre of gaming.
It is also important to note that the next step of bringing real world items into the virtual world, as was originally promised in the previews of the technology, is now being given some "light of day". If you look at the "Kinect Fun Labs (http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/Kinect-Fun-Labs/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d80258480811)" site, you can see some of the newer things currently being done, which will undoubtedly be made part of the Kinect API for developers, and be finding their way into gaming.
But again, you are placing emphasis on the style of game you like, not the style of gaming the Kinect is best suited for. Dance Central is a great game. It sells Kinects and 360s. One could even say that titles such as this have more replay value than some (or most) of the titles you place on such high pedestals. The "sports" games hold their own as well, and they should, considering Wii Sports was responsible for many, if not most of that consoles sales to the non-avid gamer market. Does Kinect have a place in a title like Mass Effect? I don't know. But I have stated before that it will only take another unique use of the control scheme, used to the same extent as it is used in Dance Central, to trigger another mass buy in. If they can't find one, it won't be for lack of trying :). But there is always still the "nuclear option" of hybridizing the control scheme. The addition of some type of traditional control to the motion capture will open up a big new world of possibilities, and I predict that you will see this happen within the 360 life cycle, albeit not until the "controlerless" options are nearly exhausted.
-
It's not just me. That's the beauty of Metacritic. It's not a diabolical conspiracy. Certain gaims are just universally loved, others are universally hated, and others are liked by some, disliked by others. It's silly to suggest that it would be better or even feasible to try every single game out personally before forming any preliminary judgments.
Party games have their place, but they can't carry a system (see: Wii fatigue).
At any rate, I disagree with most of what you said there, but I suppose we'll see. Maybe I'll resurrect the thread again in another year once the Wii U is out.
-
It's not just me. That's the beauty of Metacritic. It's not a diabolical conspiracy. Certain gaims are just universally loved, others are universally hated, and others are liked by some, disliked by others. It's silly to suggest that it would be better or even feasible to try every single game out personally before forming any preliminary judgments.
By those who participate in whatever process Metacritic uses, I presume. I think the word "universal" is used rather liberally above.
Party games have their place, but they can't carry a system (see: Wii fatigue).
:banghead: The 360 carries itself fine, party games, Kinect or not. The Kinect need only carry itself.
At any rate, I disagree with most of what you said there, but I suppose we'll see. Maybe I'll resurrect the thread again in another year once the Wii U is out.
See you then ;)
-
just to throw in my 2 cents (and a wrench in the works...) There have been many inventions that initially where not sucessfull but did catch on.
when the Wii came out, there was a Sony executive that made fun of the controller and nunchuck for the Wii... saying something along the lines of how it would be ridiculous to play a game that way. waving your arms around like an idiot...(my words not his)
fast forward 5 years and whats this?!?! the PlayStation move? but wait isn't that the same thing Sony was saying was bull plop 5 years ago?
everyone thinks new technology is stupid and retarded until we take a step back dig our heads out of our console fanboy asses and look at the big picture and realize it might actually have some potential.
-
It's sort of annoying to be dismissed as a fanboy by default if you criticize something. Even if I turn out to be wrong and Kinect proves capable of doing everything I've suggested it couldn't, and it does it all during the 360's lifecycle, I haven't written a single thing here that wasn't perfectly logical and carefully reasoned. I don't have much brand loyalty. My favorite console this generation is the PS3 (but only because I was slightly more interested in its exclusives and I'm not much of an online gamer; I think the 360 is probably better for most gamers). Last generation it was the Xbox. The generation before it was the N64.
-
It's sort of annoying to be dismissed as a fanboy by default if you criticize something. Even if I turn out to be wrong and Kinect proves capable of doing everything I've suggested it couldn't, and it does it all during the 360's lifecycle, I haven't written a single thing here that wasn't perfectly logical and carefully reasoned. I don't have much brand loyalty. My favorite console this generation is the PS3 (but only because I was slightly more interested in its exclusives and I'm not much of an online gamer; I think the 360 is probably better for most gamers). Last generation it was the Xbox. The generation before it was the N64.
You have to admit, that is a very fair point.
Kinect hasn't been fully exploited yet -> game wise.
-
Kinect hasn't been fully exploited yet -> game wise.
