Originally posted by dadudemon
Saying the Kinect is the Eye Toy is like saying a pen is a industrial Xerox printer.And, no, I'm not exaggerating even a little.
I doubt you can say that with a straight face
Kinect is not the Eye Toy, but it's an improved idea over the original idea... an original idea that might not be so original, but it's the farthest back I can remember.
Sony made a camera that tracks your movements and translates said movements to inputs in a game... sounds like Kinect to me, difference being: Kinect tracks your body in a partial 3D space more accurately than the first Eye Toy did and, most importantly, M$ spent a whole lot of money (and continues to do so) to market the thing as the next best thing, whereas Sony never bother to properly pushed the peripheral to consumer awareness and merely treated it like: "Is there if you'd like to use it"
And it's all Nintendo's fault anyways. Only Fanboys will argue defending them and calling everyone else copycats
There's hardly anything original these days.
It's business people. If it sells, then expect to see it everywhere else
What's next: saying the ARGs are Nintendo's idea and PSVita is copying it? 😐
Originally posted by S_D_J
I doubt you can say that with a straight face
But...
I'm not gay.
????
😕 😕 😕 😕
Originally posted by S_D_J
Kinect is not the Eye Toy, but it's an improved idea over the original idea... an original idea that might not be so original, but it's the farthest back I can remember.
A modern industrial Xerox machine is not a pen, but it's an improvement over the original idea...an original idea that might not be so original.
Originally posted by S_D_J
Sony made a camera that tracks your movements and translates said movements to inputs in a game... sounds like Kinect to me, difference being: Kinect tracks your body in a partial 3D space more accurately than the first Eye Toy did and, most importantly, M$ spent a whole lot of money (and continues to do so) to market the thing as the next best thing, whereas Sony never bother to properly pushed the peripheral to consumer awareness and merely treated it like: "Is there if you'd like to use it"
Because gesture recognition is the ONLY technology that Kinect implements, right?
And gesture recognition is the only technology that the EyeToy employed, right?
EyeToy is a bit more complicated than you're giving it credit for...as is the pen. Kinect is MUCH more complicated than you're giving it credit for.
Originally posted by S_D_J
And it's all Nintendo's fault anyways. Only Fanboys will argue defending them and calling everyone else copycats
But...see....the difference: Nintendo created or popularized most of the gaming technologies we use, today.
Yes, voice recognition.
Yes, analogy input.
Yes, vibration feedback.
Yes, portable handheld gaming.
Yes, video playback on the handheld.
Yes, 3D in handheld gaming.
Yes, legal (first party) virtual console.
Yes, touch interface handheld.
Bla bla bla.
The list goes on.
Almost all gaming technologies are CONVERGED technologies...not emerged.
Originally posted by dadudemon
But...I'm not gay.
????
😕 😕 😕 😕
Your wife begs to differ 131
j/k
Originally posted by dadudemonA modern industrial Xerox machine is not a pen, but it's an improvement over the original idea...an original idea that might not be so original.
Because gesture recognition is the ONLY technology that Kinect implements, right?
And gesture recognition is the only technology that the EyeToy employed, right?
EyeToy is a bit more complicated than you're giving it credit for...as is the pen. Kinect is MUCH more complicated than you're giving it credit for.
you mean voice recognition? you can do that with a headset you know? I guess BioWare forgot that when they "implemented" Kinect.
... and there's also WiiTalk, they did it first.
I don't know exactly nor do I want to care about how it works internally, it comes down to what it does and the Eye Toy did the same thing, but not as advanced as Kinect, but it did it first.
That's the discussion, not how differently they work. It's about who did it first and who ripped off who... I'm saying none of it matters anyway, but the fact that both the EyeToy and PSEye came first it's hard to ignore.
Originally posted by dadudemon
But...see....the difference: Nintendo created or popularized most of the gaming technologies we use, today.Yes, voice recognition.
Yes, analogy input.
Yes, vibration feedback.
Yes, portable handheld gaming.
Yes, video playback on the handheld.
Yes, 3D in handheld gaming.
Yes, legal (first party) virtual console.
Yes, touch interface handheld.
Bla bla bla.
The list goes on.
Almost all gaming technologies are CONVERGED technologies...not emerged.
That's my point exactly.
What I meant it's "only fanboys would pick on the matter and then say the other company's ripping off their precious company's idea" 😬
If it wasn't for Nintendo we wouldn't have motion control in everything... and it even wasn't their idea, I remember tilt and head tracking devices long before Nintendo, it's just that they were the ones that made it profitable.
so I'll say Kinect is Eye Toy 2.5 the next time someone says Sony is ripping off the Kinect idea... and my point will still be valid 😐
Originally posted by S_D_J
you mean voice recognition?
