• 117 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Posted by Kiri90 (251 posts) -

Hey guys,

I was curious to get your thoughts on Sony's decision not to include a camera with every PS4. I LOVED what I heard from Sony last night, and have already preordered my PS4; however, what impact do you think it'll have on developer strategy knowing that they cannot count on every PS4 owner having a camera?

One of the advantages of knowing every PS4 owner has the camera is that it allows developers to program (or at least have an incentive to program) a game with the camera in mind the whole time. Since the install base will never be 1:1 between console ownership and camera ownership, do you think that developers will ignore the camera and have it fall by the wayside much like it has this console generation?

Although I own all the peripherals for motion gaming on the PS3 and am not too kin on motion gaming, I fear that we might lose out on some possible innovative camera uses if developers know they can't count on every gamer having one. What do you guys think?

#2 Edited by JZ (2125 posts) -

Very happy

Kinect and move games suck, don't make me pay for something I don't want.

#3 Edited by RobotHamster (4156 posts) -

I probably wasn't going to really use it and it makes the overall price cheaper so it's a very good move. If things come out that make me consider it in a couple years then I'll pick it up then.

#4 Edited by Angouri (223 posts) -

Voice controls are cool. That's the only thing that I think I like about the current Kinect. But I have no problem paying 60 bucks down the line for a camera if it has cool interface stuff.

I don't need it in my gaming. The Wii and the Kinect murdered motion gaming.

#5 Edited by Keavy_Rain (129 posts) -

I've been playing video games since the days of the NES and never felt a need or desire to attach a camera to any of my consoles nor have I had much of a need for a camera in a console. If Sony had to drop the camera to get PS4 to $399, then I consider that a worthwhile sacrifice.

#6 Edited by afabs515 (832 posts) -

So happy about it. To me, this says that the camera is nonessential, which is great because I don't enjoy motion gaming. If major developers put innovative camera use into their games, it should be optional. Sony knows their stuff. A bunch of people I know consider the Kinect to be one of XBONE's key problems. In my opinion, motion gaming is great as a peripheral, but it isn't yet strong enough to be required.

#7 Posted by BD_Mr_Bubbles (1678 posts) -

@jz said:

Very happy

Kinect and move games suck, don't make me pay for something I don't want.

#8 Posted by Hunter5024 (5168 posts) -

Camera stuff has yet to prove itself as anything beyond a gimmick to me so far, so I'm glad they didn't include it.

#9 Edited by ShadowConqueror (2993 posts) -

Do not want. I have no interest in their camera bullshit.

#10 Posted by aspaceinvader (250 posts) -

Not gonna make much difference, be nice to know what price they are charging for the camera on its own.

#11 Edited by rebgav (1429 posts) -

If a dev has a great idea for a camera-based game (or Eye of Judgement 2) then they could probably get Sony to publish it and bundle it with the hardware. If they don't have a great idea then it's no loss really.

#12 Edited by triple07 (1193 posts) -

Kinda conflicted about it. On one hand I don't really like motion games very much or often so not having to pay more for it is nice. But on the other hand I can't help but feel like not including it will hurt the PS4's mainstream appeal since people might see the new Kinect as a large selling point for the XONE. Also it means it won't have all of the weird motion controlled gimmicks that the XONE has which actually seems kinda interesting.

#13 Posted by BombcastGoldthwait (247 posts) -

I'm happy the camera is not included, but then again, I'm usually happy.

#14 Posted by Zeik (2111 posts) -

I'm glad I don't have to pay extra for a peripheral that I may not even care about. If there is a valid reason to have one then I will buy one when that time comes.

Sure, it probably won't get utilized to its fullest, but I'm not convinced that's a huge loss.

#15 Posted by Cold_Wolven (2167 posts) -

It keeps the price down by not including it so I'm happy with that, I never had the desire to play Kinect or even Eyetoy back in the day and by not including it Sony are saying it's not a core component so I don't have to have it connected.

#16 Posted by Sterling (1724 posts) -

For those that want it, I am sure there will be a camera bundle announce before launch. The camera is listed as $59.99, same as a controller. I imagine there will be a bundle with the camera and something else for $499

#17 Posted by djou (828 posts) -

@jz said:

Very happy

Kinect and move games suck, don't make me pay for something I don't want.

This.

Not a single game has justified the existence of Kinect. Everytime I see a QL involving a Kinect I imagine some executive at MS sitting behind a desk laughing, realizing how dumb he made us all look while playing a video game. Any of the controls that MS is proposing I would rather do with a controller or remote

#18 Posted by believer258 (11039 posts) -

@kiri90 said:

do you think that developers will ignore the camera and have it fall by the wayside much like it has this console generation?

Hopefully.

All this camera bullshit has proven itself to be nothing more than a gimmick. If Sony thinks they can make some money off of their camera and some games, go right ahead, as long as I'm not forced to be any part of it.

#19 Posted by Trilogy (2569 posts) -

I actually really like what Jack Trenton was saying today on Gametrailers live stream. He explained that the camera is an additive experience, but isn't crucial to the core of the ps4. In my opinion, that's a solid spot for the move camera as it sums up my interest on motion gaming in general.

