***official*** all things Microsoft Xbox One (1 Viewer)

[Cliff Clavin]

Don't get the Kinect hate unless they force it into games they shouldn't. I'll be glad to have it when I have family over and the kids are looking for something to do. Doubt I'd ever use it as my Wii just collects dust as it is.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

II hate 1st person shooters but you don't see me railing on developers for making those games do you? There's plenty of room for all types of games.

I'm not railing on developers for doing anything. I agree with you that I'd rather see developers make fewer FPS games and more of other stuff. It's interesting at the contrasting responses to those sorts of opinions:

Ivan: "I don't care for first person shooters that much. I'd rather see developers devote their resources to other sorts of projects."

Everybody else: "That's understandable. Different people have different tastes in games."

Ivan: "I don't care for motion control games. I'd rather see developers devote their resources to other sorts of projects."

Everybody else: "ZOMG Kinect is awesome and you'll see when they finally make that great game for it and 343 is still making Halo so quit being a Luddite!!!1!"

I wonder why the first statement is universally understood as just a simple statement about personal preferences while people get all touchy about the second.

 

[Jobber]

Microsoft > Ditch Kinect and get his working asap.

That looks really cool.

uh oh it might divert dev resources from GTA 6

I'd like to see resources go into this sort of thing.

Want to bet the kinect is the base hardware to run it?

Did you watch the video in the link? They stated explicitly that they use Kinect as the camera to detect the furniture in the room. That's actually a cool use for it.

That video looked fantastic. Wow, I really hope they implement this.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

II hate 1st person shooters but you don't see me railing on developers for making those games do you? There's plenty of room for all types of games.

I'm not railing on developers for doing anything. I agree with you that I'd rather see developers make fewer FPS games and more of other stuff. It's interesting at the contrasting responses to those sorts of opinions:

Ivan: "I don't care for first person shooters that much. I'd rather see developers devote their resources to other sorts of projects."

Everybody else: "That's understandable. Different people have different tastes in games."

Ivan: "I don't care for motion control games. I'd rather see developers devote their resources to other sorts of projects."

Everybody else: "ZOMG Kinect is awesome and you'll see when they finally make that great game for it and 343 is still making Halo so quit being a Luddite!!!1!"

I wonder why the first statement is universally understood as just a simple statement about personal preferences while people get all touchy about the second.

Because that's not what you said?

Ivan: It would be nice if they made fewer FPS games.

vs.

Ivan: Kinect is an active negative selling point that is a major dreg on the video game world. I would literally pay more money for them to get rid of its existence entirely. It needs to die.

I'm pretty sure if you said that FPS were a major negative selling point for a console and they needed to eliminate FPS games entirely, you would have gotten a similar reaction.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

II hate 1st person shooters but you don't see me railing on developers for making those games do you? There's plenty of room for all types of games.

I'm not railing on developers for doing anything. I agree with you that I'd rather see developers make fewer FPS games and more of other stuff. It's interesting at the contrasting responses to those sorts of opinions:

Ivan: "I don't care for first person shooters that much. I'd rather see developers devote their resources to other sorts of projects."

Everybody else: "That's understandable. Different people have different tastes in games."

Ivan: "I don't care for motion control games. I'd rather see developers devote their resources to other sorts of projects."

Everybody else: "ZOMG Kinect is awesome and you'll see when they finally make that great game for it and 343 is still making Halo so quit being a Luddite!!!1!"

I wonder why the first statement is universally understood as just a simple statement about personal preferences while people get all touchy about the second.

Because you didn't use them in the same context?

Ivan: It would be nice if they made fewer FPS games.

vs.

Ivan: Kinect is an active negative selling point that is a major dreg on the video game world. I would literally pay more money for them to get rid of its existence entirely. It needs to die.

If a console-maker was actively pushing developers to focus on first person shooters, that would be a reason for me not to buy that console. Nobody is doing that, which is why the context is different, but the sentiment is exactly the same.

Another genre of games that I've never gotten into is racing sims, like Forza or Grand Turismo. If a console came packaged with a driving wheel and the console maker marketed the driving wheel as a major selling point for the console and encouraged its developers to make games that used the driving wheel, I would suspect that the game library for that console might not be for me. Is that an unreasonable position? Or am I supposed to pretend that I really like racing sims after all?

 

[cstu]

II hate 1st person shooters but you don't see me railing on developers for making those games do you? There's plenty of room for all types of games.

I'm not railing on developers for doing anything. I agree with you that I'd rather see developers make fewer FPS games and more of other stuff. It's interesting at the contrasting responses to those sorts of opinions:

Ivan: "I don't care for first person shooters that much. I'd rather see developers devote their resources to other sorts of projects."

Everybody else: "That's understandable. Different people have different tastes in games."

Ivan: "I don't care for motion control games. I'd rather see developers devote their resources to other sorts of projects."

