Poll: Will Sony or Microsoft abandon gimmicks first?

[Andy Shandy]

If, and this is a big if, either of them were to drop them, I think it'd be more likely for Sony to abandon it.

Kinect, as Microsoft will happily tell people, has been shown to have a variety of uses outside of gaming. The Wiimote with a ball on the end Move that Sony 'made', not so much.

 

[Genocidicles]

Sure, the Kinect was a disaster, but at least 99% of games for the system didn't rely on you to own one. You could still play the majority of the games you played the way you wanted to without it.

Yeah, but how long will that last into next-gen when every Xbox comes with a Kinect?

 

[Evil Top Hat]

Gimmicks don't change, they evolve.

Why? Because they sell. If it isn't motion controls today, it'll be touch pads tomorrow, or giant TV screen stylo pens the next day, or playstations that double as George Foreman grills the day after that.

We live in capitalism my friend. They will sell stupid shit, and people will buy stupid shit.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Yeah 3D is just a gimmick, son we'll get back to 2D gaming where the real money is...wait no that's not right. Two analog sticks is a gimmick that's just... now wait that doesn't work. Motion controls... no the Wii outsold its competitors even with somewhat crummy controls... ugh... darn that stereoscopic gaming?

Something is only a gimmick if it doesn't become widely used, otherwise its an innovation. New ideas don't come with a big sign saying this is good or this is bad, they have to be tried to see if they work. Saying you hate gimmicks is just short of saying you hate anything new because every new thing starts out as a gimmick. Sound in movies, as well as color, was a gimmick. The mouse was a gimmick, GUIs were a gimmick (that supported Smalltalk and this weird future where the common man had computers), for all the talk about how bad Kinetic might have been some very interesting ideas came out of the mod community to use it, touchpads are become ubiquitous in the modern world and they are a gimmick (started in part by Star Trek which also started the cell phone gimmick). I don't want to see less gimmicks, I want to see better gimmicks that are more likely to become innovations.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I don't think either will outright discard their gimmicks.

Microsoft will be adamant in keeping their gimmick in the spotlight, while Sony will just sort of have it be there sitting in the corner. Kinda similar to the current generation, I wager.

 

[xPixelatedx]

How does the very existence of the Kinect or the Playstation Move make the PS3 and 360 any less "serious" than they were when they first came out?

Because when they first came out they were more or less trying to come off as the consoles that concentrate on making good games. While that was a great image, it certainly isn't sustainable with such garbage as the Move or Kinect attached to their name. The very existence of such things is an admittance they aren't here to focus on bringing us the great games, because they have expended resources to try and dangle keys in front of us for quick cash. A scheme which failed, but is clearly going to continue. This not only shows a great degree of incompetence at their management level, but also the fact that they have an extremely poor view of their consumer base.

If a company spends any resources to purposely go out and look like fools, fails and then tries again to look even worse, how am I supposed to trust them to deliver when and where it matters?

 

[Ashadowpie]

* sigh * i wish Microsoft, Sony And Nintendo would just drop the stupid gimmick garbage. that would be a joyous day to be a gamer.

 

[Lilani]

How does the very existence of the Kinect or the Playstation Move make the PS3 and 360 any less "serious" than they were when they first came out?

Because when they first came out they were more or less trying to come off as the consoles that concentrate on making good games. While that was a great image, it certainly isn't sustainable with such garbage as the Move or Kinect attached to their name. The very existence of such things is an admittance they aren't here to focus on bringing us the great games, because they have expended resources to try and dangle keys in front of us for quick cash. A scheme which failed, but is clearly going to continue. This not only shows a great degree of incompetence at their management level, but also the fact that they have an extremely poor view of their consumer base.

If a company spends any resources to purposely go out and look like fools, fails and then tries again to look even worse, how am I supposed to trust them to deliver when and where it matters?