#20 Posted by TooWalrus (12972 posts) -

I'm not into motion controls... in anything, really. I feel like everything Nintendo did on the Wii would have been better with a controller without exception. I'm glad they're not including the camera- the lower price point is just a bonus.

#21 Posted by Turtlebird95 (2141 posts) -

It kept the price down and I can't think of many instances in which I'd use it, so I'm pretty happy about it.

#22 Posted by TheUnsavedHero (1255 posts) -

Doesn't bug me.

#23 Posted by cloudnineboya (691 posts) -

ps4 ON, does not have the same ring to it.

#24 Edited by IBurningStar (2145 posts) -

I don't care about the camera and I'm glad I'm not forced to pay for it with the base console.

#25 Edited by BaconGames (3126 posts) -

Sony has a habit, at least it did, of creating ancillary products to the Playstation that go out to no real enthusiasm and sort of just die (Eyetoy, PS Move etc.) and this is largely tied to consumer support and availability. The only reason we saw as much Kinect as we did last generation is because that thing sold 10 million fucking units. I bet you if the Move did comparable numbers, we'd have seen something like that incorporated into the system.

As it happens, I think Sony made the smart choice in not competing with a product that MS clearly has invested so much time and money into that they have no reason to compete. They tried that with the Wii remote and failed, and there's no guarantee that an also-ran camera would be successful. With that in mind, I can't imagine why that would be there except for video chat or something. I can't think of too many interests with a camera whether on PC or console in terms of everyday use.

If Sony was really clever, they would look at the Oculus Rift and say "yeah, we're all over that thing" and be one ahead of Microsoft with a device that is earning interest from the community.

#26 Edited by Maajin (1038 posts) -
@djou said:

@jz said:

Very happy

Kinect and move games suck, don't make me pay for something I don't want.

This.

Not a single game has justified the existence of Kinect. Everytime I see a QL involving a Kinect I imagine some executive at MS sitting behind a desk laughing, realizing how dumb he made us all look while playing a video game. Any of the controls that MS is proposing I would rather do with a controller or remote

That's not true. Dance Central is a game that could only exist with Kinect. Not that that makes it a great peripheral, but it's existence is justified.

#27 Edited by devilzrule27 (1235 posts) -

if sony ever makes singstar for ps4 i will happily buy a camera then

#28 Edited by geirr (2377 posts) -

I have no fucks to give about any camera peripheral, lacking or otherwise.

#29 Posted by djou (828 posts) -

@maajin: Completely disagree. #1. I hate dancing. #2. The rare times I do dance its for a social situation where I'm with actual people (in a club, at a concert, or dance), not playing a video game. I would say the exact same about playing fake plastic instruments, waving a piece of plastic to simulate sports, or any of that crap that Vita wants me to do with a touchpad and/or camera. Just give me a mouse and keyboard and/or controller and put the extra development resources to design better games.

#30 Posted by YukoAsho (1948 posts) -

By not including the camera, Sony dodges the allegations of spying that, true or not, are currently plaguing Microsoft with the upcoming Xbox One. Not only that, but it ensures that the PS4 must work without the camera, making it more suitable for those with insufficient space for it, like people in apartments or playing somewhere other than the living room (the proverbial "man cave," if you will). Also, should it prove a compelling accessory somehow, it provides an additional revenue stream for Sony, who probably looked at how well Xbox 360 accessories sold.

Honestly, it makes more sense for Sony to do it this way.

#31 Edited by Hunkulese (2526 posts) -

The reason the move was nothing more than a gimmick is because not enough people owned one for developers to get serious about it. There is a lot of great stuff that could be done with motion gaming if the peripheral actually works but we probably won't see any of it on the ps4.

#32 Posted by YOU_DIED (695 posts) -

Really don't give a shit about the camera, so very happy

#33 Posted by Asurastrike (2151 posts) -

I have no interest in either the PS Eye or the Kinect.

#34 Posted by Whitestripes09 (363 posts) -

I thought it was a smart choice by Sony. They realize that most of this camera/motion control is just a gimmick right now and that probably in the future it may die out or be improved upon. I don't see many games with the peripheral anyways so including it in the ps4 package would have been a waste of money and would have jacked the price up. If only Microsoft had realized this...

#35 Edited by Whitestripes09 (363 posts) -

I thought it was a smart choice by Sony. They realize that most of this camera/motion control is just a gimmick right now and that probably in the future it may die out or be improved upon. I don't see many games with the peripheral anyways so including it in the ps4 package would have been a waste of money and would have jacked the price up. If only Microsoft had realized this...

#36 Posted by Andorski (5107 posts) -

Isn't the camera needed to make use of the light bar on the PS4 controller? IIRC, an example was given where players were automatically assigned controller 1-4 on a single system based on where they were sitting. The camera would see the color of each controller's light bar and assign controller input accordingly. That sounded like a nifty feature that would make the camera useful.

#37 Posted by MikkaQ (10224 posts) -

Pleased as punch, it keeps the price down and it keeps bad ideas out of devs heads. Make more games with real controllers please.

