Kinect Is Not For You

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

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

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.

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.

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.

The drop of Wii sales has already shown the casual gamers have been pretty heavily tapped, and why would they want to buy something for twice the price with less than half the content? Every demo of this product has been at least somewhat of a dissapointment, if not an embarassment, and the only word of mouth is negative. I hope this Vista's all over Microsoft's face and adds to the ever deepenign money pit that has been their videogame division.


Children of Eden. That is all.

Looks like they took the concept play behind Elebits and made it make even less sense.

AND there was significant delay between his movements and the correlating movements on-screen. Not what an FPS fan wants to see.

Any casual gamer interested in motion games already has a Wii, they're not going to come out in droves to buy the 360/Kinect bundle. I think MS will be disappointed this holiday season.

It's good technology implemented poorly. For the most part, what I've seen the device itself doing is neat, it's like the future where we control electronics with speech and the hover car is getting filled up with magic to go down to work at the space factory and... what?

Oh yeah, but the games for Kinect mostly seem on the low end of the thoughtful spectrum. Dance Central looks cool, it's a new idea that uses the technology as best it can, but that game alone, and Children of Eden, if you're into that sort of thing, can't carry an expensive purchase like that.

I couldnt figure out what was going on in Children of Eden, are you just supposed to wave endlessly at the screen and have a seisure?

On second thought, that could be an achievement for Children of Eden: "The ambulance arrived in under 10 minutes"

Just about everyone gathered that the Natal/Kinect wasn't for us when they first saw it. But seeing the price and seeing and its alternatives, I'm not really sure whether it's for "casuals" either. It's priced way out of their range. As Farmville proves, your "casual" doesn't really care about premium experiences, just that there's something to spend 10 minutes with.

In fact, while they've been doing this badly planned stunt, they have been losing incentives for the core gamer to invest on a 360. A huge bunch of 360 exclusives have suddenly gone multiplatform this year.

I was actually hoping for some interesting applications for that thing but apparently they decided to go the route of copying Wii Play and Sports. Those things already exist so I have no idea why anybody would think cloning them for a peripheral that costs as much as a brand new Wii is wise. The Kinect, as it looks like, is another 32X.

Children of Eden is the only thing on it that interests me so far. They had a chance but they blew it.

I couldnt figure out what was going on in Children of Eden, are you just supposed to wave endlessly at the screen and have a seisure?

On second thought, that could be an achievement for Children of Eden: "The ambulance arrived in under 10 minutes"

It's a rail shooter; pretty much the spiritual sequel to Rez, which is one of the strangest titles of the last generation. Fun, though.

First off, very interesting article again. I, as a "core" gamer (I hate that term), have no real interest in Kinet and am more excited about Civilization 5 which will have way too much sophistication to be controlled by waving your arms about.

"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.


THIS is why everyone hates "core" gamers. Man, where to start on this.
Most casual players aren't playing MW2. The ones who are have decided, usually, that they want want to tr a core gaming experience, but are usually scared away by "core gamers" themselves who won't consider there are a lot of people who haven't grown up with fps and find their lack of skill unacceptable; thus alienating a new audience from enjoying a game.

If someone hasn't been playing videogames since 1986 (like me. fuck off) it doesn't mean they are relegated to farmville. Believe it or not the more people who play core games, the more fantastic core games get made. Videogames are a business, and the more money they make the more money get put into them. You don't need an economics degree to figure that out.

Okay, xbox live doesn't need more douchey kids. You got me there ;)

How can you say Sony, a multi billion dollar international corporation hasn't sold out? I mean really?

These attitudes are the biggest problem with "core" gaming. Games, as the name would suggest, are fun and you can't be mad a people who want to try new things just because we've liked them longer. Its a horrible attitude and should not be socially acceptable.

Don't know about you guys, I am not interested in Kinetic at all. I'm not a ridulously fat person but the waggling of the WiiMote was a bit much for my taste.

I'll pass this thing because Kinetic uses fake emersion by jumping around in front of the TV. Just get a good plot and atmosphere and the normal controller will suffice for me.

Speak for yourself. My girlfriend and I have every intention of getting Dance Central and making total tits of ourselves at home and when we throw parties. :p

Although I don't own a current generation console, I'm pretty sure the Wii has made it clear this sort of controllers doesn't work with "hardcore" games, silly remote or not. I really don't think anyone feels (or should feel) betrayed by this, especially with if it makes such real business sense.