No.
Originally posted by S_D_J
you can do that with a headset you know?
That's still not part of the EyeToy.
Originally posted by S_D_J
I don't know exactly nor do I want to care about how it works internally, it comes down to what it does and the Eye Toy did the same thing,
SOME of the things it does are similar, but, no, it's not the "same" thing.
Originally posted by S_D_J
but not as advanced as Kinect,
So now you're making the same argument I made, huh? 313
Originally posted by S_D_J
but it did it first.
Gesture recognition on a home console? Yes, it did "that" first.
Originally posted by S_D_J
That's the discussion, not how differently they work. It's about who did it first and who ripped off who... I'm saying none of it matters anyway, but the fact that both the EyeToy and PSEye came first it's hard to ignore.
I'm not sure what you're talking about because the discussion is comparing an old technology with a new one and then trying to say, "Sony did the Kinect, first!!!!" Not true. Like I said earlier, it's like comparing the pen to a modern industrial Xerox machine.
Originally posted by S_D_J
That's my point exactly.
Which is not my point: Kinect is not the EyeToy. That's like saying the pen (modern, of course...with all the fixins) is an Industrial Xerox machine.
Originally posted by S_D_J
What I meant it's "only fanboys would pick on the matter and then say the other company's ripping off their precious company's idea" 😬
Back to that "original point" of yours: Sony advertised the shit out of EyeToy, as well. It was a hit at E3, was supposed to take off, had tons of first and third party support, etc.
It did okay. I believe Sony made a profit off of it (meaning, they recouped R&D, marketing, and so forth; up to the point of running the project into the black.)
Originally posted by S_D_J
If it wasn't for Nintendo we wouldn't have motion control in everything... and it even wasn't their idea, I remember tilt and head tracking devices long before Nintendo, it's just that they were the ones that made it profitable.
I agree on this point. Like I said, Nintendo either invented or converged most of our console gaming technologies.
Originally posted by S_D_J
so I'll say Kinect is Eye Toy 2.5 the next time someone says Sony is ripping off the Kinect idea... and my point will still be valid 😐
I disagree.
It's more like EyeToy 6.0. 😉
It's like comparing Windows 3.11 to Windows 7, imo. What you are saying is it's like comparing Windows 95 to Windows 98: they (they, as in, the EyeToy and Kinect) are not even close in both hardware and software technologies.
Dude, it doesn't matter how advance it is.
The point is, and always was, which came first.
You were the one that brought up the tech talk when that wasn't what I meant: the point is the core idea.
You just can't say they'll be ripping off Microsoft if they ever do a kinect-like thing with the PS4 because they already have done the same thing with the PS2.
the 2.5 thing was just meant as a jokel to the "M$ rip off"
If anything it'll be the Eye 3D if they decide to keep the branding, and not Kinect 2.0
btw: it's not in discussion how much Sony made of the Eye Toy and how they advertised it in a E3 conference, they haven't build their entire conference around the Eye Toy for 3 years now, nor are they trying to push it down your throat by almost making a mandatory integration of the device 😬
at least Move has button and a stick,just like the Wiimote.
Originally posted by S_D_J
Dude, it doesn't matter how advance it is.
Since that's exactly my point and the point you've been arguing against, yes, it certainly does matter in the most direct way possible.
Originally posted by S_D_J
The point is, and always was, which came first.
No, that may be a point of yours, but it was never something I wanted to discuss.
Originally posted by S_D_J
You were the one that brought up the tech talk when that wasn't what I meant: the point is the core idea.
And the core ideas are also dissimilar: Kinect is not strictly a gesture system. If you boiled down to just a a gesture system, you've really missed the point of Kinect. Even the gesture technologies do not work the same: even the hardware involved with the "sensing" works differently.
Originally posted by S_D_J
You just can't say they'll be ripping off Microsoft if they ever do a kinect-like thing with the PS4 because they already have done the same thing with the PS2.
Wah?
What are you on about? I've never talked about this. I believe you've confused me for someone else.
Originally posted by S_D_J
the 2.5 thing was just meant as a jokel to the "M$ rip off"
I realize this but I would rather not label it in such terms because it's really not "right."
Even saying "it's like the EyeToy 6.0" is not a congruent progression. That was also a light-hearted assessment, btw.
Originally posted by S_D_J
If anything it'll be the Eye 3D if they decide to keep the branding, and not Kinect 2.0
That would be awesome, actually.
