Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft XBox (Games) Games

Project Natal Renamed 'Kinect' 286

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the i-had-those-when-i-was-a-kid dept.
tekgoblin writes "Many people gathered for the opening of E3 to see Project Natal. When they entered they were told that the new name of Natal is Kinect. Kinect is going to be the new way to play. It is going to be completely controller-free. You can browse your dashboard with the wave of your hand."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Project Natal Renamed 'Kinect'

Comments Filter:
  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Monday June 14, 2010 @09:27AM (#32564050)

    It's a shame that MS and Sony seem to be investing all their efforts into jumping on a motion controller fad that's already fading fast (seriously, how many gamers have Wii's gathering dust in their closets already?). Meanwhile, MS is on the verge of breaking the 5-year rule with the 360, with Sony soon to follow--with no next-gen systems in sight. Both consoles are already showing their age--especially the 360 with its DVD drive, already necessitating several multi-disc releases.

    I know there is a recession on and all, but the 5-year rule has held through recessions before. It even held during the early 80's console "collapse." Every day these systems age is another day that PC gaming starts to look more and more attractive to many of us gamers. And I really don't want to go back to PC gaming. But I also don't want to be playing on a console that's viewed more and more as a "toy," rather than a serious gaming platform.

    I know that MS and Sony want to capture the casual market, but it seems misguided to me. Wii already *has* that market, and a knockoff copy of their controller probably isn't going to change that. Meanwhile, they risk losing the gamer market and ending up not pleasing anyone (by trying to please everyone).

  • by Osrin (599427) * on Monday June 14, 2010 @09:31AM (#32564104) Homepage

    Shouldn't it be - "Project Natal Named 'Kinect'"?

  • by Drakkenmensch (1255800) on Monday June 14, 2010 @09:32AM (#32564116)
    The software industry may have a hand in keeping the next gen of consoles at bay. Considering that most of the high-graphics high-profile games now have a development budget in the millions of dollars and require upwards of a year (sometimes several years) to create, game developers have seemingly reached the upper limit of technology they can currently handle before going financially or workforce bankrupt. It's not until they can create more art, level design and cgi with less time and ressources involved for the current generation that they'll be able to even consider going one step up.
  • by gazbo (517111) on Monday June 14, 2010 @09:39AM (#32564218)
    So you don't want to play on a PC because you don't want to keep upgrading, so you want console vendors to release upgrades for you to buy. Interesting.
  • by Pojut (1027544) on Monday June 14, 2010 @09:46AM (#32564288) Homepage

    especially the 360 with its DVD drive, already necessitating several multi-disc releases.

    Remember back in the day, when people thought "Holy crap! It requires multiple disks! It must be HUGE!"? Final Fantasy VII is the example that immediately comes to mind.

    Besides, multiple discs aren't really that big of a deal. I agree, it's nice having everything on one disc, but seriously...is it that hard to change the disc out every 10+ hours?

  • EyeToy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 14, 2010 @09:46AM (#32564290)

    Kinect is going to be the new way to play. It is going to be completely controller free.

    So was EyeToy [wikipedia.org] 11 years ago. I'm sure other Slashdotters will/can find other earlier example.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 14, 2010 @09:50AM (#32564344)

    Egads, man, do you have no soul? Mario Galaxy 2 just came out! While the Wii doesn't have all those FPS games, it's difficult to imagine a person being a real gamer and not playing the flagship Mario games. Man, I miss the 80's. What exactly makes a headshot more valuable than kicking Bowser's ass?

  • by tuffy (10202) on Monday June 14, 2010 @09:55AM (#32564426) Homepage Journal

    Whatever its technical merits, this just isn't going to work in the market. Game-specific console add-ons tend to work (e.g. balance boards, plastic instruments, etc.) whereas general purpose ones do not. This is because game developers are forced to either target the add-on with specific titles that take advantage of it, which relegates them to a small subset of the console's total base; or they tack-on support which rarely works well and doesn't help sell the add-on.

    If Microsoft were serious, they'd release an X-Box 3 with motion-only support so developers can count on it and develop accordingly. But they're not, they won't, and it won't sell.

  • by nschubach (922175) on Monday June 14, 2010 @09:56AM (#32564438) Journal

    I don't know if I'd say you "had to upgrade"... I'm sure there was more "want" in there. ;)

  • by bluesatin (1350681) on Monday June 14, 2010 @09:57AM (#32564450)

    And please don't give me that "You don't *have* to upgrade, you can just ramp down the settings on the latest games" argument. Yes that's true. But we all know that most self-respecting gamers *hate* to do that.

    After admiring the new purdy graphics on most games for about 10 minutes, I usually go back and turn the graphics way down to make sure I have a steady FPS; I get so immersed in games after about 20 minutes of gameplay I don't notice whether or not my shadows are perfectly smooth around the edges.

    As long as the graphics aren't absolutely terrible to the point where it's distracting, I'll be happy playing on the lower settings.

