Top
430°

'Forced Camera Anti-Consumer' Says Sony

Sony says decision to offer PS4 without a camera based on consumer choice.

Read Full Story >>
nowgamer.com
The story is too old to be commented.
JimmyLmao1004d ago

What more can I say... Sony speaks the truth.

darthv721004d ago

The odd part is everything the PS4 has been designed to do has been with the camera in mind. The controllers built with the move light bar, the social interactions with video chat (just to name a few).

when sony showed off the system, they did so with the camera and until they actually made the announcement that it would be separate, it was lead to believe that this time they would make it part of the package.

it obviously gave them the opportunity to cut the price of the system by not including it but seeing as there is more legitimacy to it being part of their initial vision, personally, i will be getting one when i do get my ps4.

to me, its the total package.

-Foxtrot1004d ago

"The odd part is everything the PS4 has been designed to do has been with the camera in mind"

Not really...to me it seems like a gaming machine which has a focus on games and gaming related features.

I just think they have catered to the crowd who will want the camera so one side doesn't feel short changed.

iamnsuperman1004d ago (Edited 1004d ago )

I guess you could see it as anti consumer to not include it but I think the price justification really comes into play here. If we had to have the camera and the PS4 was gimped so that its price wasn't a lot higher a lot of people would be annoyed. It is a balance really. It is a shame but how many people are going to use the camera features? I suspect initially a lot but that would soon tail off.

At least the option is there for those who decide they want it (i.e. there is UI support for it) but it still isn't forced on the masses (as I think the masses really do not care about camera features and only a small proportion do)

Wikkid6661004d ago

-Foxtrot

Then please tell me why the light bars are on each and every controller.

thehitman1004d ago

I actually agree that Sony wants the camera to work and be successful but at the sametime they know what the consumers mainly want. They put the option there for those who want it and give great incentives to use it by having so much hardware and software integration at the start. Sony is probably hoping people pick up the camera anyway.

I myself have no interest in the camera as I had 1 before and I also have a Move controller but if you have a GF and she likes that sort of thing then its a great addiction.

-Foxtrot1004d ago

@Wikkid666

Pretty sure they've said they have other plans for the lightbar. It's not JUST for motion control or the camera.

They fitted it in there so they can do other features with it while people who want to play the camera can use the same controller without switching to something else

KonsoruMasuta1004d ago

Wikkid666, for people to utilize if they do buy the add on.

JetP06191004d ago

@ wiikid, the lightbars serve a lot of other purposes not just with the sony camera. for example different colors on it are used to identify who's player 1 or 2 or 3 or 4. It doesnt need the camera to function though in a way it has some benefits as it recognizes who is who when playing and thus it rearranges player positions from screen.

hakeem09961004d ago (Edited 1004d ago )

LMAO Anti-consumer ,says the guy who charged $600 for the PS3 because he wanted to shove Bluray down everybody's throat .Yeah right !!!

I guess MS was right, and streaming was indeed the future . I've never purchased a Bluray movie .

CynicalKelly1004d ago

It's called good PR. Sony have smart to capitalize on Microsoft's blunders and the current mentality of the majority of consumers.

They patented technology to block used games being played on their systems yet capitalized with good PR at E3 to make gamers think they care about gamers.

They are just doing the same thing here.

GiggMan1004d ago

@Wikkid, the lightbar is for other stuff also. It tells which player is which. Can change colors during single player gameplay (think mood ring lol). Plus it just looks cool as hell...

georgeenoob1004d ago (Edited 1004d ago )

A "forced" camera is what's going to motivate developers to take advantage of such complex technology with kinect 2.0. If you don't want the camera, then don't buy an Xbox as simple as that. Stop pretending something's being forced. Kinect makes Xbox 1.

Wikkid6661004d ago

Light bar only works with the camera... so it was 100% thought of with the camera in mind.

Revolver_X_1004d ago

@Hakeem

A. When PS3 launched it was the cheapest blu-ray on the market.

B. If streaming is the future, then why did MS 180 the whole Always Online? Oh yea, X1 has a blu-ray in it, in case you didnt know.

Good try though

Saigon1004d ago

Its such a play of words. I actually thought Sony made this statement in relation to MS but it turns out that this was a statement in regards to Sony's decision not to include the Camera. While I say good move for Sony, bad move for journalism.

darthv721004d ago (Edited 1004d ago )

@revolver, PS3 was not the cheapest BD player. There were models from Samsung, RCA and even Sony that were cheaper. The reason they were cheaper was just prior to the PS3 release, they got price competitive with Toshiba and HDDVD.