Everybody else: "ZOMG Kinect is awesome and you'll see when they finally make that great game for it and 343 is still making Halo so quit being a Luddite!!!1!"

I wonder why the first statement is universally understood as just a simple statement about personal preferences while people get all touchy about the second.

Ok, gotcha. I get where you're coming from with Kinect but I appreciate the attempt to innovate rather than just saying "here's your controller and the same retread games over and over".

 

[cstu]

II hate 1st person shooters but you don't see me railing on developers for making those games do you? There's plenty of room for all types of games.

I'm not railing on developers for doing anything. I agree with you that I'd rather see developers make fewer FPS games and more of other stuff. It's interesting at the contrasting responses to those sorts of opinions:

Ivan: "I don't care for first person shooters that much. I'd rather see developers devote their resources to other sorts of projects."

Everybody else: "That's understandable. Different people have different tastes in games."

Ivan: "I don't care for motion control games. I'd rather see developers devote their resources to other sorts of projects."

Everybody else: "ZOMG Kinect is awesome and you'll see when they finally make that great game for it and 343 is still making Halo so quit being a Luddite!!!1!"

I wonder why the first statement is universally understood as just a simple statement about personal preferences while people get all touchy about the second.

Because you didn't use them in the same context?

Ivan: It would be nice if they made fewer FPS games.

vs.

Ivan: Kinect is an active negative selling point that is a major dreg on the video game world. I would literally pay more money for them to get rid of its existence entirely. It needs to die.

If a console-maker was actively pushing developers to focus on first person shooters, that would be a reason for me not to buy that console. Nobody is doing that, which is why the context is different, but the sentiment is exactly the same.

Another genre of games that I've never gotten into is racing sims, like Forza or Grand Turismo. If a console came packaged with a driving wheel and the console maker marketed the driving wheel as a major selling point for the console and encouraged its developers to make games that used the driving wheel, I would suspect that the game library for that console might not be for me. Is that an unreasonable position? Or am I supposed to pretend that I really like racing sims after all?

It's perfectly reasonable but can you not imagine a single situation in which the Kinect would be beneficial to you in a game?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

If a console-maker was actively pushing developers to focus on first person shooters, that would be a reason for me not to buy that console. Nobody is doing that, which is why the context is different, but the sentiment is exactly the same.

Another genre of games that I've never gotten into is racing sims, like Forza or Grand Turismo. If a console came packaged with a driving wheel and the console maker marketed the driving wheel as a major selling point for the console and encouraged its developers to make games that used the driving wheel, I would suspect that the game library for that console might not be for me. Is that an unreasonable position? Or am I supposed to pretend that I really like racing sims after all?

Eh, stuff like XBL and online gaming in general clearly caters to FPS games more than other genres, and MS pushed that last gen even harder than they're pushing Kinect now. People called the 360 the shooter box and MS definitely pushed the console in that direction.

 

[jwb]

II hate 1st person shooters but you don't see me railing on developers for making those games do you? There's plenty of room for all types of games.

I'm not railing on developers for doing anything. I agree with you that I'd rather see developers make fewer FPS games and more of other stuff. It's interesting at the contrasting responses to those sorts of opinions:

Ivan: "I don't care for first person shooters that much. I'd rather see developers devote their resources to other sorts of projects."

Everybody else: "That's understandable. Different people have different tastes in games."

Ivan: "I don't care for motion control games. I'd rather see developers devote their resources to other sorts of projects."

Everybody else: "ZOMG Kinect is awesome and you'll see when they finally make that great game for it and 343 is still making Halo so quit being a Luddite!!!1!"

I wonder why the first statement is universally understood as just a simple statement about personal preferences while people get all touchy about the second.

Because you didn't use them in the same context?

Ivan: It would be nice if they made fewer FPS games.

vs.

Ivan: Kinect is an active negative selling point that is a major dreg on the video game world. I would literally pay more money for them to get rid of its existence entirely. It needs to die.

If a console-maker was actively pushing developers to focus on first person shooters, that would be a reason for me not to buy that console. Nobody is doing that, which is why the context is different, but the sentiment is exactly the same.

Another genre of games that I've never gotten into is racing sims, like Forza or Grand Turismo. If a console came packaged with a driving wheel and the console maker marketed the driving wheel as a major selling point for the console and encouraged its developers to make games that used the driving wheel, I would suspect that the game library for that console might not be for me. Is that an unreasonable position? Or am I supposed to pretend that I really like racing sims after all?

It's perfectly reasonable but can you not imagine a single situation in which the Kinect would be beneficial to you in a game?

That's prettymuch it.

The attitude seems to be "Past Kinect games were awful, so they will always be awful, and motion has zero potential". That's pretty limited thinking.

I would agree that the gimmick-type things we've seen shoved into "hardcore" games have been pretty bad, but give it time. All it's going to take is one game coming out with a great use for it, and that'll be that.

