Why do all game sites keep gushing over Kinect's voice commands?

[shmokes]

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.

[massive88]

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 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.

[massive88]

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.

[versapak]

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.

[Howard_Casto]

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.

[versapak]

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.

[RandyT]

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?

[severdhed]

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.

[RandyT]

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.

[severdhed]

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.

[hypernova]

I can think of plenty with "mediocre" (imo) support, but none with fantastic support.  You may be correct pbj.

[Malenko]

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?

[shmokes]

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.

[versapak]

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.

 

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.

[versapak]

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.

 

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.

[DJ_Izumi]

The only problem with Kinect is that Kinectimals doesn't have snow leopards. D:

[BurgerKingDiamond]

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...

[versapak]

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.

[shmokes]

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.

[RandyT]

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.

[shmokes]

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.

[RandyT]

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.

[shmokes]

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.

[RandyT]

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.

[BurgerKingDiamond]

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.

[Hoopz]

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/

[shmokes]

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.

[shmokes]

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.

[versapak]

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.

[BurgerKingDiamond]

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.

[RandyT]

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.

[shmokes]

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.

[RandyT]

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.

[Hoopz]

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.

[shmokes]

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.

[RandyT]

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.

[Hoopz]

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!   

 

[shmokes]

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.

[RandyT]

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.

[shmokes]

Shrug . . . maybe.  I don't see it.  But I've been wrong before.