Keep in mind that the PS3 came out when both sides took to giving away free movies as an incentive to garner consumers.

The average price of both a Bd player and HDDVD player was roughly $400 and that was when the Ps3 came out at $500 and $600 respectfully. Now obviously the PS3 did more than play movies so that was one way sony was trying to justify the pricing.

As to your 2nd point, streaming has long been at the front of MS which is why they invested more into their streaming engine (silverlight) and use that as the primary delivery engine for the movie and tv services on xbl.

Their involvement in the whole HD war was to stall the physical adoption and have consumers look at streaming as the better alternative to getting HD content to their TV's. There is some legitimacy to their idea.

just look at the increased number of streaming services since the 360 came out. some would say it was inevitable but in truth it was ushered in at a faster rate than the bluray adoption rate in comparison to DVD. And it is because of 1 word.....

convenience.

Tiqila1004d ago

its good they have designed it well thought with optional camera abilities in mind but dont include a camera mandatory.

Thats what I like. If I ever feel like wanting a camera I can do that. But not at launch and not forced.

loulou1004d ago (Edited 1004d ago )

idiotic "sony speaks the truth" gets 54 agress to 18 disagrees

yet

darthv72 speaks the truth and it is 17 agrees to 28 disagrees

how could anyone that is not a fanboy pretend that n4g is not choc full of sony fanboys.

"other plans for the light bar" like what? it changes colour when you get shot in game?? yeah i always look at my controller when i am gaming.

are people really that stupid on here?

XboxFun1004d ago

There is no doubt Sony took the camera out of the package as a direct result of price and under cutting MS.

Which is why they didn't release the price of the system when they first revealed the PS4.

A very smart move to wait and see what your competition is doing and offering, and then one up them by taking out certain pieces to make your system cheaper.

Nekroo911004d ago

"The odd part is everything the PS4 has been designed to do has been with the camera in mind"

if that was true we would see some games at launch using the camera... like the ones using kinect on xbox.

so dont make those assumptions

Outside_ofthe_Box1004d ago (Edited 1004d ago )

I think Sony should have bundled("forced") it in.

The PS4 might not get things that aren't gimmicks, but are actually welcomed additions like head tracking now because it's not bundled in. Head tracking is something that would give players an advantage over those that don't have a camera. Devs aren't going to want to risk imbalance in their games by having something like head tracking in it when they know not everyone is going to have a camera.

I know not everyone wants to pay the extra money for something they don't necessarily want, but yeah most would have the PS4 anyway or Sony could have just taken the extra loss.

Oh well, it definitely looks like the PS4 camera is getting a lot more support than the Eye did on the PS3 anyway.

Legacy2121004d ago

@revolver
But no one asked for blu ray. Blu ray was new and scary technology in a world dominated by dvds. At the time HDtv werent that common in most homes. Im sure people were thinking why am I paying 599 or 699 or whatever for a blu ray player when I dont even have an hdtv. The fact is companies take risks and in sonys case the risk payed off. Companies need to take risks to innovate and I think that mictosoft deserves a chance to prove thrmselves just like sony did with the ps3

madpuppy1004d ago (Edited 1004d ago )

Same here, I pre-ordered the PS4, an extra controller, Knack and KZ:SF and the Camera. I think that they were going to be a pack in but, to beat MS by 100.00 they decided to leave it out. there are just to many obvious clues to that view. the controllers having a light bar, the advertised feature that the PS4 would know if you switched sides on the couch and would swap the screen accordingly. the PS4 being pre-installed with the software that requires the camera.

NateCole1003d ago

To the idiots mentioning Blu ray. Kinetic optional. Blu ray is part of the PS3.

parentoftheyear1003d ago

I'm glad they aren't forcing a camera on us. I had both kinect and PS eye. I used the PS eye for little big planet and that was it. Xbox kinect we bought it and played a dancing game once or twice. It just doesn't appeal to me as a gamer. Ps4 I'm buying asap xbox1, only when kinectless SKU available. If not then I won't.

+ Show (22) more repliesLast reply 1003d ago
GmIsOnPt3601004d ago

BUT forced Blu-Ray was not? Its all a matter of perspective.

GarrusVakarian1004d ago

Foretelling an industry standard(blu ray) is not the same as forcing a gimmick camera that is useless for hardcore games.

-Foxtrot1004d ago

Oh come off it, blu ray players back then were really expensive, you were actually getting more for less with the PS3. I wish I knew that back then before I called it.

Without blu ray I doubt the Last of Us, Killzone, God of War and Uncharted would of looked THAT good without it.

