Kinect Is Not For You

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

IamSofaKingRaw:

Fenixius:
Children of Eden. That is all.

I don't plan on getting high while payin games so this isn't for me. I have no idea what the hell that guy is doing and playing this while sober would give me a headache. Even if I did find that game fun it doesn't justify a $150 Kinect purchase.

After watching that vid I now know how the double rainbow guy felt.

Children of Eden reminds me of Rez.

Badger Kyre:

craigdolphin:
So, I'm a bit confused. It seems that the premise of the article author is that M$ can market to core gamers, OR it can market to moms, kids, etc (casual or non-core gamers), but it cannot do both.

Really?

Because M$ is tapped for cash or something? Because M$ cannot identify different media outlets that could deliver a different marketing message to core gamers versus non-core gamers?

Yeah, not sure I'm buying that either. So, Mr Author, how about explaining why it benefits M$ to cause feelings of alienation in their exisitng customers when I would submit they could both market to core gamers, and to non-core gamers, at the same time using a targetted media/message approach.

With respect, Mr Dolphin, I would be leery about telling a professional marketer his business, unless you are one as well.
And for all I know, you are.

However - as much as his column seems to anger people I personally find this column interesting, and I hear a great similarity between what he is saying and for example, what "MovieBob" says about the movie industry, what some of my musician friends complain about, and what "gamers" have always said, to be honest.

Did you perhaps read Shamus's Xcom piece? Why are they using that IP, to get the 14 people who remember it?

If that fails to illustrate, I can clearly remember when if anyone would have said "Core Gamer" that meant the people that still owned "Blackmoor" and the original "Deities and Demigods" complaining that the bought-out TSR was screwing them by marketing their beloved game to the infantile "comic book" demographic - even made a cartoon and a new, less dark, more kid-friendly world called "forgotten realms"... and dragonlance.
Watering it down, they said. And sure, but the truth was, that market was FAR LARGER. No one CARED that the original "core" demographic was left behind, it was business.

The "core" audience for the computer games such as Xcom or "the gold box series" barely count as a NICHE to modern game sales. Has the audience for such games increased by? what? 100 fold?
Hell no. Games sell more because they made them ACCESSIBLE to a larger audience.

Almost no music I really like has ever been played on the radio, but the watered-down bands they influenced are.
Almost every movie i really like loses money...
TV shows I like have to be on obscure networks, and could be out-ratings-ed :) by any cheesy reality show.
Big companies don't make music, games, movies, or books - or anything else unless there is an audience,

and the way i see it, the current "core" gamers, who don't recall when things were watered down to include THEIR demographic, are now seeing what it is like when games, etc are no longer made for THEIR demographic.

There's a larger, more important market. BE prepared to become even more niche.

And to respond to Mr Penguin - in my (admittedly limited )experience, it is actually pretty difficult, generally, to market something - any product - to both a "mainstream" market and a niche or "hardcore" audience simultaneously.

Surely we have all seen idiocracy?

Badger Kyre, I don't disagree with you. And, to answer your question, no. I'm not a marketer I'm just a biologist :) Perhaps because I have scientific training, I've learned to question assumptions in order to learn. Which is why I asked the author to provide some justification for the paradigm he's operating under. It just doesn't make sense to me that it should be an either-or situation.

I understand that the marketing focus of companies will always be to target demographics with the best growth potential. My point was that it doesn't have to be this 'either/or' paradigm as espoused by the article. It can be both. And in this case, I think it /should/ be both. My argument is not a complaint about being considered 'niche', it is an opinion that the marketing strategy is wrong to focus myopically on only the non-core 'potential customers' to the exclusion of the large and still lucrative 'niche' of core gamers.

For example, if M$ wants to sell kinect units then it has two ways to do this.

The first is to sell them separately as add-ons for people who already have an XBox 360. The additional cost to those customers will be a certain dollar value. These are most likely to be the 'core' gamers as outlined by the author.

The second way is to sell bundled xbox/kinect to people who don't have the console yet. These are most likely to be the non-core gamers as explained in the article. The dollar cost of the bundle is going to be /higher/ than the standalone cost of the kinect.

Now, to my way of thinking, the original cost of the console for gamers who already have an xbox 360 is irrelevant to the question as to whether they buy the kinect add-on later on.

So, you have a large install base of 'core gamers' with a comparatively /cheaper/ path to getting a kinect, and you have a /potentially/ larger set of non-core gamers who face a more expensive path to buying a kinect enabled console. Add in to this the fact that attach rates for core consoles (Xbox and Ps3) are vastly higher than for the non-core console (Wii), which means that each 'core' customer equates to more game sales than an equivalent non-core gamer. And cost is a well accepted barrier to purchasing decisions.

Putting it together, it seems to me that M$ should be marketing to BOTH core and non-core demographics but with different messages and delivered via media outlets that target core, or non-core, audiences as appropriate.

Now, if I'm wrong then so be it. But I'd like to hear from the marketer WHY I'm wrong and what data he has to support his contention. I can be objective about it and accept a well-supported contrary position. But one thing I've noticed is a distinct lack of well-controlled empirical data being presented by marketing types to support their 'theories' publicly.

craigdolphin:

Now, if I'm wrong then so be it. But I'd like to hear from the marketer WHY I'm wrong and what data he has to support his contention. I can be objective about it and accept a well-supported contrary position. But one thing I've noticed is a distinct lack of well-controlled empirical data being presented by marketing types to support their 'theories' publicly.

