Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kanluwen wrote:
It is no less of a stupid line of thought than "I don't want a Kinect because Kinect sucks now".

Fortunately, the Kinect is not mandatory, so you're free to enjoy while I'm free to avoid the suckage (you're word, sort of). Everyone is a winner, what difference does it make?

The difference it makes is why would developers code key features for a peripheral that not every player owns.

It depends what you mean by key features... and whether we really want them. The Wii has already shown us that motion sensing *can* be fun, and can make for great games if implemented right... but more often than not, even with Nintendo themselves leading by nothing less than shining example, developers don't actually know what to do with it and attempt to shoehorn existing game types into the format, which doesn't really work. There's a reason the WiiU went back to having a pad as default.

If we're not talking about the control system but about video and audio input, then there are other reasons why these features should *always* be optional in a game, even if MS were to make them mandatory on the console itself. You might not want to put your face to your avatar. You might not want the thing to pick up someone else's nearby conversation and screw your game up as a result. You might be mute, or have lost your voice.

Or, as has already been pointed out, maybe (as is my case) you just don't care about the gimmicks and would see such intrusions in a game as about as welcome and immersion-shattering as quick time events, UNLESS implemented really really well.

If we're talking about the always-online side of things... nobody's exactly been put off by the fact that not everyone's online all the time. We actually have so many MMOs in the market that the majority of new ones are destined to fail thanks to over-saturation. What would make you think that an optional Internet connection would stop developers from making games that requires one?

I can't go into a huge amount of detail; but think of things like the Kinect implementation in Ghost Recon: Future Soldier.

Things like Gunsmith and how it was much easier to utilize with Kinect than the controller, etc.

Just had a look. I'll admit it's a better effort than most... but it still seems gimmicky and an example of trying to shoehorn existing games into the control set. I can already customise weapons in shooters... and while it might have been easier with Kinect, it doesn't actually change the core gameplay.
I realise that I'm probably being much more cynical about that particular effort than most would be.

Bear in mind that Gunsmith had to settle for "gimmick" because of several factors:

1) Multiplatform release. Spending too much time developing it to work exclusively with the Kinect draws resources from other areas.
2) Making it Kinect mandatory would have driven down the sales dramatically in all likelihood.
3) Ubisoft already was dealing with the fact that Uplay was not looked upon well.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

The problem is Kinect must be mandatory to justify developers actually utilizing the peripheral as a key element in gameplay, rather than simply a gimmick.

Seriously. That's your logic? "We have to force it on everyone or no one will use it!" Gee, kind of seems like your argument is that the market doesn't want the Kinect but it should be forced down their throats anyway in the name of some ambiguous agenda.

And of course there's always the argument; The Kinect has never been and will never be anything more than a gimmick.

It's a logic that seems solid, given KC's statement about Kinect.

Right now, most of the reasoning behind not wanting Kinect with the One is "I don't need it for the 360 and I didn't like it on the 360, so I don't want it on the One". The market does not want the Kinect because they seem to be under the impression that the Kinect is being completely unchanged.

No, I completely understand that its changing, and that it will be able to do a crap load more. My problem is, on paper, the kinect is cool and new and exciting. In practice, its OK for 20 minutes, then you dont give a gak, then it becomes an annoyance. So why would I want a NEW kinect, that is even MORE finicky with even more sensitive mics? No. Simply, frigging no.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The difference it makes is why would developers code key features for a peripheral that not every player owns.

Also Ill turn your attention to the Wii with all its awesomely fun motion controls and fun time wizardry. It was incredibly popular last generation, and companies were throwing money and games at it. What happened after a while? People stopped caring about the gimmick, and devs stopped trying to make clever new motion things in their games, and just started making games again. Hands down, the best games IVe played on the Wii, certainly didnt have motion control junk in them. Well that might be a little bit of a stretch, Skyward sword had some.

 KingCracker wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

The problem is Kinect must be mandatory to justify developers actually utilizing the peripheral as a key element in gameplay, rather than simply a gimmick.

Seriously. That's your logic? "We have to force it on everyone or no one will use it!" Gee, kind of seems like your argument is that the market doesn't want the Kinect but it should be forced down their throats anyway in the name of some ambiguous agenda.

And of course there's always the argument; The Kinect has never been and will never be anything more than a gimmick.

It's a logic that seems solid, given KC's statement about Kinect.

Right now, most of the reasoning behind not wanting Kinect with the One is "I don't need it for the 360 and I didn't like it on the 360, so I don't want it on the One". The market does not want the Kinect because they seem to be under the impression that the Kinect is being completely unchanged.

No, I completely understand that its changing, and that it will be able to do a crap load more. My problem is, on paper, the kinect is cool and new and exciting. In practice, its OK for 20 minutes, then you dont give a gak, then it becomes an annoyance. So why would I want a NEW kinect, that is even MORE finicky with even more sensitive mics? No. Simply, frigging no.

"Even more finicky" goes against everything which people who have been hands-on with the new Kinect for any lengthy period of time would tell you.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The difference it makes is why would developers code key features for a peripheral that not every player owns.

Also Ill turn your attention to the Wii with all its awesomely fun motion controls and fun time wizardry. It was incredibly popular last generation, and companies were throwing money and games at it. What happened after a while? People stopped caring about the gimmick, and devs stopped trying to make clever new motion things in their games, and just started making games again. Hands down, the best games I've played on the Wii, certainly didnt have motion control junk in them. Well that might be a little bit of a stretch, Skyward sword had some.

This is a bit of a stretch of a comparison, in my opinion.

The Wii was "incredibly popular" because it was a cheap system which marketed itself towards the casual gamer rather than the 'hardcore' gamer. The abandonment of the motion control junk, as you put it, was part of a shift to get hardcore gamers into the system. It worked to an extent from my understanding.

