Microsoft GC Conference: Live! (text)

[Shifty Geezer]

Huh? Try reading the second half of the press conference where they talk about Windows gaming and how all the 360 peripherals work on the PC. They certainly did mention it, and I'll bet if you can get video of the event, you'll see them demonstrating their PC games by using 360 peripherals.

Nope, can't see it. Where does it say in this article http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=66873 that all XB360 peripherals are also designed to work with PC? Because that's the only source that we had to discuss points when the idea that 'Vision costs more because it's PC friendly' came up.

What a crock. "It's easy to do so MS gets no bonus points for doing it" that seems to be the party line for the anti-MS crowd.

What are you waffling on about?! It's a nice thing, and kudos to MS for enabling their XB peripheral to work on PC so PC owners can buy XB peripheral if they want or XB owners can take the camera out of their XB360 and use it on PC. But the whole point of this Live Vision talk was the fact it costs more than EyeToy, and the argument that it costs more because it works on PC too. Which is bunk. It doesn't cost a lot to create a webcam that works with both PC and a console that runs off the same basic API over the same interface. It doesn't cost a lot to provide a driver. Having a plug-and-play device means a user only has to be competant enough to put the USB connector into the PC's USB socket for it to work, so where's the need for technical support? If there's no downloading of drivers or installing of software, none is needed other than to cater for the most primative of users who can't even get that right, or those unfortunate enough to have a faulty device. Seriously, how much do you think providing these techs and services will cost MS and how much of that is being added onto the price of the Vision camera? Had Sony have chosen too for a miniscule amount of effort relative the could have supplied a CD with a PC driver along with EyeToy, but they didn't because they were only targetting the camera for their console and were selling it add no margin AFAIK, so don't really want to subsidize a webcam used by PC users with no profit to Sony. For MS it's different as they want to promote their PC platform and providing a unified experience makes sense. That's not adding to the cost of the Visin camera though!

 

[expletive]

But the whole point of this Live Vision talk was the fact it costs more than EyeToy, and the argument that it costs more because it works on PC too. Which is bunk. It doesn't cost a lot to create a webcam that works with both PC and a console that runs off the same basic API over the same interface. It doesn't cost a lot to provide a driver. Having a plug-and-play device means a user only has to be competant enough to put the USB connector into the PC's USB socket for it to work, so where's the need for technical support? If there's no downloading of drivers or installing of software, none is needed other than to cater for the most primative of users who can't even get that right, or those unfortunate enough to have a faulty device. Seriously, how much do you think providing these techs and services will cost MS and how much of that is being added onto the price of the Vision camera? Had Sony have chosen too for a miniscule amount of effort relative the could have supplied a CD with a PC driver along with EyeToy, but they didn't because they were only targetting the camera for their console and were selling it add no margin AFAIK, so don't really want to subsidize a webcam used by PC users with no profit to Sony. For MS it's different as they want to promote their PC platform and providing a unified experience makes sense. That's not adding to the cost of the Visin camera though!

I see your point, but I dont think anyone said it costs more to make, just that its a forward-thinking, value-add, feature that off-sets the price in their opinion.

When others replied that the eyetoy also works with the PC so that vision does not have that feature-advtange, the response was that in the true, 'supported', sense it does not work on the PC.

Not weighing in on one side or the other, those are just the events the way i've read them.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Nope, can't see it. Where does it say in this article http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=66873 that all XB360 peripherals are also designed to work with PC?

...sigh.

"We're bringing back the Intellimouse Explorer 3.0, because that's what consumers wanted." A new mouse, too - a partnership with Razer sees them doing the HABU Laser Gaming Mouse. It glows. A lot.

Xbox 360 wireless accessories will work with Windows this autumn. There's a headset jack for PC headsets too.

But the whole point of this Live Vision talk was the fact it costs more than EyeToy, and the argument that it costs more because it works on PC too.

Uhh.. No. Maybe that's the original point that YOU were debating, but it's not the issue I was debating. I was debating the fact that it does work on the PC, and other peripherals from other competing vendors do not. Period.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

...sigh.

Xbox 360 wireless accessories will work with Windows this autumn. There's a headset jack for PC headsets too.

Why from that should anyone assume that the XBox Live Vision camera is intended to work seemlessly on PC, when (last I heard) it's a USB device and not wireless?

Uhh.. No. Maybe that's the original point that YOU were debating, but it's not the issue I was debating. I was debating the fact that it does work on the PC, and other peripherals from other competing vendors do not. Period.

Given that the response to the Vision camera's PC abilities was direct as a response to cost...

That is a lot, more than EyeToy.

Yes, but unlike the EyeToy, MS's camera is also PC compatible.

I understand that the extra expense was in part attributable to PC compatibility in some people's (Powderkeg's) opinion. Why else would the mention of PC compatibility come up in response to a matter of price, and then the discussion go on to say things like

As far as the financial aspects of the situation, Shifty, I imagine that 1) There are support costs, making a peripheral compatible with both the 360 and Windows Machines and 2) It's a profit center, so the price isn't reflective of the cost.

If cost of integrating Vision onto PC weren't ever the issue, why was it raised in a response to price and why did you suggest there are support costs to consider?

 

[scooby_dooby]

and the argument that it costs more because it works on PC too. Which is bunk.

The argument was that the camera has more value because it works on PC, which is entirely true. Then you went off on some tangent about it being unconfirmed, and there being no big marketing push etc etc etc. How does any of that change the fact that the camera will be PC compatible, and is therefore a better value than a camera that does not have this capability out of the box?

Nowhere did Powderkeg say that the reason the price was higher was PC compatibility, that's something you interpreted on your own. He simply pointed out this camera has functionality that the Eyetoy does not, to me, that's speaks directly to the increased value/usefullness of the peripheral, and is not supposed to be an excuse for a high price (which as expletive points out, is not even that high for a webcam).