What the PS3 Needs to Compete with Kenect

[hixbot]

I'm not a PS3 fan, but I gotta say Sony should do nothing to compete with Kinect. Kinect will be a total failure.

 

[tokenz]

[citation][nom]gtown[/nom]Meh as far as I can see, Sony has this one in the bag, they passed up on the Natal project and developed something better, they have 3D, Play TV, integrated browser and not to mention its the only system EVER to be 100% hack proof.[/citation]

First it is not hack proof (why do you think you lost Linux support) Second that is why its not selling. People like hacking and modding their consoles. Personally I dont want to surf the internet on my tv. 3D is nothing but hype, and they didnt pass up on natal they are late to the game with their golf ball controller and Move.

 

[dark_lord69]

I really don't think kinect will be a hit. More like a miss. Like that the "super scope" for super nintendo. It wasn't a bad idea but very few people bought it.

 

[hixbot]

I bought the super scope... but I regretted it after.

 

[zaznet]

[citation][nom]tokenz[/nom]Wow so what do you get at that res 3 frames a second.[/citation]

I'm sure he gets more than 3 frames per second but he also spent more than enough to buy at least 10 Xbox 360s and his hardware isn't 5 years old either.

You won't see better than 1080p on consoles until UHD starts making a real showing. I still stand by my opinion that if the consoles want to be fully 1080p AND 3D with motion sensing control they really should look at the next generation. They would rather milk the current cow as much as possible before making any announcement about the next cow though.

 

[jkchang626]

Motion controls are great for group gaming, but lack when it comes to a single player experience, IMO. When the consoles all came out, I purchased a PS3. My friend purchased a Wii and commented on why I did not. I told him he will only play with company, while it collects dust otherwise. I was right. He now owns a 360.

With the improvements made on the 360 and PS3 consoles (versus Wii), we might see some great use of the motion controls~ but I doubt it will really revolutionize anything. Half of America has a Wii in their home. How many of those households still use it?

 

[sliem]

"Kinetic will be expensive..."
What is Kinetic?

 

[Drag0nR1der]

People who think Konnect is just a gimmick have a serious lack of imagination. Sure if it's used as just a bolt on way of controlling current game formats then it'll hardly be revolutionary... but it's potential for developers to really innovate in the games market is massive. The Wii wasn't quite up to the task, mainly because it only really tracks a very limited range of motion, and still uses a controller, but Konnect IMO could really open up possibilities.

 

[Drag0nR1der]

Sony is already struggling to compete on content... honestly, price isn't the big killer here, support is.

 

[Drag0nR1der]

I'm pretty sure every new innovation in console design has at some point been called a gimmick.

Thing is, until someone does something new, and a lot of people run with it and create new ways of using it, it's always going to be a gimmick, yet it's the continual addition of new features that drives the evolution of these games consoles, if people didn't do new things we'd never see anything, umm, new; and that would get incredibly boring very quickly.

 

[Drag0nR1der]

You won't see better than 1080p on consoles until UHD starts making a real showing. I still stand by my opinion that if the consoles want to be fully 1080p AND 3D with motion sensing control they really should look at the next generation. They would rather milk the current cow as much as possible before making any announcement about the next cow though.

Weird tho' 'cos they usually have no such reserve about pushing a new generation of consoles... I think it's more likely they are just responding to what the market tells them they want... to make the best out of what they already have (seems like the responsible thing to do imo)

 

[antilycus]

lets see I am a 30 y.o. male and am getting Kinetic for Dance Central. If it appeals to me it appeals to MILLIONS of others.

Obviously you can't do every single game in a Kinetic environment and you'd be a bit foolish to believe you can. This is NOT REPLACING YOUR CONTROLLER, it's simply another option if you want to take advantage of whatever software becomes available.

Just because YOU personally don't like it doesnt mean millions of others dont. There is a reason that the Nintendo Wii has outsold everyone else, even though hardware and software sales are now PATHETIC.

 

[MadAdmiral]

The article probably should have just been called "What the PS3 needs to Compete" and leave it at that. Instead of chasing Nintendo's tail with the Move, Sony should have been focusing on innovating. Also, if the PS3 really wants to compete with the Xbox, Sony needs games not gimmicks.

 

[CptTripps]

I don't want one at this time, but a camera that tracks 4 peoples movement is pretty cool tech.