Originally posted by S_D_J
btw: it's not in discussion how much Sony made of the Eye Toy and how they advertised it in a E3 conference, they haven't build their entire conference around the Eye Toy for 3 years now, nor are they trying to push it down your throat by almost making a mandatory integration of the device 😬
Since it's a retired technology, discussing it in "current" terms is inappropriate, regardless. Discussing them in their temporal context, however, IS appropriate. (More simply, compare their success periods to each other.)
Originally posted by S_D_J
at least Move has button and a stick,just like the Wiimote.
awesome
I actually haven't use the move or Kinect. They just aren't "woo-ing" me, like they should.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Since that's exactly my point and the point you've been arguing against, yes, it certainly does matter in the most direct way possible.
I never argued this point.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, that may be a point of yours, but it was never something I wanted to discuss.
It was the point you quoted me for. You understood I was saying they're both the same, I already explain what I meant with the 2.5 thing
Originally posted by dadudemon
And the core ideas are also dissimilar: Kinect is not strictly a gesture system. If you boiled down to just a a gesture system, you've really missed the point of Kinect. Even the gesture technologies do not work the same: even the hardware involved with the "sensing" works differently.
Again I don't care about the hardware. I never argued that
what's the core idea behind Kinect?
Isn't it to read your body, arms flailing around or more recently hands/fingers movements and translate it as inputs to play a game? doing away with a controller
Isn't that what Eye Toy rudimentary did as well?
there are others things to use it for, both of them, but that's not the point
Originally posted by dadudemon
Wah?What are you on about? I've never talked about this. I believe you've confused me for someone else.
You quoted me on this.
I mean "you" in general sense, not specifically you.
The point you came up with was entirely your own. I was referring to what came first in my original post 😉
Originally posted by dadudemon
I realize this but I would rather not label it in such terms because it's really not "right."Even saying "it's like the EyeToy 6.0" is not a congruent progression. That was also a light-hearted assessment, btw.
Just as was mine
Originally posted by dadudemon
Since it's a retired technology, discussing it in "current" terms is inappropriate, regardless. Discussing them in their temporal context, however, IS appropriate. (More simply, compare their success periods to each other.)
My point here is the marketing (regardless of time context or monetary success) and their philosophy in general
One is trying to make it mandatory, the other one treated it (and continues to do so) as a peripheral
Originally posted by dadudemon
awesomeI actually haven't use the move or Kinect. They just aren't "woo-ing" me, like they should.
and I hope they go away. I like Move, is more accurate than the original Wiimote, but there's few uses for it as not every developers manages to get it right
Kinect is just mainly retarded, it makes you look stupid playing it (unless you're a good dancer at Dance Central) and I think it manages to make consoles look as child toys, more than Wii does. It's bad rep for Gamers 313
that said the only game I'm interested in is Dance Central, the SW game was a disappointment.
Paying close to $250 for just one game (sensor, DC game, taxes, shipping since I don't live in the States) it's just not worth it
Originally posted by S_D_J
I never argued this point.
Spoiler:
Before you read any of my replies, keep in mind that this is not "serious business" and I keep it very straightforward. It may appear harsh or that I'm "mad bro", but that's just my posting style. If you want me to be more gentle in my "you're wrong" responses, I can do what Bardock does and say things like, "well, that's not entirely true..." I think that's too many words and just being straightforward about it is time-saving for both of us.
That's not true. You argued that the technologies were largely similar and only differentiated that Kinect was more advanced because it could track, slightly, in 3D space. So
Originally posted by S_D_J
It was the point you quoted me for. You understood I was saying they're both the same, I already explain what I meant with the 2.5 thing
Wrong: I have never made it a point to discuss which came first.
You mentioned it one time, in passing, and I ignored the "which came first" portion of that argument:
Observe:
You said:
Originally posted by S_D_J
...an original idea that might not be so original, but it's the farthest back I can remember.
To which I said:
Originally posted by dadudemon
A modern industrial Xerox machine is not a pen, but it's an improvement over the original idea...an original idea that might not be so original.
Which was a complete carbon copy of what you said but replaced certains words to retain my original analogy of a pen and Xerox machine.
To which you said:
Originally posted by S_D_J
it comes down to what it does and the Eye Toy did the same thing, but not as advanced as Kinect, but it did it first.
That's the discussion, not how differently they work. It's about who did it first and who ripped off who... I'm saying none of it matters anyway, but the fact that both the EyeToy and PSEye came first it's hard to ignore.
To which I replied, with a "confusion" note:
Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm not sure what you're talking about because the discussion is comparing an old technology with a new one and then trying to say, "Sony did the Kinect, first!!!!" Not true. Like I said earlier, it's like comparing the pen to a modern industrial Xerox machine.
And you said the following:
Originally posted by S_D_J
The point is, and always was, which came first.