First of all, Sony and Microsoft don't "make games." They make consoles. They might own a few titles, but the vast majority of what they do in the games industry is simply provide the things that games are played on. So what types of games are made for their consoles is entirely up to game developers and publishers, not Sony and Microsoft.

What Sony and Microsoft did by making the Kinect and Move is give those publishers and developers more options and more ways to market both games and their consoles. "Hardcore" titles were still being made, and on the 360 and PS3 were still much more successful than any of the Kinect or Move games. And do you know what that means? Hardcore titles will still continue to be made. Yes the Kinect and Move exist, but that didn't change anything about Mass Effect or Dead Space or Halo or Call of Duty, so what are you complaining about? Why are you so averse to the thought of people playing different kinds of games?

The kind of complaining you're doing here is akin to somebody whining about the existence of western movies because they're afraid it infringes upon the number of sci fi movies being made. Not everybody has to or should like what you do. The Kinect can be fun at parties, and while the Move didn't really take off that doesn't mean Sony should stop trying. The Kinect is basically a revamped Eyetoy--something that Sony had made for the PS2 a long time ago. The Kinect built upon and improved the idea of the eyetoy, and has been a valuable tool not only for game players, but for hackers who want to really break into the potential of 3D cameras. You should try looking up all of the cool things that have been done with the Kinect. There was a guy who made a shopping cart electronically follow somebody in a wheelchair using the Kinect's ability to ascertain and calculate shape and distance. Some people at my university made what amounts to an invisible instrument with the Kinect. They made a program that made certain tones depending on where it detected motion, and choreographed a dance that when performed would make a song that matched the dance. The Kinect has far transcended simply being an optional feature for a game console, it's the first reasonably accessible 3D camera and is rocking the world of interactive art and media.

And for your last question:

If a company spends any resources to purposely go out and look like fools, fails and then tries again to look even worse, how am I supposed to trust them to deliver when and where it matters?

Again, it's a totally optional feature. For fuck's sake, are Microsoft and Sony forcing you to go out and buy the Kinect or Move? If you think the PS3 and 360 have on their own been made lesser by the existence of these options, then the problem isn't them. It's you. That would be like me asking "If the sandwich shop puts mayonnaise on all of their sandwiches by default, how can I trust the quality of their meat or bread when I don't like mayonnaise!?!?!?!??!!!" If you don't like mayonnaise, then don't get it, and leave everybody alone who feels differently.

This is what I imagine every time I see arguments like this.


Stop whining about what doesn't have to affect you, and stop shitting on other people's parades just because you don't like the color of their floats.

 

[archabaddon]

We have two giants trying to paint themselves as semi-casual, a strategy that isn't working too well as most Move and Kinect games are considered the worse things these companies have ever produced.

According to whom?

"... sales of its revolutionary Kinect sensing device for the Xbox game console have hit more than 18 million just over a year since launch.

Popularity of the device has helped Microsoft XBox recently outsell Nintendo's Wii and Sony's PlayStation in the United States game console market."

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/09/microsoft-kinect-ces-keynote_n_1195735.html)

I think (in fact I'm almost sure) that you're letting personal bias take the place of fact. The fact is that, despite that many gamers think these things are "gimmicks", they make money. LOTS of money.

After all, the motion controllers on the Wii were just gimmicks, but it took MS and Sony a while to match and surpass Wii sales. It wasn't until years later, in fact, and partially because Nintendo had a pretty stagnant offering on new titles for over a year.

If Sony or MS took these things out of their consoles, they'd be left with what many in the industry consider a machine under-powered compared to a high-performance gaming PC. And if you have a console that doesn't satisfy casual players or hard-core gamers, or doesn't even attempt to offer innovation, you're left with a box that doesn't really appeal to many people (except for those looking fora BluRay player that can also play games) and won't sell very well.

 

[xPixelatedx]

According to whom?

