I personally think that an evolution and combination of the Move controller and Kinect would offer FAR more opportunities for innovation in both core and casual games than a touch panel and additional screen ever would.
If you have a Kinect 2 with better precision and more processing to throw at the problem (but is that really ther pb, for all we know, kinec takes few CPU and GPU and RAM resources, if needed MS could raise those requirements for the kind of successful games on Kinect ) I would expect that you don't need move like controller. Think of Children Of Eden, It's closer to 1o1 mapping than what games pretending to do acutally do. There are less lag as there are no shape or posture to recognize, you movement are mapped almost in real time as you were moving a mouse. With extra precision Kinect could recognize hand postures (this will induce lag, as I don't believe that algorithm can predict that properly). So you could have a pretty wide set of controls applicable to quiet some situation, in practice it sounds like 1o1 mapping applied to a puppet.
The real question is do you want to do that all the time? Can you see you playing CoD for an extending period of time with one hand acting as mouse and the other a joystick (all virtual)? Will you suppress all the noise you unwanted movement could introduce in the gameplay? Will The device be that perfect that it suppress all the "noise" your body generate? Especially look at you hands, on an extented period of time they generate noise. Serious gaming would imply standing pretty still.Your points are fair this one is too (and that assuming that hand posture induce no lag over pressing a button by nature the answer sounds obvious but let give some credit to tech).
I've already been here, voice command is even more laggy, not too mention that whereas english OK the other languages>>> better not bet the house on this.
This kind of approach is really kids and casual playing oriented, with better perf it has good chance to impress I agree but I would bet that CoD and most AAA core game will use a pad, or if given choice core gamer will use pad. Ultimately as some games are bought by core gamers... devs efforts would be for nothing.
I think MS sum it up well at Kinect launch pad is going nowhere.
The WiiUmote seems fine and all for little quirky things like a constant inventory screen in a Zelda game, but I hardly screams "TEH POSSIBILITIES" with regards to gaming implementations that would meaningfully add anything to core games.
The kind of implementation you speak is nothing great but a really nice addition, and it's not blocking you can still turn off the tv and call the inventory/tactical views/etc, through a touch on the screen. You can still maintain input on the screen relevant to gameplay.
Touchscreen for some genres would be a world of possibilities missing from consoles, simulating touchpad + keyboard. Push harder those kind of control may prevent you to play without TV or devs would have to think of serious work around, to some extend I'm not sure is wanted. Some genre will never succeed on console with either a pad or kinect, I see no reason to further "broaden the scope of input (I speak of tactical rpg, RTS, etc. you could assign units to virtual keys, use the touch which is more convenient, etc. Really core gameplay to bring all the missing genre to the console realm + benefits I've been through many times).
Hands free motion tracking, gesture-based & absolute positioning motion control, tilt & gyroscopic functionality, voice recognition, are all things to me that would more greatly enhance the games that we currently play, as well as those we will play next generation.
Kinect 2 is going nowhere, where would I imply that? It's just that clearly it's limited in its use and trying to use it every where do more arm than good to the device and the game trying to do so.
Additionally, Sony and MS need to do something with their next-gen boxes that sets them apart or differentiates them in a significant way from the tablets and smart phones that are rapidly growing in popularity, processing power, development support and essentially consumer spending.
MS and Sony need to compete for the same dollars, and the only way they can do it is with the software, as the rapidly advancing processing power of those other devices, combined with the fact that we're reaching deminishing returns in terms of gaming assets and graphics, will mean that the average Joe will soon reach the point where they consider the graphical difference between platforms as meaningless. By adding a touchscreen to their next-gen console as the primary control interface it will not differentiate their software enough so as to ensure that the experience is always unique or exclusive to the home console platform, quite frankly it would ensure the opposite.
Being to avoid quiet some conflict in the living room is great. Kinect is nothing new or we don't leave on the same planet. MS give it away with every 360 and sales of the games are nothing awesome not enough to support AAA games. By the way it's you now that is after a strong marketing gimmick to sell the games.
Motion controls on the other hand, the type that a combined Move and Kinect would provide, would be impossible to reproduce on these portable devices, and would easily set apart the "home console gaming experience" from the portable one.
Motion control is nothing new, 70 millions people bough the Wii, hundreds of millions play games with motion control on their phones, kinect has been there for a while now and games sales tell that it's a nice/healthy
niche. There is nothing to set part mostly is here already, it more about using the right tool for the good job.
The hard part imho will be Sony & MS providing a platform that will foster that innovation in game design and experiences based around the Move/Kinect technologies, whilst also trying to meet or exceed the graphical expectations that gamers have for next-gen, and all at a reasonable asking price out of the box (a seemingly impossible task
).
We're not discussing Sony but MS and they clearly show that they were to broaden their reach in the living room, the purpose of kinect 1&2. You acknowledged and in the same say that top priority is to fill or exceed your geeky expectations. That's doesn't sounds coherent to me.
depending on the implementation (like number of controllers supported) such a controllers bring something to everyone:
To every one it offers convenience (as I described many time, and there are "fight" for TV in family).
To core it offer extra controls for games that never successfully adapted to pad and never will (not too mention Kinect).
It offers plenty of option for casual and party gaming, educational games, and complex table games (if other player can't see you're screen it brings plenty of interesting option for local multi play).
It offers keyboard input to everyone
It can be a great addition depending on the level of multi tasking supported by the next xbox OS.
It can be use for games but yu could also have twits, facebook, friends online, news feeds on the secondary screen, the possiblity is here, either one use it has a gimmicks of for inventory (cheap in my opinion) is just one missing the potential of like Nintendo not having what it takes on the software side (and hardware N might not be in a situation to reserve enough ram and processing power to anything relevant in the "background" while somebody is playing a game).
It offers motions controls.
And there is kinect 2 and with it MS covers every bases imho, no need for move or wiimote (which doesn't touch what a WiiUmote can provide).