It was a good long term call in my opinion, Microsofts DVD format held some games back in my opinion, for example look at L.A Noire instead of fitting all that pre order DLC on the disc they didn't because the 360 couldn't fit it all on so we got cut content.

CocoWolfie1004d ago

what?! thats like saying a dvd drive is forced, and you can play both dvds and blu-rays on a blu-ray player

GiggMan1004d ago

I know you're glad that HD-DVD was an option on 360 lol. If someone is going to force something on me I hope it's meaningful.

Kinect has no benefit for actual gaming Blu-Ray does.

KonsoruMasuta1004d ago (Edited 1004d ago )

What!? Blue Ray isn't a peripheral. That's like saying the DVD drive was forced.

Sitdown1004d ago

Is the HDD forced? You don't necessarily need it for games.

Death1004d ago

Blu-ray didn't make Uncharted, GoW, or any other game look nicer. Take that theory and toss it since it was unproven. Metal Gear couldn't be done since it was 50 gigs, blah, blah, blah. The digital copy was 9 gigs. Blu-ray needed duplicate data on the disc to speed up seek times. It was a bust. Sony used Playstation gamers to finance their war against HD-DVD. They won, we paid. Life goes on. If you want to believe that the programmers and Cell/GPU were not responsible for making the games look good, that is your prerogative. Blu-ray was simply a storage medium. Nothing more, nothing less. With the added cost of Blu, a couple games that were released didn't include a second disc. The downside was it chewed up a lot of HDD space.

Drekken1004d ago

Give me a break. Are you still crying about Bluray?? Bluray has been a gift to gaming AND movies. Sony innovates and adds it in when it is needed. They did the same with DVD with the PS2. You really need to get lost with this crybaby argument.

A forced always on camera is way different than a larger medium for a new generation.

Bimkoblerutso1004d ago

It wasn't so much the camera itself that was anti-consumer. It was the implementation. They could have designed the system around the Kinect and NOT forced features that basically turned the thing into a corporate spy-cam.

...oh wait...they totally changed direction with that? Those privacy shattering features that were essential to the functionality of the device were done away with within a couple of months?

Yeah, Microsoft was just seeing what they could get away with. They weren't trying to push the friggin industry forward.

Ezz20131004d ago

Blue Ray is forced ?!

i wonder why MS is putting it in xbox1 then

DialgaMarine1004d ago

I guess Blu-Ray is somehow optional with XBone?

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 1004d ago
NoLongerHereCBA1004d ago (Edited 1004d ago )

Sorry to say this, but this is quite hypocrite of Sony to say. They removed the camera from the PS4 in order to offer a price below that of the competition (MS). I know they talk about it in the story, but if they didn't need to undercut the price, they would've kept the camera.

In my opinion Sony is sucking up too much lately. I know I get plenty of dislikes for this post (N4G duh), but you know that it is true since they have said so themselves. Live the lie al you want guys.

thehitman1004d ago

Even w/ the camera its cheaper than the xb1. So I dont get your point. Sony camera is 59.99 MS camera is like 149.99.

NoLongerHereCBA1004d ago (Edited 1004d ago )

@thehitman (my last bubble so I can't respond)

It is about it being forced upon you. Whether it is 200 or 20$ is not of the essence. Sony would've gone for a 500$ price if the camera was included probably, since they are currently losing money per PS4 sale.

Sony was going to include it in the price initially, but they decided to remove in order to undercut the Xbox Ones price. That is what it is about.

Edit for JetP0619: I am not sure if it came directly from Sony. Could be that it really was just a rumor but:

"IGN claims that “multiple sources” say that PlayStation 4 was going to be priced at $499.99 – the same price as Xbox One – but the PlayStation Eye was removed from the base package at the last minute in order to undercut Xbox’s price strategy. “The last minute” could mean a number of things, but it likely doesn’t mean “on the day of E3.” Sony has even stated that they were elated when they learned of Xbox One’s price point, because it meant the had the advantage.

Those sources say that Sony informed retailers of the removal of the camera after deciding it “months” before E3, but didn’t comment to those retailers on how or if this impacted PS4′s price."

Link: http://www.gengame.net/2013...

If it really were only rumors than I apologize, but I believe there to be some truth in it, due to the lightbar in the controller etc (even though it has simple gimmicky futures that you rarely use, since you never look at your controller while playing a game)

JetP06191004d ago

link please or it never happened. From what's been shown ever since the reveal back in February 22, It was never confirmed that Sony originally had planned for all the ps4s to come bundled camera. They've always talked about catering to consumer's interests

Kayant1004d ago

@VaizardNL

"Sony would've gone for a 500$ price if the camera was included probably, since they are currently losing money per PS4 sale"

What??? The point of including something is to offer it at a cheaper price so how it will now become $100 is stupid when the camera is $60 it would be cheaper because they're mass producing more at a time.

