Why Kinect and Move won't be successful, even if they're better.

E3 is over and the dust has settled; now is the time for quiet reflection. With emotions no longer running hot,  it's a fair place to examine what happened, and what this E3 really means for the future of games. It's hard to argue that motion controls were en vogue this year, and plenty have talked yin and yang on which company is doing what better. And I think that's fascinating, and certainly there's a lot to talk about, but I don't know that too many people are analyzing the business strategies and whether they will be effective.
 
Both Sony and Microsoft, in their obvious attempts to play catch-up, each have two terrible flaws in their strategies. Perhaps I am underestimating the power of their marketing, or people's gullibility, but overall I feel that the major companies are themselves overestimating people's willingness to just hop onto the same thing. The companies each have one individual weakness, but also each share a common flaw in the way they present their new "everybody can play" devices.
 
Microsoft seems to completely miss the point by doing EXACTLY what Nintendo did, while forgetting about the part where the quality of the product matters. During their press conference they displayed a couple of their games, and despite the obvious part where Kinect Sports isn't even trying to be different, it was obvious that they didn't put as much polish into the final product. Wii Sports may have been simple, but it was clear that it was on purpose. The look was crisp, clean, and ran at a smoother-than-smooth 60 frames per second. When I was instructed by the two ladies on stage to "Look at that water," only groans could be heard. Not only was the line about as natural as a bag of Doritos, it also reminded me that the water looked awful. As I write this, I'm watching my roommate play Blur, and seeing the cars splash through puddles of water, it just looks, well, wet. The plasticy goop I saw in that demo were nowhere near noteworthy. In the end though, perhaps the sales figures of Deca Sports and Carnival Games illustrate how little this new consumer values that kind of quality. They just want the experience... but well get to that in a bit.
 
One of Sony's major flaws hinges on the fact that it doesn't have the installation base. That will only compound it's problem with the other one it shares with Microsoft, but at least it can make up for that by having a more similar product. It's easy to see how someone would look at the PS3 controller and go "oh, I know what that is." That is, of course, if they know what a PS3 is. The PS3 has been doing better as of late, but I don't know that there's a lot for it to appeal to a more massive audience. About all it has  right now is the ability of the PS3 to double up as a Blu-Ray player. It may actually become this a fairly sought-after gift, the "Wii-HD + Blu-Ray player," quickly closing it's issue of not being in many homes, but it still has a terrible uphill battle, especially when Cost is involved...
 
And that brings me to both the biggest reason neither system will have mainstream success; cost. Sony's fighting an uphill battle because it requires a whole new set of controllers, even if you already have the $300 system. It also requires a camera in there, for everyone who didn't buy Eye of Judgment (so everyone except and Penny Arcade's Tycho.) Microsoft has tried to be coy in it's pricing, which admittedly even at the rumored $150, will still be cheaper than the stockpile of supplies Sony is asking you to purchase. However, Sony's hardware is also way more flexible, turning already existing games like Dead Space and Resident Evil into superior products (should the tech work as well). I still don't buy that Natal will be accurate enough for a real shooter like those, but it doesn't help that Microsoft isn't marketing towards the Modern Warfare and Halo crowds. Oh sure, I'm interested in Dance Central, but I've also been playing DDR for the past 10 years. Even still, that's a "bridge" title, at best. Regardless, Microsoft may be jumping the gun by not appealing to it's existing fanbase. After all, it was the Nintendo fans who spread the Wii like a virus to get it where it is today. Microsoft seems to be skipping that first step, and it's going to cost them. Also, in the end, why would anybody pay for something they likely already have in the Wii? How can you grab an audience that already has what it wants? Again, that's where Sony is more likely to fail, unless people clearly understand that it's a "high def" upgrade, which I doubt they will. At least the horridly named Kinect can be "we're kind of the same but different!" It's a bit of give and take on either end that will likely only keep the market where it is.
 
Overall, I think Sony has the better tech. Like the Wii, it is suitable for so many kinds of games, and it sounds like it's actually more stable than the Wii's oft-finicky controls. I still don't fully trust in Microsoft's controller not lagging behind, as well as that horrible interface. It's slow, and there's just no tactile feedback. But my personal opinions of the products aside, I still don't see either overtaking the Wii's crazy success any time soon.
 
