Is Kinect really that innovative?

[Accountfailed]

if you did research you would find that Kinect uses far superior and different technology than the EyeToy. They are totally different and Kinect is far more advanced.

Please prove your statement. also, It's called an "Eyetoy" (or more recently just "Eye").

ah sorry, my typing error.

Well probably the most obvious point is that Kinect was released 7 year after eyetoy it does imply a technological improvement. It's all about the technology inside the systems. sure they both track your movement but inside the tech isn't the same.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cvBKgn7hd8
This video should explain it PERFECTLY.

It also explains the PSMove as well.

Thank you, it's bad writing to make a statement and not back it up with evidence ^_^

In my opinion, more advanced(a little, anyway, considering the Playstation Eye), but different? I disagree. the Eyetoy and the Kinect have (seriously) the same basic guts, one RGB camera, one multi array microphone with voice recognition capabilities and noise cancellation, and their respective depth solutions (src; wiki!). While it IS true that the Kinect is seven years more advanced than the Eyetoy. It borrows very heavily from the more advanced(than the Eyetoy, I mean)recent Eyetoy, the Playstation Eye, but the basic guts for all three peripherals are the same.

 

[C95J]

if you did research you would find that Kinect uses far superior and different technology than the EyeToy. They are totally different and Kinect is far more advanced.

Please prove your statement. also, It's called an "Eyetoy" (or more recently just "Eye").

ah sorry, my typing error.

Well probably the most obvious point is that Kinect was released 7 year after eyetoy it does imply a technological improvement. It's all about the technology inside the systems. sure they both track your movement but inside the tech isn't the same.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cvBKgn7hd8
This video should explain it PERFECTLY.

It also explains the PSMove as well.

Thank you, it's bad writing to make a statement and not back it up with evidence ^_^

In my opinion, more advanced(a little, anyway, considering the Playstation Eye), but different? I disagree. the Eyetoy and the Kinect have (seriously) the same basic guts, one RGB camera, one multi array microphone with voice recognition capabilities and noise cancellation, and their respective depth solutions (src; wiki!). While it IS true that the Kinect is seven years more advanced than the Eyetoy. It borrows very heavily from the more advanced(than the Eyetoy, I mean)recent Eyetoy, the Playstation Eye, but the basic guts for all three peripherals are the same.

post that as a comment to Blunty3000, he'll goes crazy at you

I recommend subscribing to him his videos are awesome.

 

[Fire1052]

In concept, the Move and Kinect are just copies of the Wii and Eyetoy, respectively. In technology, we know they're very different but that's not "innovative" since they're trying to achieve the exact same effect. It was a cool idea originally, but they couldn't really pull it off properly. Kinect and Move are both alright, but they're nothing new.

Improvement =/= Innovation.

 

[Nieroshai]

Two things:
1. While it is better than the eyetoy, it's the same thing with BONUSES!!! And it does detect via shadows, cuz you can't play while wearing black.
2. Molyneaux shouldnt have advertized it, because I seriously doubt Milo is a fully interactive AI.

 

[CountTom]

I honestly can't believe how many people seem to get off on the Kinect even though it's far outdated technology.

People go on an on comparing the EyeToy to the Kinect, and the fact is, yes the EyeToy came out first and did all the same things that the Kinect does. BUT that's not the fucking point, because we have the PS Eye now which is better than the EyeToy was and still is better than the Kinect which DOES THE EXACT SAME THING AS THE PS EYE, only the PS Eye DOES MORE. BOTTOM LINE.
So Microsoft can go on and on alienating HC gamers and they can keep going on and on saying how good the Kinect is for all anyone gives a damn, because we're all DESPERATELY waiting for the day MS resigns from the console gaming community. No one cares if you're JUST NOW coming out with something that everybody else came out with 7-3 years ago.
The Kinect does nothing different than the competition, and it would be hard for anyone to argue that it does anything more at all. And even more, it's underhanded to try and boast that the Kinect is anything new at all. New for MS maybe, but I'd expect nothing less from a company that has no respect for real gaming.
Is it just that the COD players want to put there hands somewhere else when they play their poor excuse for a game?

 

[Accountfailed]

if you did research you would find that Kinect uses far superior and different technology than the EyeToy. They are totally different and Kinect is far more advanced.

herp

derp

durr hurr a-durr

post that as a comment to Blunty3000, he'll goes crazy at you

I recommend subscribing to him his videos are awesome.

I am subscribed to him already <3, so I'm certain he will xD you should check out ashens ^_^

 

[C95J]

snip

ha, watched his "Vii" review, absolutely brilliant subbed to him now as well

 

[Accountfailed]

snip

ha, watched his "Vii" review, absolutely brilliant subbed to him now as well

new internet friend! ^_^

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

A consumer device that costs less than 200 USD that uses optics to determine the position of a complex moving object in 3 dimensional space and performs voice recognition services as well? I'd call that innovative just because no consumer device has put together a similar package.

The eye-toy comparison fails largely because it is, at best, capable of determining the position of a complex moving object in 2 dimensional space and does not perform any voice recognition service.