Its rather simple, kinect is being talked about on the 6 o'clock news and being written about in the newspapers as a casual game system. Its being advertised on main stream TV in prime time as a casual games system. All places where the hardcore see it as well as everyone else. Large chunks of the hardcore gamers being somewhat self regarding and with unbridled levels of venom for anything that they don't like will it hate on sight.

craigdolphin:
* Damn well reasoned quote *

I think basically by saying "I'm a professional marketer" he is talking to an audience "as an expert" ( pedant ) to a non-expert audience.
And you're right, he doesn't 'show his work', so to speak. On the other hand, I don't think MOST of the readership here would have appreciated it much if he had.

I don't know this fella or his research or methodology, but marketing involves pretty well researched sociology, etc in most cases. Your point of not knowing if he's using such methods is valid, but I hope you will see my point is valid, too - if you were speaking about biology to a non-biologist, you might not feel you have to "convince" someone outside your field, you are speaking and they can listen or not.
I'm not saying you're wrong, mind you.

Please also understand, I was not referring to YOUR objections to the article, but "much" of the anger in the responses ( and something I see in a lot of related pieces ) - and i think the author himself may be one of the people i mean, who are suddenly keenly aware that they are no longer the target demographic things are made for.
My illustrations of self were to illustrate why I'm USED to it, but I think you'll agree, alot of the people who seem shocked/ complaining/etc, obviously AREN'T used to not being the center of the marketing target.
I should have split those points more clearly in regards to your point.

I don't think you're wrong at all, I think they COULD.
I THINK that the market they are going after is so large and (hopefully ) lucrative they just don't CARE to.
Nintendo didn't care one WHIT about making games for fans of "gold box" etc, "back in the day", and IIRC, that was mor eor less why 'Final Fantasy' was amde in the first place, I believe the fellow believed marketing was going to kill RPG's as he loved them.

I also suspect , and perhaps this is more the point, that they want to avoid the "stigma" of GAMER for fear of scaring off the larger market - similar to Yahtzee's gamer post.

I'm not a games marketer but am a marketer for another type of business. It's a basic belief for me in marketing that you avoid mixed messages for the same audience (well it's the way I see the best results).

Segmenting audiences and marketing messaging is not an exact science (lots of variables with secondary effects, look at New Coke). Marketing to hardcore gamers and casual gamers would appear to be considered mutually exclusive marketing, at least this is an idea I subscribe to. The reason being is that both audiences overlap in some forms of communication (tv, main stream pr, billboards etc...). You would have to somehow have to tailor an attractive message that appeals to both audiences without alienating another audience for these forms of communication. Remember it is rare that anyone just consumes only one form of communication.

Being tailored towards the core audience puts off parents and family gaming because of the violent perception (whether right or wrong). Marketing to the casual audience brings the ire the core community as the games feel too simple and appears as shovelware (again whether right of wrong).

If anyone manages to find the middle ground that brings in better results than going for a single audience, they have found the silver bullet all marketers would love to get a hold of.

Here's the thing, though. The resources that MS and Sony are putting towards Kinect and Move are resources that are not going towards making games that the core audience wants, so there's a reason for us to be concerned. Further, they could overplay their hand to such a degree that they'll actively harm the future of both consoles in their misguided attempt to copy the Wii.

It would be like my favorite hard sci-fi writer deciding to write schlocky romantic modern fantasy because that's what sells, and telling me I shouldn't care because it's not for me, but I do care because it means he's writing that rather than what I want him to write. I know authors are one person and companies can keep more balls in the air, but you're still dealing with limited time and money.

Sorry to beat the same drum as Yahtzee a few days ago but pretty much every mention of the word "gamer" in this article made my skin crawl. I match every part of the description of "gamer" except for the part where I call myself that, and possibly the bit where I identify as part of a 'subculture'. I'm not going to bother making the argument because it's all in this week's XP if you haven't read it (and if you haven't, you should), but I am going to make a point of complaining about particularly flagrant abuse of the term like in this article.

@albino boo...um, go for the eyes!!!! (Sorry, couldn't help myself, BG was a great game.)

@Badger, fair enough. Although I always have my 'work' on-hand whenever I do a presentation to non-biologists in case more details are required.

@Arkanza: thanks for the reply and for your perspective as a marketer. :)

I think that core gamers are media-savvy enough to not be bothered by 'non-core-focused' marketing that they inadvertantly may encounter provided that there's some media message that they can connect with. If such were available, then I think that core-gamer anger would subside. The question is really whether the existence of core-gamer-focused marketing, delivered via core-gamer-specific media outlets, would result in a case of non-core customer aversion at levels that would exceed sales lost to core gamers (due to the lack of that kind of marketing), and also factoring in the extra cost to produce the extra campaign.

That's a question obviously we can't answer. But I would submit that most non-core gamers do not regularly visit gamer-centric sites, like this one, and that I think any collateral confusion would be relatively minor. But I'm the first to admit that's simply my opinion, not a fact.

I would be fascinated to see the chain of thought/numbers used by M$ to arrive at this decision they've arrived at.

Good article, but what annoyed me about it was that you seemed to split the entire gaming audience into two separate groups, "hardcore gamers", and "people who play games", with no middle ground or anything else for that matter. I'm what you would call a "hardcore" gamer according to the two groups, but I can't say that Nintendogs isn't a guilty pleasure of mine.

Not to mention that Nintendo pulled this exact same thing to a T a few years back, and look where they are now. Microsoft's just jumping on the bandwagon, and people are frolicking to it because A, it's ever so slightly better than a Wii remote (it's like what Yahtzee once said about the gimmick crowed leaving whenever a slightly shinier object comes out), and B, like I said before Nintendo's stopped making casual games now, so people are going to Kinect since it has games that appeal to them.

craigdolphin:
@albino boo...um, go for the eyes!!!! (Sorry, couldn't help myself, BG was a great game.)

