PS4 Originally $499, Included Camera Peripheral

[omega 616]

Anyone else noticing that the Eye only costs 59 bucks and not a hundred?

Yeah, I clocked that one ... funny, aint it?

You mean me, as a 99.9% play alone gamer, will never have the advantage of the PS4 swapping the screen position or knowing where I am? Oh no ... how will I live? Better shell out for one!

Glad they really wanted to undercut MS.

 

[tdylan]

I hate kinect and have no interest in it at all. But atleast they stood by it. An maybe something will come out of it and make kinect worth while. Sony just backed out because they were scared of the fans when they should be saying "Ok it has eyetoy but this is why the eyetoy will make gaming on ps4 amazing" but nope.

The thing is, with it added as standard. It means better companies with more imagination can make these additions work.

So what you're saying is that Sony should be condemned for bailing on what they felt was a bad idea, and Microsoft should be commended for sticking with it? Cuz hey! The ship's sinking, and I could easily escape and live to sail another day, but nah! I'll die with the ship since sailing it was my idea. That's what you're saying?

Have you ever taken a test, written in an answer, realize it was the wrong one, and then changed it? Or do you see your mistake and think "I could change it, but instead I'll stick with my original answer even though I feel it's the wrong one."?

Because that's as much sense as you're making right now.

Speaking of "at least microsoft sticks with their decisions," how's that "24-hour check-in" decision working for them? Are they still sticking by that one, or are you breaking their balls for backing out of it?

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Smart decision. Nobody wants the damn thing and it makes their product more appealing.

 

[tdylan]

The thing is, with it added as standard. It means better companies with more imagination can make these additions work.

Or, you stifle the design process by forcing developers into having to build their games around incorporating the novelty

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

I disagree.

You're free to. I just have a feeling this is based less on actual reason and more on personal investment, as you go on to talk about.

Faith is irrelevant when a market won't support your concept. They had proof that such a thing was a toxic asset. That's not cowardice.

I see it as what if sony had tons of amazing ideas for the eye toy? Ideas that would make gaming amazing and new for all PS4 owners? But no, just because fans moaned about kinect they changed their mind.

So either eyetoy was crap they added to PS4 just to be able to charge more money. Or it had amazing potential and they chickened out of their plans.

The market can support it if its shown to be worthwhile. Hell, the market doesnt support new consoles when the 360/PS3 are still viable platforms.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

The thing is, with it added as standard. It means better companies with more imagination can make these additions work.

Or, you stifle the design process by forcing developers into having to build their games around incorporating the novelty

Dont have to use it, but if you wanted to its their. How is that stifling? Your given developers an extra thing if they want to use it. Like if they added keyboard and mouse with the Xbone/PS4 then that would give some companies a way to bring out strategy games.

 

[tdylan]

I would be more interested in if they did this after or before the Xbone got slammed for the mandatory Kinect.

If before, I am impressed, as it shows Sony knew what they were doing.

If after, I am not impressed, as it shows Sony were as bad as microsoft, and just back-pedalled to please fans and were scared of their reaction to Xbone.

I don't think they back-pedaled to please fans but rather realized that they had to do something to be more appealing to fans. Some compete by trying to do what the other guy does, but trying to convince you that theirs is better. Others compete by offering something different from the other guy and saying "this is not the same as theirs, and here is why you want it."

Sony knows that money talks, and having your "similar" device priced lower, minus the "unwanted" bells and whistles, would be more appealing.

 

[omega 616]

So Sony chickened out? Did Sony not think their eye thing was any good? Regardless, atleast MS stood up for the kinect as a viable addition, though i hate the kinect. An not acted like a cowardly chicken.

Sony smartened up. Understanding what the market will tolerate is important in business.

I disagree. Sony have zero faith in the eyetoy. Regardless if its crap like kinect is. Its not about those things. Its that Sony went against their original idea. They were not smart or anything and its nothing to do with being tolerant or anything. Its about Sony having zero faith in their own equipment and backed up just because fans moaned.

I hate kinect and have no interest in it at all. But atleast they stood by it. An maybe something will come out of it and make kinect worth while. Sony just backed out because they were scared of the fans when they should be saying "Ok it has eyetoy but this is why the eyetoy will make gaming on ps4 amazing" but nope.

The thing is, with it added as standard. It means better companies with more imagination can make these additions work.