Does this innovation mean anything by virtue of being innovative? Nope. Just because it hasn't been done before is irrelevant when the device in question does nothing in and of itself. Without a useful application of the product, it is just a neat piece of technology. What I have yet to see out of Kinect, with the exception of Dance Central, is any application of the technology that couldn't have been achieved with a traditional controller. And even then, I'm certainly not going to pay 200 USD to play a game. I did that once with Steel Battalion and I vowed [/i]never again[/i].

 

[C95J]

snip

ha, watched his "Vii" review, absolutely brilliant subbed to him now as well

new internet friend! ^_^

Yay

 

[IamSofaKingRaw]

facepalm*

You initially said the Kinect had pretty much nothing in common with the eyetoy and I stated it did

This is what I typed in my previous comment

Wrong. You initially stated that the Kinect was ripping off the eyetoy.

Never said I didn't say that, all my posts were trying to support that point

I then answered that the Kinect was based on a completely different technology.

Umm, here's the first sentence of your first post.

Kinect doesn't really have much in common with the eyetoy.

How did I respond? By stating reasons why they are very similar to each other. By their technical capabilities and games. So yeah I don't know where I lied in there, you can read your own posts can't you?

We may liken your claim that Kinect is an upgraded eyetoy to a claim that DVDs are merely an upgraded version of VHS: Just because both things can do the same thing, doesn't mean one is a ripoff of the other.

LOL. Thats my point!!! Kinect is presented as a pioneer in controllerless gaming whereas I'm saying its merely an upgraded eyetoy. The DVD is an innovation of the VHS. A better version of its predecessor. Just like I'm saying the Kinect is a better version of its predecessor, the eyetoy. You said the eyetoy and Kinect had nothing in common remember?

And you did bring the move into the discussion, but you did not do it in any sensible way: You began, out of nothing, to make arguments against a claim I did not make, and that was not related to the discussion we were having. Frankly, it was confusing. I thought you were talking to someone else.

Why did I bring the Move into a argument over which motion based controller is copying another motion based controller? I honestly have no idea
/s

For the record: The reason people think of the Move as a Wii ripoff, is because its control peripherals look very similiar to the Wii's.

Kinect sorta looks like a bigger eyetoy : )

 

[Jonluw]

facepalm*Right back at you

You initially said the Kinect had pretty much nothing in common Technologically with the eyetoy and I stated it did

This is what I typed in my previous comment

Wrong. You initially stated that the Kinect was ripping off the eyetoy.

Never said I didn't say that, all my posts were trying to support that point

I then answered that the Kinect was based on a completely different technology.

Umm, here's the first sentence of your first post.

Kinect doesn't really have much in common with the eyetoy.

How did I respond? By stating reasons why they are very similar to each other. By their technical capabilities and games. So yeah I don't know where I lied in there, you can read your own posts can't you?You know, sentences should be read in the context they're presented. The entire point of my first post was that the Kinect didn't have much technologically in common with the eyetoy. Arguing, then, against my first sentence - that was merely a pretext to the rest of my post, where I went on to explain exactly what I meant by that first sentence - is completely meaningless, and is a move that does not belong in a civilized debate. Once again, as I said in my last post: I never claimed that the Kinect had any original games.

The reason I corrected you, was that the way you presented it in your last post, it gave a warped impression of the nature and progression of this debate:
You made it seem like I started off by claiming that the Kinect had nothing at all in common with the eyetoy. Whereas the case was actually that you started off by claiming that the Kinect's technology was merely a slightly upgraded version of that of the eyetoy. A claim that I then went on to explain was faulty, because the Kinect has pretty much nothing in common with the eyetoy, technologically.

Once again, sentences are supposed to be read in whatever context they're presented in. You can't draw out one sentence of my post and make arguments against that without taking into account what I said next.

We may liken your claim that Kinect is an upgraded eyetoy to a claim that DVDs are merely an upgraded version of VHS: Just because both things can do the same thing, doesn't mean one is a ripoff of the other.

LOL. Thats my point!!! Kinect is presented as a pioneer in controllerless gaming whereas I'm saying its merely an upgraded eyetoy. The DVD is an innovation of the VHS. A better version of its predecessor. Just like I'm saying the Kinect is a better version of its predecessor, the eyetoy. You said the eyetoy and Kinect had nothing in common remember?No, the DVD is not an innovation of the VHS, it is an innovation of the CD. VHS employs a radically different technology in order to show films. A technology the DVD isn't even tangentially related to. Just because two things can do the same thing, doesn't mean that one is ripping off the other. Kevlar isn't ripping off steel, just because they both stop bullets.

For the record: The reason people think of the Move as a Wii ripoff, is because its control peripherals look very similiar to the Wii's.

Kinect sorta looks like a bigger eyetoy : )

Yes, and as I said, there are literally thousands of other people claiming that the Kinect is an eyetoy ripoff.

 

[Nouw]

Kinect is far more advanced than the Eyetoy. Far more. Just like the Move being better than the Wii.

Kinect=Eyetoy+++
Move=Wii+++