Kinect Is Not For You

[RadiusXd]

"People who play games" aka 90% of the playlist population in MW2. (RIP CoD)

When did you start playing games? When it became cool? Fuck off back to Farmville.

What does Xbox LIVE really need? Oh, I know, more children! Fuck that.

Women aged 25-40 say, "You are welcome, Microsoft, for our continued, relentless product loyalty over the past 9 years." ...wait a minute.

At least Sony hasn't sold out much....YET.

/rant

good sir, gaming has allways been cool.

also, I get the impression that I am not alone when I say that I couldn't care less about microsofts shiny new Wii-mote.

PS. don't give up on COD, see it as an opportunity to make gaming absolute hell for the children. After all if they are awful it should be no problem to decimate them right?

 

[DanDeFool]

It's not a bad idea, in theory anyway. 'Casual' gamers certainly are a new and expanding market for video games.

There's just one problem.

CASUAL GAMERS ARE NOT GOING TO SPEND OVER $450 ON A VIDEO GAME SYSTEM WHEN THEY CAN HAVE FARMVILLE FOR FREE!

The success of the Wii in the casual gaming market is almost certainly directly related to its price point. At almost $100 less than its competitors, it represented a worthy investment to a market segment that doesn't play a lot of games, but wanted to try something novel and interesting. Now with the Wii console costing a mere $150, I just don't see 'casual' gamers shelling out three times as much for a gimmick with no guarantees of real enjoyment.

Granted, I'm not a professional marketer, but I don't know anyone who would shell out this kind of cash for a gaming peripheral or a console/peripheral bundle BESIDES a hardcore gamer. I think Microsoft is making a huge mistake by going this route.

 

[RUINER ACTUAL]

"People who play games" aka 90% of the playlist population in MW2. (RIP CoD)

When did you start playing games? When it became cool? Fuck off back to Farmville.

What does Xbox LIVE really need? Oh, I know, more children! Fuck that.

Women aged 25-40 say, "You are welcome, Microsoft, for our continued, relentless product loyalty over the past 9 years." ...wait a minute.

At least Sony hasn't sold out much....YET.

/rant

good sir, gaming has allways been cool.

also, I get the impression that I am not alone when I say that I couldn't care less about microsofts shiny new Wii-mote.

PS. don't give up on COD, see it as an opportunity to make gaming absolute hell for the children. After all if they are awful it should be no problem to decimate them right?

I meant "cool" to the "cool" kids. I love gaming. I think its sweet.

No you are not.

I don't know man. I can pull more then my weight in CoD, but when some kids get in and realize the 203 is an insta-kill, you can't do shit. There is not a single weapon in the game that defeats the 203 once you are spotted except a wicked reaction time on top of a ridiculous connection. I'm switching back to MoH.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Another article that pretty much says what I'd imagine many here already know or have thought about. I do appreciate bringing on a writer with experience on the marketing side of things, and the writing itself certainly isn't bad, but I was really hoping we'd be getting more than a well written submission of the obvious.

Anyway, I think another angle that needs to be considered is that MS probably doesn't know exactly what it can do in the hardcore space yet. You can bet they want to show something that will make the core audience's collective jaw drop, and I firmly believe they would have done it at E3, but said experience just doesn't exist yet. With MS themselves not even seeming too sure on what sort of technology is going to be in the final Kinect product, core game designers can't honestly be expected to do more than create test engines and scribble their ideas in notebooks. There's no point in building something beyond the test stages if you're not even sure if the product needed to run it will be the same one that ends up on store shelves. And that's assuming a solid core title has even been imagined yet that really uses Kinect instead of just featuring tacked on Kinect support.

 

[The_Emperor]

Nice article.

people keep bitching about it but if MS get richer it can only mean better games and software for everyone who owns MS products so you best hope it succeeds.

all you guys who own the xbox and feel "betrayed"...

it's not like they are going to stop making "core" games how can a company betray you by making more money which will inevitably lead to better, more numerous AAA games?

think about it, the casual games dont cost quite as much to develop ALL the time. the most expensive games are those like Halo Reach etc, I assume, therefore most of the money made by kinect will get put back into making games for the core audience.

I still think MS will make the same mistakes as Nintendo though and make instantly forgettable shovelware and once the casual market gets bored and stops buying games for it it will become useless.

unless they can make kinect appeal to core gamers, when they are finished hooking the casuals, then it will die eventually, core gamers are the perpetual dolllar, casual gamers are the big hit of dollar from what I can gather from hindsight.