@Badger, fair enough. Although I always have my 'work' on-hand whenever I do a presentation to non-biologists in case more details are required.

@Arkanza: thanks for the reply and for your perspective as a marketer. :)

I think that core gamers are media-savvy enough to not be bothered by 'non-core-focused' marketing that they inadvertantly may encounter provided that there's some media message that they can connect with. If such were available, then I think that core-gamer anger would subside. The question is really whether the existence of core-gamer-focused marketing, delivered via core-gamer-specific media outlets, would result in a case of non-core customer aversion at levels that would exceed sales lost to core gamers (due to the lack of that kind of marketing), and also factoring in the extra cost to produce the extra campaign.

That's a question obviously we can't answer. But I would submit that most non-core gamers do not regularly visit gamer-centric sites, like this one, and that I think any collateral confusion would be relatively minor. But I'm the first to admit that's simply my opinion, not a fact.

I would be fascinated to see the chain of thought/numbers used by M$ to arrive at this decision they've arrived at.

I agree on the above in most respects. I suspect Nintendo focused on the the core gaming media for it's core games (zelda, metroid, mario galaxy to some extent) and sony focused on the causal market for its littlebigplanet marketing campaign (tv, mass media etc...).

What seems apparent to Sony and Microsoft at this point is that the casual market seems to be a lucrative option for consoles (based on the fact they both seem to moving into this market).

In terms of whether it is worth putting money into very targeted marketing in gaming media without being to accurately measurable results, well without working in the industry I don't know the returns. Also whether marketing for the majority of games, marketing will be done by publishers/studios (or more likely an agency), they generally tie their marketing to the brand of the console, hence the lack of core marketing for Nintendo's Wii.

Microsoft may be able to pull Kinect off but it's a very high risk strategy in my opinion and they don't seem to be doing themselves many favours at the moment (the price seems astronomically out of sync).

Last note, you mention about gamers being media savy. Marketing communications isn't about going after individuals (though I note there are exceptions to this), it's about going for audiences with similar characteristics/interests. Though a person may be media-savy a crowd/group rarely follow the same logic and marketers will use a variety of methods to get results (always using positive words, always alluding to a possible problem that may have a solution, where to place a banner on an email). All these methods only have varying and minor effects on different people but I would be surprised if when combined anyone could identify every method used (I know I can't).

Marketers, as per the first article, are in many ways there to manipulate but they are also often the link between someone wanting something and someone providing something to satisfy the want. People won't buy what they don't want.

Last aside, on the gamer discussion going on. In terms of marketing I would be surprised if my profession hasn't come up for a label for every type of audience (gamer, driver, activist, toast eater, milk drinker, etc...), that fact that gamer has become a label, well it makes identifying people's interests a lot easier. This does means in theory marketing campaigns should be better targeted and received, though this is of course not always the case.

Oh well wrote far more than I meant to here!

Kinect: Causal: 95% Hardcore: rest
PS Move: opposite to kinect

*Trollface*

Rememeber back in the 90's, when no one in games journalism ever looked into the business side of games and peripherals, it was all about what the audience liked and we knew what we liked.

No offence to JP Sherman, he is doing a great job for a job that IS needed now but I have to ask the wider industry... why is his job needed now? Why do we core gamers need to have an expert explain to us that we are not important, that is it the feckless soccer moms and ostensibly non-gamers who are the key to success for their beloved gaming platform.

I mean it's not like this core market hasn't been pulling it's weight. The cost of core games has shot up this generation from $40-50 to $60+ (and taking a long time to drop in price) plus lots of expensive DLC often just to see the endings of games. And these games have been selling like crazy, Modern Warfare 2 was such an incredible smash hit on consoles earning BILLIONS!

By Kinect being a peripheral for Xbox 360 this marginalises the Xbox 360's purpose and market.

IF Microsoft are trying to answer the Wii, which is selling to a brand new audience, why not make Kinect a brand new stand-alone console which CAN be a peripheral to an Xbox 360? You know, it has it's own CPU and GPU with a hard drive for downloadable game data so you can plug it into power and then DIRECTLY to a TV to use it as it is... but with basic Wii graphics.

As it is the Kinect + Xbox partnership is schizophrenic, but it could have been for Kinect audiences that the Xbox 360 is the upgrade with more powerful processing ability and addition of a disc-drive too. Kinect would also be

Somehow I think MS will be juuuust fine; after all, their core customer base has been blindly following them for decades.
That's not just fanboyism for a rival system, its true. Most MS games are basically the same damn thing, year in and year out, but they are always "awesome" and "the next big thing" for MS's loyal fan base.

Treblaine:
Rememeber back in the 90's, when no one in games journalism ever looked into the business side of games and peripherals, it was all about what the audience liked and we knew what we liked.

No offence to JP Sherman, he is doing a great job for a job that IS needed now but I have to ask the wider industry... why is his job needed now? Why do we core gamers need to have an expert explain to us that we are not important, that is it the feckless soccer moms and ostensibly non-gamers who are the key to success for their beloved gaming platform.

I mean it's not like this core market hasn't been pulling it's weight. The cost of core games has shot up this generation from $40-50 to $60+ (and taking a long time to drop in price) plus lots of expensive DLC often just to see the endings of games. And these games have been selling like crazy, Modern Warfare 2 was such an incredible smash hit on consoles earning BILLIONS!