Also MS are not making money on the XB1 either they are trying to break even or at worst low margin which we don't know how low it will be. Breaking even is not making a profit. Like Sony they making money from services and games.

From the article -
"The strategy will continue which is that we're looking to be break even or low margin at worst on [Xbox One], and then make money selling additional games, the Xbox Live service and other capabilities on top,"
http://www.computerandvideo...

Gamingcapacity1004d ago (Edited 1004d ago )

Like I've said in previous comments, Sony never announced the camera was going to be part of the system. That camera cost less that $30 to make so even if they did have the camera they could still undercut the X1 by over $70.

There was nothing suggesting that Sony were going to include the camera other than people jumping the gun because they announced it at the same time to give their camera the best exposure as possible.

When the ps2, ps3 and ps4 were revealed the consoles where sitting in the official Sony stands but they were sold seperately. My point is that they can reveal stuff with the console but never intend to bundle them.

Sony never announced the camera being bundled so people really need to stop using that in arguments.

Edit: Really? Cut $100 or by removing something that costs less than $30 to make?? It doesn't add up and it doesn't add up with the claims made by sources but OK.

darthv721004d ago (Edited 1004d ago )

@gamingcapacity, what you neglect to understand is that both the eyetoy and pseye were afterthoughts. They were not initially shown at the same time the systems were revealed.

they were released many years later as an add-on with limited support. This time, however, the notion of them making a new and improved ps4 eye with the the whole system being built to take advantage of it says that it was in their original intent to incorporate the camera as part of their complete experience.

Many have based their entire argument on "intent". Just look at the "intent' on Ms with the original policies that they changed their mind on. how or why is not the issue but the intent was there and that is usually enough to detract many from even seeing what strides they made since then.

So now back to sony, the original intent was to include the camera as a way to enhance the experience and by making it part of the system package would ensure a level of support that prior cameras lacked.

They chose to remove it from the package to cut costs. It was a risky move but one that seems to be paying off on their side seeing as Ms has stuck to their word in saying they want a kinect in every box.

Rainstorm811004d ago

@darth

The PS eye released less than a year after the PS3 launched not Years later.

Besides if it was ONLY to cut costs why did Sony bundle the PS4 two controllers Killzone SF and the camera for 499.99?

http://cdn2.sbnation.com/up...

Honestly with that bundle they could've just bundled the camera with every system.

Gamingcapacity1004d ago (Edited 1004d ago )

@darth
I don't really see the revelance between the two. It's just an updated camera to work with Move, video chat and the new DS4. The Playstation Eye had a lot of problems with background cancelation and quality of stream in poor lighting. It's simply an update to the PS Eye.

Why do people think that Sony needs to undercut the X1 so badly. It doesn't need to undercut the X1 by $100 (maybe $50) in the US and it certainly doesnt in Europe and Japan (it could retail for the same price and still sell more. PS3 outsold the 360 in Europe and Japan while being sold for more).

I really think Sony planned the strategy way in advance of E3. Decision go a lot deeper than a quick change within hours. They have people that weigh up all the details and then it would probably go through meetings to plan it all out.

quinten4881003d ago PersonalAttacksShow
+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 1003d ago
malikgiga1004d ago SpamShow
2cents1004d ago

"a decision was taken - and I think it was absolutely the right decision - which is, to force bundle a camera is probably against consumer choice."

I agree completely with this comment if what your selling is a camera that is an accessory to the experience.

As much as I would like to avoid the hate that I will undoubtedly get for saying this but the PS camera is not as well realised or integrated into the PS4 experience as is the kinect is to xbox one.

The Kinect is a superior product, and the utilization is far more involved then what a 'camera' can offer. Coupled with the fact that the whole user interface has been built with the kinect in mind, there is a greater need to have it integrated with the xbox one experience.

I also totally understand that many people don’t get, or want the kinect and the experience it offers and would be happier with an Xbox One without it. But this is a new generation of consoles, which means new tech and experiences.

It comes down to personal choice.

p.s. please don’t take even more bubbles from me just for expressing my opinion, im not hating on anyone, just giving my thoughts on the situation.

