" PSN+ is a pretty good deal as far as your money is concerned. The "owning the games only while subscribed" thing that everyone is crying foul about isn't really that big of a deal since a year is a long time and $50 is so little that all the things you get in this deal will pay itself off. Despite it being a good deal there isn't really a lot of incentive for people like me though who only have the time to play the games I really want to play. I'm also afraid that any new features for PSN from now onwards will only be for PSN+. "
Assuming that you don't already own the games they're including and that you actually want to play them. Considering the age of the games they've announced so far I'm not sure that's going to work out that well for most of us. I've already got all of the games that they've announced so far that I have any interest in playing so at least at the outset it'd a little like throwing away money for me to sign up.
I might still try it out but at the very least I first need confirmation about game sharing regarding the Playstation Plus games, with multiple PS3s in the house it's kind of a make or break feature for me.
" I'm confused at why they would be still working on this game. It was a cool tech demo, but the viability of it being an actual game is... slim. "
That's a pretty good description of Kinect in general. "
That's a pretty good description of motion control tech in general, but certain companies are stubborn enough that it's somehow acceptable now. "
That isn't true at all. Wii has proven, unfortunately in far too few games, that motion controls, especially when paired with a direct pointer, have real world applications in actual games. While Nintendo made a lot of mistakes, largely by excessively cheap corner cutting, that have hurt their ability to realize these advantages in more games they at least have moved that conversation forward in a right direction. Sony is positioned to deliver on that example in a much deeper way as their motion control technology delivers a much higher fidelity version of that basic concept. I don't think that such a setup is necessarily going to deliver a superior gameplay experience for most games but there are enough proven examples that it should be more than clear that there is a place for real games to use it.
Kinect on the other hand is merely a high fidelity version of something that has never been proven to deliver entertaining or compelling gameplay experiences. Sony's EyeToy for PS2 didn't fail as an input device because it lacked fidelity or precision, though it did have a host of short comings, particularly its inability to operate properly in anything short of optimal lighting, but rather it failed because waving your arms and jumping around to interact with a game isn't fun or precise and has limited, if any, ability to add to the experience to offset those failures.
I've been playing "tech demos" of camera-driven games for at least 20 years and the closest thing I've ever seen to something rising to the level of real game is EyeToy Antigrav. But even there I'm not sure that it would really be fun or compelling for more than 15 minutes even if the tech worked 100% and I'd probably still rather see a game like that controlled with a gamepad because it's faster, more precise, and doesn't require jumping around my living room. Back on that first hand we've got actual retail games on Wii that use motion controls and a pointer to actually make a game better even if the inputs could be handled just as easily with a gamepad. Of course I can only name a small handful of games on Wii where this is true (even though I generally hate Wii) so I'm open to hearing an argument that it isn't worth the investment but I'm not even having a conversation that it is pointless. Making that argument just shows that you don't know what you are talking about.
I thought they showed at least 6 games that I would pay full retail price. Maybe we saw a different list? "
I think it's more likely that I just have taste. But I'm open minded, what're these 6 games that you'd pay full price for that Microsoft showed off on Kinect at E3?
" I think Kinect will sell for $139 or $129. After all the negative reactions to the $150 price point Microsoft would be silly not to drop it a little unless they really don't have any more flexibility on margins at all. The biggest disappointment of it all will be if they are charging $60 for Kinect games. I don't think they showed a single title at E3 worthy of being a full priced game. "
I don't think they showed a single game worthy of being priced at $15 on XBLA.
This thing sure felt laggy when I tried the beta. If they ever find a way to make this technology work well and you could use your Steam account on it that might be something interesting. But the business model they're pushing here just isn't worth the trouble or money. Especially not when you can buy a decent computer for $300-500 and it's something you probably need to have whether you're playing games on it or not. Sure you won't get the highest quality graphics out of a system in that price range but from what I saw of OnLive you're not even getting close with their service.
" @hpv: Why do you keep saying Sexaxis? It can't be a typo, so I'm assuming you're a dirty pervert. Also, I thought that the Sixaxis was supposed to be the alternative to the whole thing. My mistake. "
What else would you call a dildo-shaped motion controller for PS3?
Log in to comment