Metroid Prime Trilogy, No More Heroes and Resident Evil 4: Wii edition prove otherwise; hardcore games CAN work with motion control. It's just a pity Microsoft are only using the technology to push a bunch of mini-games.

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?

I think the reason I and other Xbox gamers feel "betrayed" is that MS already HAVE stopped making core games. If you look at the upcoming releases Sony have 5-6 times as many exclusive core titles as MS in 2010, go as far as 2011 and it's infinity times, MS have literally stopped making anything except for trashy minigame compilations and are making no efforts at all to secure third party titles. Even the bloody Wii has more core titles incoming in 2011 than the 360 has.

How you market a thing that is expensive, have horrid input lag, unusable too close to screen and needs a really large free space in a room to people with functioning brain? You can't. It's like selling turd in a turd.

I didn't know gamers "make up time in their day to play games" that sounds horrible,and not fun at all.

I play games because I like them,whenever I'm bored at home with nothing to do.

It's so obvious when watching promotional vids for the Kinect who their target audience are. If you watch a promo vid featuring a kid playing with a Kinectimal and 2 kids jumping up and down trying to steer the on-screen raft and then watch an old Wii promo vid of a woman (presumably a mother) flipping burgers in Cooking Mama and a young boy playing the drums in Wii Music, they are the exact same video. They both feature a family room with painfully bright white walls and families of mixed genders and races giggling and enjoying themselves while they jump and flail around. It's sad to see from the point of view of a 'gamer' but I can't fault Micro$oft from a business POV; they want the success with the casual market which Nintendo has snapped up so well

I personally never want the Kinect to replace the controller and, of course, it never will. As Yahtzee pointed out in Extra Punctuation, a gamer wants to sit motionless on his/her sofa and use as little energy as possible to control an on-screen character. When involved in a heated team deathmatch in BFBC2 on Xbox Live I do not want to have to hold my arms up as if holding a gun and then fling my arm forward as though lobbing a grenade because I have my controller. The buttons and thumbsticks are 1000x more immersive than flailing around in your living room and so the Kinect will never work as a core gaming peripheral, just a nice gimmick for mini-games and party games


J.P. Sherman:
First-Person Marketer: Kinect Is Not For You

Why Microsoft's marketing plan ignores core gamers: Microsoft needs to market its Kinect so that it's perceived as the one thing to get this holiday season.

Read Full Article

I take it you haven't taken bill hicks advice yet?

Kinect is really "Their Wii". But they don't have the backing that nintendo gives it's console not to mention the scheme being optional meaning proabaly 90% of what comes to the device will be sovelware and novelty pieces.

It's at it's core a gimmick. That's ok many gimmicks make a lot of money but i don't see where kinect 'fits'. It's as expensive as a Wii on it's own and people buying a kinect bundle will wonder "Why do i have to buy this noisey HD monster to flail my arms about like a prat?". The 360 is a great HD console but everything kinect is trying to do has been done before by both the Wii and the eye-toy.

This is why I'm glad I didn't buy a 360. Normal 360 games look like they're going to be neglected a bit in the future.

What I can't figure out about them is this - why did they then give conflicting messages? Why did they almost at the same time during E3 or slightly before it say both that this will be for the 'casual gamers' as well as the 'core gamers'? I mean...I understand them wanting to go for the casual market, but why in the hell give out such conflicting messages about it all?

It's reminiscent of a recent article of Steve Butts, where he notes how Microsoft frequently talks about supporting PC gaming, yet doing very little to actually do so. I get what it's aiming for and why it's aiming for it...but I seriously do not understand the rationale behind their PR unless they still believe that giving out conflicting messages in trying to dupe people into buying a product is prefferable than the public image it will wind up projecting of them in the end.

you know the contol gloves from Minority Report are gonna be real thing soon? after they get rid of the extra cameras the prototype is using now. ButI don't know if that's affiliated with M$ in any way.

Children of Eden. That is all.

That's for reminding me of that garbage -_-

Meh we will see how well it does at the price point they are asking for. Their marketing is terribad. half the time i think its a Nintendo commercial. and as a gamer and i think its a nintendo commercial i can almost expect the layman will think so too.