AngelicIceDiamond1004d ago

Yeah, Anti consumer for the PS4.

zippycup1004d ago

no Sony now some people would want the camera so they added light bar to controllers it dosent bother us who don't care about camera but later on if i decide i want one i don't have to buy all new controllers

AlphaJunk1004d ago (Edited 1004d ago )

The odd thing about Sony's statement is that almost any cell phone or tablet you buy has a camera - why is no one calling that anti-consumer? Everyone should get over the camera thing. Geez, a bunch conspiracy theorists and crybabies.

Mithan1004d ago (Edited 1004d ago )

That is crap. It isn't "anti consumer".

What is next? It is anti-consumer to offer a game pad with the system? Is it anti-consumer to put in a hard drive?

Was it anti-consumer to sell the PS3 at $600 with a Blu-Ray player?

Using Sony's logic, it is.

Come on, don't be stupid.

The PS4 is obviously the better value here, but Sony shouldn't start turning into arrogant idiots like they did with the PS3 launch.

Microsoft has chosen to offer a camera (which the majority of us feel is useless). Knock them on price, don't knock them for being "anti consumer", at least for this.

Microsoft chose to offer a camera as a key component to their system. Good for them. I don't care for it personally, but it is far from "anti consumer". Sony is just plain dumb in this article.

malokevi1004d ago

Exactly. Its all about choice. MS chose to include the camera for what they think is good reason, and people are free to choose not to buy an XB1. Suggesting that anything is "forced" is retarded.

Most of us live in a free country. Do what you want with your money. Personally, I'll be grabbing an Xbox one on day 1.

I've already started using voice commands when I want something done =D Just a little warm up...

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 1003d ago
lifeisgamesok1004d ago (Edited 1004d ago )

MS is trying to create new gameplay experiences and they have some good ideas on ways to implement Kinect

Example: In Dead Rising 3 you can say a word and the zombies will hear you and come after you in a dark area

If they don't include it developers don't use it because they don't know how many users have Kinect

GTgamer1004d ago

What type of dumb shit is that make noise and zombies come shit i listen to music when i play games DR2 and people in my house are loud so that makes it bad for me.

lifeisgamesok1004d ago

That's just one example and I'm pretty sure people that are buying the game are fine with it. You're probably a Sony nuthuger anyway lol

Hufandpuf1004d ago

Just turn that option off.

NoLongerHereCBA1004d ago

I think this option is quite awesome (if you have the option to disable it). Let's say you are playing the game and you are trying to keep really still in order to not alarm zombies, but then you have a Giant Sneeze incoming and you alarm a horde of zombies towards you. Yes it sounds gimicky and it might be, but it is awesome that things like this can be added to the game due to the camera being included. The likelyhood of these type of things to be included if the device wasn't delivered with every console would be very small.

Xsilver1004d ago (Edited 1004d ago )

@lifeisgamesok you do know a simple mic could be used for that little feature smfh so why do we need kinect again, clearly you and MS can't find a reason to use the kinect.

Regis1004d ago

Do you not see the movies where one person attracts a horde of Zombies to keep them away from others?

malokevi1004d ago (Edited 1004d ago )

Spark mocap, facial animation capture and dialogue recording. Check that.

"Wahhhhh I hate one feature in one game and therefore Kinect is useless wahhhhh"

Thats what you all sound like... and nobody cares :p

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1004d ago
Kayant1004d ago

True but it hasn't stopped devs from developing multiple of kinect titles that are on the X360 atm or developing for the two past eyetoys.

The point is there are just about as many people that don't care for kinect as a gaming peripheral/extension as there is that do. Do you force all does people into paying for the kinect?

Then there is the UI naviagtion/voice controls which are gimmicks to me because I would only use them a couple of times again like me some people may not be interested in this. Do you force also force these people into paying for the kinect?

Majin-vegeta1004d ago

Kinect is sh*t and a gimmick.Where are these so called innovative ideas M$ kept harping about back when kinect first was going to release??

abusador1004d ago

Didnt you see Milo? Oh wait.......

-Foxtrot1004d ago

They were never going to come out...as soon as it went from Natal to Kinect it showed you that Natal was a gamers wet dream and how it was basically an exaggerated lie of the real product they were going to release later down the line

In my opinion I think they did it so hardcore gamers would buy it and give it a chance.

WeAreLegion1004d ago

That being said, I think Milo was a great concept that could be done properly one day. A few developers are doing similar things with Oculus Rift. Most of them are creepy dating sims though.

sloth33951004d ago

they use to do that in splinter cell games just using a regular mic just like with rainbow six you could use voice commands with a mic only to tell your team to frag and clear a room Kinect was never needed for anything like that before

Xsilver1004d ago

@life i like how your example is completely useless and is a perfect example of how people will not use that feature because its obstruction from the game you're playing please give better examples since MS can't.