So what say you, the reader? Let's try and keep the flaming to a low simmer, if we could. I'm all for reasonable discussions!
 
Oh and as always, I rant on Twitter @docrandle
 
And now lobotomy patients enjoying Kinect:
 
 

E3 is over and the dust has settled; now is the time for quiet reflection. With emotions no longer running hot,  it's a fair place to examine what happened, and what this E3 really means for the future of games. It's hard to argue that motion controls were en vogue this year, and plenty have talked yin and yang on which company is doing what better. And I think that's fascinating, and certainly there's a lot to talk about, but I don't know that too many people are analyzing the business strategies and whether they will be effective.
 
Both Sony and Microsoft, in their obvious attempts to play catch-up, each have two terrible flaws in their strategies. Perhaps I am underestimating the power of their marketing, or people's gullibility, but overall I feel that the major companies are themselves overestimating people's willingness to just hop onto the same thing. The companies each have one individual weakness, but also each share a common flaw in the way they present their new "everybody can play" devices.
 
Microsoft seems to completely miss the point by doing EXACTLY what Nintendo did, while forgetting about the part where the quality of the product matters. During their press conference they displayed a couple of their games, and despite the obvious part where Kinect Sports isn't even trying to be different, it was obvious that they didn't put as much polish into the final product. Wii Sports may have been simple, but it was clear that it was on purpose. The look was crisp, clean, and ran at a smoother-than-smooth 60 frames per second. When I was instructed by the two ladies on stage to "Look at that water," only groans could be heard. Not only was the line about as natural as a bag of Doritos, it also reminded me that the water looked awful. As I write this, I'm watching my roommate play Blur, and seeing the cars splash through puddles of water, it just looks, well, wet. The plasticy goop I saw in that demo were nowhere near noteworthy. In the end though, perhaps the sales figures of Deca Sports and Carnival Games illustrate how little this new consumer values that kind of quality. They just want the experience... but well get to that in a bit.
 
One of Sony's major flaws hinges on the fact that it doesn't have the installation base. That will only compound it's problem with the other one it shares with Microsoft, but at least it can make up for that by having a more similar product. It's easy to see how someone would look at the PS3 controller and go "oh, I know what that is." That is, of course, if they know what a PS3 is. The PS3 has been doing better as of late, but I don't know that there's a lot for it to appeal to a more massive audience. About all it has  right now is the ability of the PS3 to double up as a Blu-Ray player. It may actually become this a fairly sought-after gift, the "Wii-HD + Blu-Ray player," quickly closing it's issue of not being in many homes, but it still has a terrible uphill battle, especially when Cost is involved...
 
And that brings me to both the biggest reason neither system will have mainstream success; cost. Sony's fighting an uphill battle because it requires a whole new set of controllers, even if you already have the $300 system. It also requires a camera in there, for everyone who didn't buy Eye of Judgment (so everyone except and Penny Arcade's Tycho.) Microsoft has tried to be coy in it's pricing, which admittedly even at the rumored $150, will still be cheaper than the stockpile of supplies Sony is asking you to purchase. However, Sony's hardware is also way more flexible, turning already existing games like Dead Space and Resident Evil into superior products (should the tech work as well). I still don't buy that Natal will be accurate enough for a real shooter like those, but it doesn't help that Microsoft isn't marketing towards the Modern Warfare and Halo crowds. Oh sure, I'm interested in Dance Central, but I've also been playing DDR for the past 10 years. Even still, that's a "bridge" title, at best. Regardless, Microsoft may be jumping the gun by not appealing to it's existing fanbase. After all, it was the Nintendo fans who spread the Wii like a virus to get it where it is today. Microsoft seems to be skipping that first step, and it's going to cost them. Also, in the end, why would anybody pay for something they likely already have in the Wii? How can you grab an audience that already has what it wants? Again, that's where Sony is more likely to fail, unless people clearly understand that it's a "high def" upgrade, which I doubt they will. At least the horridly named Kinect can be "we're kind of the same but different!" It's a bit of give and take on either end that will likely only keep the market where it is.
 