By Kinect being a peripheral for Xbox 360 this marginalises the Xbox 360's purpose and market.

IF Microsoft are trying to answer the Wii, which is selling to a brand new audience, why not make Kinect a brand new stand-alone console which CAN be a peripheral to an Xbox 360? You know, it has it's own CPU and GPU with a hard drive for downloadable game data so you can plug it into power and then DIRECTLY to a TV to use it as it is... but with basic Wii graphics.

As it is the Kinect + Xbox partnership is schizophrenic, but it could have been for Kinect audiences that the Xbox 360 is the upgrade with more powerful processing ability and addition of a disc-drive too. Kinect would also be

I think you are crediting MS with more brains than they have available for such projects.
the kinect as it is kinda proves that. Its a 450$ web cam with some shape recognition code attached, dammit.

mattaui:
Here's the thing, though. The resources that MS and Sony are putting towards Kinect and Move are resources that are not going towards making games that the core audience wants, so there's a reason for us to be concerned. Further, they could overplay their hand to such a degree that they'll actively harm the future of both consoles in their misguided attempt to copy the Wii.

It would be like my favorite hard sci-fi writer deciding to write schlocky romantic modern fantasy because that's what sells, and telling me I shouldn't care because it's not for me, but I do care because it means he's writing that rather than what I want him to write. I know authors are one person and companies can keep more balls in the air, but you're still dealing with limited time and money.

This is something that concerns me as well because it is such a gamble counting on a great many variables. I do not believe that all of a sudden Microsoft and Sony will become casual marketing facsimiles of Nintendo during the Wii's rise in popularity if Move and Kinect take off. However, if neither fare particularly well, I wonder how the wasted effort could have been utilized to postively affect the respective consoles and actually expand them beyond trying to steal from Nintendo's market. As I type this, thoughts creep into my head like "If Kinect was never a big priority for Microsoft, could Rare have finally made another Conker?" As you have stated, there are resources being directed towards the motion sensing periphials that could have been allocated elsewhere, which can easily trigger the natural curiosity in myself, and I would think others as well.

I feel this way especially because I have both a 360 and PS3, but can honestly say that the 360 in particular has only raised short-term interest with Fable III and Reach, but nothing further.

To the wary consumer, money invested should provide a long-term benefit and not just a cheap flash in the pan. This is where I believe Kinect is lacking because it does not have any real clout being a new product. The Wii is already widely renowned and has a great variety of games, motion controlled and not, planned for or currently in its library. Why should a new consumer take the risk of $450 for a Kinect/360 bundle when a Wii is a cheaper and possibly more conducive option? This is where the 360/Kinect is going to have to entice people with its wider arc of games that the Wii lacks or those consumers will just go the Nintendo route. With a divided consumer demand, the 360/Kinect will be geared towards those who are not completely new to video games what with the high cost and seemingly unnecessary functions/games available. To give an example, I know an adult who bought a Wii just for things like Wii sports; where is the appeal to this sort of market with Kinect? I'm sure she would not give a toss about playing Halo or Fable, so $450 for a motion-sensing camera?

drayk:
A mate of mine is really looking forward to Kinect and I really can't see why. Aside from it's motion controlled user interface, nothing about it is worth it. Had it been cheaper, I'd think about getting it for that use alone, but it's current game line up doesn't interest me (or my mate for that matter, though he still wants it) and any games that either of us play would be much worse off if made for Kinect.

Even when it was first announced, all I ever saw was Microsoft trying to crack into Nintendos market, which is fine, but just never saw any use for the device outside of its targeted demo of casual players. Time will tell if my thoughts on it are proved wrong and it does end up having success with serious video game players, but I really don't see that happening.

I agree, kinect and playstation eye would be awesome for user interface purposes. What people dont realize is that microsoft did not invent kinect.

I've followed kinect since before it was kinect. Something called the zcam was invented by a company, it looked pretty great because some guy just controlled a plain with his hands and then shot by pressing his thumbs down. I was excited. Microsoft then bought the system in an attempt to compete with nintendo, i thought they would improve it but it just looks really bad now.

Given how great i thought microsofts marketing department was i would think that they would lean more towards kinects interface capabilities, i would also think that sony would show how much the playstation eye can do. It just doesnt make sense to me. I would show people navigating screens with waves of there hands and there voice before i show people playing with a virtual pet. Yes microsoft has shown some of what kinect can do, i just dont think they've shown it enough. As for the playstation eye, through lots of research, i've learned that it can do voice recognition along with full body tracking, you just have to program for it. I would also think they would try to show this more. In fact in a game like socom 4 in single player where you lead a squad, voice recognition would be awesome. Anyway its obvious in terms of games kinect is off to a bad start.

Also sony is trying to attract its core audience but really, i think with the lineup they have it is going to work. I am truly excited for some of the games coming out for sony move, socom 4, the fight, sorcery!!!, gladiator duel, and heroes on the move(rachet and clank, sly cooper, and jak and daxter all in one game!!!!! it seems like a salute to the ps2 lol ).
ps. badger kyre way to steal my first name!??!?!!!!

oranger:

I think you are crediting MS with more brains than they have available for such projects.
the kinect as it is kinda proves that. Its a 450$ web cam with some shape recognition code attached, dammit.

For Microsoft's sake IF ONLY it was just a webcam! Digital Foundry investigation have found the peripheral is stuffed full of tech, the array of cameras, microphones, circuitry, high-precision motors. It is an incredibly OVER ENGINEERED product and Microsoft could easily make no profit on selling each one for $150. Certainly the $300 bundle of 4GB-Xbox-360 + Kinect will be a significant loss leader while the now 4 years well established (and very reliable) Wii sells for half the price with a profit.