I hate to tell you this it's never going to be. Microsoft is already sending out dev kits for their next console meaning support for the 360 and games are likely to be cut. It's the same thing that happened to the original Xbox. also those current titles in development can be ported to the new console considering the architecture is mostly the same. so basically the 360 and Kinect have less than a year at most because it's to expensive for Microsoft to support them both at the same time.
-
It's not expensive to support the 360 right now. It's profitable. Unlike the original Xbox, the 360 has been embraced by the entire gaming community. There's little reason to think Microsoft will abruptly cease supporting it the way they did Xbox 1. It's much more likely that they will lower its price and keep it on the market as a budget alternative long after the release of Xbox 3, the same way PSX and PS2 were supported long after the arrival of their successors.
-
You have to expect microsoft to keep the kinect technology and the ability to utilize it to themselves at first. They are going to want to try and capitalize on the technology first and foremost. porting crappy touchscreen games (fruit ninja etc.) is simply a way to boost the "kinect compatible" game count.
now that the DEV kits are being distributed, I'm sure we will start seeing ALOT more games utilizing it now that third party manufacturers are going to be able to make software for it.
i fully expect the amount of kinect games to not only increase over the next year or so, but the quality of the games to vastly improve as well now that the developer kits are out.
-
Now that the dev kits are out? What are you talking about? 3rd party dev kit were out prior to launch. No console manufacturer is going to wait until a year after release to distribute dev kits. More likely they had kits in 3rd party hands a year before release. Six months before at the latest. Remember, Dance Central was a launch title. Harmonix is a platform agnostic 3rd party.
-
Now that the dev kits are out? What are you talking about? 3rd party dev kit were out prior to launch. No console manufacturer is going to wait until a year after release to distribute dev kits. More likely they had kits in 3rd party hands a year before release. Six months before at the latest. Remember, Dance Central was a launch title. Harmonix is a platform agnostic 3rd party.
The open source kits were out years ago, but the recent SDK for Kinect has been out at least since the beginning of last year in one form or another. The Corporate version is going to be released, so I am sure we will see more applications that are suited for the office environment. Besides the next Kinect is much smaller and requires less distance to operate.
I think the 720 will have a model that has Kinect built in and be more like a PVR and a quarter of the size of the current Xbox 360 and run mostly in the Cloud. (IMO).
-
I was referring to the SDK for the next Xbox console. they have been out for awhile now ;D As for support I would not count on it as it would slow sales of their new console. Hence why they never got into the handheld gaming market as it would detract sales away from the console. ;) i would say Microsoft as a company is less of a risk taker putting it's money into only a few semi safe ventures mainly focusing on software with little innovation the windows OS is a good example and Kinect the really only being the first innovative risk they have taken and technically it was still on the safe side considering the 360 install base in the NA and EU territories.
-
I was talking to lilshawn. He said something else about dev kits.
-
I think it will have to be a decent title, considering the franchise and the control it's owners have over the products bearing it's name.
I just learned that Kinect Star Wars has a dance mode entitled "Galactic Dance Off". What a great idea.
-
I just want to be able to force choke someone... will it at least let me do that? >:D
-
After seeing the above screenshot I briefly considered force choking myself.
-
After seeing the above screenshot I briefly considered force choking myself.
While you beat off to Leia?
-
After seeing the above screenshot I briefly considered force choking myself.
While you beat off to Leia?
:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :applaud:
-
I just learned that Kinect Star Wars has a dance mode entitled "Galactic Dance Off". What a great idea.
If it's an "extra", then what's the harm? It'll probably help broaden the appeal across a more diverse demographic.
But if it's the only thing that works well, and was thrown in due to that fact, then.....lame.
-
Even if it's an extra, I don't think it bodes well for the game. It's hard not to extrapolate from this information the likely direction the developers are taking the game and the audience they're targeting.
-
I think it will have to be a decent title, considering the franchise and the control it's owners have over the products bearing it's name.
I just learned that Kinect Star Wars has a dance mode entitled "Galactic Dance Off". What a great idea.
how does one dance to this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMOhsvhF4Jw
-
Even if it's an extra, I don't think it bodes well for the game. It's hard not to extrapolate from this information the likely direction the developers are taking the game and the audience they're targeting.