Which is incongruent of the actual original discussion of you saying "Kinect is EyeToy" and me saying "That's a silly statement."
Observe:
Originally posted by dadudemon
Saying the Kinect is the Eye Toy is like saying a pen is a industrial Xerox printer.
You yourself already stated it really didn't matter "which" came first since they are just repackaged technologies that someone else already invented.
Originally posted by S_D_J
Again I don't care about the hardware. I never argued that
Wrong: you did too. You tried to pass them off as "very similar" technologies:
Originally posted by S_D_J
Sony made a camera that tracks your movements and translates said movements to inputs in a game... sounds like Kinect to me, difference being: Kinect tracks your body in a partial 3D space more accurately than the first Eye Toy did and, most importantly, M$ spent a whole lot of money (and continues to do so) to market the thing as the next best thing, whereas Sony never bother to properly pushed the peripheral to consumer awareness and merely treated it like: "Is there if you'd like to use it"
Originally posted by S_D_J
what's the core idea behind Kinect?
Isn't it to read your body, arms flailing around or more recently hands/fingers movements and translate it as inputs to play a game? doing away with a controller
Isn't that what Eye Toy rudimentary did as well?there are others things to use it for, both of them, but that's not the point
Because you've only typed "idea" you've already missed the point. There is no "singular" idea.
Unless you want the marketing answer, of which I do not want to do because I am not "wooed" by the product.
Microsoft's marketing campaign was "You are the controller."
That wasn't my point nor is that in context with what we were discussing. Idea = technologies in the context we were both using it.
Technologies = a giant list of crap.
You are using "idea" to mean only gesture control.
There is far more to the device than just plain gesture control.
You want those ideas?
No problem:
I certainly don't want to try and sell the Kinect and the technologies to you, and I'm quite sure you don't want me to either...mostly because I am not even interested in the product. 😄
So, research away, if you want...I don't want to.
Originally posted by S_D_J
You quoted me on this.I mean "you" in general sense, not specifically you.
The point you came up with was entirely your own. I was referring to what came first in my original post 😉
I know this. It's just that "you" does not come off as ambiguous "you" since you were replying to me. It's better represented by "people can't say" instead of "you" as there is no way to discern that you meant it ambiguously since you directed your post right at me.
You are forgiven. estahuh
Originally posted by S_D_J
Just as was mine
I know, you've said that already 😐 :
Originally posted by S_D_J
the 2.5 thing was just meant as a jokel to the "M$ rip off"
Originally posted by S_D_J
My point here is the marketing (regardless of time context or monetary success) and their philosophy in generalOne is trying to make it mandatory, the other one treated it (and continues to do so) as a peripheral
I don't know which is which in your example because they both are being treated as a peripheral.
Originally posted by S_D_J
and I hope they go away. I like Move, is more accurate than the original Wiimote, but there's few uses for it as not every developers manages to get it rightKinect is just mainly retarded, it makes you look stupid playing it (unless you're a good dancer at Dance Central) and I think it manages to make consoles look as child toys, more than Wii does. It's bad rep for Gamers 313
I sort of agree. I want to see more games like a combo of Move and Kinect.
I want to hold a console "gun" and go through FPS games with dead accuracy. Pun fully intended.
It's just one step closer to a real VR game...where athletes with superb hand-eye coordination rule. 🙂
Originally posted by S_D_J
that said the only game I'm interested in is Dance Central, the SW game was a disappointment.
Paying close to $250 for just one game (sensor, DC game, taxes, shipping since I don't live in the States) it's just not worth it
I agree. I have not purchased a Kinect for that exact reason. I'll make my idiot homies do it...then play it at their place when the time comes. teehee.
Originally posted by srankmissingnin
I don't know, I'm the VP of Sales, I think you want one of the tech or pr guys? 😎
You obviously are very crappy at your job, Mr. Bender, if you think the VP of Sales is not dealing directly with the backlash from the PSN outage. You should probably be fired, at this point. There's no room for blame shifting in your position. 313
Originally posted by S_D_J
There's hardly anything original these days.
It's business people. If it sells, then expect to see it everywhere else.
Originally posted by Morridini
This kinda reminds me of the New Coke deal from the late 80's. They keep adding in motion controls, while the players don't want them, so sooner or later, one company will ditch motion controls, label themselves as "Classic gaming" or somesuch, and run off with a lot of customers.
@ Dadudemon
Instead of quoting everything let me just say this:
I mean no disrespect as well
You misunderstood me when you interjected me, I was never referring to them being the same, technology wise. that was never my point
I also misunderstood you when I quote you because I thought you were arguing about them being completely different things and therefore saying that "SONY is ripping off MS" is okay and valid.
or would you say that's valid? I don't think so, because you yourself say "is Kinect 6.0", as lighthearted as that was, it was my point to begin with: which came first.
