So, I saw a few articles floating around the 'net to day that were talking about how Sony apparently removed the PlayStation 4 Eye from being bundled with the PlayStation 4 to allow them to beat Microsoft on price. Now, I really don't doubt this as I was actually surprised to hear that it wasn't bundled at E3 as that was the impression that I got from the reveal event.
In those articles, I noticed a prevailing opinion that this is sort of the death knell for the Eye, but honestly, I think that's being a bit premature. I keep seeing them mention that without the super-high attach rate, developers won't be as keen on producing content for the device. Now, I'm not saying that there isn't truth to that statement, but I think there's a bit of ignorance in there when you consider that bundling it with all consoles would create100% forced attachment. Saying that all the people who buy the console (and consequently, the camera) are going to use it or are interested in it isn't really something that you can prove, and it's about as foolish as saying all any pirated download is a lost sale.
However, I do think that the Eye has one big advantage: price. The Eye is only priced at $60, which makes it the same price as a controller. So, if someone is interested in a game that requires the Eye, they aren't making a huge investment like the original Kinect was ($150). In fact, I think Sony would be wise to offer a bundle with a controller and the Eye for $100. You're preying on someone's desire to get a good deal.
Ultimately, as many of you would probably say, how much the Eye sells and how much the Kinect gets used is going to depend on the software. Flicking little robots around is fun for a little bit, but we need something real. If Sony wants good software, then they need Harmonix to release Dance Central for the PS4. Excluding bundled games (i.e. Kinect Adventures), it's probably the most popular motion-based game that I've seen so far.
So, I saw a few articles floating around the 'net to day that were talking about how Sony apparently removed the PlayStation 4 Eye from being bundled with the PlayStation 4 to allow them to beat Microsoft on price. Now, I really don't doubt this as I was actually surprised to hear that it wasn't bundled at E3 as that was the impression that I got from the reveal event.
In those articles, I noticed a prevailing opinion that this is sort of the death knell for the Eye, but honestly, I think that's being a bit premature. I keep seeing them mention that without the super-high attach rate, developers won't be as keen on producing content for the device. Now, I'm not saying that there isn't truth to that statement, but I think there's a bit of ignorance in there when you consider that bundling it with all consoles would create100% forced attachment. Saying that all the people who buy the console (and consequently, the camera) are going to use it or are interested in it isn't really something that you can prove, and it's about as foolish as saying all any pirated download is a lost sale.
However, I do think that the Eye has one big advantage: price. The Eye is only priced at $60, which makes it the same price as a controller. So, if someone is interested in a game that requires the Eye, they aren't making a huge investment like the original Kinect was ($150). In fact, I think Sony would be wise to offer a bundle with a controller and the Eye for $100. You're preying on someone's desire to get a good deal.
Ultimately, as many of you would probably say, how much the Eye sells and how much the Kinect gets used is going to depend on the software. Flicking little robots around is fun for a little bit, but we need something real. If Sony wants good software, then they need Harmonix to release Dance Central for the PS4. Excluding bundled games (i.e. Kinect Adventures), it's probably the most popular motion-based game that I've seen so far.
If Sony wants good software, then they need Harmonix to release Dance Central for the PS4. Excluding bundled games (i.e. Kinect Adventures), it's probably the most popular motion-based game that I've seen so far.
I've yet to see this answered anywhere I've read about it...can the PS4 eye do a game like Dance Central or is it more limited to doing a game like Just Dance?
I don't think it will be dead in the water. It will be used for it's own type of games. Maybe not major titles. I don't expect just because Xbox comes with kinnect that every single game will utilize some kinnect type feature.
Have they changed the L2/R2 triggers at all? The way they curve away from you on the PS3 always struck me as awkward.
