I don't think we can question whether home can accommodate home exercises as the proliferation of trainer DVDs clearly indicates that it was a lucrative market. XF just capitalizes on that same market, taking it to a much more interactive level.
I don't understand the criticism of a fitness game, it clearly uses the tech but also don't see how anyone who truly cares about this tech can point to a fitness game and a poorly implemented dance game as proof that MS has delivered on the promise of Kinect 2.0. KSR is an average at best game and what is on deck? I'm pretty sure there are some indie titles in development but what is MS doing to attract interest in Kinect?
Can't compare Kinect Fitness to Wii Fit though...
Wii Fit was a pay-once addon content tied to a physical product. The Wii was a less-expensive but popular console from the beginning for the more casual/physically-active audience. The Wii Fit was something that came after the console's userbase was already established, and only reinforced/strengthened the existing audience.
Kinect Fitness is a separate subscription service that requires consistent payments. The XB1 is a fairly expensive console upfront that hasn't established the kind of reputation/recommendations that would bring in the casual/physically-active audience. Kinect Fitness came out around the XB1 launch and didn't have a clear focus on who ultimately it's appealing to other than "We're everything to everyone! Buy our product now!"
Weird analogy...
The Wii: Just fun dating where expectations were low, and things may or may not have gotten serious as time goes on. The choice is yours is make, and the open/varied level of commitment makes it that much more appealing.
The XB1: Started talking about marriage, having kids, 401Ks, and growing old together too much on the first date. Things could turn out great if given the chance, but the expectations of commitment were so damn high it scares off most people (especially if you know so little details about them).
Wii Fit was a pay-once addon content tied to a physical product. The Wii was a less-expensive but popular console from the beginning for the more casual/physically-active audience. The Wii Fit was something that came after the console's userbase was already established, and only reinforced/strengthened the existing audience.
Kinect Fitness is a separate subscription service that requires consistent payments. The XB1 is a fairly expensive console upfront that hasn't established the kind of reputation/recommendations that would bring in the casual/physically-active audience. Kinect Fitness came out around the XB1 launch and didn't have a clear focus on who ultimately it's appealing to other than "We're everything to everyone! Buy our product now!"
Weird analogy...
The Wii: Just fun dating where expectations were low, and things may or may not have gotten serious as time goes on. The choice is yours is make, and the open/varied level of commitment makes it that much more appealing.
The XB1: Started talking about marriage, having kids, 401Ks, and growing old together too much on the first date. Things could turn out great if given the chance, but the expectations of commitment were so damn high it scares off most people (especially if you know so little details about them).
i was following Kinect xbox 360 fitness program for 3 months and the result are nice. (i select the program to have better stamina).
but fitness games are bloody boring. There are some gamification but it is boring.
looking at videos of Xbox Fitnss for X1, it seems to have the same problem. It is boring. its more like following fitness session that playing fitness game.
YourShape "virtual karate" is game-ey enough,fitness enough, and fun. but its only 1 game/fitness mode from other hundreds boring game/fitness modes.
*this is from gamer perspective. im a lazy gamer that dont like doing fitness deliberately (except for biking).
but fitness games are bloody boring. There are some gamification but it is boring.
looking at videos of Xbox Fitnss for X1, it seems to have the same problem. It is boring. its more like following fitness session that playing fitness game.
YourShape "virtual karate" is game-ey enough,fitness enough, and fun. but its only 1 game/fitness mode from other hundreds boring game/fitness modes.
*this is from gamer perspective. im a lazy gamer that dont like doing fitness deliberately (except for biking).
That's something EyeToy managed really well. You easily worked up a sweat just playing bouncing around games. There's certainly scope for energetic games that function as a fitness aid but which are clearly games. They seem to be off every developers agenda though.
It wouldn't be serious. There's a middle ground for people to burn calories and get a cardio workout just in the process of having fun. That's basically what amateur level sport is. What you could possibly do is use the skeleton tracking to adjust posture and award better 'attacks' for hitting the postures more accurately. Combine that with a King Fu style punch fest, you could burn calories and work on muscle strength and flexibility (gradually increase the target for how high to kick the leg etc. as the player progresses) without it being a fitness program.
I've had a fair bit of experience with gamified education, and it's much the same. There's only so much learning you can fit into a game before it loses its gaming soul and becomes an educational exercise with a gaming skin. People who want to learn will use a better educational tool. People who want to have fun will play a game. There's little crossover point.