This is what I always said and my point when I first posted.
If you never have made it a point to discuss which came first, that's your doing. What you posted when you first quote me, and like I said I misunderstood your reply, was a different point, your point, and not mine.
If it's incongruent is because it was not my intention to question or argue the tech behind them. How it goes about doing it is not of my interest.
Moving on:
You saying that there's no main idea behind Kinect is silly, (excuse me for being blunt). The main idea is to control everything through your body: you are the controller, is not just a marketing tagline, denying this is wrong. I will never deny Kinect is much more complex than that, but that's the basis of the peripheral
The original Eye toy served the same function. To boil it down to only "gesture reading" is valid because that's the only point in comparison between the two and the basis to "what came first".
Microsoft wants to replace controllers with Kinect, for the most part. Peter Molyneux said the controller is the biggest obstacle in gaming. It's needless to say it isn't working nor would it ever happen. ... Even on-rails games play better with a controller.
They (MS) wants to keep the thing relevant by putting Kinect into everything, they want everyone to buy one by saying "Better with Kinect"
It's not just a peripheral: Kinect is the basis of M$ prolonged "5 years plan". The marketing is much more aggressive. If that wasn't the case then they woudn't have centered their E3 Conference around the thing for 3 years in a row.
Eye Toy was never handled liked that...
Move its an entirely different thing that happens to use the PS Eye. it's integral part of the package, but not the only thing.
Kinect is not all fail. There are somethings that work, some games where it makes sense to use it, but they can only be niché titles.
Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
Not to join in on the insane amount of post quoting atm, but this here just makes me feel all the more justified in looking at a chunk of the gaming industry as what it's truly becoming: utter shit. Doesn't matter at this point either on who 'copied' who, or even if they did. Basically all goes back to this:Hoping said company will be Nintendo, since they're the ones who started that mess.
As long as someone does it, I don't care which one. The others will probably follow suit.
Originally posted by S_D_J
@ DadudemonInstead of quoting everything let me just say this:
I mean no disrespect as well
You misunderstood me when you interjected me, I was never referring to them being the same, technology wise. that was never my point
I also misunderstood you when I quote you because I thought you were arguing about them being completely different things and therefore saying that "SONY is ripping off MS" is okay and valid.
or would you say that's valid? I don't think so, because you yourself say "is Kinect 6.0", as lighthearted as that was, it was my point to begin with: which came first.
This is what I always said and my point when I first posted.
If you never have made it a point to discuss which came first, that's your doing. What you posted when you first quote me, and like I said I misunderstood your reply, was a different point, your point, and not mine.
If it's incongruent is because it was not my intention to question or argue the tech behind them. How it goes about doing it is not of my interest.
Okay.
But I did quote a section of one of your initial posts which quite clearly shows that you think the technologies are largely the same. You said they sounded just like each other but Kinect could track a bit better in 3D space. That's what I've argued against/thought was wrong with your reasoning.
Originally posted by S_D_J
Moving on:
You saying that there's no main idea behind Kinect is silly, (excuse me for being blunt). The main idea is to control everything through your body: you are the controller, is not just a marketing tagline, denying this is wrong. I will never deny Kinect is much more complex than that, but that's the basis of the peripheral
Wrong: As I clearly showed, in the context we are using it, idea = technology.
There is no one particular technology for the Kinect especially since it's an amalgamation of hardware and software technologies.
Originally posted by S_D_J
The original Eye toy served the same function. To boil it down to only "gesture reading" is valid because that's the only point in [b]comparison between the two and the basis to "what came first".[/B]
Since I'm not very interested in defending it, I won't argue this point. I don't think MS is interested in defending their product as "not a simple gesture device" to just one person, either.
Also, since "which came first" was never my argument but that they technologies cannot be considered "largely the same"...
Originally posted by S_D_J
Microsoft wants to replace controllers with Kinect, for the most part. Peter Molyneux said the controller is the biggest obstacle in gaming. It's needless to say it isn't working nor would it ever happen. ... Even on-rails games play better with a controller.
It has so much potential, though. I want an interactive playing environment (gesture control, voice control, etc.) WITH a dummy gun and controller. 🙁
Originally posted by S_D_J
They (MS) wants to keep the thing relevant by putting Kinect into everything, they want everyone to buy one by saying "Better with Kinect"
I am not sold on this idea, yet. We'll have to wait and see.