#38 Edited by Zella (620 posts) -

@andorski said:

Isn't the camera needed to make use of the light bar on the PS4 controller? IIRC, an example was given where players were automatically assigned controller 1-4 on a single system based on where they were sitting. The camera would see the color of each controller's light bar and assign controller input accordingly. That sounded like a nifty feature that would make the camera useful.

This is what I thought. Where exactly has it been said the system doesn't come with the camera? I don't really care if it doesn't come with it because most of the stuff it seems to be able to do doesn't seem groundbreaking or anything and if it keeps the cost down then that helps. Not adverse to the idea of it at all though, there is a ton of potential in there which if used properly could be great.

#39 Posted by super2j (1610 posts) -

This is a good thing. I don't want a camera. There are cameras on a variety of different platforms and there have not been any killer apps made that I can think of. We don't need a camera

#40 Posted by Jazzycola (662 posts) -

On one hand, if the PS Eye isn't included with the PS4 then it guarantees that devs (both 3rd and 1st party) will never make anything of worth for it. I would like to see something beyond dancing games. On the other hand, I don't see the point in adding to the cost to a device(PS4) for a concept/device that has hardly proved itself as worth it. Though, since Microsoft is requiring it with every XOne, I don't see a reason why innovations that do happen on the Kinect don't end up on the PS4 and making the PS eye worth the price of admission. Who knows we'll see in the next few years...

#41 Edited by Mastercheesey (219 posts) -

If it means I pay less for the console I'm fine with it.

#42 Posted by spraynardtatum (2120 posts) -

Fuck that camera. PRISM

#43 Edited by xJollyx (10 posts) -

Sony understood what gamers really want. They don't want gimmicks. They don't want to perform exaggerated gestures to perform simple tasks that could be activated by a simple button press. What the fuck is wrong with pushing a button?

#44 Edited by Maajin (1038 posts) -
@djou said:

@maajin: Completely disagree. #1. I hate dancing. #2. The rare times I do dance its for a social situation where I'm with actual people (in a club, at a concert, or dance), not playing a video game. I would say the exact same about playing fake plastic instruments, waving a piece of plastic to simulate sports, or any of that crap that Vita wants me to do with a touchpad and/or camera. Just give me a mouse and keyboard and/or controller and put the extra development resources to design better games.

I hate dancing too and would not really want to play Dance Central. I'm not discussing that. I'm saying it is a game that could not be played with a controller, mouse or keyboard without being a totally different game. And that justifies the Kinect's existence: it made a game able to exist. That's all I'm saying.

#45 Posted by Rafaelfc (1281 posts) -

Kinect, Playstation Camera / Move should all become it's own unique platforms.

#46 Posted by selfconfessedcynic (2494 posts) -

THANK GOD.

#47 Posted by Kiri90 (251 posts) -

@zella said:

@andorski said:

Isn't the camera needed to make use of the light bar on the PS4 controller? IIRC, an example was given where players were automatically assigned controller 1-4 on a single system based on where they were sitting. The camera would see the color of each controller's light bar and assign controller input accordingly. That sounded like a nifty feature that would make the camera useful.

This is what I thought. Where exactly has it been said the system doesn't come with the camera? I don't really care if it doesn't come with it because most of the stuff it seems to be able to do doesn't seem groundbreaking or anything and if it keeps the cost down then that helps. Not adverse to the idea of it at all though, there is a ton of potential in there which if used properly could be great.

Scott Rohde confirms it in the interview Patrick did with him that a camera is not included and will be sold separately for $59. You're both right about the player detection, as that was said back in February during the first Sony press conference. I also thought it would be a cool feature, but that's something that would be useful to me 1% of the time (especially now that I've moved away from friends due to my career).

I also have always thought that motion gaming has largely been a gimmick, and not something I've been remotely interested in the past due to the uses having been either afterthoughts or marketing ploys.

The reason the move was nothing more than a gimmick is because not enough people owned one for developers to get serious about it. There is a lot of great stuff that could be done with motion gaming if the peripheral actually works but we probably won't see any of it on the ps4.

I do think this is a valid argument, and something which in my mind has played a significant role in the Move's progression thus far.

Since Xbox One does have the benefits of Skype (due to it being a Microsoft property) there is a stronger argument for the camera being a focus for Microsoft than for Sony. By having less cameras, hopefully Playstation still has some of the same dynamic online streaming and innovative interaction occurring as on the Xbox One platform. It's a similar comparison that can be made in Sony not including headsets with all PS3s. Some may view it as creating an online "wasteland" where nobody talks (in comparison to Xbox Live); while others may view it as an inherent filter to every screaming 12-year old kid and douchebag having access to a headset.

#48 Posted by RVonE (4478 posts) -

One of Sony's better decisions. Xbone not working without the Kinect plugged in is just ridiculous.

#49 Edited by anamanaman (55 posts) -

I think Media Molecule's next game will give us a reason to buy the move + camera. But until then, don't force it on us. Kinect was great as a peripheral, but forcing everyone to buy it is just crazy. I would never want one, yet I know tons of casual gamers who love it.

#50 Edited by TangoUp (309 posts) -

I would have taped any camera that came with the PS4 anyway. Glad it's not included. Now, does the console have a built in microphone?