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

[Mikezilla]

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 

[RandyT]

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.)

[shmokes]

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.

[RandyT]

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.

[shmokes]

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.

[shmokes]

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.

[RandyT]

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.

[shmokes]

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. 

[RandyT]

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".

[shmokes]

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.

[RandyT]

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.

[shmokes]

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.

[RandyT]

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! 

[JRoz]

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  .  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....

[Dartful Dodger]

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.

[shmokes]

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.

[shmokes]

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. 

[versapak]

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.

[shmokes]

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.

[lilshawn]

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??

[shmokes]

Um . . . you should just delete that whole post.

[RandyT]

Hey Shmokes....

Microsoft Kinect thrashes iPad and iPhone to become the fastest-selling electronic device of all time

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....

Wii 2 Needs to Be Unveiled at E3 to 'Catch Up' with PS3, 360

[shmokes]

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.  

[RandyT]

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.

[shmokes]

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.

[RandyT]

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.

[shmokes]

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).  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.

[RandyT]

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.

[shmokes]

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.  

[danny_galaga]

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. 

You need to get used to adding 'my learned friend' now your a lawyer 

[RandyT]

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.

[SithMaster]

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.

[shmokes]

"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.  

[shmokes]

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.

[RandyT]

p.s. Angry Birds sucks balls . . . what a piece of crap waste of time of a game.  

Now I know you are just posting stuff to try to goad me into insulting you.   

[Daniel270]

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.

[shmokes]

Lmao, I was reading that thinking, "WTF, whoever said that is gonna get fired!"

[shmokes]

p.s. Angry Birds sucks balls . . . what a piece of crap waste of time of a game.  

Now I know you are just posting stuff to try to goad me into insulting you.  

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.  

[RandyT]

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 .  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.

[shmokes]

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'