Also, I want 1 to 1 mapping. Meaning, less than a 10 millisecond delay (closer to 3-4 ms delay, is ideal...to completely get rid of any feeling of a lag but make it really feel like it's a "live" 1to1 mapping. This would require we improve existing memory technologies. The processing power is there.)
Originally posted by S_D_J
It's not just a peripheral: Kinect is the basis of M$ prolonged "5 years plan". The marketing is much more aggressive. If that wasn't the case then they woudn't have centered their E3 Conference around the thing for 3 years in a row.
Really? Cause 3 years ago, it was, basically, a brief mention. Last year, it was important, but was not the main focus.
This year, it had a major spot, but still did not take up the majority of their focus.
Originally posted by S_D_J
Eye Toy was never handled liked that...
How old are you? I ask because you may not have been old enough to cared very much about EyeToy when they first started on about it at E3.
Yes, EyeToy was a big deal for 3 years, with Sony, at E3. Every bit as big as Kinect. It wasn't the main focus, just like Kinect wasn't.
It certainly had quite a few commercial spots even 2 years after it's release. They advertised it like Nintendo Advertised the Wii.
Is it possible that you don't remember all of this because Kinect is doing better? I think that may be part of it. I also think that it is due to Sony pulling back the reins on the EyeToy, as far as marketing goes, about 3 years into whole campaign. That's more due to the waning success rather than Sony not advertising as hard as MS. If they would release it, I bet you Sony spent more in the first 3 years on EyeToy, in marketing alone, than MS has on the Kinect.
Here's part of the reason why:
Sony and Nintendo already paved the way for an "interactive" console experience. 🙂 The market was already primed for something like "Kinect." Match that with MS's better marketing techniques and you have a prime market for distribution. 🙂
Originally posted by S_D_J
Move its an entirely different thing that happens to use the PS Eye. it's integral part of the package, but not the only thing.
Well...we could argue that the 6-axis controller was technically "move" before "move" was "move". lol It's just the Move is a much better version of the 6-axis.
Originally posted by S_D_J
Kinect is not all fail. There are somethings that work, some games where it makes sense to use it, but they can only be niché titles.
It has potential. And, yes, the dancing looks fun. Despite my bulky muscles....I still like to dance like a mad man. schmoll
Originally posted by S_D_J
As long as someone does it, I don't care which one. The others will probably follow suit.
✅
Kinect is a motion controlled device (just like the wiimote, move or the original Eye toy). Its main function is to control a game using motion. how is saying this not appropriate or wrong?
whatever advanced bells and whistle it might have amalgamated are just that, other technology accompanying or complementing it's main funtion: "to control through motion"
the Eye Toy had that same main funtion
From Wikipedia:
The EyeToy is a color digital camera device, similar to a webcam, for the PlayStation 2. The technology uses computer vision and Gesture recognition to process images taken by the camera. This allows players to interact with games using motion, color detection and also sound, through its built-in microphone.
Kinect for Xbox 360, or simply Kinect (originally known by the code name Project Natal),[8] is a motion sensing input device by Microsoft for the Xbox 360 video game console. Based around a webcam-style add-on peripheral for the Xbox 360 console, it enables users to control and interact with the Xbox 360 without the need to touch a game controller, through a natural user interface using gestures and spoken commands.[9]
does it sound similar or not?
😐
The Eye Toy was indeed handled well as far as marketing is concern, but it was not the foundation of SONY overall strategy. It never had an entire E3 Press conference built around it. It was mention and shown just like the Move is, part of the core experience, but no trying to make it the core input device
This year was all bout Kinect for MS, just like it was last year. Did you not see their conference? almost everything had to have Kinect built into it one way or another. I don't remember that ever being the case with the Eye Toy... I'm 26 btw, almost as old as you are 🙂
Like it or not that's what MS is trying to do, get everyone to buy it by having it show up in everything they make
Microsoft’s Final Goal: Make All First-Party Games Support Kinect
People who has watched Microsoft‘s E3 conference of this year all have a common feeling: the theme and content almost the same with 2010, is heavily built Xbox360 somatosensory gaming peripheral Kinect. Microsoft has ​​released a dozens of somatosensory games, the entire conference seems to have become Kinect special.As expected, Microsoft officials have now revealed their final goal: to make all first-party games to support Kinect. Spencer, head of Microsoft Game Studios today revealed to the media, although did not have a mandatory requirement at this stage, but the full support of Kinect will not be far off.
Spencer said, the new interactive experience that provided by Kinect make navigation and game features more easily and quickly than in the past, he said: “In the near future, all Microsoft first-party games will use some features of the Kinect in some forms.”
