Kotaku 
Enter your username and password.
Denver, 12:35 AM
Sat Nov 21
55 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip us: tips@kotaku.com
Editor-In-Chief:
Brian Crecente
Email | AIM | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Stephen Totilo
Email | AIM | Twitter
Senior Editor:
Michael McWhertor
Email | AIM | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor, Japan:
Brian Ashcraft
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, East Coast:
Michael Fahey
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Oceania:
Luke Plunkett
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Weekends:
Owen Good
Email | AIM | Twitter
Correspondent, San Francisco:
AJ Glasser
Email | AIM | Twitter
Columnist:
Leigh Alexander
Columnist:
Tim Rogers
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/17/09
So Microsoft probably thought, "Hell, they want it more expensive," and started messing around in the marketing department to see just how much they could charge.
Seriously, it's a camera with some software. I imagine most of the software is doing the work, so I have no idea why people believe it will cost (see any comment in comments section), but it may end up becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. #rumor
11/17/09
I wouldn't say it's just a camera though. It's a camera with Wii speak. #rumor
11/18/09
but isnt this a camera, with another camera AND wii speak? #rumor
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
Maybe Microsoft's taking a page from the Ron Popeil playbook.
11/18/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
is going to sell its biggest hit for $50
lol i doubt that #rumor
11/17/09
11/17/09
I feel silly now.
11/17/09
11/17/09
@AoE: No. Kritzkrieg. #rumor
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/12/09
Presuming no one is sanctioning or creating games with which he disagrees, or pursuing money as an end in itself, then these kinds of convalescent ideas and approaches to video game sales, not exempt from economic turmoil, are untarnished and give real expectation that things will be back to "normal," and then proceed far beyond normality.
You detractors of "corporate greed" are fighting against your own self-interest. These video game CEOs are giving more of what people want to more people who want them. You can criticize their irrational personal motives or fraudulent practices if they exist, but most of you are attacking the core of what makes the games industry in the first place. Tell creators they are obliged to make games for "real" fans, that they shouldn't think about their desires first, that they are providing a "public function," and you are telling them they have no right to make the games they want to make, that their desires should be sacrificed to your preferences, and that you have the right and moral claim to tell them what to make and how to make it.
If you can give me one reason why they should focus on lower prices as an end in itself, why they should focus on service to the consumer rather than service to themselves as their prime motivator, then I'll eat my words and rethink any and all of my beliefs.
Good luck. #gamestop
11/12/09
What's happening to Hollywood right now is sort of what's happening to the game industry. They don't want to take any risks with developing new ideas, so they stick to their old guns and pump out rehashes. And why should they focus on service to the consumer? Because we, the consumer, are the ones who pay them. There are plenty of great game companies that focus on their consumer base. Valve and Tripwire to name a couple. But hey, if the larger companies only care about the money coming in and don't give a rats ass about their consumer base, I guess that's their problem. Don't bite the hand that feeds. #gamestop
11/12/09
Yes, they care about the consumer only insofar as it makes them money, which was my point. Sure, they care about the consumer, but not primarily. In other words, why should they care about consumers' interests over their own desires, which is in most cases profit? To say that they should care because the consumer pays them is twisting the question in 2 ways.
1. You are ignoring the fact that if they cared about the consumer because that is what makes them money, then they are by definition not primarily concerned with the consumer, but rather with his money. 2. If what they are doing is pumping out rehashes to make money, then guess what, they are focusing on the consumer, at least the ones that are willing to spend the most money, which is the whole reason you said they should pay attention to consumers in the first place.
You have to get to the heart of it. Why should companies care at all about keeping prices lower if it doesn't benefit them?
It's an impossible case to make, I know, but most people would agree with it regardless, and I'm anxious to see the reasoning. #gamestop
11/12/09
While it's been around, nobody else has shown how much money you can make off of a game, and how long you can make it worthwhile peoples time!
The con is though, shown repeatedly, that devs might just switch off a function and then ask money for it... Now that is just bullshit. #gamestop
11/12/09
11/12/09
now that's what i call breaking the street date. #projectnatal
11/12/09
11/12/09
Seriously. It's an f'ing travesty. How could people possibly rate the Natal higher than, oh I don't know... Solar Shingles, or the AIDS vaccine. #projectnatal
11/12/09
this has nothing to do with Microsoft. as a whole they have done some great things. this is about Time magazine being a bunch of dweebs and prematurely stroking the wang of Natal as if its freaking out and changing the way we play games. stop being such a tool and read the POST.