You see not having faith in but most (it seems) see it that Sony saw MS flop with it and learned from them, instead of saying "hey, you know how they have a camera you hate? We have one as well!" ... as a business strategy, does that sound like a good idea? Follow your competitions mistake?

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

I hate kinect and have no interest in it at all. But atleast they stood by it. An maybe something will come out of it and make kinect worth while. Sony just backed out because they were scared of the fans when they should be saying "Ok it has eyetoy but this is why the eyetoy will make gaming on ps4 amazing" but nope.

The thing is, with it added as standard. It means better companies with more imagination can make these additions work.

So what you're saying is that Sony should be condemned for bailing on what they felt was a bad idea, and Microsoft should be commended for sticking with it? Cuz hey! The ship's sinking, and I could easily escape and live to sail another day, but nah! I'll die with the ship since sailing it was my idea. That's what you're saying?

Have you ever taken a test, written in an answer, realize it was the wrong one, and then changed it? Or do you see your mistake and think "I could change it, but instead I'll stick with my original answer even though I feel it's the wrong one."?

Because that's as much sense as you're making right now.

Speaking of "at least microsoft sticks with their decisions," how's that "24-hour check-in" decision working for them? Are they still sticking by that one, or are you breaking their balls for backing out of it?

DRM was a bad idea. No used games is a bad idea. Kinect or eyetoy isnt.....they could be. But if they are boxed with every company then there are many amazing companies that can use it for amazing things.

Now you exam thing doesnt work. It would be more like you write an answer and some one says thats wrong, this is the correct answer. What do you do? Believe that you were correct and your answer is correct. Or change it just because some one else said your answer is wrong?

I agree what you said and why sony changed. But i think sony changed everything to be 100% against every bad choice that MS made. Now i agree that is a good idea when selling a machine and a multi million pound investment. I just think they didnt have to kill of the eye toy as well.

 

[tdylan]

The thing is, with it added as standard. It means better companies with more imagination can make these additions work.

Or, you stifle the design process by forcing developers into having to build their games around incorporating the novelty

Dont have to use it, but if you wanted to its their. How is that stifling? Your given developers an extra thing if they want to use it. Like if they added keyboard and mouse with the Xbone/PS4 then that would give some companies a way to bring out strategy games.

You do realize it is still something that exists, yes? Developers can build games ith the eye toy in mind and put "requires eye toy" on the box. Sony hasn't scrapped it, they simply haven't made it mandatory. Those that want it can buy it. Those developers that want to develop for it can do so. Those that don't want it are not forced to pay for a device they have no intention of using. Developers that have no "imagination" will not be forced to waste resrouces building arond it.

MS is making you pay for the kinect whether you want it or not. MS is making you develop for the kinect whether you want to or not. I don't see how that is "better."

 

[Covarr]

Remember when they did that to the Saturn? Steve Race's $299 announcement is still one of the best moments in the history of e3.

P.S. Thanks

 

[tdylan]

Now you exam thing doesnt work. It would be more like you write an answer and some one says thats wrong, this is the correct answer. What do you do? Believe that you were correct and your answer is correct. Or change it just because some one else said your answer is wrong?

I agree what you said and why sony changed. But i think sony changed everything to be 100% against every bad choice that MS made. Now i agree that is a good idea when selling a machine and a multi million pound investment. I just think they didnt have to kill of the eye toy as well.

You see that someone answered the question the exact same way that you did and the teacher marks it incorrect. Do you stick with your answer, or do you say "the teacher didn't accept it, i'd better change my answer,"? In this case the teacher is the consumer. After the reaction to the kinect being mandatory, Sony would have been morons to brazenly present the teacher (consumers) with the same thing that MS was just dragged over the coals for.

They didn't kill the eye toy. They're simply selling it as an optional add-on. Developers that have creative ideas can build games around it uncreative developers being forced to come up with a way to use it. Just because you want it doesn't mean I have to get straddled with paying for it.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

The thing is, with it added as standard. It means better companies with more imagination can make these additions work.

Or, you stifle the design process by forcing developers into having to build their games around incorporating the novelty

Dont have to use it, but if you wanted to its their. How is that stifling? Your given developers an extra thing if they want to use it. Like if they added keyboard and mouse with the Xbone/PS4 then that would give some companies a way to bring out strategy games.