 Platuan4th wrote:
This whole thing smacks of "Damned if you do, damned if you don't".

It's more like "It's the thought that counts". The only reason anyone is holding a grudge is because Microsoft tried to do a whole lot of objectionable things with the Xbone in the first place. It's like if you caught your cousin stealing your silverware - even after he puts it back, you still know he tried to rob you.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The difference it makes is why would developers code key features for a peripheral that not every player owns.

Yeah. Its called not spending money on something that won't earn its cost back. Thats how most industries work not on dreams and sugar cookies XD


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

2) Making it Kinect mandatory would have driven down the sales dramatically in all likelihood.

Apparently that hasn't changed.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

The problem is Kinect must be mandatory to justify developers actually utilizing the peripheral as a key element in gameplay, rather than simply a gimmick.

Seriously. That's your logic? "We have to force it on everyone or no one will use it!" Gee, kind of seems like your argument is that the market doesn't want the Kinect but it should be forced down their throats anyway in the name of some ambiguous agenda.

And of course there's always the argument; The Kinect has never been and will never be anything more than a gimmick.

It's a logic that seems solid, given KC's statement about Kinect.

Right now, most of the reasoning behind not wanting Kinect with the One is "I don't need it for the 360 and I didn't like it on the 360, so I don't want it on the One". The market does not want the Kinect because they seem to be under the impression that the Kinect is being completely unchanged.

No, I completely understand that its changing, and that it will be able to do a crap load more. My problem is, on paper, the kinect is cool and new and exciting. In practice, its OK for 20 minutes, then you dont give a gak, then it becomes an annoyance. So why would I want a NEW kinect, that is even MORE finicky with even more sensitive mics? No. Simply, frigging no.

"Even more finicky" goes against everything which people who have been hands-on with the new Kinect for any lengthy period of time would tell you.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The difference it makes is why would developers code key features for a peripheral that not every player owns.

Also Ill turn your attention to the Wii with all its awesomely fun motion controls and fun time wizardry. It was incredibly popular last generation, and companies were throwing money and games at it. What happened after a while? People stopped caring about the gimmick, and devs stopped trying to make clever new motion things in their games, and just started making games again. Hands down, the best games I've played on the Wii, certainly didnt have motion control junk in them. Well that might be a little bit of a stretch, Skyward sword had some.

This is a bit of a stretch of a comparison, in my opinion.

The Wii was "incredibly popular" because it was a cheap system which marketed itself towards the casual gamer rather than the 'hardcore' gamer. The abandonment of the motion control junk, as you put it, was part of a shift to get hardcore gamers into the system. It worked to an extent from my understanding.

Most that have any time with the new Kinect either WORK for MS or are friendly to MS and so allowed to make them look good. So I wouldn't use that argument if I were you.

And you can say all you want about the Wii the fact is, when a system sells that many units as it did, devs jump on board and make anything they can to get on the cash cow. Regardless of what you think, they all tried to push the motion control gimmick and it ran out if steam quick. So if the system and it's casual owners started getting bored with motion control, then why the hell do you think it's going to keep going with the hard core crowd? I'm sorry but you're delusional if you think that's going to happen.

DRM was cool in the way that it allows developrs to heavily utilise the Cloud.

I also loved the fact that I could actually play my games without searching for the disc.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The difference it makes is why would developers code key features for a peripheral that not every player owns.

Devs can still code and assume that everyone has kinect because kinect is still bundled with xbone. Kinect being no longer mandatory to plug in is just good for everyone. You can play games without kinect working, devs can code kinect features, m$soft doesn't look like complete idiot.

 KingCracker wrote:

Most that have any time with the new Kinect either WORK for MS or are friendly to MS and so allowed to make them look good. So I wouldn't use that argument if I were you.

That's not true, but you are welcome to think that. Most of the people who have had time with the new Kinect are game developers who are utilizing dev kits and are under NDAs.

And you can say all you want about the Wii the fact is, when a system sells that many units as it did, devs jump on board and make anything they can to get on the cash cow. Regardless of what you think, they all tried to push the motion control gimmick and it ran out if steam quick. So if the system and it's casual owners started getting bored with motion control, then why the hell do you think it's going to keep going with the hard core crowd? I'm sorry but you're delusional if you think that's going to happen.

And again, you're stuck on the idea that it is going to be purely motion control.

So why are you not complaining about the PS4's "touchpad" which they are incorporating for quick time events?

 Kanluwen wrote:
So why are you not complaining about the PS4's "touchpad" which they are incorporating for quick time events?

I will say this - I think this is a HORRIBLE idea, and considering the existence of the WiiU it isn't even their own. It's just that it's the only thing about the PS4 that I don't like, that I know of so far.

I also think the PS4 touchpad is a stupid idea that will become one of those things a few years in, that people dont even realize is there. The huge difference between the Kinect and the PS4 touchpad, is the Kinect WAS being shoved down peoples throats with no hope of getting rid of the damn thing. The PS4 touch pad.....comes up in passing maybe? Its there.....thats it

I am sorry, do you know exactly how the Kinect is being utilized for the titles coming out exclusive to the One?
Nobody except the developers do at this moment--and they are not really talking in exacting detail.

What we do know however is that PS4 games are from the ground-up incorporating the touchpad. You have seen what Infamous 3 is doing with it right?
It's replacing QTEs. Instead of "Mash X to break the device!", it is now "Swipe your finger repeatedly to break the device!".

Yes but the touch pad wasnt always listening, wasn't always on, isn't voice activated. The Kinect, up until the other day was and is. Obviously you are excited for the Kinect, that's fine kan, but you truly are in the minority. Go and read some actual polls on how many people do not want the damn thing.