(Hell Wii could sell for $99 and still profit. I see that as the magic price where Wii sales will just explode, where anyone with even the faintest interest in a Wii will buy one just on a whim and more importantly even undercut Playstation Move bundle prices. Why get Move/Kinect for a handful of launch titles when Wii has 4 years of titles utilising motion controls?)

Compare and contrast Kinect with the Wii Remote, it's a prime example in a maser-class of industrial design, it is simple both in form and function. Cheap to make, easy to understand, flexible to use and room to grow technologically with the add-on gyroscope in MotionPlus manufacturing and selling as a separate unit to be sold later when games could actually utilise it and when it could be manufactured afford-ably, drove cost down.

Even PS-Move to an extent is over-engineered with a rather convoluted Camera+Ball tracking system combined with Wii-style motion sensor, but it is smart for utilising surplus PS-eye cameras and left-hand is perfect for lightweight Six-axis controllers though any controller will work (expect third parties to move in soon).

Personally, I find this all a pointless distraction. I just wish developers would offer native USB-mouse support with their games, that would be perfect. PS3 hardware natively supports USB mouse interface to high precision.

IMHO, selling a console shooter without mouse support is like selling a console racing-game without support of a racing wheel. But the way games are, they could easily have mouse-support retro-actively added with patches/updates.

People should be worried as EVEN FROM THE START the Nintendo that everyone loves to hate for selling out to "the casual" have supported their core-franchises.

The Wii launched with Twilight Princess (OK, mostly a port from Gamecube) but within a year of launch this is what Wii owners who jumped on the motion band-wagon were rewarded with:
-Metroid Prime 3: Corruption
-Super Mario Galaxy
-Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles
-Geometry Wars: Galaxies
-Ghost Squad (so under-appreciated)
-Medal of Honor: Heroes 2
-No More Heroes
-Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition
-Zak & Wiki

See Microsoft doesn't seem to be showing ANY CORE GAMES AT ALL! Dance Central is not a "core" game, even compared to Zak & Wiki.

Fr33Kye:

I agree, kinect and playstation eye would be awesome for user interface purposes. What people dont realize is that microsoft did not invent kinect.

That shouldn't matter as that is pretty much how all technology is invented and proliferates through all industries.

The "Made in our labs" is VERY rare and more often than not a PR manipulation. Only few tech companies invent, manufacture and sell their own creations: few include computer chip manufacturers like Intel or ATI.

Remember, Microsoft didn't invent the Xbox 360's GPU... nor it's CPU, nor the Disc drive nor any component or even its idea. ATI and AMD did that, under a commission from Microsoft. And the same is true for Sony with all their internal hardware and even Nintendo. Yes, Nintendo did not invent motion sensing technology used in the Wii mote. But both Nintendo with Wii and Microsoft with Kinect, they recognised the technology, they paid to use it (with some exclusivity) and they crafted it into a product that they were able to sell.

This is a GOOD thing that companies are open to new ideas that will better them, it gives small companies who specialise in developing technology a chance to actually make some money if they ever come up with a good idea. It is far cheaper (and more effective) searching around the world for great minds and their product and paying for exclusivity... than trying to hire thousands of creatives fresh out of University in hope that one of them invents some revolutionary technology while on MS payrole.

But even if this Camera-body-tracking was essentially a good idea, I think Microsoft are making a terrible mistake in execution. Particularly for pricing and target market.

Irridium:
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.

The only thing is Microsoft is a very snaky business and I have never liked their business practises. Especially if you look at the xbox 360 in particular. At launch you could of opted to go without a hard drive and use memory cards. That would have been a massive mistake for anyone that did as they would have to get a hdd or a memory card after a small amount of games being bought. Even if you got the launch HDD if you go online and get all the updates you would still have to upgrade it. As I never went online and had 12GB of just game saves.

That is how Microsoft works they get you to buy something off them and make sure you have to upgrade it every now and then to get a steady flow of income off you. Even the new xbox slim doesn't even have memory card ports. The fact that the disc tray is just a disk tray and has no locking system and spins disks at such a high rpm you are almost forced to install games. Well forced if you want to ensure you disk doesn't get eaten and to make the console quieter. Thus adding to forcing you to buy a new hard drive.

One thing that is worrying and also points to Microsoft's snaky business practise is the Xbox slim being Kinect ready meaning that the other consoles are not. So that means any new people will have to buy not only a xbox 360 and Kinect but possibly another peripheral as well or buy a Slim model. Even with the Slim if you want to play HD games you need a HDMI cable as they have fucked the HD component out to window to squeeze even more money out of you.

Kinda off topic from your point but just saying Microsoft do this because they are only a business I don't agree with. As this how Microsoft got where they are now by doing this "ok you buy this from us now but what we we won't ell you is you will have to upgrade some bits every couple of years" thing.

Glademaster:

Irridium:
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.

The only thing is Microsoft is a very snaky business and I have never liked their business practises. Especially if you look at the xbox 360 in particular. At launch you could of opted to go without a hard drive and use memory cards. That would have been a massive mistake for anyone that did as they would have to get a hdd or a memory card after a small amount of games being bought. Even if you got the launch HDD if you go online and get all the updates you would still have to upgrade it. As I never went online and had 12GB of just game saves.