TSK TSK NATAL IS NOT OUT YET .
AND TSK TSK, PS EYETOY SAYS HOWDY YALL. #projectnatal
11/12/09
11/12/09
11/12/09
Cos thats what I want. *tsh-tsh-tsh-tsh* Woo-hoooo-hoo-hoo
I'd of thought the Gamestop CEO would be anti-DLC. As they don't make any money of it (beyond apparently using it as an excuse to keep full price on games for longer) and many developers use it as a method to reduce used game sales.
Actually Totilo you got anything to link to on this. wouldn't mind skimming through the transcript myself. Glean some interesting info form the guys who shape the industry.
Edit: now this is wierd... its moved my second post into my first, and still removed the video.
11/12/09
"I'd of thought the Gamestop CEO would be anti-DLC. As they don't make any money of it (beyond apparently using it as an excuse to keep full price on games for longer) and many developers use it as a method to reduce used game sales."
Actually, if you've noticed, GameStop is increasingly offering exclusive DLC perks for pre-ordering. This turns in to HUGE cash for GameStop -- a huge increase in guaranteed full-price sales due to exclusive rights to perceptibly sought-after DLC. More full-price sales = money, more traded in games from those more initial sales = money. Hence, DLC makes them money overall. It makes sense for them to push the message, "People want DLC and DLC is rad" because it generates more sales for them in the end. #gamestop
11/12/09
Though as he said, DLC on a game means they can keep charging more for longer. #gamestop
11/12/09
11/12/09
"Though as he said, DLC on a game means they can keep charging more for longer."
not forgetting at all. #gamestop
11/12/09
11/13/09
True, but think of it this way -- if GameStop knows that, say, 20% of all game sales come back as trade-ins overall (which they can resell for a larger profit margin after the fact), what's a bigger number? 20% of 100,000, or 20% of 1,000,000?
They want to push game sales as much as possible, whatever it takes. Increase numbers out to, in turn, increase numbers in, which is most profitable for them. More games in the hands of consumers means more games traded in overall, means more profits for them.
Also, as @KichiGuy: pointed out, the longer a game maintains a higher price point, the longer GameStop is "justified" in charging more for their used copy -- even larger profit margin (read: raping of the consumer and marketplace).
11/12/09
I'd like to credit whoever first claimed that DLC would be the ultimate in nickle and diming as the prophet of the unspoken truth. Whereas most of us were under the haze of public relations, that one man, whoever he may be, dared to speak out amongst those that could only see the current and ephemeral. I salute you sir. How unfortunate it is that I must salute you. #gamestop
11/12/09
I think it never occurred to me that it could get this big. It was one, then two, then suddenly with out notice a whole lot of them have DLC. #gamestop
11/12/09
11/12/09
Still do. It just doesn't show at times. #gamestop
11/12/09
Does anyone, other than dentist's offices, actually buy Time magazine? If there's one dinosaur that I thought the Internet age would kill, it's Time magazine. #projectnatal
11/12/09
If Time had given this award out next year, jack asses would be saying "but it was invented last year!!"
It's invented. That you are unimpressed or unable to see the possibilities, is irrelevant. That you can't buy it yet is irrelevant.
Another one of the top 50? Tweeting with your brain. [www.time.com] that commercially available? Viable? Does that matter?
No. No it doesn't. Its cool. And even if it never sees the light of day. Even if it never works for all people. It's still cool. #projectnatal
11/12/09
It's not that its not currently out and available to consumers. I'd wager most of that list isn't out commercially.
However as it stands there's no final Natal product at all, all we currently have is some press shots n some 'demos' of the device. Even Molyneaux admitted most of the Milo demo was canned, and is just an idea of what it would do.
As someone suggested it's like awarding a GOTY while its still in alpha.
Others have also pointed out the technology isn't even new:
e.g the Zcam
[en.wikipedia.org]
[www.engadget.com]
Which 3DV was snapped up by MS early this year
[arstechnica.com]
And even if it's not an award for the tech but for its application, controller free gaming has been around since Eyetoy.