Of course just my opinions as always I'm no pro marketer I'm just a forum goer, it's also not all black and white. I don't pretend to have any experience in the games industry.

 

[Iron Lightning]

It's not a bad idea, in theory anyway. 'Casual' gamers certainly are a new and expanding market for video games.

There's just one problem.

CASUAL GAMERS ARE NOT GOING TO SPEND OVER $450 ON A VIDEO GAME SYSTEM WHEN THEY CAN HAVE FARMVILLE FOR FREE!

The success of the Wii in the casual gaming market is almost certainly directly related to its price point. At almost $100 less than its competitors, it represented a worthy investment to a market segment that doesn't play a lot of games, but wanted to try something novel and interesting. Now with the Wii console costing a mere $150, I just don't see 'casual' gamers shelling out three times as much for a gimmick with no guarantees of real enjoyment.

Granted, I'm not a professional marketer, but I don't know anyone who would shell out this kind of cash for a gaming peripheral or a console/peripheral bundle BESIDES a hardcore gamer. I think Microsoft is making a huge mistake by going this route.

Oh ho, you've read my mind sir.

If I may expand upon your point: I consider myself to be a "casual" moviegoer (as well as a quite avid gamer.) Fortunately the cinema supports my casualness; the most expensive a theater ticket gets is around $10, and videos don't go over $30 to own. If the only DVD player available cost $300, needed a separately sold $150 remote, and each film cost around $50m then I think that I would just start pirating movies. People were attracted by the Wii's $250 price point because the PS3 was still going for $600.

All the casual games success stories (Peggle, Farmville, Wii Sports etc.) worked because they were very cheap. They were either games that could work on any old computer or that ran on the fantastically inexpensive Wii.

The other problem with building on casual gamers is that they're notoriously fickle. Just wait until someone invents a robot that plays catch or a motion controlled computer and then you're lost. If Microsoft devotes it's energy to dominating every facet of entertainment and information, well, I'm sorry but that's a fight they're just not going to win.

I just can't see this venture being more profitable for Microsoft, then say, just making more very good games for their core demographic. Remember, we're called "core" gamers for a reason, without us we wouldn't have any sort of gaming.

 

[Wtfmissile]

I pray Kinect fails and burns.....though seeing how ignorant the masses are, especially in America, it also wouldn't shock me if it sold well.

 

[cabalistics]

It's a nice bit of technology with great potential but what's being offered is very shallow. People who like this kind of stuff probably already have wii.

 

[RatRace123]

I'm pretty sure that the people who are in Kinect's demographic already have a Wii. And they probably don't want to spend the 350+ dollars on a 360 and the kinect camera... thing... Aaaaand 60 bucks per game.

Of course I (perhaps unfairly) hate the damn thing.

 

[samsonguy920]

What concerns me is Microsoft is releasing an entirely new peripheral for a system that is already 5 years old. Its processing power is already surpassed by affordable PC's and may have already hit its cap on what it can do for games already developed for it.
It has a history of malfunctions and breakdowns that would make for great sitcom material three times over by now, and now we have something to add to it that will place even more of a demand on it.
Console history has repeatedly shown what happens when a secondary system is added to a console: the company takes a beating because the system isn't up to snuff to really expanding the experience people want from the console. Sega was already on a downhill turn when it released the 32X and CD for the Genesis. Saturn and Dreamcast were its big white hopes for staying in contention. Now they have been reduced to the same status as Atari as games developer/publisher. Playing second banana to the current console makers with little influence or self-determination over what they can really do.
Granted Microsoft has a lot more on its plate than just its console, but as what was pointed out in the article, Microsoft has yet to enter into the handheld phone or handheld gaming market with significance(Whatever happened to the Zune?). Wolves are continually building in number biting at the OS and internet browser cookies that Microsoft still dominates but is slowly losing.
If Kinect doesn't extend the life of the 360 as Microsoft is hoping, then they better have a new system in the works that they have been keeping under excellent secrecy or we could very well see the dark days of Microsoft around the bend. And considering what they contribute to the marketplace, that could be bad. Very bad.

 

[gamer_parent]

I just can't see this venture being more profitable for Microsoft, then say, just making more very good games for their core demographic. Remember, we're called "core" gamers for a reason, without us we wouldn't have any sort of gaming.

