Confirmation that the camera is irrelevant to Sony and ergo won't be properly supported.
- Status
djskribbles
Legend
They're not.
I partly agree, but "irrelevant" is a bit harsh
The same could be said about the support for two controllers because it's up to the devs if they want to support games that use two controllers, and it's up to the gamers to buy it. They're not forcing us to buy the PS4 for $460 with two controller, that doesn't make local multi-player and fighter games irrelevant.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I partly agree, but "irrelevant" is a bit harsh
The same could be said about the support for two controllers because it's up to the devs if they want to support games that use two controllers, and it's up to the gamers to buy it. They're not forcing us to buy the PS4 for $460 with two controller, that doesn't make local multi-player and fighter games irrelevant.
Supporting more players in a game doesn't require as much of a development cost with regards to controls as does supporting an alternate control scheme.
At worst you end up with someone that just plays the single player of your game. For a camera based game, at worst they cannot play your game period.
In other words, you lose no potential market adding in support for a second controller based player. While with a camera based game, you lose access to the entire market that doesn't have a camera.
Hence, unless the camera is included by default, the chances of it getting 3rd party support are extremely slim.
Regards,
SB
Plus there's a proven market for multiplayer games, but not such a proven market for camera-based games where people have to buy an expensive peripheral, especially when that peripheral gains them no benefits beyond a few games. What dev is going to think to themselves, "let's create an awesome camera based game and hope people buy the camera in order to use it"? With no clear market, it's a dumb business decision. There'll be the same proven concepts, Dance Dance cross-platform titles, and that's it. Even things like motion tracking in concert with the DS4 controller are unlikely to get any support.
As the pioneers of camera based gaming, this is a travesty. Instead of taking it forwards, delivering on all their empty promises in their EyeToy HD concept video, it's down to MS to forge the future (although I don't hold much hope for Kinect either).
djskribbles
Legend
It was my understanding that the "OS reserve" was for OS and apps. Plus we have other sources saying more than 5GB is available for games.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
It really is a shame. In many ways it's a stark contrast to the Sony that launched the PS1 and PS2 and were willing to take all kinds of chances. It's almost like they released the camera attachment, had limited but not runaway success, then either got scared or ran out of ideas and since then haven't been able to figure out what they want to do with it.
Compared to PS1, PS2, and even PS3, where they wanted to try new things and push the envelope of what a console is, PS4 just seems to be extremely conservative by comparison. Perhaps when PS3 didn't dominate the market as they expected it would they got skittish and decided not to take any chances with the PS4. Hence the PS4 unlike any of the previous consoles is pretty much just more of the same. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, just not what I expected from the Sony of old that liked to try all kinds of off the wall stuff. Then again maybe without Crazy Ken at the helm, there isn't anyone left to push crazy ideas.
Which interestingly enough if you look at the competition's console prior to all the changes that were made due to public outcry, you could almost think that it was one of Ken Kutaragi's designs and ideas.
Regards,
SB
rockaman
Regular
You lose enough sales by making a bad camera game...
IMO, PS4 has a camera, because the other two consoles have a camera/IR/pointer capabilities.
The reason I think this is reason enough is simply because of one reason: when or if a game comes along, or series of games comes along, that people are really thinking in large groups to buy a game designed for PS4 Camera, it will already be there.
Having the camera there is simply being progressive, rather than being reactive. It doesn't hurt Sony as much to make it, as it would to simply not have it at all, despite what right now I project to be low sales of the device.
Case in point... I am not buying one, but I am buying a launch PS4 with KZ SF. However if Media Molecule gives me a good reason to buy the camera... I will buy one. That's actually another reason it's good to have the camera around (re: I disagree with the assertion of irrelevance), because those developers who want to make a "camera game" or games with "camera capabilities" can make those games on PS4 too, without special consideration. The device is available, simply simple.
IMO, PS4 has a camera, because the other two consoles have a camera/IR/pointer capabilities.
The reason I think this is reason enough is simply because of one reason: when or if a game comes along, or series of games comes along, that people are really thinking in large groups to buy a game designed for PS4 Camera, it will already be there.
Having the camera there is simply being progressive, rather than being reactive. It doesn't hurt Sony as much to make it, as it would to simply not have it at all, despite what right now I project to be low sales of the device.
Case in point... I am not buying one, but I am buying a launch PS4 with KZ SF. However if Media Molecule gives me a good reason to buy the camera... I will buy one. That's actually another reason it's good to have the camera around (re: I disagree with the assertion of irrelevance), because those developers who want to make a "camera game" or games with "camera capabilities" can make those games on PS4 too, without special consideration. The device is available, simply simple.
I'd say Gaikai is a whole lot riskier than PSEye. It's similar in scale to deploying Blu-Ray and Cell. And the cost is on-going.