I would love to see them somehow incorporate voice commands and gestures without it being stupid... Like perhaps play Skyrim and have the option to say "sneak" instead of mapping it to one of the sticks (which is very annoying) - that would be great. Or map a spell (say, bound sword) to snapping your fingers? I could see that being very useful. How about winking one eye to shoot a spell? If it worked, that would be very cool, wouldn't it?

The key is going to be to incorporate it into games to make them easier and more fun. Not "hey, let's have a game where you really swing a sword"... we already know that's not going to work for us gamers. But you naysayers seem to limit your thought process to just that - this has so much more potential to actually be useful.

 

[Slapdash]

Or map a spell (say, bound sword) to snapping your fingers? I could see that being very useful. How about winking one eye to shoot a spell? If it worked, that would be very cool, wouldn't it?

Wow, this sounds like the complete opposite of very cool.

 

[jwb]

Or map a spell (say, bound sword) to snapping your fingers? I could see that being very useful. How about winking one eye to shoot a spell? If it worked, that would be very cool, wouldn't it?

Wow, this sounds like the complete opposite of very cool.

Ok.

I disagree (although maybe my examples are bad) - I just think using Kinect to perhaps map certain things opens up all kinds of options.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

If I can walk into a room and say "Xbox On. Play The Walking Dead on Netflix" and be done with it then that alone is worth 100 bucks to me.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It's perfectly reasonable but can you not imagine a single situation in which the Kinect would be beneficial to you in a game?

Somebody above mentioned that they liked being able to use voice commands in Mass Effect. That doesn't fit with my normal approach to that kind of game -- I tend to turn it into a turn-based game by constantly freezing the action and meticulously working out every volley of Incinerate -- but I could see playing it with voice commands as a change of pace.

Honestly though, most of the uses that people are suggesting in this thread -- a boxing game, a golf game, winking to cast a spell -- are things I would never buy or use. That's just me.

 

[Jobber]

Or map a spell (say, bound sword) to snapping your fingers? I could see that being very useful. How about winking one eye to shoot a spell? If it worked, that would be very cool, wouldn't it?

Wow, this sounds like the complete opposite of very cool.

Ok.

I disagree (although maybe my examples are bad) - I just think using Kinect to perhaps map certain things opens up all kinds of options.

I hear ya. Skyrim is a good example. Where normally, I'd have to go into my menu, over to spells, change from Heal to Ice Spike, then unpause. I'd love to just skip all that crap and say "Ice Spike".

 

[Slapdash]

Or map a spell (say, bound sword) to snapping your fingers? I could see that being very useful. How about winking one eye to shoot a spell? If it worked, that would be very cool, wouldn't it?

Wow, this sounds like the complete opposite of very cool.

Ok.

I disagree (although maybe my examples are bad) - I just think using Kinect to perhaps map certain things opens up all kinds of options.

I think you can have a valid point with voice commands although those have never worked out well for me in games or on my phone. Gestures and winking is rather silly imo.

I still think this stuff should be an option and not required though.

 

[Worm]

Or map a spell (say, bound sword) to snapping your fingers? I could see that being very useful. How about winking one eye to shoot a spell? If it worked, that would be very cool, wouldn't it?

Wow, this sounds like the complete opposite of very cool.

Ok.

I disagree (although maybe my examples are bad) - I just think using Kinect to perhaps map certain things opens up all kinds of options.

I think you can have a valid point with voice commands although those have never worked out well for me in games or on my phone. Gestures and winking is rather silly imo.

I still think this stuff should be an option and not required though.

Which it always is in any serious game.

 

[Slapdash]

Or map a spell (say, bound sword) to snapping your fingers? I could see that being very useful. How about winking one eye to shoot a spell? If it worked, that would be very cool, wouldn't it?

Wow, this sounds like the complete opposite of very cool.

Ok.

I disagree (although maybe my examples are bad) - I just think using Kinect to perhaps map certain things opens up all kinds of options.

I think you can have a valid point with voice commands although those have never worked out well for me in games or on my phone. Gestures and winking is rather silly imo.

I still think this stuff should be an option and not required though.

Which it always is in any serious game.

There may be an option to use it, but not to have it.

 

[Insein]

The argument against kinetic sounds very "get off my lawn" to me.

The argument for me is the movement. Its a nice gimmick. Look at me. I'm swinging my arm and my guy swings his sword that's awesome. Until the 400th time you done it and your arm is ready to fall off.

Kinect is always going to be limited by the users physical ability. Video games for the vast majority of their history have never been about physical ability. It was usually the nerdy kids that sucked at sports that were the best at video games. They could enjoy an escape from reality by taking a character that they would have no chance to be in real life and controlling his actions.