I think the "teaser" pretty much lets you know that this is going to be a light-hearted offering. Looks like they are shooting for fun rather than being all too serious. The dance mode seems to confirm it, but I guess we won't know until they release more info.
how does one dance to this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJC21zzkwoE
:P
-
Well . . . okay, Parappa the Rapper was fun. But Jabba the Rapper is probably not an excellent idea for a videogame. Actually, that's a bad example because Jabba the Rapper is an awesome idea for a videogame.
What I mean to say is that Star Wars has absolutely nothing to do with a dancing videogame. No matter how you look at it this is a cash in. Either they're making a dance game and slapping on a nonsensical property. Or they're making a Star Wars game and slapping on a nonsensical dance mode (because apparently dance games are the only games that can be successful on the Kinect).
To say that they're shooting for fun rather than being all too serious is just silly. I suppose the developers of Half Life or Bioshock or Forza are not going for fun. Developers don't have to choose between serious and fun. Maybe what you mean by going for fun is going for casual.
edit: fixed a huge typo
-
Well . . . okay, Parappa the Rapper was fun. But Jabba the Rapper is probably not an excellent idea for a videogame. Actually, that's a bad example because Jabba the Rapper is an awesome idea for a videogame.
What I mean to say is that Star Wars has absolutely nothing to do with a dancing videogame. No matter how you look at it this is a cash in. Either they're making a dance game and slapping on a nonsensical property. Or they're making a Star Wars game and slapping on a nonsensical dance mode (because apparently dance games are the only games that can be successful on the Kinect).
To say that they're shooting for fun rather than being all too serious is just silly. I suppose the developers of Half Life or Bioshock or Forza are not going for fun. Developers don't have to choose between serious and fun. Maybe what you mean by going for fun is going for casual.
edit: fixed a huge typo
You've seen Star Wars? How does dancing not fit into it? Cantina... Jaba's Barge... Ewok village...
I don't think that there is any doubt that this is another casual fun gimmick game. Anyone looking for more is fooling themselves, because kinect will never be anything more than that.
-
You've seen Star Wars? How does dancing not fit into it? Cantina... Jaba's Barge... Ewok village...
Pulp fiction might talk about Quarter Pounders in Paris, 10 dollar milk shakes, eating porkchops, and big kahuna burgers with sprite, but I don't quite think a that means a Pulp Fiction "cooking mama" style game would work. (Although I do admit I would probably end up buying it.) :afro:
-
+1
Defending the idea to develop a Star Wars themed "Galactic Dance off" is beneath all of us. The franchise has nothing to do with dancing. And aside from the idea being utterly moronic, the thinking behind it is pretty clear. Developer is making a Kinect Star Wars game. Publisher looks at Kinect game sales and sees that Dance Central is the most successful title. Publisher tells developer to copy Dance Central. Developer says, "But Star Wars has nothing to do with dancing." Publisher says, "Yes it does. Dancing games are selling."
Stupid
-
Obviously the whole game is not going to be a dancing game.
If it was, then it would indeed be all fail, but dancing does have its place in an overall kinect star wars game. If you were expecting hard core gaming from anything on Kinect, then you are living in a fantasy land. Kinect will never be anything but novelty games, because deeper games just don't lend themselves to the format, and gamers that want those deeper games are usually the people not very interested in the Kinect to begin with.
[EDIT]
I do think a deeper game like Heavy Rain could be pretty damn good on Kinect, , so I guess I can't generalize that deeper games wouldn't work at all, but chances are we won't ever see them. The Kinect and all motion controls have created their niche in casual easy to approach games, and that is what people see. Devs or consumers alike.
-
I dunno, I think that's nonsense. Temple of Doom starts out with a dance scene in a night club. That wouldn't make an Indiana Jones International Dance off make sense as a game.
What I'm saying is that there is a Star Wars cannon. And even in its most negative light, a galactic dance off does not jive with it. The idea is retarded. It makes absolutely no sense and puts all of the characters in the room doing things that they would not do in real life (in their universe). I mean, Jesus, look at the picture below.
The only way this makes sense is what I said: This is a Kinect game. Dance Central is the most successful Kinect Game. Therefore this game must have dancing in it.
Which is just wrongheaded in so many ways.
-
how does one dance to this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMOhsvhF4Jw
play this^^^^ then play thisVVVVVV and mute it
..... hilarity ensues.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJC21zzkwoE
BTW you are absolutely right! :laugh2:
-
I dunno, I think that's nonsense. Temple of Doom starts out with a dance scene in a night club. That wouldn't make an Indiana Jones International Dance off make sense as a game.
