PS4 Originally $499, Included Camera Peripheral
- Thread starter StewShearerOld
- Start date
No. Because they already made them. They have already paid money on development costs for it. I just think they made a knee jerk reaction to gamers. Know drm and used games....glad they made them changes. But the camera eyetoy thing, they should have kept it if they believed in it. If sony thought it was a crap idea then why invest so much in it? If it was pre packaged then other companies would have done something original and fun with it. I think kinect and eye toy is shit. I agree, but i think it should been given a fair chance if companies can use it to make games good now those toys are not niche anymore.RicoADF said:
Sony just sold themselves out.If they thought eyetoy was worthy enough to pre package with their console, why would they change their mind just because of MS fans? All they needed to do was show us gamers (and we are gamers) WHY the kinect or eyetoy matters next gen. Thats all.
Will MS regret the kinect with xbone? Maybe, only time will tell. Maybe in 2 years time you will be shouting "Thank god kinect was pre packaged, its awesome". Maybe it will still be crap and worthless. Who knows, but at least its being given the chance to be what it is.
Jack Tretton said years ago that Move and the Eye were an additive experience and he said the exact same thing to the Dorito Pope after E3. Additive, meaning, optional. If MS yanks the Kinect crap, I'll consider buying their evil taintbox and forget all about what they tried to do to gamers.
Sony look forward....not knee jerk. PS3 was really expensive because it came with a bluray player. Did they change? No, they went with it and look how many PS3s they sold. They took the risk and proved everyone wrong.
Except analog sticks made the case for their existence with literally the first game released on the N64, Mario 64, and continued to prove the point with games like Pilot Wings, OoT, Goldeneye, Mario Kart 64, Star Fox 64, and the list goes on. And that's to say nothing of the years the PSX was out before that and people put up with using a Dpad to poorly control previous 3D titles.Kwil said:
The Kinect has yet to make the same case for why it should exist. Not even one game that couldn't exist without it and offers an experience that even approaches the level of sheer revolution that the analog stick and the games that grew out of that did. And the Kinect, in it's present form, is frankly never going to get there. It's just not that good of an interface.
What's even more moronic is when games have to be made to serve motion controls, instead of motion controls being made to serve games.Kwil said:
Two analog sticks became the norm because as games moved from 2D to 3D, the need for a free camera (i.e. player controlled) became more and more apparent. D-pads weren't very useful for camera control, and analog sticks had the further advantage of allowing a very precise degree of angle detection, useful for movement. The NEED to have analog sticks was there and thus the concept of dual analog sticks (or d-pad + analog stick) was born, eventually paving the way for first person shooters on consoles.
Motion controls meanwhile have proved time and again to add fuck-all to gaming, primarily because (as Yahtzee has highlighted a bazillion times) gamers prefer playing games while sitting down or lying down - not dancing in front of the TV or waving their hands around like windmills. Fingers + buttons get the job done drastically more efficiently and effectively with instant-responsiveness.
While I can't deny that a certain Just Dance or Wii Fit demographic does exist among the masses, I feel exactly the same as Luvd1- they will never become a VITAL (i.e. core) part of video gaming. Not because "booo nobody buys motion controls so devs won't feel the need to games for it", but because the genuine NEED for motion controls doesn't goddamn exist outside of very specific gimmicks. Yes, there is room for those gimmicks to co-exist with the regular stuff, but they can continue to be just that - niche gimmicks.
They tried to ram motion controls down multiple games for the last ~1-2 years and in almost every case they either felt horribly tacked-on or only served to annoy.
In the case of game controls, necessity is truly the mother of invention.
You keep applying double standards saying that it was good that microsoft kept the kinect (despite pressure from consumers) yet dropped the drm (due to pressure from consumers), and other features some of which were intriguing. But you then say it was bad of sony to drop the eyetoy. Either both consoles stick to their original packages or they are both allowed to add or remove features as they see fit (before release).SonOfVoorhees said:
Also ok they alreasy made the eye, so what's stopping people going out and buying them seperatly after release instead of having it forced upon them at launch. When I buy a console I want the console, a game or 2 and a controller. I will build up from there. If I want an eye I'll go and get 1, similarly if I want another controller I'll go out and get 1, but when just buying a console my back account is in pain, so it means getting the basic set and waiting a while before getting extras. This camera is an extra, not a requirement, unlike the kinect, though after microsoft dropped the drm I wonder how truly required the kinect actually is.
Not to mention that while the second analog stick was a small but necessary improvement to the same basic principle, the Kinect seeks to introduce a revolutionary new concept purely for its own sake.Vivi22 said:
Many different people dislike the Kinect for many different reasons [small](my own reason being that I like to play my games with a minimum of effort, in a calm and relaxed way which the Kinect, by its very nature, will never be able to allow me)[/small], whereas the button-pad system has been universally accepted and enjoyed by gamers for as long as gaming consoles have existed.
The motion sensor system does have a few fans, but I'm confident that few - if any - of its users genuinely see it as a REPLACEMENT for traditional controllers, or even believe that it might achieve such a status in the foreseeable future. The motion sensor of today is at best a novelty [small](and at worst a way for Microsoft to watch us sleep)[/small], and I, for one, greatly appreciate having the option of not paying for the silly thing.
They made a rational bussiness decision based on the market which gave them a massive edge over their competitors? They must be...SonOfVoorhees said:
COWARDS!
Do you even listen to yourself man?
OT: Yeah, good move. People who want to get an Eye will get it, people who don't won't have it forced down their throats. Like it.
The reasons analog sticks worked while motion controls don't is that:PoolCleaningRobot said:
1. Compared to controls without it, they cost the developer next to nothing to put in.
2. The developers made sure they worked before releasing them to the public.
3. They are actually used in ways that BENEFIT games instead of annoying the user.
4. All of the above was true the VERY FIRST TIME they put analog sticks in, they didn't develop a stigma by being crappy first.
Motion controls have none of that. They are unresponsive, don't work well, aren't used in ways as of yet that a plain ol controller can't do, and it jacks up the price to have it in. When all that changes maybe motion controls will even completely supplant the simple controller, but until then motion controls will be nothing but an undesirable gimmick.
I'm just glad my PS4 (assuming I actually buy one, which is not likely at this point) won't have a spy-cam on it at all times.
Win for privacy advocates, yo.
Win for privacy advocates, yo.
Which is exactly what is supposed to happen. Competition. If people want to buy the Eye seperately they can, including a peripheral in the price is silly. [small]And the Eye isn't even as potentially useful as the Kinect...[/small]
And...I fail to see how a $59 peripheral accounts for a $100 price difference.
And...I fail to see how a $59 peripheral accounts for a $100 price difference.
Interesting choice of words. People were "moaning" at you?SonOfVoorhees said:
No, your stance has no ground to stand on. PS4 without the camera is $100 less. That alone is a good thing. Especially for someone like me, who doesn't want the camera. I don't have to buy something I don't want just to get something I do. It'd be like making me buy tampons, just so I can buy some chicken. I don't want them. I won't use them (especially as a guy). They have nothing to do with what I want to use the chicken for, so why do I have to buy them?
Yeah, not a perfect example, but I was trying to be ridiculous. In my view, the PS4 Eye is just as useless as those tampons.
Now, if I see some features and games that make the Eye seem worthwhile, then, I can easily do so. At a lower price, no less. But until then, I don't have to buy something that I don't want. And that will be that much better if nothing ever comes out to make me feel like the investment was worth it. It's win/win.
Why are you upset about a company doing something smart and beneficial to both them and the consumer? Or should I be asking where you plan to buy your Xbox One? Do you think the Day One achievement will be worth it?