So kinect games will always be limited to short, gimmick laden games that offer bursts of entertainment in 15 to 60 minute increments depending on how quickly a user gets tired. You'll never see a Skyrim or Fallout utilize the kinect because no one would ever beat the game. Even sports games that have tried to implement the motion get old after a couple swings. Someone may come along and find a way to use the kinect in a seamless fashion but I doubt it will be for any kind of traditional grand adventure that most want from their games.

 

[cstu]

Or map a spell (say, bound sword) to snapping your fingers? I could see that being very useful. How about winking one eye to shoot a spell? If it worked, that would be very cool, wouldn't it?

Wow, this sounds like the complete opposite of very cool.

Ok.

I disagree (although maybe my examples are bad) - I just think using Kinect to perhaps map certain things opens up all kinds of options.

If it was something like mapping a command to touching your ear I think that would be cool...er, useful. I detest going through a series of menus just to do something common in a game.

 

[Insein]

One thing not talked about much is the SmartGlass technology. One thing I hate is having to pull up a menu to see a map or my inventory - being able to have that always available next to me on a tablet would be a huge improvement.

Hows that different from sitting there with your laptop or tablet and having gamefaqs open?

 

[cstu]

The argument against kinetic sounds very "get off my lawn" to me.

The argument for me is the movement. Its a nice gimmick. Look at me. I'm swinging my arm and my guy swings his sword that's awesome. Until the 400th time you done it and your arm is ready to fall off.

Kinect is always going to be limited by the users physical ability. Video games for the vast majority of their history have never been about physical ability. It was usually the nerdy kids that sucked at sports that were the best at video games. They could enjoy an escape from reality by taking a character that they would have no chance to be in real life and controlling his actions.

So kinect games will always be limited to short, gimmick laden games that offer bursts of entertainment in 15 to 60 minute increments depending on how quickly a user gets tired. You'll never see a Skyrim or Fallout utilize the kinect because no one would ever beat the game. Even sports games that have tried to implement the motion get old after a couple swings. Someone may come along and find a way to use the kinect in a seamless fashion but I doubt it will be for any kind of traditional grand adventure that most want from their games.

We're talking two different things here - full Kinect-based games vs. traditional games which take advantage of the technology to make the game more enjoyable (if you decide to use it). I don't have much use for the former but there are games I think would be fun to play using it (boxing as I mentioned earlier).

 

[cstu]

One thing not talked about much is the SmartGlass technology. One thing I hate is having to pull up a menu to see a map or my inventory - being able to have that always available next to me on a tablet would be a huge improvement.

Hows that different from sitting there with your laptop or tablet and having gamefaqs open?

The tablet will show exactly what is happening in the game - for example if you have the map screen up it will show you where you are as you are moving.

If you want to change weapons, you have the inventory screen up and touch the weapon you want to change to.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

One thing not talked about much is the SmartGlass technology. One thing I hate is having to pull up a menu to see a map or my inventory - being able to have that always available next to me on a tablet would be a huge improvement.

Hows that different from sitting there with your laptop or tablet and having gamefaqs open?

The tablet will show exactly what happening in the game - for example if you have the map screen up it will show you where you are as you are moving.

As much as I've been bashing on Kinect, I can absolutely see cool uses for smartglass -- having it stand in as an in-game map or inventory are pretty obvious ones that seem like neat additions to a game.

 

[Insein]

One thing not talked about much is the SmartGlass technology. One thing I hate is having to pull up a menu to see a map or my inventory - being able to have that always available next to me on a tablet would be a huge improvement.

Hows that different from sitting there with your laptop or tablet and having gamefaqs open?

The tablet will show exactly what is happening in the game - for example if you have the map screen up it will show you where you are as you are moving.

If you want to change weapons, you have the inventory screen up and touch the weapon you want to change to.

Still have to pause to look down at it.Inventory management in real time would be cool. If they can pull it off.

 

[NCCommish]

The argument against kinetic sounds very "get off my lawn" to me.

The argument for me is the movement. Its a nice gimmick. Look at me. I'm swinging my arm and my guy swings his sword that's awesome. Until the 400th time you done it and your arm is ready to fall off.

Kinect is always going to be limited by the users physical ability. Video games for the vast majority of their history have never been about physical ability. It was usually the nerdy kids that sucked at sports that were the best at video games. They could enjoy an escape from reality by taking a character that they would have no chance to be in real life and controlling his actions.

So kinect games will always be limited to short, gimmick laden games that offer bursts of entertainment in 15 to 60 minute increments depending on how quickly a user gets tired. You'll never see a Skyrim or Fallout utilize the kinect because no one would ever beat the game. Even sports games that have tried to implement the motion get old after a couple swings. Someone may come along and find a way to use the kinect in a seamless fashion but I doubt it will be for any kind of traditional grand adventure that most want from their games.

Perhaps. But we don't really know that.