You do realize it is still something that exists, yes? Developers can build games ith the eye toy in mind and put "requires eye toy" on the box. Sony hasn't scrapped it, they simply haven't made it mandatory. Those that want it can buy it. Those developers that want to develop for it can do so. Those that don't want it are not forced to pay for a device they have no intention of using. Developers that have no "imagination" will not be forced to waste resrouces building arond it.

MS is making you pay for the kinect whether you want it or not. MS is making you develop for the kinect whether you want to or not. I don't see how that is "better."

You do know that companies wont make a kinect game because it wont make much money. An know one is going to buy a kinect to play one game. The kinect isnt madatory, just cos its in the box doesnt mean you are forced to use it or make games that has to have it. Just means in the future some companies may have an amazing use for it and thus can waste money on it because every one has one. Same as if everyone has a keyboard and mouse, there would be more strategy games on xbox because you wont expect your consumers to spend £100 on a kinect just to play your game.

MS are not making you buy it, how are they making you buy it? They got you at gun point? Kidnapped your family? Just dont buy it. lol. MS isnt making anyone develop games for Kinect, its just there if developers want it. Why are people acting like children about this? Your an adult, just by a PS4 instead.

Now in a years time if all games suck because all companies are forced by nazi MS, then i will apologise and by you a beer. But until then, instead of moaning, just see how things work out. Will connect be used to make gaming better? Then excellent. If it turns into a piece of crap as me and you think. Then i will be joining you in the anti kinect war. For now, im just saying, lets see what they do. What they come up with.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

Similar argument could have been made coming from someone coming from SNES to N64 "Two analog sticks are not and never will be a vital part of all games, so why force feed people with one?"

The reason, of course, is to provide a large enough base of people so that developers see the point in developing games that make use of the new control scheme.

I hate this argument. All it takes is playing a single 3D game with an analog sticks to see how much of an improvement they were. They were a small and not costly feature that improved video games from then on. Motion controls on the other hand have had an entire generation on the Wii and later 360 and ps3 to prove their worth and the benefits aren't there for some of us. Moreover, did the cost of N64 controllers and ps1 controllers go up substantially with the addition of sticks? Did it hinder how to use the controllers in any way? I don't think so. Hell, Ninty even added the third handle to play with a D-Pad in case the sticks didn't work out (I wish they did something similar with the Wii). $100 (or $59) is a lot of money for a feature I already have experience with and doesn't seem necessary

That said, I might pick up a ps eye anyway down the road. It could be fun, but I suspect it'll mostly be used for local multiplayer fun and I don't happen to host a lot of get togethers

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Now you exam thing doesnt work. It would be more like you write an answer and some one says thats wrong, this is the correct answer. What do you do? Believe that you were correct and your answer is correct. Or change it just because some one else said your answer is wrong?

I agree what you said and why sony changed. But i think sony changed everything to be 100% against every bad choice that MS made. Now i agree that is a good idea when selling a machine and a multi million pound investment. I just think they didnt have to kill of the eye toy as well.

You see that someone answered the question the exact same way that you did and the teacher marks it incorrect. Do you stick with your answer, or do you say "the teacher didn't accept it, i'd better change my answer,"? In this case the teacher is the consumer. After the reaction to the kinect being mandatory, Sony would have been morons to brazenly present the teacher (consumers) with the same thing that MS was just dragged over the coals for.

They didn't kill the eye toy. They're simply selling it as an optional add-on. Developers that have creative ideas can build games around it uncreative developers being forced to come up with a way to use it. Just because you want it doesn't mean I have to get straddled with paying for it.

No it doesnt fit at all. DRM, wrong answer. No used games, wrong answer. These fit your thing. But. Now im not saying kinect or eyetoy is great at all. Both have failed. Im just saying sony should have kept the eyetoy pre packaged because game companies could have used it for good stuff if they knew everyone has one. I think sony did well ignoring drm and used gaming, but if they had faith in the eyetoy, they should have kept it. An allowed game companies to use it. Developments costs are huge for a company to risk making a game for a niche product. But with it pre packed, maybe indie companies could have made some fun games with it.