Would love to know how many times a Gamestop employee have to say "Its not for the Nintendo Wii, and yes its $150, and yes you're gonna have to buy a Xbox360 for this to work." XD

Microsoft are copying Nintendo. What else is new? XD

Although I don't own a current generation console, I'm pretty sure the Wii has made it clear this sort of controllers doesn't work with "hardcore" games, silly remote or not. I really don't think anyone feels (or should feel) betrayed by this, especially with if it makes such real business sense.

I disagree, somewhat. I think the Wii Remote has been poorly integrated into the few core games that have tried to make it work, but that doesn't mean that motion controls and core games will never mix. As with so many things, it's all a matter of proper execution. One thing I saw during a Sony presentation of Move gave me hope - the designers recognized that players don't want to use nothing but motion controls for an entire game, so they're trying to figure out ways to blend motion controls with more traditional controls. You use a controller for the game and perhaps use the motion controls to navigate a map, for example.

I think that the real depth of motion control has yet to be explored. What we've seen so far are a few ham-fisted efforts.

Personally, I am skeptical of the potential success of the Kinect based on the past history of add-on peripherals(noted exceptions being rhythm games such as Guitar Hero, Rock Band, and Dance Dance Revolution). However, some of you all have some really insular, self-important opinions regarding gamers, games, and the games market(and I include the author of this article in that criticism).

From the view of any game company, games and gaming is a business, nothing more and nothing less, and as a business the goal is to make money and remain profitable. Has it ever occurred to some of you all that the reason companies are so keen lately to consider the ocean of casual gaming is because maintaining profitability in the lake of "core/hardcore" gaming is becoming untenable? That maybe the so-called cadre of "core" gamers just don't provide as much financial support as they think they do to continue carrying the game industry? The result being that game companies have to start looking for new markets and ideas to remain profitable. These massive, epic AAA blockbuster titles that you all love so much cost substantial amounts of investment to create, and, let's face it, many of them are every bit as much half-baked shovel-ware as some of the "casual" games some of you decry, only ridiculously more expensive. Even if the game is remarkably good, it may still run into difficulty recouping the investment costs due to insufficient sales because people have only a finite amount of time and money to invest in these kinds of games. Even further, if you go by the attentions of the gaming press, only the same handful of AAA titles ever sell in significant numbers, which mean only the same few game companies reap any potential profit while the others languish in losses. Little wonder why game companies keep just making the same thing over and over when the only thing "core" gamers are willing to buy is the same thing, over and over; they do this to mitigate the risk of loss that comes from making these expensive titles.

At the end of the day, game companies have no choice but to start looking outside the "core" gamer market in order to remain profitable. It's a necessary business decision. Granted, I think this particular decision on Microsoft's part is not so well-thought out and will not garner them as much market and profitability as they may be expecting or hoping for, but the fact is the gaming industry can no longer pay singular attention to one single class of gamer. To remain profitable and continue to grow and innovate, the game industry must reach beyond this so-called "core" gamer market space. Face it guys, this is no longer the period of 1995-2002, when the "core" gamer was king. There are new market realities which have shifted your position of importance.

That a company hoping to snare a portion of the Wii's consumer base is planning on aiming their advertising at, well, Wii's consumer base, is not exactly news. What I do find curious is that for all Kinect has been touted as a "think bigger/ push the envelope/this changes everything" product, the marketing campaign would be relatively mundane and predictable.

On at least one level, the People Who Play Games and Core Gamer demographics would like to see the same thing from the Kinect: that is, "something we haven't seen before". We have games that make the player move around, games that allow the player to interact with cute animals, games that simulate sports that we could actually go outside and play if we could be bothered to leave our living rooms. For all that Molyneaux has a reputation for pushing more than he can deliver, "Milo" is one of the few demos big M has offered up that actually seemed to be promising something new.

My suspicion is that the areas where Kinect retreads old ground are the areas where it is most going to fail. Imprecise and confusing control systems for familiar game types are bound to frustrate Game-Players and Core Gamers alike, leading to disasterous expressions of "this is so much simpler with one of the control systems I'm used to" (or, worse, "I liked this better on the Wii.") Not being a Core Gamer in this day and age doesn't equate with not having preferences on how one accesses one's electronic experiences- I'm sure plenty of "non-gamers" have cel phones and computers, and strong feelings about which application interfaces favor their style.