...Pretty much every game reviewer? I have never even heard of a Kinect game being touted with any positive light. And yes, the Kinect itself seems to sell well enough, but few seem to like what can actually be done with it's original intent. Most who do enjoy it at all aren't even playing Kinect games, they are using it with home-brew projects. That's like me saying the Vita is a great console because it doubles as a mirror when it's screen is shut off.

If Sony or MS took these things out of their consoles, they'd be left with what many in the industry consider a machine under-powered compared to a high-performance gaming PC.

True, and that's what a console has always been, so I am not really seeing the point there. That's what the xbox and PS3 were before these things and they were doing just fine. Being an underpowered PC has never hurt console sales in the least; different audience for the most part.

 

[archabaddon]

...Pretty much every game reviewer?

The problem with inductive reasoning is that one counterexample disproves the argument. and I know, after brief internet searching, that there are reviewers that like Kinect games such as FIFA 12 and Dance Central. Yathzee and Jim Sterling aren't indicative of every reviewer. Even IGN isn't indicative of every reviewer. There are reviewers that cater to people who enjoy the Kinect. If you disregard complete abortions like Steel Battalion, most Kinect games have a fair ssample of ratings, both positive and negative, across a spectrum of reviewers.

But more relevant to the point: I personally don't even have an XBox 360, nor Kinnect. I have PS3 but I don't have Move. But there are plenty of people who are buying these things, reviewers be darned. As long as that's happening, console manufactures would be, well, stupid to not make them available. They print money.

If Sony or MS took these things out of their consoles, they'd be left with what many in the industry consider a machine under-powered compared to a high-performance gaming PC.

True, and that's what a console has always been, so I am not really seeing the point there. That's what the xbox and PS3 were before these things and they were doing just fine. Being an underpowered PC has never hurt console sales in the least; different audience for the most part.

[/quote]
That is a fair point; in fact, I just said that yesterday. Sometimes the casual or family gamer just wants a simple, self-enclosed, ready-to-roll system, as opposed to having to put cards into a motherboard, load an OS, and worry about drivers.

 

[lazyslothboy]

According to whom?

...Pretty much every game reviewer? I have never even heard of a Kinect game being touted with any positive light. And yes, the Kinect itself seems to sell well enough, but few seem to like what can actually be done with it's original intent. Most who do enjoy it at all aren't even playing Kinect games, they are using it with home-brew projects. That's like me saying the Vita is a great console because it doubles as a mirror when it's screen is shut off.

I can't agree with you at all here. I think the problem you have with the Kinect is that it doesn't target the "hardcore" gamer with any degree of success. And I'd be inclined to agree with that.

But, I feel you are underestimating its appeal as a family/casual device. For my family, this thing lets the whole family enjoy a video game. Example, my dad can't play halo 4 with any degree of success. He can't shoot and move at the same time, he falls for the hologram every time, the safest place to be in a gunfight with him is in front of him, etc. But with these dancing games, they are intuitive and they don't have to struggle with the controls. I can't overstate how awesome that is. Would I play a dancing game by myself? Not likely. But I can play it with my parents, which is just cool.

My parents also use it as part of their workout. The fitness stuff for it is great for figuring out how to position your body for workouts.

Then there is the games that are targeted towards younger kids. This one is going to be a bit of guesswork since I don't own these, but I feel that they are just as important to think about. Kinectimals and Once Upon a Monster are both pretty well reviewed, lauded for being immersive and in the case of the latter, an excellent teaching tool.

There is no doubt shovelware for the system. But the fact that these games exist mean that the Kinect is far from something that we should just discard and throw away. No, we need to let this thing flourish. Because if Microsoft shut down all the Kinects tommorrow, I couldn't play with the half the fun that I do with my family now. And that is something I wouldn't give up for the world.

 

[sniddy_v1legacy]

Social connectivity is a must people

Multi player a must

Motion controlled, voice activated, leg bangled activated....

Solid gameing, no no causal 'mum' market...as well, in fact mostly and family...and kids and oh everyone....