Overall, I think Sony has the better tech. Like the Wii, it is suitable for so many kinds of games, and it sounds like it's actually more stable than the Wii's oft-finicky controls. I still don't fully trust in Microsoft's controller not lagging behind, as well as that horrible interface. It's slow, and there's just no tactile feedback. But my personal opinions of the products aside, I still don't see either overtaking the Wii's crazy success any time soon.
 
So what say you, the reader? Let's try and keep the flaming to a low simmer, if we could. I'm all for reasonable discussions!
 
Oh and as always, I rant on Twitter @docrandle
 
And now lobotomy patients enjoying Kinect:
 
 

After launch peripherals are always shit, but I'll withold judgement until a friend buys it and I play it tentatively. I won't buy it, however. Not enuogh room in my place, and it costs too much.

Those people wear shoes indoors... savages.

How is Kinect more like the Wii than the Move?  Which one has a wiimote and nunchuk analogue?

The Wii consumer, once you get past Nintendo's fanboy army, largely bought the Wii because it was a novelty.  The failure of 90% of games outside the Nintendo mainstays demonstrates this.  Yeah, Carnival Games did well, but all of T2's attempts to capitalize on its success have met decidedly tepid receptions.
 
The problem isn't that the average consumer is stupid as you seem to imply, but that a novelty is really only a novelty once.  The Wii stole that thunder with motion controls, so the people who fell into the gimmick aren't going to do so again, no matter how nicely it's been packaged.  They've had their fill of motion control - they've likely had their fill of gaming - and thus won't likely buy into this desperate cash grab by MS and Sony.  Combine this with the general disinterest in motion controls by the gaming crowd, and you have a recipe for failure.

" Those people wear shoes indoors... savages. "

" The Wii consumer, once you get past Nintendo's fanboy army, largely bought the Wii because it was a novelty.  The failure of 90% of games outside the Nintendo mainstays demonstrates this.  Yeah, Carnival Games did well, but all of T2's attempts to capitalize on its success have met decidedly tepid receptions.
 
The problem isn't that the average consumer is stupid as you seem to imply, but that a novelty is really only a novelty once.  The Wii stole that thunder with motion controls, so the people who fell into the gimmick aren't going to do so again, no matter how nicely it's been packaged.  They've had their fill of motion control - they've likely had their fill of gaming - and thus won't likely buy into this desperate cash grab by MS and Sony.  Combine this with the general disinterest in motion controls by the gaming crowd, and you have a recipe for failure. "

This is shit is just for people who have had buyer's remorse from
buying a Wii but want something similar on another platform. So
far emulating the Wii controllers & adding old-ass arcade games
to XBL aren't exactly looking like cash cows to me.  Seems like
they're trying to grow the market & there really isn't anything else
that's all that interesting to add to it.

I have to agree. I can't see the average consumer jumping on the motion control band wagon again. They either already have a Wii, or they'll buy a Wii because it will be cheaper. 
For the average 360 and PS3 owner, the games will decide the fate of Microsoft and Sony's new tech. Neither company seems to be offering anything really compelling at this point in time.

" How is Kinect more like the Wii than the Move?  Which one has a wiimote and nunchuk analogue? "

I think you are vastly underestimating Kinect's chance of success. 
 
Following your reasoning, SingStar or Rockband or Eyetoy should not have been huge hits, because the party is already more than saturated with entertainment from a Wii. But they were. You're assuming that the "gullible bunch" will identify Kinect as "more of the same", and that hardware pricing is an issue. 
What everyone has to try and remember, though, is that Kinect doesn't use controllers. This is a BIG DEAL. With their marketing and controller design, Nintendo managed to take the "scary", "complicated" and "i have to learn how to use this" out of videogaming - to an extent. I have seen the Wiimote perform in get-togethers of non-gamers. Even the Wiimote is too complicated and scary at times, and few people will have more then 2 Wiimotes.  