So yeah, the complaints are perfectly valid.
Also the Tweet by thinking thing is commercially viable. It's something that been worked on for many years, and will allow people with paralysis to communicate even if they cannot speak, or move their hand to write. It's kinda the complete opposite to natal ain't it. #projectnatal
11/12/09
No ones talking about it being commercially available. They're talking about a finished and tested product. #projectnatal
11/12/09
Do you really think that on-stage demonstration back at E3 (with the elephant painting and brick breaking) was completely faked? (obviously not, as the "bam! there's the underside of my shoe" gag was clearly (and painfully) not pre-rendered)
Do you realize how long it was after the invention of the airplane until a typical consumer got to use/fly in one? Years and years.
It has been invented. Will they continue to tweak it? Yes. Will they continue to develop it? Yes. Might it not catch on? Yes. But a mere patent drawing this isn't. It is as real as the Wright Flyer was. Moreso really. The Wright Flyer was a single prototype. Presumably, Natal is virtually in its finished form already. #projectnatal
11/12/09
Well, I'm sure Natal existed in some form a few years ago. It didn't just pop up this year if we're gonna get technical like that. With that said, since Natal will get the chance to be appreciated next year I don't think anyone would question it's importance if it turned out to be worthy of praise as a great invention of 2010.
Time shouldn't be so quick to praise anything this easily is the problem. At least not before it's been through it's rounds. People differ with their views of Natal, if it was given a chance to prove that it was so great though we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. It's just too early, I think that's what everyone is getting at. #projectnatal
11/12/09
"The vaccine is not approved for use yet, but it's the first to make any headway against HIV, and that's a start."
That's the problem with end of the year lists such as this. History is often unkind to them and doesn't operate on a strict time line.
It is often impossible to see an invention and instantly realize the potential. And even more difficult to predict whether that potential will actually be realized.
True 3-D control without any controller or device combined with voice, face, and tone recognition, could be a huge deal. It could truly change interactivity as we know it. Will it? I don't know.
Whether it deserves to be on this list or not is one issue. I don't know the answer to that question. I'm not aware of any inventions that got left off the list so I'm not in a position to say it doesn't.
I believe I was more addressing the primary argument over whether it was "invented" at all such that it could be considered for this list. As to that foundational question, I believe it most certainly has.
If we had to see the thing on the market and working perfectly to say it was invented, most of the things on that list (if not virtually all of them) would/could not be there.
Such as the AIDS vaccine. #projectnatal
11/12/09
"Then why are they praising the AIDS vaccine?"
I stated in the post earlier that nothing should be praised before it's showed it's worth.
"Time shouldn't be so quick to praise anything this easily is the problem."
This isn't about Natal anymore, it's about Time's ignorance. It seems that if Natal is a success Time can come in 10 years and say "remember when we called this". If not, we'll never hear of it again. It's just Time's list that's the problem. If they're just going to randomly say anything is great with no coherent value to be seen who are they to rank it? A bunch of posers I believe.
I think now we've come to a common understanding that the list is bologna. #projectnatal
11/12/09
Excuse the excessive second post, but I have something of another nature to address.
On the topic of whether or not Natal should be praised this year or next, I think it doesn't matter. Natal was patented this year, but I'm sure it was invented before hand. No one is going to care about the time it succeeds after it has. They're only going to care about it when it affects them, which right now, it does not.
The AIDS vaccine affects people now because unfortunately many people have AIDS, so it's hope.
An example of this is the iPod. The iPod didn't become popular for two or so years after it was invented, when did it become worth praising?
To me, the Time list should be about significance. Natal was unexpected and doesn't really fix anything, especially when put in context with some of the other stuff on the list. #projectnatal
11/13/09
Take the Dyson No Blade Fan. That made the list. Is it necessary? No. Is it popular? Not yet. Is it important? Certainly not. But it's new and cool and its something to watch to see if it lives up to the hype.
Does that make the list worthless? I don't think so. I take it for what it seems to be. A list of cool inventions that might change the way we do things in the future.
Whether that thing is playing video games or moving air around a room. #projectnatal
11/12/09
11/12/09
11/13/09