Microsoft > Ditch Kinect and get his working asap.

That looks really cool.

uh oh it might divert dev resources from GTA 6

I'd like to see resources go into this sort of thing.

Want to bet the kinect is the base hardware to run it?

Did you watch the video in the link? They stated explicitly that they use Kinect as the camera to detect the furniture in the room. That's actually a cool use for it.

Well guess what? if you don't have it out there on every XB1 it won't get developed.

 

[NCCommish]

OK so I am not sure how I did that but I am going to let it stand.

I will complete my thought though. It seems to me there are an awful lot of ways you could work kinect into a game where it didn't wear someone out.

 

[Statcruncher]

That illumiroom looks pretty cool but 2 things concern me. First, IMO it was kinda distracting. Second, aren't we getting to the point where TV's are becoming large enough/too large already?

 

[jwb]

The argument against kinetic sounds very "get off my lawn" to me.

The argument for me is the movement. Its a nice gimmick. Look at me. I'm swinging my arm and my guy swings his sword that's awesome. Until the 400th time you done it and your arm is ready to fall off.

Kinect is always going to be limited by the users physical ability. Video games for the vast majority of their history have never been about physical ability. It was usually the nerdy kids that sucked at sports that were the best at video games. They could enjoy an escape from reality by taking a character that they would have no chance to be in real life and controlling his actions.

So kinect games will always be limited to short, gimmick laden games that offer bursts of entertainment in 15 to 60 minute increments depending on how quickly a user gets tired. You'll never see a Skyrim or Fallout utilize the kinect because no one would ever beat the game. Even sports games that have tried to implement the motion get old after a couple swings. Someone may come along and find a way to use the kinect in a seamless fashion but I doubt it will be for any kind of traditional grand adventure that most want from their games.

I don't think you'll find any gamers here to disagree with this. That has already proven to be a terrible implementation of it. We know this, and I definitely think developers got the memo as well. Let's move on from the argument that we don't want to jump around the room - we're all in agreement there.

 

[Slapdash]

That illumiroom looks pretty cool but 2 things concern me. First, IMO it was kinda distracting. Second, aren't we getting to the point where TV's are becoming large enough/too large already?

Not a fan of that one either. Not sure what is wrong with the screen + controller model. Seems like it is time to build a new PC.

/getoffofmylawn

 

[larry_boy_44]

One thing not talked about much is the SmartGlass technology. One thing I hate is having to pull up a menu to see a map or my inventory - being able to have that always available next to me on a tablet would be a huge improvement.

Hows that different from sitting there with your laptop or tablet and having gamefaqs open?

The tablet will show exactly what is happening in the game - for example if you have the map screen up it will show you where you are as you are moving.

If you want to change weapons, you have the inventory screen up and touch the weapon you want to change to.

Still have to pause to look down at it.Inventory management in real time would be cool. If they can pull it off.

I'm sure Smart Glass will pull it off, the WiiU already does it with the Game Pad.

 

[Jobber]

One thing not talked about much is the SmartGlass technology. One thing I hate is having to pull up a menu to see a map or my inventory - being able to have that always available next to me on a tablet would be a huge improvement.

Hows that different from sitting there with your laptop or tablet and having gamefaqs open?

The tablet will show exactly what is happening in the game - for example if you have the map screen up it will show you where you are as you are moving.

If you want to change weapons, you have the inventory screen up and touch the weapon you want to change to.

Still have to pause to look down at it.Inventory management in real time would be cool. If they can pull it off.

I'm sure Smart Glass will pull it off, the WiiU already does it with the Game Pad.

Sony's demo of a game (I forget which one, but a multiplatform) had a guy with a tablet controlling a drone and targeting bad guys or some such. So basically you play, and you could make your wife call in airstrikes from her iPad. All from the kitchen, of course.

 

[Pots]

Second, aren't we getting to the point where TV's are becoming large enough/too large already?

Blasphemy!

 

[belljr]

lost in allof this is the optishot i oosted for the golf nerds

 

[larry_boy_44]

One thing not talked about much is the SmartGlass technology. One thing I hate is having to pull up a menu to see a map or my inventory - being able to have that always available next to me on a tablet would be a huge improvement.

Hows that different from sitting there with your laptop or tablet and having gamefaqs open?

The tablet will show exactly what is happening in the game - for example if you have the map screen up it will show you where you are as you are moving.

If you want to change weapons, you have the inventory screen up and touch the weapon you want to change to.

Still have to pause to look down at it.Inventory management in real time would be cool. If they can pull it off.

I'm sure Smart Glass will pull it off, the WiiU already does it with the Game Pad.

Sony's demo of a game (I forget which one, but a multiplatform) had a guy with a tablet controlling a drone and targeting bad guys or some such. So basically you play, and you could make your wife call in airstrikes from her iPad. All from the kitchen, of course.