If Microsoft manages to make the customer know and realize that Kinect, with a single piece of hardware, is step-in-and-play(!) controller-less(!!) fun for as many people as you like(!!!), it won't matter whether they have played similar games on the wii, or what its price is, or if the quality of the games is lesser. It could and would become the next must-have in interactive entertainment at parties, like SingStar is now. 
That Dance game will be huge. It alone will move tens of thousands of Kinect units. 
It's all in the marketing, and with their E3 press conference, Microsoft has shown that they mean business. 
 
I have no doubt that Kinect will be a success, and that it will outperform Move by a large margin. I can even imagine it replacing the Wii and the PS2 as the way to go for partygames and the like.
 

Personally, I hope they both fail.
 
When my roommate bought a Wii in 2006 I thought it was fun, and we played Wii Sports quite often for a couple months, but then, as you said, the novelty factor faded. Now days I want nothing to do with the Wii or motion controls in general. A normal 360 or ps3 controller is perfect to me.

" @mwng said:

" Those people wear shoes indoors... savages. "

Do savages even wear shoes at all? "

"When my roommate bought a Wii in 2006 I thought it was fun, and we played Wii Sports quite often for a couple months, but then, as you said, the novelty factor faded. Now days I want nothing to do with the Wii"

Meanwhile 22 years ago. 

 When playing a game I prefer to sit on the couch and not have to move :/  

Move is going to sell just fine.  
Kinect on the other hand..... the price is outrageous and once early buyers spread the word that its not so great. cant sit, cant play with more than 2 people, doesn't have any good games besides Dance Central.... yeah.  besides i dont see the marketing doing a great job selling the product, i have a feeling many people will be generally confused about the entire thing. 
 
but Move has a great strategy going for it, and people already love Wii so they'll know what to expect and be pleasantly surprised by the better graphics and far superior precision of the control. Plus, the fact that its 1:1 is going to go great with all of the SOCOM lovers and guys who will want to use it for shooters and other "hardcore" genres. 

check out this thread on GAF:  http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=398932 
 
this dude makes my point entirely. The marketing for Kinect is just flat out confusing and once people get their hands on it....they'll just be like ahhh fuck it. shit is beat, i wanna play some halo.  
 
Move is going to totally do better kinect, no doubt. especially with the $100 bundle (eye, move, game). i definitely sound bias here but im not im just being honest. move is very practical, kinect is like totally before its time. but everyone can agree, only Dance Central was cool and even that...who want sto dance all day just to make their kinect seem like a valid purchase?  

Kinect will be 360's Virtual Boy. Move will probably do better.

Already it seems the Move is positioned to do better than the Kinect, as stated, the PS3 has the advantage of also acting as a blueray player (and a superior one at that), while the Move looks and acts like a Wii, meaning A: Wii people will be familiar with it, and B: The technology is far more sound than the Kinect. The radical inclusion of buttons also means that the actual game possibilities have widened, as the controls will not always rely on on screen actions (like that wizard game where you don't run up and down on the spot to move, you use the controller). Most people on this site (what I would call more than casual gamers, we're not necessarily hard core, but we're not soccer mums either) seem to be at best very critical of the Kinect, however at least a few are more open to the move, playing the "I'll see what games have it" card. This means that is clearly a market, if a small one at first, for the Move among more serious gamers. I for one think that that wizard game actually looks pretty rad...

I personally think that Kinect will do OK, but not great and the move will not fare to well.  I think that MS marketing will be a bit stronger with Kinect than Sony's with the Move.  That being said, the reason that the Wii did so well was 1) the price:  $250 (now $200) is lower than the other 2 systems, 2) Wii Sports was fun, demonstrated exactly what this system could do and was polished (we'll see if any of the launch games will be even half as good for the other systems), and 3)  the motion controllers are in the system--the Wii was designed for the motion control and every game  (sort-of) uses it.  No additional hardware purchases (if you don't count the extra controllers) are needed.  You just buy the thing and BOOM!!!---you're bowling.   
 