How else will I ever find out whether Mola Ram is better at the Electric slide than the grail guardian knight? Or if Sallah can do the Macarena better than shortround? I also hear that Henry Jones Sr. is pretty good at disco, but need to see it for myself.
-
Well, when put in reasonable terms like that I have no choice but to concede.
-
A Star Wars video game doesn't have to be 100% about canon. I'm not saying I want a Star Wars dance game, but I have no problem with a side step in a game for a little dancing fun.
I don't expect this Star Wars Kinect game to actually be any good at all to begin with, but I doubt any dancing section will really be the problem.
-
I don't expect this Star Wars Kinect game to actually be any good at all to begin with, but I doubt any dancing section will really be the problem.
Perhaps not. But, as I said earlier, the feature's inclusion in the game is likely indicative of the overall direction the developer is taking the game and the audience they're targeting. Like, Red Dead Redemption isn't going to have a Town Dance Off mode. Not that a dance mode would take away from the main game. It's just not the type of thing you tack onto a game like that.
Having a Galactic Dance Mode doesn't say anything directly about the rest of the game. But it still probably says a helluva lot about it.
-
59 so far on Metacritic (http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/kinect-star-wars)
-
i love my kinect and play it at least once a day. ive got about 8 games for it and yes dance central 2 is one of them because its fun and something my gf and i can play together. and no offense but schmokes youre kind of a wet blanket man. its a video game peripheral, lighten up. youre right, the next Shadow of the Colossus probably wont be a kinect game but in all seriousness who cares? if depth is what youre searching for im thinking a video game console is not the place, kinect or not. tolstoy or joyce would better serve you :soapbox:
-
None taken. When I'm talking about depth in videogames, I'm not talking about something that will make you cry or fundamentally change the way you view the world (not that those goals are out of reach for games). I think Grand Theft Auto is a series of extraordinary depth. Same goes for the Super Mario series throughout the years.
I suppose I am a wet blanket wrt Kinect. I'm okay with that. I think it's pretty lame.
-
Have you played one yet? I also believe you put too much stock in Metacritic and other websites like that i.e rotten tomatoes etc. Most of the time the things those sites rate are way cooler than what metacritic says. Its probably a conspiracy anyway. People probably pay critics to give them a good/bad rating to rub out the competetion. They have been doing that in movies for years.
-
Yes, I've played a few games. They all sucked. I haven't, unfortunately, played Dance Central, but I have no doubt that it is fun.
The conspiracy doesn't make sense because those sites rate some games from Ubisoft very poorly and some very highly. Same goes for EA, Activision, Take 2, etc. Why would those companies only pay journalists to rate some of their games good (generally games that the public also agrees are good)?
-
I think it will have to be a decent title, considering the franchise and the control it's owners have over the products bearing it's name.
I just learned that Kinect Star Wars has a dance mode entitled "Galactic Dance Off". What a great idea.
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/post/9/2012/04/fett_loop3_1.gif)
:puke :droid :puke :droid :puke :droid :puke :droid :puke :droid
-
man that is gay :dizzy:
-
Yes, I've played a few games. They all sucked. I haven't, unfortunately, played Dance Central, but I have no doubt that it is fun.
I cant be bothered to go through 13 pages, which games did you play?
I have a Kinect.
Kinect Adventures is still in the shrink wrap.
Fruit Ninja is well...... fruit ninja, silly fun.
Dance Central 2 is pretty neat. I look like a total ---uvula--- dancing, and yes I even close the curtains so the neighbors cant see me but its a pretty good work out.
Kinect Sports Season 2 its not bad. Skiiing is weaksauce, and my GF is much better at baseball than me but it was worth picking up for ~$40 used. I like the golf the best.
Still have yet to redeem the free download for the GunStringer.
Overall Im not displeased with the purchase and while none of the games are awesome to me (Fruit ninja is close!) my GF really likes it, and Im hoping they have some more games that I'll find interesting. I would love it if they'd release some shooters on it (like Virtua Cop)
-
The pack-in game. I think it's Kinect Sports. The newest in the Just Dance series . . . 3 I think. And another that is escaping me for the moment, but I'll think of it.