Everything I read said that Sony was all in on Vita+PS4, not tablets... Microsoft was big on tablets.

But, yeah, that's the thinking and exactly what Nintendo is doing with WiiU and asynchronous gaming. They just packed it in with the system to make it easier to develop for since everyone has it (same issue that Kinect has)

 

[Jobber]

One thing not talked about much is the SmartGlass technology. One thing I hate is having to pull up a menu to see a map or my inventory - being able to have that always available next to me on a tablet would be a huge improvement.

Hows that different from sitting there with your laptop or tablet and having gamefaqs open?

The tablet will show exactly what is happening in the game - for example if you have the map screen up it will show you where you are as you are moving.

If you want to change weapons, you have the inventory screen up and touch the weapon you want to change to.

Still have to pause to look down at it.Inventory management in real time would be cool. If they can pull it off.

I'm sure Smart Glass will pull it off, the WiiU already does it with the Game Pad.

Sony's demo of a game (I forget which one, but a multiplatform) had a guy with a tablet controlling a drone and targeting bad guys or some such. So basically you play, and you could make your wife call in airstrikes from her iPad. All from the kitchen, of course.

Everything I read said that Sony was all in on Vita+PS4, not tablets... Microsoft was big on tablets.

But, yeah, that's the thinking and exactly what Nintendo is doing with WiiU and asynchronous gaming. They just packed it in with the system to make it easier to develop for since everyone has it (same issue that Kinect has)

If that's true regarding needing a Vita for this capability...oof.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The argument against kinetic sounds very "get off my lawn" to me.

The argument for me is the movement. Its a nice gimmick. Look at me. I'm swinging my arm and my guy swings his sword that's awesome. Until the 400th time you done it and your arm is ready to fall off.

Kinect is always going to be limited by the users physical ability. Video games for the vast majority of their history have never been about physical ability. It was usually the nerdy kids that sucked at sports that were the best at video games. They could enjoy an escape from reality by taking a character that they would have no chance to be in real life and controlling his actions.

So kinect games will always be limited to short, gimmick laden games that offer bursts of entertainment in 15 to 60 minute increments depending on how quickly a user gets tired. You'll never see a Skyrim or Fallout utilize the kinect because no one would ever beat the game. Even sports games that have tried to implement the motion get old after a couple swings. Someone may come along and find a way to use the kinect in a seamless fashion but I doubt it will be for any kind of traditional grand adventure that most want from their games.

Perhaps. But we don't really know that.

Microsoft > Ditch Kinect and get his working asap.

That looks really cool.

uh oh it might divert dev resources from GTA 6

I'd like to see resources go into this sort of thing.

Want to bet the kinect is the base hardware to run it?

Did you watch the video in the link? They stated explicitly that they use Kinect as the camera to detect the furniture in the room. That's actually a cool use for it.

Well guess what? if you don't have it out there on every XB1 it won't get developed.

I don't think you can use the Kinect in the XB1 to do Illumiroom. The camera needs to be facing your television, which is the opposite of how people are going to have their XB1 configured. You'll still need some kind of additional peripheral to run this. (That doesn't change the fact that it's still pretty cool, just that the install base of Kinect doesn't necessarily make this viable commercially).

 

[Statcruncher]

lost in allof this is the optishot i oosted for the golf nerds

That was an interesting link, but in my quick perusal of the site it appears limited in that:

* It requires a PC

* It only captures a snapshot of the club face just before impact and another just after impact

* You have to strike off their sensor pad which only measures the club, not the ball

* It doesn't account for ball rotation (topspin/backspin) so it can't generate a realistic flight path or distance

It's a neat product, but the sophistication of the Kinect would allow for a much better program. The Kinect is an actual tracking device which would be able to continuously track the complete golfer's swingpath and followthrough as well as the ball simultaneuously. Also the Kinect has the ability to track the user's heartrate/pulse. Imagine playing a game and getting up on the 17th tee at Pebble Beach tied for the lead and watching your pulse skyrocket.

 

[SlaX]

Microsoft could easily go hybrid and still implement their original concept. All they have to do is have "secure" systems and "open" systems.

Secure - Everything is as MS originally planned, you must ping every 24 hours and no physical disk is required. Each of your friends that you share installed games with must also be secure. If you fail to ping you automatically revert to open and every installed game requires a disk until you ping again.

Open - No ping requirement but you must have a physical disk in the tray to play a game and your friends cannot share your installed games.

I suggested this method earlier in the week. If you planned on being away and with no connection, you take your disc with you. When the XB1 tried to make the 24-hour ping and doesn't find a network, it tries the disc as a secondary route. As long as the disc is there, the game can be played. On the other hand, when the 24-hour ping fails, Xbox Live locks out the library from the other features until the connection can be made again.

I do think that there was likely a middle ground somewhere. I'm not saying my method was the best, but there had to be something. It sucks that they had to give up everything to give back one thing that the majority asked for.