That is how Microsoft works they get you to buy something off them and make sure you have to upgrade it every now and then to get a steady flow of income off you. Even the new xbox slim doesn't even have memory card ports. The fact that the disc tray is just a disk tray and has no locking system and spins disks at such a high rpm you are almost forced to install games. Well forced if you want to ensure you disk doesn't get eaten and to make the console quieter. Thus adding to forcing you to buy a new hard drive.

One thing that is worrying and also points to Microsoft's snaky business practise is the Xbox slim being Kinect ready meaning that the other consoles are not. So that means any new people will have to buy not only a xbox 360 and Kinect but possibly another peripheral as well or buy a Slim model. Even with the Slim if you want to play HD games you need a HDMI cable as they have fucked the HD component out to window to squeeze even more money out of you.

Kinda off topic from your point but just saying Microsoft do this because they are only a business I don't agree with. As this how Microsoft got where they are now by doing this "ok you buy this from us now but what we we won't ell you is you will have to upgrade some bits every couple of years" thing.

Its all right. I've noticed that actually. The ever-expanding hard drives, the steadily increasing download sizes...

I still have my small 12gb hard drive. I've had it for years. I'll be damned if I pay for a ridiculously overpriced hard drive from them.

Glademaster:

Irridium:
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.

The only thing is Microsoft is a very snaky business and I have never liked their business practises. Especially if you look at the xbox 360 in particular. At launch you could of opted to go without a hard drive and use memory cards. That would have been a massive mistake for anyone that did as they would have to get a hdd or a memory card after a small amount of games being bought. Even if you got the launch HDD if you go online and get all the updates you would still have to upgrade it. As I never went online and had 12GB of just game saves.

That is how Microsoft works they get you to buy something off them and make sure you have to upgrade it every now and then to get a steady flow of income off you. Even the new xbox slim doesn't even have memory card ports. The fact that the disc tray is just a disk tray and has no locking system and spins disks at such a high rpm you are almost forced to install games. Well forced if you want to ensure you disk doesn't get eaten and to make the console quieter. Thus adding to forcing you to buy a new hard drive.

One thing that is worrying and also points to Microsoft's snaky business practise is the Xbox slim being Kinect ready meaning that the other consoles are not. So that means any new people will have to buy not only a xbox 360 and Kinect but possibly another peripheral as well or buy a Slim model. Even with the Slim if you want to play HD games you need a HDMI cable as they have fucked the HD component out to window to squeeze even more money out of you.

Kinda off topic from your point but just saying Microsoft do this because they are only a business I don't agree with. As this how Microsoft got where they are now by doing this "ok you buy this from us now but what we we won't ell you is you will have to upgrade some bits every couple of years" thing.

Glademaster, thank you, I honestly did not really give the "Kinect-ready" thing much thought. I have my old a refurb from before the Jasper chip and without even and HDMI port. You can say all you want about the changes to the PS3, the 360 has been a proper mess with different versions, features, and add-ons with intended obsolescence in mind. Overall it is a great point to make because I feel as a 360 owner now even more circumspect with everything Microsoft is acting on because there are too many "what ifs?" that leave me as a consumer deterred from further investment, especially considering the lacking past of longevity for the 360 hardware.

Irridium:

Its all right. I've noticed that actually. The ever-expanding hard drives, the steadily increasing download sizes...

I still have my small 12gb hard drive. I've had it for years. I'll be damned if I pay for a ridiculously overpriced hard drive from them.

I have the small hard drive as you do I believe, and I too refuse to shell out for a proprietary HDD. Even more so now that Micrsoft's digital big plan has slowly spread to eat up memory for the best use of the console's performance. The premise of having models without a hard drive proved to be inane, and even the standard HDD size was not large enough for how long it was produced until the "Elite" 120gb. Considering that became the new standard, it has to make one suspect of Microsoft's original intent with the extremely smaller memory capacities early on. Even Sony had to immediately dump the 20gb model (for other reasons as well), which really was a slap to the "future-proof" console during the PS3's start come to think of it.

SelectivelyEvil13:

I have the small hard drive as you do I believe, and I too refuse to shell out for a proprietary HDD.

Irridium:

Its all right. I've noticed that actually. The ever-expanding hard drives, the steadily increasing download sizes...

I still have my small 12gb hard drive. I've had it for years. I'll be damned if I pay for a ridiculously overpriced hard drive from them.

Well if either of you two are interested. If you click on that link it will lead you to a guide on how to get a cheap xbox hard drive. It does require a bit of technical expertise. I haven't done it myself but I hear that it works. Although Microsoft have thought of a way of preventing this for those of us with the Slim by making the HDD internal. Still possible but a bit harder. Although I don't know if that might get you banned off XBL so I would only recommend it if you don't game online.

Glademaster:

SelectivelyEvil13:

I have the small hard drive as you do I believe, and I too refuse to shell out for a proprietary HDD.

Irridium:

Its all right. I've noticed that actually. The ever-expanding hard drives, the steadily increasing download sizes...

I still have my small 12gb hard drive. I've had it for years. I'll be damned if I pay for a ridiculously overpriced hard drive from them.

Well if either of you two are interested. If you click on that link it will lead you to a guide on how to get a cheap xbox hard drive. It does require a bit of technical expertise. I haven't done it myself but I hear that it works. Although Microsoft have thought of a way of preventing this for those of us with the Slim by making the HDD internal. Still possible but a bit harder. Although I don't know if that might get you banned off XBL so I would only recommend it if you don't game online.