  • by somersault (912633) on Monday June 14, 2010 @09:59AM (#32564472) Homepage Journal

    Even if MS release a new console that doesn't mean the lifespan of the 360 is over. The PS2 is still having new games made for it, so it hasn't reached its full lifespan yet despite the PS3 being out. I think that's a pretty good thing as it caters to different segments of the market. Some people just can't afford a PS3 or 360..

  • Dont forget with a console you're buying a TV

    One TV that up to four people can share in a game like Bomberman, Power Stone, or Smash Bros. Compare to PC, where too many popular games follow the handheld pattern of needing a separate PC, monitor, and copy of the game per player.

  • This is silly, a console costs what 200, 300 dollars now? The only upgrade a gaming PC usually needs these days is a graphics card, which wow cost what 200 to 300 for a decent card?

    Graphics cards aren't a game's only system requirement. A PC from the fourth quarter of 2005, when Xbox 360 was launched, might not have the CPU and RAM to run newer games. And most titles still need separate PCs, monitors, and graphics cards for players 2 through 4 in your household, though now that HDTV has become popular, this is starting to change with the inclusion of HTPC support in the PC version of Sonic and Sega All-Stars Racing.

  • by Gadget_Guy (627405) * on Monday June 14, 2010 @10:26AM (#32564792)

    Just because you did this doesn't mean to say that you had to do it. If you look at the PC gaming stats [steampowered.com] you will see why the midrange graphics settings in games get called 'mainstream'. Only a third of people play at 1680x1050 or greater. It is because most people have fairly basic setups and they do not follow the perpetual upgrade path.

  • by rotide (1015173) on Monday June 14, 2010 @10:26AM (#32564796)

    I use to be a die-hard PC gaming fan. Then, to be honest, I grew up. Gaming to me is now about relaxing and enjoying my free time. The last thing I want to do is worry about framerates on the latest game to hit the shelves or the DRM they incorporate.

    I simply want to sit down, turn it on, hit play, and be playing. Standardized hardware is awesome for this ability to always be great hardware for the software I purchased.

    Now, I will admit that PC games have the ability to be _much_ prettier and I still can't stand FPS games on a console (keyboard/mouser), but for _any_ other game, the console is just a no brainer for me. It's just so easy to go to the store and pick up the latest AAA title and enjoy it.

    Maybe PC gaming as a whole is better for you, and I'm happy for you. But I'd argue that your opinion is not universal fact, "It's better anyway.".

  • by tepples (727027) <{tepples} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday June 14, 2010 @10:27AM (#32564810) Homepage Journal

    When the Xbox 1 came along, I finally had a system that could deliver a comparable experience without having to constantly be upgrading (or worrying about the latest pain-in-the-ass DRM) to keep up. Ditto for the 360 and PS3.

    You might be right about major-label games. But I don't see how the original Xbox or any PlayStation console has a selection of independent games comparable to the PC. Due to console development overhead, games from small studios always come to the PC first if they ever come to the consoles. And some kinds of games will never come to Xbox Live Indie Games on Xbox 360 due to XNA limitations [pineight.com].

  • by binarylarry (1338699) on Monday June 14, 2010 @10:30AM (#32564842)

    So what you're saying is you prefer less choice because you can't reign in your spending habits?

  • by ProppaT (557551) on Monday June 14, 2010 @10:40AM (#32564972) Homepage

    There is no 5 year rule. Seriously. A couple generations back we had that cycle because technology was advancing rapidly. Now game console technology is waiting for consumers to catch up and adopt HD. Believe it or not, there's still plenty of people who don't have HDTVs. Also, now that people are getting HDTVs they're more than happy with the graphics on their 360 and PS3. Sony said, out the gate, that they were aiming for a 10 year product cycle on the PS3. Personally, I'm glad that no one (except for Nintendo) is in a huge hurry to push anything new out. It's not time. I'd rather see a huge jump from current gen to next gen instead of putting out the same console, just with marginally better graphics.

    Then we have the developer issues. These new consoles are complicated to program. Heck, many of the companies have just finally got their internal development tools tweaked out for this gen. They're finally getting to the point where they can start putting out games faster and put out interesting/experimental games without taking a huge risk. It's not like things used to be...games are a massive undertaking now due to the complexity of the games themselves and high definition art. Game developers need this time to actually start turning decent profit. It's been a rough few years...

    Besides, are you really in a hurry to spend $500+ on a new console? Shorter console life cycles benefit no one at this point, especially consumers.

  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Monday June 14, 2010 @11:01AM (#32565260)
    Yeah, but doing a knockoff is hardly an assurance of co-opting those kinds of sales. As I said, the Wii *has* the casual market. And there is a lot of money in that market, yes. But I think MS and Sony's assumption that they can cut into that so easily is misguided (especially at the rumored $150 price point of the Natal), and it does a disservice to the market they already *do* have (the more serious gamer).

Work is the crab grass in the lawn of life. -- Schulz

Working...