Not to single you out, but your post kind of illustrates one of my issues with the casual vs. core dichotomy, in that the dichotomy assumes it's an either/or relationship, when clearly it's more of a spectrum. A better way to identify these people would be downstream and upstream users.

Think of it like say, with people who paint. People who paint casually or do so occasionally generally will not require really expensive brushes and a crap ton of equipment. They just don't have the skills and knowledge to make the purchase worth it, where as a sophisiticated painter will want to have all kinds of brushes to handle all the different strokes and techniques. However, it is not uncommon for a downstream painter to eventually become an upstream painter as they get better at this, consequentially, they start spending more and more on their hobby.

This, however, leads to what I believe is one of the few valid criticisms of MS' plan: the entry barrier is still really high. 450 USD just to get the equipment is a lot, especially for something that people don't consider to be a high prestige hobby. If MS really wants this to work, they need to find a way to cut costs significantly.

And you all want to know why so called "casual" games end up with a million shovelware? two reasons:

1. Sturgeon's Law: 99% of anything is crap. Core games are the same way. The only difference is that we generally only see the stuff in the spotlight, and those tend to not be TOO much off the mark.

2. The Casual = Idiotic fallacy: a lot of devs think that because something is casual, it doesn't have to be good, and put their crappiest dev team with no resources to make games for it. This is a fallacy that is easily refuted with the arcade games. i.e. games like Police 911, or Punchmania are incredibly easy to pick up, but clearly can be enjoyed by both so called "casual" and "core" gamers alike. The key difference between a casual game and a core game is the amount of convention/sophisticated know how from the player base. That is, a core game accepts that there are certain basic knowledges about the game that the player will HAVE to know even before they pick up the controller. Casual games, however, need to have a far more intuitive gameplay mechanic. Again, with motion detection boxing games, this is very clear. You dodge to not get hit, you swing to hit. (or you can block to not get hit) It doesn't, however, mean that the game can get away with being sloppy or simplistic. In fact, if anything, casual games probably need MROE thought put into it because you need to be far more considerate of the people you're making the game for.

 

[Iron Lightning]

I just can't see this venture being more profitable for Microsoft, then say, just making more very good games for their core demographic. Remember, we're called "core" gamers for a reason, without us we wouldn't have any sort of gaming.

Not to single you out, but your post kind of illustrates one of my issues with the casual vs. core dichotomy, in that the dichotomy assumes it's an either/or relationship, when clearly it's more of a spectrum. A better way to identify these people would be downstream and upstream users.

Think of it like say, with people who paint. People who paint casually or do so occasionally generally will not require really expensive brushes and a crap ton of equipment. They just don't have the skills and knowledge to make the purchase worth it, where as a sophisiticated painter will want to have all kinds of brushes to handle all the different strokes and techniques. However, it is not uncommon for a downstream painter to eventually become an upstream painter as they get better at this, consequentially, they start spending more and more on their hobby.

This, however, leads to what I believe is one of the few valid criticisms of MS' plan: the entry barrier is still really high. 450 USD just to get the equipment is a lot, especially for something that people don't consider to be a high prestige hobby. If MS really wants this to work, they need to find a way to cut costs significantly.

And you all want to know why so called "casual" games end up with a million shovelware? two reasons:

1. Sturgeon's Law: 99% of anything is crap. Core games are the same way. The only difference is that we generally only see the stuff in the spotlight, and those tend to not be TOO much off the mark.

2. The Casual = Idiotic fallacy: a lot of devs think that because something is casual, it doesn't have to be good, and put their crappiest dev team with no resources to make games for it. This is a fallacy that is easily refuted with the arcade games. i.e. games like Police 911, or Punchmania are incredibly easy to pick up, but clearly can be enjoyed by both so called "casual" and "core" gamers alike. The key difference between a casual game and a core game is the amount of convention/sophisticated know how from the player base. That is, a core game accepts that there are certain basic knowledges about the game that the player will HAVE to know even before they pick up the controller. Casual games, however, need to have a far more intuitive gameplay mechanic. Again, with motion detection boxing games, this is very clear. You dodge to not get hit, you swing to hit. (or you can block to not get hit) It doesn't, however, mean that the game can get away with being sloppy or simplistic. In fact, if anything, casual games probably need MROE thought put into it because you need to be far more considerate of the people you're making the game for.