 

[cstu]

Microsoft could easily go hybrid and still implement their original concept. All they have to do is have "secure" systems and "open" systems.

Secure - Everything is as MS originally planned, you must ping every 24 hours and no physical disk is required. Each of your friends that you share installed games with must also be secure. If you fail to ping you automatically revert to open and every installed game requires a disk until you ping again.

Open - No ping requirement but you must have a physical disk in the tray to play a game and your friends cannot share your installed games.

I suggested this method earlier in the week. If you planned on being away and with no connection, you take your disc with you. When the XB1 tried to make the 24-hour ping and doesn't find a network, it tries the disc as a secondary route. As long as the disc is there, the game can be played. On the other hand, when the 24-hour ping fails, Xbox Live locks out the library from the other features until the connection can be made again.

I do think that there was likely a middle ground somewhere. I'm not saying my method was the best, but there had to be something. It sucks that they had to give up everything to give back one thing that the majority asked for.

How is it going to work now - will you need the disc in the drive to play it if you are online?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Microsoft could easily go hybrid and still implement their original concept. All they have to do is have "secure" systems and "open" systems.

Secure - Everything is as MS originally planned, you must ping every 24 hours and no physical disk is required. Each of your friends that you share installed games with must also be secure. If you fail to ping you automatically revert to open and every installed game requires a disk until you ping again.

Open - No ping requirement but you must have a physical disk in the tray to play a game and your friends cannot share your installed games.

I suggested this method earlier in the week. If you planned on being away and with no connection, you take your disc with you. When the XB1 tried to make the 24-hour ping and doesn't find a network, it tries the disc as a secondary route. As long as the disc is there, the game can be played. On the other hand, when the 24-hour ping fails, Xbox Live locks out the library from the other features until the connection can be made again.

I do think that there was likely a middle ground somewhere. I'm not saying my method was the best, but there had to be something. It sucks that they had to give up everything to give back one thing that the majority asked for.

How is it going to work now - will you need the disc in the drive to play it if you are online?

Yes. You always need the disc if you bought the disc version of the game.

 

[SlaX]

One thing not talked about much is the SmartGlass technology. One thing I hate is having to pull up a menu to see a map or my inventory - being able to have that always available next to me on a tablet would be a huge improvement.

Hows that different from sitting there with your laptop or tablet and having gamefaqs open?

The tablet will show exactly what is happening in the game - for example if you have the map screen up it will show you where you are as you are moving.

If you want to change weapons, you have the inventory screen up and touch the weapon you want to change to.

Still have to pause to look down at it.Inventory management in real time would be cool. If they can pull it off.

I'm sure Smart Glass will pull it off, the WiiU already does it with the Game Pad.

Sony's demo of a game (I forget which one, but a multiplatform) had a guy with a tablet controlling a drone and targeting bad guys or some such. So basically you play, and you could make your wife call in airstrikes from her iPad. All from the kitchen, of course.

Everything I read said that Sony was all in on Vita+PS4, not tablets... Microsoft was big on tablets.

But, yeah, that's the thinking and exactly what Nintendo is doing with WiiU and asynchronous gaming. They just packed it in with the system to make it easier to develop for since everyone has it (same issue that Kinect has)

If that's true regarding needing a Vita for this capability...oof.

Not only does the PS4 use the Vita for this stuff. The Vita is supposed to allow you to play all PS4 games on the go. Can't do that on Smartglass.

 

[SlaX]

Microsoft could easily go hybrid and still implement their original concept. All they have to do is have "secure" systems and "open" systems.

Secure - Everything is as MS originally planned, you must ping every 24 hours and no physical disk is required. Each of your friends that you share installed games with must also be secure. If you fail to ping you automatically revert to open and every installed game requires a disk until you ping again.

Open - No ping requirement but you must have a physical disk in the tray to play a game and your friends cannot share your installed games.

I suggested this method earlier in the week. If you planned on being away and with no connection, you take your disc with you. When the XB1 tried to make the 24-hour ping and doesn't find a network, it tries the disc as a secondary route. As long as the disc is there, the game can be played. On the other hand, when the 24-hour ping fails, Xbox Live locks out the library from the other features until the connection can be made again.

I do think that there was likely a middle ground somewhere. I'm not saying my method was the best, but there had to be something. It sucks that they had to give up everything to give back one thing that the majority asked for.

How is it going to work now - will you need the disc in the drive to play it if you are online?

No. This is going back to the pre-180 announcement. Back when the Xbox One required a 24-hour ping and everything was tied to your library, family list, etc.

The disc part was my suggestion for getting around the ping when you're somewhere without the internet. Unfortunately, this is all moot now. And yes, you now have to use the disc just like today's consoles.