No accessory has done that well after the launch of the original hardware.  Hell, even Nintendo isn't really supporting the balance board, motion plus, or wii speak very well.  Accessories splits the user base up and thus developers will either 1) make a mini-game collection that is exclusive to the new motion controller games or 2) tack it on to an existing game and not really make it integral to the overall experience.  Besides, the Wii has mainstream market mindshare and is what people are looking for.  It's kind of like wanting a Transformer.  You could get a Go-Bot, but it' really not the same.  That's why I think that Kinect might have a chance to "click" with some people--because it is different and I bet it will demo really, really well on talk shows and commercials as opposed to the move where people will see this thing as a Wii knock-off. 
 
Edit:  Kinect has a chance to do well if they do not price themselves out of the game straight out of the gate ($150!?!)

pretty good read. 
 
i have to say that some people won't look into it because they most likely already have  a wii. i do not like motion controls. i played my friend's wii for a bit when i saw him but then he stopped playing it. he finally unplugged it. the only game that i saw good was the forza for kinect. all of the games that they showed seem to all take the wii way. they made the graphics cellshaded, goofy looking characters.

" @TwoOneFive: For multiplayer party games Kinect is cheaper than Move. "

I hope motion control fails and the companies realize we should all go back to controllers the way it should be.

Microsoft has tried to be coy in it's pricing, which admittedly even at the rumored $150, will still be cheaper than the stockpile of supplies Sony is asking you to purchase.

" I hope motion control fails and the companies realize we should all go back to controllers the way it should be. "

" @DrRandle said:

Microsoft has tried to be coy in it's pricing, which admittedly even at the rumored $150, will still be cheaper than the stockpile of supplies Sony is asking you to purchase.

Sony's camera+Move+game bundle is 100 bucks.  That is less than the rumored 150.  Even if you add the Navcon (which is what I'm calling the Navigation Controller), it's 130. "

Following your reasoning, SingStar or Rockband or Eyetoy should not have been huge hits, because the party is already more than saturated with entertainment from a Wii. But they were. You're assuming that the "gullible bunch" will identify Kinect as "more of the same", and that hardware pricing is an issue. 

" @Brodehouse said: $

" @DrRandle said:

Microsoft has tried to be coy in it's pricing, which admittedly even at the rumored $150, will still be cheaper than the stockpile of supplies Sony is asking you to purchase.

Sony's camera+Move+game bundle is 100 bucks.  That is less than the rumored 150.  Even if you add the Navcon (which is what I'm calling the Navigation Controller), it's 130. "

you have to take into account multiple people playing together. that's atleast two Move controllers, so that's an extra $50 and then another $30 for the second move controller to have the navigation controller as well.  "

You will all eat your words. 
 
Games don't mean shit. Hardware quality and performance don't mean shit. For these products, marketing is everything. It all boils down to the following things, in the order of importance:

1. How can I make people know the product exists?
2. How many people do I reach with this? 
3. Of those, how many are there that will either want the product or can be made to want the product?  
4. How much word-of-mouth spread about the product can I achieve?
5. The quality of the product.
 
Sony is only ahead of Microsoft in #5, and even that only from a "gamer" viewpoint. 
 
Again: Microsoft offers step-in, step-out electronic entertainment for single- and multiplayer without buttons and without controllers. 
For non-gamers, Kinect is something fundamentally(!) superior and more attractive than the Wii, and the Move which they will perceive as identical to the Wii, and which Microsoft tries to market towards them and yourself and end up reaching neiher. 
 
If Microsoft continues down the path they have chosen this E3, Kinect will be a huge success. Quote me on that.

And to those who doubt that the customer can be made to want a product for hipster appeal alone, completely ignoring every reasonable argument of price, performance or alternatives, I have only one word: iPad.
 

Well written dude and I agree. As Wii owner I see no reason to buy either Kinetic or Move. Asked my wife who actually uses the Wii here. Too see if she would be interested in Kinetic for her Yoga/fitness stuff. And no way she says, she is happy with the Wii and as a tech fearing gal she don't want to get started with yet another console.

PS move will take most of wii's market becouse of the hd and more accurate controller kinect good luck with that shit

I appreciate the effort you went through making this thread, but I can't help but feel like it's as pointless as making a long, in-depth thread about why having cancer sucks.