Spencer in his speech cited X360 game the voice control and head scan of “Forza 4″ these two examples to emphasize Kinect still has quite outstanding compatibility as well as traditional or core types games, and he Said: “I ​​believe that some products can prove Kinect can make everything better. ”
Kinect sale was less than a year to now, but in North America already has a good user base and market competitiveness. At E3 2011, Microsoft further strengthen the strategy of the Kinect-core, and integrated it into the development of the traditional type of games, announced the Kinect Somatosensory playing method of the core game, such as the “Mass Effect 3 ” and “Ghost Recon: Future Warrior”.
Did Sony ever do that with the EyeToy?
And as far a Microsoft is concern, it will continue to be that way until a new console is announced
I only mention Move because that uses the PS Eye, not the EyeToy and Sony indeed is trying to push that peripheral as well
About your dancing: get a tan as well to go with that fist pumping, you'll do better at the Jersey Shore audition that way 😛
Originally posted by S_D_J
Kinect is a motion controlled device (just like the wiimote, move or the original Eye toy). Its main function is to control a game using motion. how is saying this not appropriate or wrong?
Because that's classifying the system in the exact way that makes you right and goes against why I took issue with trying to draw the parallel with the EyeToy.
It's not a simple motion control.
Originally posted by S_D_J
whatever advanced bells and whistle it might have amalgamated are just that, other technology accompanying or complementing it's main funtion: "to control through motion"
Since that's not even remotely close to true from both a technical perspective...it's also not true from MS's marketing perspective.
So what you want it to be relegated to and what is actually is are two different things.
Originally posted by S_D_J
the Eye Toy had that same main funtionFrom Wikipedia:
does it sound similar or not?
😐
SURE!!! In the same way a pen and a Xerox machine have the same function of putting ink to paper to create an image.
Now that we are full circle, you agree with me, right? awesome
You can't label the two technologies are the same, like you have been doing. It's not that simple and is pretty much wrong to try and pass them off as "basically the same technology."
If you don't like the pen to Xerox analogy.
It's like saying this remote control helicopter:
http://gosublogger.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/excalibur_remote_control_skycrawler_helicopter_z2istandard.jpg
...is the same thing an Apache helicopter:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6vpOmU0bDLE/TbLaApNzMPI/AAAAAAAAB5U/edyl4TzqUFA/s1600/AH64A+Apache+Helicopter+by+cool+images+%25286%2529.jpg
I mean...suuuuuuurrrrrreeeee...they both use rotor blades and a tail rotor to fly, but it's not exactly the same thing.
Originally posted by S_D_J
The Eye Toy was indeed handled well as far as marketing is concern, but it was not the foundation of SONY overall strategy. It never had an entire E3 Press conference built around it. It was mention and shown just like the Move is, part of the core experience, but no trying to make it the core input deviceThis year was all bout Kinect for MS, did you not see their conference? almost everything had to have Kinect built into it one way or another. I don't remember that ever being the case with the Eye Toy... I'm 26 btw, almost as old as you are 🙂
Like it or not that's what MS is trying to do, get everyone to buy it by having it show up in everything they make
http://gamingphanatic.com/2011/06/10/microsoft-all-first-party-xbox-360-titles-will-use-kinect/
Did Sony ever do that with the EyeToy?
And as far a Microsoft is concern, it will continue to be that way until a new console is announced
I only mention Move because that uses the PS Eye, not the EyeToy and Sony indeed is trying to push that peripheral as well
I am SUPER DUPER glad you decided to follow this avenue. It works perfectly to illustrate what I'm trying to convey.
Kinect sold more than the EyeToy for reasons I've already outlined.
MS is not making it mandatory for first party games: they are just pushing.
Why? Because it can enhance gamplay.
It can enhance gameplay in a way that EYETOY could NOT. 🙂
With a superior technology comes more uses. MS pushing the technology for ways in which it can positively enhance gameplay only furthers my point.
Headtracking: not possible with the eyetoy because it doesn't track in 3D space and then map to pre-rendered objects. Think of the eyetoy as a surface device and the Kinect as a 3D device...with OTHER technologies on top of that.
Originally posted by S_D_J
About your dancing: get a tan as well to go with that fist pumping, you'll do better at the Jersey Shore audition that way 😛
Though I am Italian..I despite those douchebags. I'm into dancing more like Salsa, Tango, Swing, Ballroom...etc.
You know, for someone who says is not entirely sold nor is even interested in the product, you sure sound like Kudo trying to make it sound like the 8th wonder.
I'm not trying to make the tech behind them sound familiar or similar, why don't you get that? my main problem is you can accept the thing to be a motion controlled device, regardless of what else it has or does. It's is main function.
If that's not what it does, then what is it? what is Kinect?