Thank you for the information, but I'm content with the one I have as I've stopped buying XBL DLC and do not really plan on buying any new ones unless I see some random mega-deal on Reach or Fable III (which I doubt any time soon). Because of that, I have not followed the finite details of Kinect such as the whole "Kinect-Ready," memory requirements, future releases that could actually be good (although I do not think that they've actually announced any...), and only through the forums did I find out that the Kinect will drain the 360's processing capabilities. That makes perfect sense, but as someone not interested, I never gave it a thought until more and more information came out regarding Kinect.

The more that I think of Kinect and all that it entails in relation to Microsoft's past marketing, I grow curious as to how the device will be looked at in a few years depending not just on its initial reception, but its own longevity. What else will be thrown into the mix in effort to keep Kinect a pertinent facet of the Xbox 360? Just in terms of marketing and technology rather than just gaming alone this is becoming interesting indeed.

Regardless of outcome, I'm now beginning to wish that those Kinect resources were to go towards more original IPs. I would even settle for another Halo game or Halo 4 with open arms (and this is coming from someone who disliked 2 and 3 and wants the Halo series to have a dignified end with Reach...).

This is Microsoft's attempt to pander to the Wii crowd saying hey look at the 360 it can do that to, and a heck of a lot better. (IMO) Kenect is not for hardcore its to draw a more casual gamer crowd to the Xbox. More player more money

SelectivelyEvil13:

Thank you for the information, but I'm content with the one I have as I've stopped buying XBL DLC and do not really plan on buying any new ones unless I see some random mega-deal on Reach or Fable III (which I doubt any time soon). Because of that, I have not followed the finite details of Kinect such as the whole "Kinect-Ready," memory requirements, future releases that could actually be good (although I do not think that they've actually announced any...), and only through the forums did I find out that the Kinect will drain the 360's processing capabilities. That makes perfect sense, but as someone not interested, I never gave it a thought until more and more information came out regarding Kinect.

The more that I think of Kinect and all that it entails in relation to Microsoft's past marketing, I grow curious as to how the device will be looked at in a few years depending not just on its initial reception, but its own longevity. What else will be thrown into the mix in effort to keep Kinect a pertinent facet of the Xbox 360? Just in terms of marketing and technology rather than just gaming alone this is becoming interesting indeed.

Regardless of outcome, I'm now beginning to wish that those Kinect resources were to go towards more original IPs. I would even settle for another Halo game or Halo 4 with open arms (and this is coming from someone who disliked 2 and 3 and wants the Halo series to have a dignified end with Reach...).

Well that's the thing with stuff like this it is better to wait awhile and see what happens. If it is all still standing after post release aftermath it might be ok but just all the little requirements that aren't being mentioned don't bode well for it being successful and seesm quite a wasted venture.

SelectivelyEvil13:

I have the small hard drive as you do I believe, and I too refuse to shell out for a proprietary HDD. Even more so now that Micrsoft's digital big plan has slowly spread to eat up memory for the best use of the console's performance. The premise of having models without a hard drive proved to be inane, and even the standard HDD size was not large enough for how long it was produced until the "Elite" 120gb. Considering that became the new standard, it has to make one suspect of Microsoft's original intent with the extremely smaller memory capacities early on. Even Sony had to immediately dump the 20gb model (for other reasons as well), which really was a slap to the "future-proof" console during the PS3's start come to think of it.

Indeed. However Sony at least had the decency to make PC harddrives compatible. So you can swap out the standard HDD with a much cheaper, much larger PC one. I myself have a 400gb one in mine(from my old PC).

Microsoft however you have to use their hard drives, which are overpriced. $100 for a 60gb hard drive... yeah over my dead body MS.

The reason that Wii succeeded was because if developers wanted to make a good game without using motion controls for the Wii, it's still on the wii. If a developer wants to make a good xbox game, they have absolutely no obligation to include Kinect in any way whatsoever. The Wii succeeded in the long run because despite all the crap it still had some core games. Kinect looks like it's gonna fail because if a developer wants to release a core game they can, and most like will, go right through Kinect and release it on the Xbox, benefiting Kinect in no way.

/wall of text

Danzaivar:
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

LoL I read that wrong. :/

Treblaine:

Fr33Kye:

I agree, kinect and playstation eye would be awesome for user interface purposes. What people dont realize is that microsoft did not invent kinect.

That shouldn't matter as that is pretty much how all technology is invented and proliferates through all industries.

The "Made in our labs" is VERY rare and more often than not a PR manipulation. Only few tech companies invent, manufacture and sell their own creations: few include computer chip manufacturers like Intel or ATI.

Remember, Microsoft didn't invent the Xbox 360's GPU... nor it's CPU, nor the Disc drive nor any component or even its idea. ATI and AMD did that, under a commission from Microsoft. And the same is true for Sony with all their internal hardware and even Nintendo. Yes, Nintendo did not invent motion sensing technology used in the Wii mote. But both Nintendo with Wii and Microsoft with Kinect, they recognised the technology, they paid to use it (with some exclusivity) and they crafted it into a product that they were able to sell.

This is a GOOD thing that companies are open to new ideas that will better them, it gives small companies who specialise in developing technology a chance to actually make some money if they ever come up with a good idea. It is far cheaper (and more effective) searching around the world for great minds and their product and paying for exclusivity... than trying to hire thousands of creatives fresh out of University in hope that one of them invents some revolutionary technology while on MS payrole.

But even if this Camera-body-tracking was essentially a good idea, I think Microsoft are making a terrible mistake in execution. Particularly for pricing and target market.

I'm aware of all of that. It was actually in response to the notion that microsoft did a bad job developing it or that they are visionaries for creating kinect.