Kinect Fitness is for people who want to follow a fitness program. It doesn't serve the gamer wanting to have fun and burn calories. That's a market that's not really being targeted. What few attempts there have been tend to have been lacklustre too (that Kung Fu game on PSEye that didn't work too well, for example). But that market might not exist to a larger enough degree to warrant investment. I'm not sure how that info could be reliably obtained. There's considerable possibility that a high-energy game would be entertaining for a spell and then get dropped, as people not serious about getting fit are more likely to abandon energetic gaming for their gaming fix.
VR might be a godsend in that regard, creating a very game-like environment (eg. paintballing) with a decent amount of physical activity just to get the gameplay control required. Body tracking could be a great addition to VR, but I expect it's too laggy.
I've had a fair bit of experience with gamified education, and it's much the same. There's only so much learning you can fit into a game before it loses its gaming soul and becomes an educational exercise with a gaming skin. People who want to learn will use a better educational tool. People who want to have fun will play a game. There's little crossover point.
Kinect Fitness is for people who want to follow a fitness program. It doesn't serve the gamer wanting to have fun and burn calories. That's a market that's not really being targeted. What few attempts there have been tend to have been lacklustre too (that Kung Fu game on PSEye that didn't work too well, for example). But that market might not exist to a larger enough degree to warrant investment. I'm not sure how that info could be reliably obtained. There's considerable possibility that a high-energy game would be entertaining for a spell and then get dropped, as people not serious about getting fit are more likely to abandon energetic gaming for their gaming fix.
VR might be a godsend in that regard, creating a very game-like environment (eg. paintballing) with a decent amount of physical activity just to get the gameplay control required. Body tracking could be a great addition to VR, but I expect it's too laggy.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
For me, DDR was second to none for this. And I've yet to meet a single person who once past the I-look-like-a-prat stage, didn't thoroughly love it. So many friends bought a PlayStation and DDR mat having played on ours
It's not a coincidence that the increase of fat people tracks relative to the decline of DDR
It's not a coincidence that the increase of fat people tracks relative to the decline of DDR
Mindbloan.
Kinect would be bosstits for some DDR. It could measure how sweaty you were getting, and use your expression to tell how much pain you were in, and how much other people were laughing at you.
It's almost like the age of console being fun toys came and went with PS1-PS2 era, with a little Wii dragging out the concept to the unwashed masses. Now they seem altogether too serious. DDR was awesome. Where's Dance Combat, boogying down to the kung fu beat in a side-scrolling dance-off against zombies in ninja garb?For me, DDR was second to none for this. And I've yet to meet a single person who once past the I-look-like-a-prat stage, didn't thoroughly love it. So many friends bought a PlayStation and DDR mat having played on ours
It's not a coincidence that the increase of fat people tracks relative to the decline of DDR
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-09-30-microsoft-announces-windows-10-for-late-2015
If Windows 10 runs XB1 software, or XB1 runs Windows software, we could see 'Xbox' just become the Windows game branch. MS gives up on the console biz (would probably carry on with hardware sales only as long as its profitable) and just sells through its store front a la Apple. That's exactly the future MS wants (and Sony too). XB1 could then use the VMs to run either XB1 mode or Windows 10 mode, so compatibility with the old games won't be broken.
It'd be a full circle if this comes to pass. MS was pulled reluctantly into the console space by expectations of the future. Those didn't pan out and now a universal OS is far more important than a closed gaming box. Unlike Apple and Google, their chief rivals, MS would have a unified desktop and mobile ecosystem. Then competition would shift to Google trying to win over the desktop space from an entrenched MS, and MS trying to win over the mobile space from an entrenched Google.
If Windows 10 runs XB1 software, or XB1 runs Windows software, we could see 'Xbox' just become the Windows game branch. MS gives up on the console biz (would probably carry on with hardware sales only as long as its profitable) and just sells through its store front a la Apple. That's exactly the future MS wants (and Sony too). XB1 could then use the VMs to run either XB1 mode or Windows 10 mode, so compatibility with the old games won't be broken.
It'd be a full circle if this comes to pass. MS was pulled reluctantly into the console space by expectations of the future. Those didn't pan out and now a universal OS is far more important than a closed gaming box. Unlike Apple and Google, their chief rivals, MS would have a unified desktop and mobile ecosystem. Then competition would shift to Google trying to win over the desktop space from an entrenched MS, and MS trying to win over the mobile space from an entrenched Google.
With low-level APIs in the PC space, like DX12, Mantle some of the advantage of the console disappears. Just about the only thing I'll miss is knowing multiplayer games are a level playing field in terms of performance, input and lack of hacks. We'll see what happens. I expect Xbox to continue to exist, but it could just be a small windows box the same way Surface Pro is their tablet.