Sorry

 

[Christopher Fisher]

You people are fools!! Motion control, touchpads, and ball trackers are what next gen is REALLY about! NEW WAYS TO PLAY GAMES AND FUCK IT IF THAT NEW WAY IS HORRIBLY TEDIOUS AND MIGRAINE INDUCING!! IT'S THE FUTURE!!!!

 

[CrystalShadow]

None of them will.

All companies take a gamble on gimmicks, videogames or otherwise. Inventions wouldn't improve or diversify if they didn't.

What's concerning is when they force gimmicks onto us i.e. the Nintendo Wii.

Sure, the Kinect was a disaster, but at least 99% of games for the system didn't rely on you to own one. You could still play the majority of the games you played the way you wanted to without it.

I know what you're getting at, but the approach taken by the Wii exists for a reason.

The Kinect kind of unravels that reason a little bit, but remember that this was developed after the Wii.

The problem is, if you make an unusual feature 'optional' on a console, history up to that point has tended to show that it never gets used. (Because game developers don't want to risk doing something with an obscure peripheral, and gamers don't want to buy peripherals for which there are no decent games.)

For motion controls to actually stand any chance at all of being used in games, the console hardware (by the logic of that moment in time) would have to include it as a standard feature.

This guarantees that anyone owning the console has that feature, and thus lowers the risk for developers to making sure that anything they do with it is actually playable, rather than also having to worry about whether anyone actually owns the relevant peripheral.

(As a side note to this, notice that despite the huge effort in getting people to buy them, there aren't many motionplus games in existence; This is a symptom of the exact problem; Regardless of what motionplus could do to improve games, developers don't like to risk developing for something unless they know gamers actually own the nessesary hardware).

Now, I know what you're thinking right? If that's such a problem, why not make the use of these special controllers optional? That way people that have them get added benefits, but those that don't can still play the games.

Well, that sounds great until you realise that this means your game design is now constrained by whatever method has the weaker features.

Want to make a game feature that needs motion controls to work? Well, tough. You can't. Because you have to get your game to work even without them.

And guess what happens when you have features that only work for some people? By nessesity, they become something that cannot be important to gameplay.

Thus, they, by definition can never be anything more than a gimmick. And that's the price paid for making a feature 'optional' in a game. It will be relegated to the status of gimmick by default. Because the designers have no other choice.

 

[Terramax]

Sure, the Kinect was a disaster, but at least 99% of games for the system didn't rely on you to own one. You could still play the majority of the games you played the way you wanted to without it.

Yeah, but how long will that last into next-gen when every Xbox comes with a Kinect?

Considering the Kinect was an absolute failure, it's unlikely it will be anything more than an additional feature. Who knows, it might be significantly improved.

 

[J Tyran]

No option to vote neither, gimmicks are here to say. They have been part of gaming since forever and will probably be around for many years yet.

 

[Dead Seerius]

Like most others, I get the sad feeling neither will drop gimmicks for good.

That being said, if the Kinect and Move have taught Microsoft and Sony anything, it's that gimmicks alone won't sell (unless you're Dance Central), and you need quality behind the products you ship with motion control in mind.

I'm open to the concept of integrating motion controls and other innovations into the new systems - so long as they're fully functional and not forced. I'm ready to embrace the future, but godammit the future better work correctly.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

Sure, the Kinect was a disaster, but at least 99% of games for the system didn't rely on you to own one. You could still play the majority of the games you played the way you wanted to without it.

Yeah, but how long will that last into next-gen when every Xbox comes with a Kinect?

Considering the Kinect was an absolute failure, it's unlikely it will be anything more than an additional feature. Who knows, it might be significantly improved.

You must have a very different view of "Absolute Failure" then either myself or Microsoft. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinect] Now I agree that Kinect isn't meant for me, but it is meant for someone, and it is selling spectacularly to someone. So odds are the Nextbox is gonna have Kinect with it (I don't think Built in, but you never know).