Glademaster:

Well that's the thing with stuff like this it is better to wait awhile and see what happens. If it is all still standing after post release aftermath it might be ok but just all the little requirements that aren't being mentioned don't bode well for it being successful and seesm quite a wasted venture.

I find that to be quite the caveat regarding Kinect and how it is being presented. Those shadowy details can be the difference between purchases because only the more trusting or spontaneous buyers will not heed as many notable warnings. Considering that hindsight is 20/20, I'm going to take full advantage of that and let the Kinect crowd act as guinea pigs, assuming that the Kinect outlasts its starting rush.

Irridium:

Indeed. However Sony at least had the decency to make PC harddrives compatible. So you can swap out the standard HDD with a much cheaper, much larger PC one. I myself have a 400gb one in mine(from my old PC).

Microsoft however you have to use their hard drives, which are overpriced. $100 for a 60gb hard drive... yeah over my dead body MS.

So true because the standard PC Hard drives are actually reasonable. I am limited with the new Slim model, but at 120 GB I'd still say I'm a whole lot better off than a mere 60gb as you've mentioned. I already forgot that was their "middle" size for a while. Regardless, $100 is getting dangerously close to two full new releases and fifty dollars short of a Wii! I've come to hate the proprietary nature of the 360 because when combined with the already sub-standard quality on a menagerie of 360 items it leaves a customer reaching into their wallet for another mic, for example. The slow expansion of the memory allotment is no exception with the exorbitant price schemes to upgrade. Now in retrospect, quitting Live has already saved me not only the $50 fee, but all of the broken mics that spontaneously shorted ha ha!

SelectivelyEvil13:
So true because the standard PC Hard drives are actually reasonable. I am limited with the new Slim model, but at 120 GB I'd still say I'm a whole lot better off than a mere 60gb as you've mentioned. I already forgot that was their "middle" size for a while. Regardless, $100 is getting dangerously close to two full new releases and fifty dollars short of a Wii! I've come to hate the proprietary nature of the 360 because when combined with the already sub-standard quality on a menagerie of 360 items it leaves a customer reaching into their wallet for another mic, for example. The slow expansion of the memory allotment is no exception with the exorbitant price schemes to upgrade. Now in retrospect, quitting Live has already saved me not only the $50 fee, but all of the broken mics that spontaneously shorted ha ha!

Oh man, all the money I've spent on xbox mics, both Xbox and 360 mics... Got to be well over $200. The things are pieces of shit and need constant replacing. Wish I could use my USB mic that works on my PC and PS3.

Irridium:

Oh man, all the money I've spent on xbox mics, both Xbox and 360 mics... Got to be well over $200. The things are pieces of shit and need constant replacing. Wish I could use my USB mic that works on my PC and PS3.

After a while they also were bothersome and felt strange over the ear. Part of it may have been from the sound quality, but I just think the devices themselves were cheap. The former issue was to be fixed in the Fall update I believe.

If I remember correctly, that update will also affect the Avatars for kinect and (maybe?) the dashboard again. I've had my 360 since prior to the NXE/Avatar massacre transition, so I have to wonder how the newer dashboard is going to feel to completely new 360 owners, let alone those like myself who would have been satisfied with something more akin to the original and make the Mii clones optional. I have not been keeping up with the latest Microsoft ad campaigns, but I wonder when the Avatars will be the next bullet point for Kinect aimed at the "casual" crowd.

Fr33Kye:

Treblaine:

Fr33Kye:

I agree, kinect and playstation eye would be awesome for user interface purposes. What people dont realize is that microsoft did not invent kinect.

That shouldn't matter as that is pretty much how all technology is invented and proliferates through all industries.

*snipe*

I'm aware of all of that. It was actually in response to the notion that microsoft did a bad job developing it or that they are visionaries for creating kinect.

While some have been exaggerating a TINY bit, I think for what Kinect IS Microsoft deserves recognition for that, remember success is all in the execution and they have not just bought off the shelf tech and put it in a chassis but invested a lot in development (particularity software) to make a very unique product.

Whether it is worth $150 or even the cardboard box it comes in (to my demographic at least) is another matter entirely. But respect where respect is due.

At least I have to hand to the Kinect communication that it is honest. It explains from the gecko that the product it not for you Mr. Gamer, it is for your mom and your kids. You and your wife must carry on playing the way you did before Kinect with our console.

If you think about it, it kinda makes more sense than Move. Nintendo does manage to somehow bridge the gap between the two worlds, giving games like Wii Fit and Super Smash Bros. Brawl on the same console with the same controls (and then there are games like Mario Galaxy or Mario Kart or NSMB, that you really can't put your finger on the targeted demographic). So Sony tries to do the same with Move, only more mucho, because they are Sony. But they are wrong... Because the Sixaxis covers the mucho part. It's still there.

That's why I think what Kinect is doing makes more sense. You want mucho? What's stopping you? You still have the controller. You want party games with friends, now you can play with Kinect.

As far as the price is concerned, again it makes more sense than Sony. These games are more fun (or only fun) with friends. It may look a bit expensive to buy Kinect, but you don't need extra controllers, so the price difference from Wii is really not that big for it to matter.

Of course, I also agree with those that said people will probably just go buy a Wii. The software is better, more people have it (so you can play it in your house one day and at your friends house the next) and at the end of the day Nintendo has been spending huge amounts of money to create their "expanded" audience over the last 4 years. I don't think MS or Sony will achieve to emulate than over night.

How many of the Wii Fit owners or prospective owners know that Move or Kinect are launching before Christmas (and how many care)?

 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
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here