I was surpriced at how pronounced the lag is in Kinect Sports.
-
it was worth picking up for ~$40 used.
it's in the $10 and under bin at my gamestop. :dunno still passed
-
it was worth picking up for ~$40 used.
it's in the $10 and under bin at my gamestop. :dunno still passed
http://www.gamestop.com/xbox-360/games/kinect-sports-season-2/91411 (http://www.gamestop.com/xbox-360/games/kinect-sports-season-2/91411)
:dunno
I personally think the first one was much better, but at $10, passing on a game like that means you just don't like kinect period.
-
it was worth picking up for ~$40 used.
it's in the $10 and under bin at my gamestop. :dunno still passed
http://www.gamestop.com/xbox-360/games/kinect-sports-season-2/91411 (http://www.gamestop.com/xbox-360/games/kinect-sports-season-2/91411)
:dunno
I personally think the first one was much better, but at $10, passing on a game like that means you just don't like kinect period.
i'm too fat for that stuff. I tried "hole in the wall" yeah i'm too fat for that! :angry: :lol
-
it was worth picking up for ~$40 used.
it's in the $10 and under bin at my gamestop. :dunno still passed
http://www.gamestop.com/xbox-360/games/kinect-sports-season-2/91411 (http://www.gamestop.com/xbox-360/games/kinect-sports-season-2/91411)
:dunno
I personally think the first one was much better, but at $10, passing on a game like that means you just don't like kinect period.
i'm too fat for that stuff. I tried "hole in the wall" yeah i'm too fat for that! :angry: :lol
bigshawn?
-
bigshawn?
yes...yes, that's the joke of my nickname. ::)
actually when I went to school there was another older kid named Shawn that nobody liked, so they often asked their parents if Shawn could come over to and they where like "ugh no!, I hate that kid." then they would be like "no, little Shawn" then they would be like "Oh yah that's cool! no prob." It just kinda stuck.
now it's just ironic. since i'm almost 6 foot and about 280 some lbs...and don't fit through syrofoam cut-outs of people in awkward positions.
now, if I was on the actual show, I could just stand there and bust my own hole in the wall. ain't no syrofoam gon' knock me down!
-
Not to resurrect this painful thread, but if you ENJOY Kinect, you should check out Double Fine's Happy Action Theater... It definitely does some things with Kinect that haven't been done before. ESPECIALLY fun for kids... Yes, it's more of a big set of demos than a real game, per se... But my girls love it :)
Just wish you could record/upload videos from it :P
-
man that is gay :dizzy:
The "Awesome" and "Great" on Boba Fett's crotch doesn't help either.
-
Has anyone tried Steel Battalion yet? I'm not sure what the point of a kinnect version is without that awesome controller from the original, but maybe there's something in it...
-
Maybe they'll have a Mech controlled with an interface like the one Tom Cruise uses in Minority Report. That sounds like it could be pretty badass (caveat, this just now popped into my head and I've given it no real thought).
-
Maybe they'll have a Mech controlled with an interface like the one Tom Cruise uses in Minority Report. That sounds like it could be pretty badass (caveat, this just now popped into my head and I've given it no real thought).
-
Lol . . . not so much. (http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/6/19/3088583/steel-battalion-heavy-armor-review)
"If my intention cannot translate reliably into the game each and every time I make an input, I'm not playing a game. I'm fingerpainting."
"Were you trying to switch to the wrong ammo type by attempting to press the small button on the dashboard? No? Well, that’s too bad, because that’s what you just accidentally selected. Did you want close the shutter on the hole that lets you look out of your [mech]? No? Well, you’ve got to now, because you’re grabbing it and there’s no way to cancel the action. OK, it’s closed. Now just reach back up and reopen it so y-- oops, you were just exploded by a missile."
"I don't know how many times I've reached for a button and ended up pulling down the periscope instead or somehow managed to fill the cockpit with smoke because it interpreted my movement incorrectly. My constant arm flailing left me feeling like a crazy person trying to activate my non-existent superpowers."
-
I'd say I can get the "gesture success rate" to 90%. You know what my "button success rate" is with every game ever? 99.9%. The .1% is when I spill a martini on the controller and stand up screaming "Aw ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---, there goes perfectly good gin," and accidentally hit "B" by mistake.
:lol
Well, that's a pass then. Pity, it LOOKS nice...