I'm sure you're gonna try to dodge that by saying you're not interested in what it is, then why make an argument about it. 😐
NO, They are not the same, their are NOT the same tech. I understand your analogy and I already said I misunderstood what your point was when you posted it first, I'm not disputing that anymore. But you can not deny it's not a motion controller, because it is, just like the EyeToy was, how is that not simple? 😉
MS is trying to make every First Party title support Kinect, That is their explicit goal, was that Sony's goal with the EyeToy?
I never disputed how much it's sold.
Yes the EyeToy was not as advance, did you expect the Xerox machine to be invented before the pen? Again, I'm not disputing the tech, nor monetary revenue.
You should apply for a job a M$ PR department, maybe help out Kudo. you're very good at ignoring a simple point and going with tangents 😄
The tech is impressive if put to good use (youtube is full with examples, something MS never managed to do again since Milo) but is something I want to go away because it's not helping the industry, It's making shit loads of money, but it's also giving us crapware. Besides Child of Eden, and Dance Central, developers are not doing something impressive that makes us not want to use or forget a controller. They're just going the Wii way with shovelware and party compilations. not good
and to leave all this behind, cuz I ain't responding anymore, I already made my original point clear, so I'm just gonna leave it a that.
The thread already gone out its way as it is.
the reason I'm interested in Dance Central is to learn a few dance moves, I like coreographies, and I got a couple of friends that used to work a local show dancing so they're interested as well... plus is a good workout 😄
And I beg you to reconsider an audition, you could class up the entire show 131
Don't really see where this conversation is going, you're both just trying to counter point each other when the outcome is still the same - they are both motion control devices, end of story.
I like how adaptive the current systems have been since they started, both (360 and PS3) implementing motion control, 3D, DirectX11 etc after several years since their launch. I still hope that despite PS4 having inbuilt motion tech from the go, it's an optional gameplay gimmick and not a default one 😬
Originally posted by Mist_haermm
Don't really see where this conversation is going, you're both just trying to counter point each other when the outcome is still the same - they are both motion control devices, end of story.
Thank you
Originally posted by Mist_haermm
I like how adaptive the current systems have been since they started, both (360 and PS3) implementing motion control, 3D, DirectX11 etc after several years since their launch. I still hope that despite PS4 having inbuilt motion tech from the go, it's an optional gameplay gimmick and not a default one 😬
Same here, Implementation were it makes sense, but not mandatory
on a side note: I thought they can't handle DX11, am I missing something here?
anyways: I hope this is true
Nintendo Will Invest in Third Party Software for Wii U
Satoru Iwata addresses Wii software droughts - and why that won't happen again.
North American Wii owners aren't exactly having the best time right now. There simply aren't any games to play. But this isn't the first time this has happened, as back in 2009 the system experienced a similar gap in releases. At a recent investor's meeting, Nintendo president Satoru Iwata was asked how the company plans to avoid repeating Wii's software problems with the 3DS and Wii U.In a fascinating response, Iwata discussed the fact that Nintendo has reflected on what has happened with Wii and the DS. "at the times the Nintendo DS and the Wii were released, we could not make the software publishers appreciate our systems highly and count on them. At the time, Nintendo was driven to the edge of the ring," Iwata said to the investors. He then went on to describe that many industry observers speculated Nintendo would leave the hardware business, which forced Nintendo to rely on itself for software production early on.
Iwata noted that third parties eventually warmed to the DS. That wasn't the case with Wii. "Software publishers put some effort into creating some titles, but the sales did not reach their expectations on the Wii, which made them think that they could not have high expectations for business on the Wii," Iwata explained. The Nintendo executive then described how many developers shifted resources to other platforms, most notably the PSP. "Because of this, when Nintendo failed to seamlessly provide software, there were no other titles to fill up the gaps," Iwata said.
Nintendo's thinking has changed since they first approached third parties for Wii and DS. The company discussed their new platforms, particularly Wii U, earlier with outside companies. Iwata curiously noted that Nintendo is "developing several titles in collaboration" with third party publishers, though declined to discuss specifics.
"What we are aiming for with the Nintendo 3DS and the Wii U is, platforms which have much more software and a wider variety of software than the former Nintendo DS or Wii," Iwata told the investors. He then went on to say that Nintendo is "prepared to invest in order to make this a reality."
No doubt the drought for Wii was and is real. Nintendo seems prepared to make sure that doesn't happen to Wii U. Will that be the case? We'll find out in the coming years.
The Wii is pretty much dead at this point (I'm not interested in Zelda) with only one game coming and NOA decision to not localize 3 RPGs, it feels like the GC again with premature dead, but having no consistent 3rd party support was Nintendo's fault as well. I hope that changes with Wii 2