 

[Worm]

I agree that we're headed fully digital sometime soon (single digit years). What can Microsoft or Sony due to entice people to buy digital instead of hard copy? There is no benefit if they are the same.

$10 cheaper?

Bonus content?

 

[Jobber]

One thing not talked about much is the SmartGlass technology. One thing I hate is having to pull up a menu to see a map or my inventory - being able to have that always available next to me on a tablet would be a huge improvement.

Hows that different from sitting there with your laptop or tablet and having gamefaqs open?

The tablet will show exactly what is happening in the game - for example if you have the map screen up it will show you where you are as you are moving.

If you want to change weapons, you have the inventory screen up and touch the weapon you want to change to.

Still have to pause to look down at it.Inventory management in real time would be cool. If they can pull it off.

I'm sure Smart Glass will pull it off, the WiiU already does it with the Game Pad.

Sony's demo of a game (I forget which one, but a multiplatform) had a guy with a tablet controlling a drone and targeting bad guys or some such. So basically you play, and you could make your wife call in airstrikes from her iPad. All from the kitchen, of course.

Everything I read said that Sony was all in on Vita+PS4, not tablets... Microsoft was big on tablets.

But, yeah, that's the thinking and exactly what Nintendo is doing with WiiU and asynchronous gaming. They just packed it in with the system to make it easier to develop for since everyone has it (same issue that Kinect has)

If that's true regarding needing a Vita for this capability...oof.

Not only does the PS4 use the Vita for this stuff. The Vita is supposed to allow you to play all PS4 games on the go. Can't do that on Smartglass.

True you can play PS4 games using the Vita. But then you have to buy a Vita, which I've heard kinda sucks - especially for $250. SmartGlass is free.

 

[NCCommish]

I agree that we're headed fully digital sometime soon (single digit years). What can Microsoft or Sony due to entice people to buy digital instead of hard copy? There is no benefit if they are the same.

$10 cheaper?

Bonus content?

We won't go fully digital for some time. High speed internet penetration is still to low for that. But if we take that out of the equation then certainly cheaper prices should be the outcome. There is no transportation. There is no packaging. There is no disc. That should cut costs and that should be passed on to the consumer.

 

[SlaX]

One thing not talked about much is the SmartGlass technology. One thing I hate is having to pull up a menu to see a map or my inventory - being able to have that always available next to me on a tablet would be a huge improvement.

Hows that different from sitting there with your laptop or tablet and having gamefaqs open?

The tablet will show exactly what is happening in the game - for example if you have the map screen up it will show you where you are as you are moving.

If you want to change weapons, you have the inventory screen up and touch the weapon you want to change to.

Still have to pause to look down at it.Inventory management in real time would be cool. If they can pull it off.

I'm sure Smart Glass will pull it off, the WiiU already does it with the Game Pad.

Sony's demo of a game (I forget which one, but a multiplatform) had a guy with a tablet controlling a drone and targeting bad guys or some such. So basically you play, and you could make your wife call in airstrikes from her iPad. All from the kitchen, of course.

Everything I read said that Sony was all in on Vita+PS4, not tablets... Microsoft was big on tablets.

But, yeah, that's the thinking and exactly what Nintendo is doing with WiiU and asynchronous gaming. They just packed it in with the system to make it easier to develop for since everyone has it (same issue that Kinect has)

If that's true regarding needing a Vita for this capability...oof.

Not only does the PS4 use the Vita for this stuff. The Vita is supposed to allow you to play all PS4 games on the go. Can't do that on Smartglass.

True you can play PS4 games using the Vita. But then you have to buy a Vita, which I've heard kinda sucks - especially for $250. SmartGlass is free.

Smartglass isn't free. You're assuming you already own a smart phone or tablet. Also, I still haven't heard anyone from Microsoft say that Smartglass works from an Android device. However, I'm sure it will, if it doesn't already.

Oh, and besides being expensive, a Vita is far from "sucks".

 

[Worm]

It does work from android. And a LARGE majority of people who buy a $500 console will already have a tablet or smartphone. So yeah, pretty much free.

 

[SlaX]

It does work from android. And a LARGE majority of people who buy a $500 console will already have a tablet or smartphone. So yeah, pretty much free.

Ok, so I concede on the "free" thing (although it's totally not true). So, the Smartglass is still just a glorified map.

 

[Insein]

It does work from android. And a LARGE majority of people who buy a $500 console will already have a tablet or smartphone. So yeah, pretty much free.

Well I already have a house with an outlet. So that's free too.

Not everyone has a smartphone or tablet.

 

[Jobber]

It does work from android. And a LARGE majority of people who buy a $500 console will already have a tablet or smartphone. So yeah, pretty much free.

Well I already have a house with an outlet. So that's free too.

Not everyone has a smartphone or tablet.

How many gamers, let alone next gen console owners, do you think are without at tablet or smartphone? I don't think this is even a debate.