In short, MS' Kinect campaign will not prosper or flounder based largely on its ability to portray itself as "Wii 2.0" with most demogaphics. It will succeed, or fail, based on the degree to which it can convince buyers that this technology will be fun and different and, yes, genuinely new.


Give it time, eventually Kinect will have some Core games, then the core audience can complain about those.

After all, Nintendo went after that casual market at first, and they got really, really successful. Now that they have a big audience and everything, they're moving back to the core gamers with a crapload of amazing looking games geared for the "hardcore" crowd.

And besides. Microsoft is a business, they'll market to where the money's at. And right now the money's with all the casual gamers.

Not eally we were told that we'd get Zelda, Mario Metroid etc.. but for Kinect they haven't announced anything to look foward to. They should lower the price to $100 add an internet browser and advertise it as a way to explore th internet watch videos etc.. without a controller. There is no way to make a core game with that thing unless you'd enjoy being guided around a path.

Exactly my feelings.
The Wii and even Move are different to Kinect in the fact that it actually has a controller, unless they come up with a way to actually move in a game without a controller the only good games on the system will be rail shooters, racing games or games that move for you and I'd have more fun on a normal console with those types of games, unless Kinect shows something really interesting, it's just a piece of potentially impressive hardware.

I dunno. It's $300 dollars for the new slim 360 and Kinect...I really think they need to get it in core gamers homes, and then let it spread by word of mouth. It doesn't seem like Kinect is going to be easy to "showcase" in stores, the pick up seems a bit iffy in large spaces and the body scan (assuming you can't just jump in without it) would necessarily slow it down compared with Wii's pick up and play.

Core gamers are early adopters of new tech, I mean the Wii might have sold huge numbers to the casual market over its life. But all the buzz and pre-orders when it first came out was from the core market. I stood in a line with maybe 500 other people (one of several stores in the area with comparable queues) on Wii release day. I can't see the same thing happening with Kinect. At the $150 for Kinect you might not pick it up for yourself, but you might get it as a sly present for your girlfriend with Dance Central, but are people who this is aimed at (the majority of whom on shelled out a bit south of 200 bucks in the past couple of years for a Wii really going to want to pay another $300?

While I appreciate Microsoft's marketing stance, and I see the logic behind. I also think the logic is flawed. As the article mentions most "non-gamers" don't go looking for news about new games and Microsoft could easily do more to convince the core market that the Kinect can be used for their games without scaring off the casual market. While the push has to be to get those new clients to come to X-box, the overall life or death of the product will be on it's players base. If you don't have enough players, games will not get made, or they will be lousy ports on the cheap. And if you haven't got the games you won't sell the units. Right now Microsoft has a captive audience of somewhere in the 30-45 million range, and if it could convince even a quarter of those to grab a Kinect in the first year or so I'd say it's set. But most of these captive consumers don't see what good Kinect is to them, with the possible exception of Dance Central.

Do you remember when the 360 first came out and Microsoft started ignoring PC gamers?

Well now it's doing the same thing with "core" gamers.

J.P. Sherman:
First-Person Marketer: Kinect Is Not For You

Why Microsoft's marketing plan ignores core gamers: Microsoft needs to market its Kinect so that it's perceived as the one thing to get this holiday season.

Read Full Article

There's a couple of formatting issues with page 2 - there are a few proper names that are clearly intended to display in italics, as evinced by a set of brackets containing "i" and "/i" on either side of those words, and were those posted on the forum they would be italicized as intended. BBCode doesn't work on the main website though, you need to use HTML markup - in this case the markup is pretty much the same, you just need to use use < > to enclose the i and /i instead of [ ].

Yeah, well the other reason apart from growth potential is that these woolly motion controllers just don't give the accurate or fast control that a "core gamer" as your put it is used to and wants. These products were never going to be for "core gamers" and never will be.

I want to say they'll both do well and personally, I'm excited that both the Xbox 360 and PS3 will be getting their own motion sensing controller but they're just too expensive.

Has anyone put any thought into the idea that the recent titbits of information concerning the future Windows 8 allude to its use of motion/gesture based controls in much the same way 7 is supposedly geared towards touch?

What a way to get millions of people around the world controlling a Microsoft product and software with gesture based controls before a new OS. I can already see the adverts - you can do such and such just like you can with Kinect...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
Register for a free account here