 

[edeawillrule]

[citation][nom]DaFees[/nom]Oh and to wrap up this TLR, to those complaining about PS2 BC support for PS3s. Get over it. If you wanted it that bad then you would have bought a launch console or one of the one's that had it. If you are coming to us now 3 years after the console has launched asking for such a thing I don't think you truly need it. I know of no one that has a bunch of PS2 games lying around without a PS2 console begging for a PS3 with PS2 BC support. Sony only chose to include the feature in at launch because it knew loyal fans would have such a large library of games that they would want to continue to enjoy. Sony figures by now, if you haven't bought a PS3, then you already own a PS2 and that a PS3 with PS2 BC really wouldn't be necessary. Sure it may be nice, but Sony won't go through the efforts include such a feature, especially if it costs more, when really what's the benefit you get to drop one of their consoles and maybe get a small graphical upgrade (thanks to upscaling).[/citation]

Not everyone wants to have multiple consoles taking up space (which in many cases is quite limited) in their living area. I don't need a PS3, especially when I have a PC that can pump out the frames at a quicker rate with much better graphical quality.

Also, some of us care about power consumption. There is no way I would get an original power sucking hot running PS3 when the slim has been out for months. At this point the cost of restoring backwards compatibility would be minor, and most of us that want it would be willing to pay a premium if necessary.

 

[bearracuda]

Tom's. Please find less biased writers. Thank you. Or at least if they're going to be biased, make sure they're educated.

 

[Drag0nR1der]

[citation][nom]bearracuda[/nom]Tom's. Please find less biased writers. Thank you. Or at least if they're going to be biased, make sure they're educated.[/citation]


Umm, I don't think it's biased to say that the PS3 is way behind in the current console market compared to the XBox ... it's more just fact

 

[bearracuda]

[citation][nom]Drag0nR1der[/nom]Umm, I don't think it's biased to say that the PS3 is way behind in the current console market compared to the XBox ... it's more just fact[/citation]

Alright, if you're gonna debate me on it, I'll present my argument. Which I know you aren't, you're gonna go xbot on me. But I'm gonna rant this rant anyway.

#1: "we can also expect some core hardware changes, most likely an updated RSX GPU"
-Microsoft hasn't updated their GPU and so saying PS3 needs to update their GPU to compete with Microsoft is a irrational and overcritical. And besides, upgrading a GPU in a console is flat out moronic anyway, because that's just how consoles work, devs develop for consoles with the fact in mind that everyone who gets the game will have the exact same hardware. To upgrade the PS3's GPU would be to outdate all of the other 40 million PS3s sony has already sold and fuck over the entire fanbase all in one swift kick to the rear. Requesting an upgraded GPU is blowing smoke in the eyes of PS3 fans. For fun. without even a reasonable cause.

And besides, several highly respected devs have said their games run better on the PS3. Not the least of which being Crytek, a company that's been beating the living piss out of current PC GPUs for years now. So if they say it's better, I'm quite inclined to trust their judgement. Because not trusting their judgement would be like declining basketball lessons from Kobe Bryant.

#2:"Kinect could be better than move and PS fanboys will just hate the fact that Sony has not come up with Microsoft’s idea, but decided to improve what has been out for four years – Nintendo’s Wii controller."
-The motion tracking of the move is, and it's been clearly demonstrated, superior even to the motion tracking of the wii motion plus. In addition to that, the eyetoy tracks the body and the move controller seperately, and incorporates them into the game character accordingly. Meaning that if you crouch, your character will crouch, without regard to what your hands "or" the move is doing. So Sony "has" thought up microsoft's idea. They thought it up 10 years ago, and have been improving it for just as long. -And- now they're combining it with an improved motion tracking/sensing controller. (Which, btw, if you put any research at all into it, you'd know that Sony's been working on the move for well over 5 years. Which is longer than the wii has been on the market. So from a technical standpoint, Sony's ahead of both companies. From any other standpoint, however, Nintendo beat sony to the punch for motion sensing, and microsoft is doing more to mainstream motion-tracking. But make no mistake, sony is all over both of them, and has been since long before Microsoft OR Nintendo.

#3: "albeit I can already imagine that Sony will fall into the old trap of showing us dozens of FPS titles and not a true diversity of titles that will surprise us"
-It's sad that I even have to elaborate on this one, seeing as this is an article comparing the PS3 to the system that brings us halo, gears of war, and several other assloads of exclusive and multiplatform FPS games.