If they want to make it available to other platforms, it will increase the difficulty further.
I'd say Sony have been very very conservative and not innovative since the PS2 days. The PS3 had Cell and stuff but they didn't take advantage of the PS Eye -kind of ironic, imho- and they were steered by Nintendo first and then Microsoft in some ways, but they were in the tail-end wagon until very recently when they began to create new exciting IPs.It really is a shame. In many ways it's a stark contrast to the Sony that launched the PS1 and PS2 and were willing to take all kinds of chances. It's almost like they released the camera attachment, had limited but not runaway success, then either got scared or ran out of ideas and since then haven't been able to figure out what they want to do with it.
Compared to PS1, PS2, and even PS3, where they wanted to try new things and push the envelope of what a console is, PS4 just seems to be extremely conservative by comparison. Perhaps when PS3 didn't dominate the market as they expected it would they got skittish and decided not to take any chances with the PS4. Hence the PS4 unlike any of the previous consoles is pretty much just more of the same. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, just not what I expected from the Sony of old that liked to try all kinds of off the wall stuff. Then again maybe without Crazy Ken at the helm, there isn't anyone left to push crazy ideas.
Which interestingly enough if you look at the competition's console prior to all the changes that were made due to public outcry, you could almost think that it was one of Ken Kutaragi's designs and ideas.
Regards,
SB
Last edited by a moderator:
PSEye doesn't have a monopoly on innovation. ^_^
While Sony didn't have a hit casual PSEye title like WiiSports, its PSEye implementations is indeed very different from Wii and Kinect. It is more meant for core gaming. The precise and responsive 3D control is in its own class, but -- too bad -- somewhat clunky.
Sony's focus on first parties and indies since PS3 days are pretty forward thinking. I remember some people on this forum mocked the strategy because third parties games like CoD, GTA were selling very well. Even though there was no major PSEye break, games from ThatGameCompany and some first parties showed us mind blowing titles.
They also pioneered advanced graphics techniques on Cell, such as MLAA, and heterogeneous computing. The big push for 3D gaming, while not successful in a big way, showed some of us what future gaming can be like. I look forward to try VR gaming next !
Bagel seed
Veteran
The games themselves are the 'innovation'. And the only next innovation that really matters is Oculus Rift type VR headsets. And to achieve that with some decent quality you need power. Everything else is overrated in terms of perceived impact on the masses.
One game isn't enough to establish progress or to create a culture of supporting advanced interfaces. Also, Nove doesn't need stereoscopic cameras. I don't wee what the new design is really going to bring. I don't understand why Sony bothered making it if they aren't going to support it and lead the way. What was it - a time project for interns over the Summer?? How else can one explain a new peripheral with no software to use it?
Besides mega-sellers like dancing games, Sony seems more interested in AR. They continue to pitch AR on Vita (e.g., Invisimals), EyePet, EoJ, KF Live, and WonderBooks on PS3, plus PlayRoom on PS4.
I think they already said they will rely on titles to sell PSEye. Essentially, no interested titles, don't buy PSEye.
I think they already said they will rely on titles to sell PSEye. Essentially, no interested titles, don't buy PSEye.
I would guess it's really difficult to have third party support, too.
[dramatization]
Sony: Do you have game ideas to support the new PSEye?
Devs: Nope.
Sony: If we bundle it with all machine, lose market share because of the high price, will you make motion games?
Devs: Nope.
[dramatization]
Sony: Do you have game ideas to support the new PSEye?
Devs: Nope.
Sony: If we bundle it with all machine, lose market share because of the high price, will you make motion games?
Devs: Nope.
AFAICT:
- the PS4 was envisaged as 'the best console they could sell for $399'.
- in Jan/Feb they were faced with a choice of camera or +4GB.
I feel sorry for the people that worked on the camera+controller, only to miss their 'day in the limelight', but for the PS4 that was the right choice...
Pfft.
I wonder of the possibilities of a PSEye in the hands of indies and outside of main genres. Big pubs don't drive innovation. They are concentrated on driving profits using proven means. Look at touch. Big pubs more readily put out games that make u wish for a physical controller while it was the indies regularly put out titles that don't come close to encouraging such desire.
PSEye as a standard would of made it more practical for indies to embrace.
We've rarely get to see these cameras as a round peg pushed through anything other than a square hole.
I wonder of the possibilities of a PSEye in the hands of indies and outside of main genres. Big pubs don't drive innovation. They are concentrated on driving profits using proven means. Look at touch. Big pubs more readily put out games that make u wish for a physical controller while it was the indies regularly put out titles that don't come close to encouraging such desire.
PSEye as a standard would of made it more practical for indies to embrace.
We've rarely get to see these cameras as a round peg pushed through anything other than a square hole.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status