Looking at the image at the bottom of the link, "One product family, One platform, One store," the Xbox One name begins to make a lot more sense. That name must have been chosen knowing Windows 10 was coming, as part of a long term strategy.
Looking at the image at the bottom of the link, "One product family, One platform, One store," the Xbox One name begins to make a lot more sense. That name must have been chosen knowing Windows 10 was coming, as part of a long term strategy.
It also sheds a little more light on the VM concept, as that allows a complete replacement of the OS without impacting the machine. It raises the possibility that XB1 was more of a stop-gap solution. MS wanted the unified ecosystem that is the obvious end-game, but weren't going to achieve that with Win 8. So at head office they plan a long-term solution, a whole new Windows that adapt to every device, but they still have to compete in the console space for the sake of their brand that might be important in maintaining dev relations or gamer relations, or even just to have a product (focus was on Kinect and not gamers, after all). But also, a bank-busting hardware design wouldn't make sense if they were aiming to go OS only and let other IHVs handle the hardware. Dell and friends aren't going to want to be competing with a £200 Windows box that's super awesome, whereas a £200 box that isn't up to the quality of their £400-500 boxes is acceptable competition from the OS vendor.
I guess we have to wait to see what Windows 10 on XB1 looks like, if it happens in full, to reevaluate MS's strategy. Long term, it may have been exactly right save for the focus on non-gaming. A hardware stop-gap before their universal software platform looks very sensible to me.
I guess we have to wait to see what Windows 10 on XB1 looks like, if it happens in full, to reevaluate MS's strategy. Long term, it may have been exactly right save for the focus on non-gaming. A hardware stop-gap before their universal software platform looks very sensible to me.
The primary advantage of consoles is not because of special APIs, but rather then single configuration you have to support; Identical performance in all metrics. On the PC you have a decimal order of magnitude difference between lowest and highest performing CPU and two orders of magnitude of GPU performance difference.
With integrated graphics slowly killing the discrete GPU market, PCs will become more like console. Developers can cater to a fairly large share of the PC install base by targetting a couple of years old main stream CPU/integrated graphics performance level.
Cheers
I do agree that a single hardware spec is a huge advantage for consoles, but consoles were also able to punch well above their weight relative to PCs because of the API layer. Now PCs are going to bridge the gap. You have a PC without any of the console limitations on the software-side that has relatively the same performance with equal hardware.
Looking at what Intel is doing, I've had a hard time believing this console gen can last more than 5 years, because integrated GPUs are going to demolish PS4, Xbox One in that time span, not to mention the CPUs.
Now, assuming that in the future Microsoft decides to make Xbox One games run in Windows 10, and Windows 10 games run on Xbox One, and those games have full hardware access, I can still see Xbox continuing as a product. It basically gives a base-target/profile for developers. You make your game run to that spec, and then anyone else with better hardware just scales up. It would be like Surface Pro, just their own branded hardware without any exclusive features on the hardware or software.
I think that was the plan all the way:
http://67.227.255.239/forum/showpost.php?p=32041554&postcount=1
Next year we will have DX12 and Windows 10 on XB1 and not only system OS/partition is based on W8 but also Games OS/partition is based on W8, too.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Technical specifications are obviously not the sole, or even overriding, factor in choosing a console. If it were there would be far more PC gamers versus console gamers. Hell my 2012 MacBook Pro decimates my PS3 and a) it's a bloody Mac and b) it's a bloody laptop
If tech specs were the number 1 factor lastgen would be died years ago.
<CGImageProvider 0x14fc0720>
Technical specifications are obviously not the sole, or even overriding, factor in choosing a console. If it were there would be far more PC gamers versus console gamers. Hell my 2012 MacBook Pro decimates my PS3 and a) it's a bloody Mac and b) it's a bloody laptop
If tech specs were the number 1 factor lastgen would be died years ago.
<CGImageProvider 0x14fc0720>
Last gen was pretty powerful at launch. Maybe not top of the line, but pretty powerful and at a good price. Integrated graphics on laptops were not very good until Intel Iris was launched. You had to get a more expensive laptop with a discrete GPU if you wanted something good. This gen, the consoles are low to mid-range (at best). Getting seven or eight years out of them seems crazy when there will be laptops and tablets with new generations of Intel GPUs for under $1000. Having cheap laptops or hybrids that are competitive with game consoles is going to be a new thing this generation.
Similar threads