Have they changed the L2/R2 triggers at all? The way they curve away from you on the PS3 always struck me as awkward.
i agree that the ps eye is already dead in the water. which kind of sucks because that tech demo they showed was pretty damn awesome and that is the kind of stuff i like seeing with these new technology - things we've never seen before. it isn't just tacking on some controls that can be mimmicked with the controller either, which is a change of pace from what we're used to seeing.
but at the same time, just BECAUSE something is packed in doesn't mean it is going to be amazing or have great games utilize it either. i mean look at the six axis. hardly ANYTHING used it after the first year or so (thankfully) but that could have also been because the technology was simply god awful.
just playing through the last of us i've seen a "tilt" type graphic happen on the corner of the screen, and i think i'm supposed to tilt my controller at that time to do somethign with the sixaxis, but i have no clue what it has done most of the time. was a stupid idea imo to even tack this sixaxis stuff on.
They do look different, thankfully. I am not sure exactly how different they feel, as I haven't held the controller, but I am not holding my breath. MS did real triggers with the Xbox and 360, and is going that way with the Xbox One. Sony kind of just "adapted" their Dual Shock to have triggers, which were terrible.
They way they implemented the sixaxis in TLOU is actually one of the few ways that was actually very very good and felt right. When your flashlight starts to flicker if you tap the corner of the control in your palm a few times it will stop flickering, just like you would do in real life, you would tap the flashlight in your hand a few times to clear it up. It was one of the only times I've seen it used well and actually added to the experience in a game.
I don't think you'll get many who argue the 360 design for the controller was a lot better. The PS4 definitely looks like a step up from the PS3, but I'll be surprised if it surpasses or even equals that tried and true MS design.
Either way, the PS4 controller at least looks bearable now. I'm only 6' and hands to match and my thumbs would regularly hit on those ps3 sticks.
oh that is what it's for? that totally screams gimmick to me then and totally useless.
This is how I am feeling. While the PS4 controller may not be as good as the XB1 controller, it looks like it will be a lot better and won't hold me back from gaming on the system. As long as they tightened up the responsiveness of the sticks, which I read that they did, then I will be fine with it.I don't think you'll get many who argue the 360 design for the controller was a lot better. The PS4 definitely looks like a step up from the PS3, but I'll be surprised if it surpasses or even equals that tried and true MS design.
Either way, the PS4 controller at least looks bearable now. I'm only 6' and hands to match and my thumbs would regularly hit on those ps3 sticks.
Eh, out of everything you could rotate the controller for, this actually sounds decent.
I think it was some Wii game where I had to hold the controller a certain way to ride a boat or something. THAT was disasterous.
If motion technology magically became 1 to 1 without skipping a beat, I could see it being good. Until then it just causes problems.
oh that is what it's for? that totally screams gimmick to me then and totally useless.
it is 100% gimmick. they could just make the flashlight always work, like every other game, instead of adding a gimmick where it flickers then comes back on when you shake the controller.
to me it adds nothing. and as i said, i didn't even know what it was happening for and it happened like 4-5 times so far. so like, literally, it added nothing since i didn't know what it was doing or for.
it is 100% gimmick. they could just make the flashlight always work, like every other game, instead of adding a gimmick where it flickers then comes back on when you shake the controller.
to me it adds nothing. and as i said, i didn't even know what it was happening for and it happened like 4-5 times so far. so like, literally, it added nothing since i didn't know what it was doing or for.
Have you played the last of us? To me, it adds intensity. I am walking into a room with some clickers and all of a sudden my flashlight flickers off. I think this is a great element added to the game.it is 100% gimmick. they could just make the flashlight always work, like every other game, instead of adding a gimmick where it flickers then comes back on when you shake the controller.
to me it adds nothing. and as i said, i didn't even know what it was happening for and it happened like 4-5 times so far. so like, literally, it added nothing since i didn't know what it was doing or for.
You know those flashlights with batteries you charge by shaking the flashlight? That is what Joel is wearing. When the battery juice runs dry you shake the controller to give it another temporary charge.
No flashlight on earth lasts all the time without batteries either. Highly unrealistic to just have it "always on".
Have you played the last of us? To me, it adds intensity. I am walking into a room with some clickers and all of a sudden my flashlight flickers off. I think this is a great element added to the game.