Regardless of price of current consoles, people always moan. An its only core gamers that will buy them day one anyway. PS3 was really expensive in the UK when it first came out. If your moaning at the price, then i think you (like me) and many others will buy it maybe 6 months later when the price cuts happen.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Ok, people are moaning at me alot. I hate kinect, have zero interest in being forced to buy one with the xb one. But, looking at it in a different way. Maybe this will enable good kinect useage? Maybe some indie developer will use it good now everyone has it? Now they can make awesome AAA kinect games. Or indie developers can be more creative than a AAA studio cant.

Now isnt this, as a gamer and loving games (regardless that previously kinect/eyetoy are crappy shovel ware worthless games) dont you think that these new toys are worth given the chance to be what they are? To make the games we wish could exist? Thats all im saying. Sony did good, they did what i did. But are they shooting themselves in the foot by not packaging the eyetoy with the PS4? (Now if MS forces companies to use it, i will protest louder than you, but is having it as opportunity to create something a bad thing?) Thats all im saying. Take away all the fanboyism and MS hate and what the kinect has done now. Imagine its day one of Kinect, we all had ideas of how kinect could be good. Just that the niche aspect has counted against it.

 

[tdylan]

You do know that companies wont make a kinect game because it wont make much money. An know one is going to buy a kinect to play one game. The kinect isnt madatory, just cos its in the box doesnt mean you are forced to use it or make games that has to have it.

No, I'm not forced to use it. But if I want this xbox, I'm paying for it. If the kinect wasn't in there they woulc be able to price it more competively. But the kinect's in there so all people see is "one costs $100 USD more than the other." That's how it's being forced onto consumers. "If you want an xbox, you pay for a kinect. Whether you want the kinect or not." The cost of the kinect is factored into the cost of the machine. You're paying for it whether you want it or not.

Just means in the future some companies may have an amazing use for it and thus can waste money on it because every one has one.

So I should be content to spend the extra money on the kinect because companies have the ability, but the guarantee, that they'll find some innovative way to use it? I'm to invest in something that may not payoff?

MS are not making you buy it,

By including it (thus raising the price of the console), they made it easier for me to not buy it. It's never a good business move to give people reason to stop and think about why they should not buy your product.

 

[StriderShinryu]

It may be lost functionality, but when it's functionality that pretty much no one cares about, is it really a loss at all?

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

You do know that companies wont make a kinect game because it wont make much money. An know one is going to buy a kinect to play one game. The kinect isnt madatory, just cos its in the box doesnt mean you are forced to use it or make games that has to have it.

No, I'm not forced to use it. But if I want this xbox, I'm paying for it. If the kinect wasn't in there they woulc be able to price it more competively. But the kinect's in there so all people see is "one costs $100 USD more than the other." That's how it's being forced onto consumers. "If you want an xbox, you pay for a kinect. Whether you want the kinect or not." The cost of the kinect is factored into the cost of the machine. You're paying for it whether you want it or not.

Just means in the future some companies may have an amazing use for it and thus can waste money on it because every one has one.

So I should be content to spend the extra money on the kinect because companies have the ability, but the guarantee, that they'll find some innovative way to use it? I'm to invest in something that may not payoff?

MS are not making you buy it,

By including it (thus raising the price of the console), they made it easier for me to not buy it. It's never a good business move to give people reason to stop and think about why they should not buy your product.

But your not forced. You buy the new xbox, but MS dont appear and say "NOW BUY A KINECT". lol Just dont but it, stop moaning. Im aware it costs £100($140 for us) more to buy it and thats the Kinect, but you know what your getting for your money. Not like your buying an xbone and find out every game is kinect only and now you have to invest in a kinect. Then your forced. Just wait for it to go down in price.

Your a consumer....MS said this console has a kinect with it. Regardless you can chose to not buy it. Hell i bought a 360 and i dont play online gaming.....did i moan "Oh know im being forced to pay for a console that can be played online" NO. Did i moan that i pay full price for games though i wont use the online part of it? NO. Stop moaning about the whole forced to buy thing, your not. You just dont like the kinect (like me and others) and thats all.

Ok, how about this. If MS sold xbone with kinect same price as PS4 would you still be moaning about kinect? Yeah, i doubt it. We have been here before. The PS3 was way more expensive that 360. People moaned, but people still bought it.

 

[Charli]

HEY! LOOK! OPTIONS ARE GOOD! Who would have thought it.

If someone really wants a PS4 'Eye' they can buy a Ps4 Eye. Good for them for being proactive gamers.

The rest of us slobbish normal folk could give a sh-