#4:"I find it amazing how much Sony screwed up the launch of the most influential game on the PS3 - GT5. It is scheduled for Q4 now, which means it will be four years late. And think about that: Q4 will be a time when 3D is pitched. Imagine GT5 in 3D – now that would have justified the 4-year delay. But we now that this is just a dream and we need to wait for GT6 3D, which may not arrive before 2015."
-A: Sony doesn't make GT5, polyphony digital does. Sony just publishes it. So your entire point there about Sony fucking up its release is lost.
-B: Microsoft may have had the upper hand on influential exclusives at console release, but Microsoft has hardly gained new ground since then, while Sony has been covering ground like the Bugatti Veyron. Inevitable exclusive list to follow:
God of War | Heavy Rain | Infamous | Killzone | Little Big Planet | Mod Nation Racers | Ratchet and Clank | Resistance | Uncharted | Metal Gear Solid | Twisted Metal
So GT5 is most definitely not the only influential exclusive on PS3, or the most influential, it's just one on an ever-growing list.
And note: Those are just the exclusives "I" consider to be influential, popular, and not shitty (cough cough, talkin' about you, MAG)
-C: GT5 "is" in 3D, as well as a long long list of others they've been working on in 3D (not just upscaling) for quite some time, but as that info was released at E3 (after this article was written) feel free to discredit this particular section of my input.

#5: "Entertainment Exclusives"
-Assuming you're referring to their services and not their lineup, the PS3 online is free, and Sony has made it very clear that though they are making a move more towards netting casuals, they VERY MUCH still intend to be a hardcore gaming system. And that's what the PS3 and 360 are: gaming systems. This entire article is written as though success is measured more by each system's usefulness as a piece of hardware, not as a gaming system, and its potential for income. They're gaming systems, and as such can only be fairly compared as gaming systems. And if you care about how much money Microsoft execs are making, you clearly don't give a shit about the end user, the gamer, the fan. Even so, even if we do compare them as just general hardware and not gaming systems, Xbox offers those extra services at a fee, whereas Sony's service is free. So I'd say they're even.

#6: "You’ll need $300 just to get started these days with the PS3. Then add a few bucks for the right cables, and about $100 for the Move controller. And if you buy a TV that measures up to the PS3’s potential, you are looking at another $2500 for a 3D TV."
-Kinect will cost even more than the move, and it doesn't come with a free game. And Sony is not "requiring" anyone to buy the move, or a 3D TV. And your 3DTV argument is lost anyway, because the 360 also supports 3D, and has a couple 3D games out already (just like the PS3). So an Xbox-owner has to pay the same premium to play 3D games as a PS3-owner. Also, the vast majority of PS3 games coming out in 3D and for the move are "move compatible" and "3D compatible," at no extra cost, meaning they can easily be played in 2D with the standard controller. How can they do that at no extra cost? Because blu-ray discs have enough room to support, yes, that's right, all 4 versions of the game. Sixaxis, Move, Sixaxis 3D, and Move 3D. Because Sony planned ahead. Sony got chuckles when they first announced the move to blu-ray, but now it's paying off big time. In fairness, microsoft isn't forcing anyone to buy Kinect either, in fact, Kinect caters very specifically to the casual crowd, and the classic controller caters more to the hardcore crowd, but I wonder how they'll handle trying to cram in the choice between 2D and 3D. Logically the best option would be to just put in 2 discs per case, but knowing Microsoft, I wouldn't be surprised to see them charge full price for each the 2D version and 3D version of each game.

Besides, tagging on the price of a 3DTV in a news report just to make the PS3 seem more expensive is a bit underhanded. It's an attempt to convince the uneducated masses that the PS3 costs $3000 to play, and not $300. As this is Tom's, whose fanbase for the most part does not consist of the uneducated masses, it probably won't convince anyone of anything. But it does prove my point, Gravitybell07, that this article is highly biased.

So anyway, there you have it, an unbiased and educated response to a highly biased and only mildly educated article. Just for those of you who feel the need to debate my first comment.

 

[Guest]

what should i buy ps3 or kinect ?

 

[Guest]

Those are stupid... Give my money to buy those useless things ? I rather spend my money to support my living such as home, foods, clothes, and transportation.

Thanks to people like you making those companies making more money and they are billionaires now. Whats your profits ? NONE! NOTHING! THINK! I dont understand you people. Oh boy.