Please don't quote me out of context. What I meant was that (for most of the reasons you stated above) it's a better idea for Microsoft make good games then all the family-funtime shovelware that will hit us with Kinect.

I've got a good solution for your second qualm. What if we started designing games with optional in-depth tutorials. That way core gamers don't need to be reminded that "A" is jump for the nth time, and casual gamers can learn how to play something decent games.

 

[numbersix1979]

The Children of Eden video was so nausea-inducing it literally made me want to vomit after watching < 30 seconds of it. That is all.

 

[gamer_parent]

Please don't quote me out of context. What I meant was that (for most of the reasons you stated above) it's a better idea for Microsoft make good games then all the family-funtime shovelware that will hit us with Kinect.

I've got a good solution for your second qualm. What if we started designing games with optional in-depth tutorials. That way core gamers don't need to be reminded that "A" is jump for the nth time, and casual gamers can learn how to play something decent games.

sorry about that. I was just illustrating a point. Not my intention to really quote you out of context. sloppy work on my part.

tutorials can be a good idea, if the idea of a tutorial or having to learn the game appeals to people. It's like me and medieval longsword fighting. I would LOVE to learn get into it. But in order for me to get into it, I have to expend large amounts of time to practicing and maybe even taking lessons, time that I just don't have right now.

Your solution will gap the knowledge gap, but it will still demand time from the players. i.e. SF4 is fairly easy to figure out how to play. It doesn't take too much to know the controls. But to get good enough so that the game is truly starting to shine? still takes practice.

And the more data you're requiring them to assimilate, the less effective it becomes. There's a certain point after which you're basically asking them to do a textbook exercise. There's going to be information overload past a certain point. This is why I think starcraft did a great job teaching people to play the game. They just used the single player campaign as a REALLY LONG tutorial.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

I'm pretty sure most core gamers are aware that Kinect is not meant for them. It's just the feeling that Microsoft is turning it's back on the community that supports its gaming sector of business. Also, it just doesn't make sense to target an audience that doesn't already have an xbox. What casual Wii or Iphone user is going to shell out $450 for a 360 and Kinect package? NONE. They'll just go buy a Wii for half that.

 

[kingcom]

You mean a major publisher doesnt care about its core audience and would rather focus on the mass audience? Shock horror.

 

[NickCaligo42]

Simple reasons I see the Kinect not working:

1 - Core gamers already own a Wii, but so does the casual market. They're so late to the party that Nintendo's already cleaning up afterwords.

2 - The Kinect is ridiculously expensive. It's $150 in addition to the giant $300 gaming box necessary to plug the thing in--which is already going to confuse the crap out of consumers. For those families that haven't got 360s in their households yet Microsoft can't compete with the Nintendo's price point. The only thing they can do is pray their overblown marketing tactics work in their favor.

3 - The Kinect is, by all accounts I've heard at least, a piece of junk that doesn't work. They're using a 320x240 camera that can't recognize finger or hand gestures, which kills about 90% of the cool things they could do in addition to scaling down the precision of the device itself for whatever's left. Apparently it also has a hard time reading dark colors. I won't know for sure until I see or try one, but I'm kind of expecting this to be like the Virtual Boy of this generation at this rate.

4 - Especially if Microsoft can't get third-party support, which it doesn't seem to have gotten so far. Granted, Nintendo pretty well does without this too, and Microsoft could conceivably not give a shit and be successful, but it seems odd that they've got Molyneux talking about a bright future for the hardcore on the Kinect if that's the case. Rumor has it that they aren't even releasing the skeletal software to third-parties, which means they'll have to make their own proprietary skeletal systems--which means many months and potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of development to break into the "casual" or "family" market, which seems awfully contradictory. The idea, I thought, was to create a vehicle with which developers could spend less and make more.

I dunno. So many things could swing the opposite direction here, but I just can't see this working out well.

 

[Fuhjem]

Just because a major game company is now trying to tailor to the casuals, that doesn't mean we won't be forgotten.

Core gamers are still the cornerstone of the gaming industry.

 

[Delusibeta]

Ultimately, the big glowing problem is that, Children of Eden excepted, there's nothing announced for the Kinect that the Wii already has a version of. If Microsoft promotes it well, I expect the $250 Kinect + console bundle to do reasonably well, but I wouldn't be too surprised if they mostly return to the Wii and its recent, less patronising games.