PlayStationing writes: "It seems that the demand for the PlayStation 4 camera is surprisingly high, especially when you consider one of the main reasons people didn’t want to buy an Xbox One was because Kinect was forcibly bundled in."
The good thing about the PS Camera is that it is optional. You are not forced to buy it with the console. That was a good move Sony. People who have it are taking advantages of it. Voice commands works well, but the facial recognition still needs some work. I cannot wait to see how future games are going to use the PS camera. I use it playing Thief quite a bit.
I bought it, but would have liked it if there was more content other than Playroom, but I know anything that they rushed out for launch would be pretty pointless. Only reason I got it was because it was bundled in cheap, and it is actually quite small.
Yup. At least Video Chat. My camera sits on top of my TV and there's no use for it other than logging in with controller.
@JoGam I think Project M is the real reason to own one. So, a lot of people will hold off until that becomes available.
I bought it at launch. Came back to GameStop next week and they were sold out.
I'm still waiting on some games that properly utilize the camera before I buy one. I think keeping it optional was the best move, I mean look at how the whole thing with the Kinect turned out and you know why it was a good move to leave the ps4 camera it optional (consumer's choice, lower price, less resources used for it as it wasnt fully integrated with the ps4 leaving more room for games). Its was a gold move.
Playroom is pretty good as a tech demo though.
True that Naruto the people want option to buy the camera, not being force with it. PS camera has the potential to future games. So rock on!
Yeah it's nice not having peripherals shoved down your throat. Potato chips on the other hand. ;)
I got it with the hopes that down the road they do more with it. I don't do live streaming or anything (but now that I have it, I do have the option to do it). I would assume that the camera will come in handy for the Morpheus in the future.
It'll do more than come in handy with Morpheus. It'll be required. Morpheus uses Move technology, and the PS Camera was made with the eventual future Morpheus release in mind.
@Clover - yeah I kinda figured as much.
So wait, Microsoft have a camera and everyone and their mother seems to hate it, yet wen Sony does it, its brilliant? Optional or not that's just bias.
I'd have to see the Seles numbers first but yes that's right it's not bias it's simply ps4 gamers won't a camera more then Sony thought they would that and song didn't make half there studios make games just for a camera r anything like that that's the real issue way to many kinectONLY 360 games
And you trying to spin it into bias is just dumb.
People found a brilliant use for the camera. Overall though there isnt much use for it games. For those that don't care about what the camera has to offer right now, they dont have to be bothered by it or spend money on it. wouldn't say it's particularly brilliant on sonys part, just lucky happenstance.
osprey19, Welcome to N4G.
"Voice commands works well" LMAO! no they dont
WRONG!!!! They work extremely well even though the commands are very limited. I own a PS4 and two mics (bundled PS4 mic and headset mic) and the voice commands work great with both. So there!!!!
"That was a good move Sony. " in terms of what? Making people happy with choice? Certainly won't be a good move when it comes down to how many developers choose to utilize it in terms of, "how many people actually have this?" vs "well I know every console comes with it so might as well use it"
Uhh, don't forget people are using the PScam for perverted reasons also, allota twisted exibitionist out there.
"You are not forced to buy it with the console." It's not "forced" the camera comes with the console. It's like saying these consoles are forcing you with an included controller. This N4G buzz word of "forced" is being over used and thrown around a lot. If a system comes with it and works well with it then why not have it? It's obvious from the mouth of a Sony exec that PS4 fans love and want the camera.
Except the controller is the main peripheral of the console. The kinect and the PS camera are add-ons. At least PS fans have the choice og buying one or saving money for games instead of paying more for something useless at tge moment. See the difference?
There is no difference. The only difference is what you are desperately trying to make up and pass off as what everyone thinks. A person paying money for a Xbox One knows full well what they are getting and how much they are spending. No one is "forcing" them to buy the Kinect when they are making a clear decision purchasing a Xbox One. I can't really stress that enough. And if you don't have enough money left over for games then maybe you should set your financial priorities straight first before purchasing any console.
I wouldn't say demand is high... (not even 20% of total PS4s sold). And, I would say that the reason people want the camera is for streaming purposes. Not to play camera-based games.
Doesn't matter why they bought it, the point is they bought it in the first place. High based on Sony's own estimates i'd suggest.
Actually, it does. If they focus too much on camera-based games, the things people who own cameras don't want, that's wasted money and potential lost on games people do want.
cgoodno I see what you did there. The old reverse logic if Microsoft can't walk and chew bubblegum, neither can Sony. But PS fans are too smart for that.
@ cgoodno Exactly. Though I still wonder if the fact that the PS4 has been selling like hot cakes will turn that <20% figure into a large enough install base such that more developers would be willing to invest the resources to design game features around it.
that's the only draw back. When developers look at the Wii U gamepad, they know that 100% of Wii U owners have it, so if they make custom features, they are definitely being used. Same thing with MS and the Kinect, everyone has one. I can't really see many developers making anything with the camera in mind since like you pointed out, not everyone has one.
People do mostly buy it for streaming purposes; the thing is that Sony's isn't just marketing the streaming, but they're supporting it super hard. I'm surprised that Sony underestimated the PS4 camera's appeal, because their push for live streaming on PS4 was vigorous. It showed that they wanted live streaming to be an integral part of the PS4. Hell, the Share button on the controller supports that.
It doubles up as a mic array.
I find that, even though I wear a Pulse Elite headset with the mic on all the time, I never use the voice commands on my PS4. It's just not something I do. It seems just easier to use the controller in my hand. Am I weird?
@cgoodno: Voice control with the Pulse ELITE doesn't always like working out as well anyway. The camera seems better suited to voice controls, taking them in with greater accuracy. I really hope they add in more voice commands in the future too. For video playback in particular would be very welcome.
What Andy for homemade porn? Lol
Four disagrees hahaha
Better to underestimate it than to overestimate it like MS did when they decided to force it on everyone.
This has to be one of the dumbest posts ever. No, it's not better to underestimate it. I wanted to buy one forever, and never saw it at regular price once. It was only ones people were reselling for very marked up prices. Underestimating it just slows down the software lineup for it, and devs won't care to even think about supporting it, seeing that they know people can't even get their hands on the damn things if they wanted to. My friend warned me that it would be under-supported like the PS3 camera, I disagreed and told him they'd have learned their lesson. It seems even worse than he imagined though, because atleast you could buy a PS3 Eye(at regular or sale price). Despite the negative side of being forced to pay extra if you don't really care for the camera, there is a huge advantage to a mandatory bundle. Developers would feel much more free to add new features to games that wouldn't necessary change the whole experience, but would definitely add cool and immersive mechanics to games. It seems now that the PS4 camera will have a new audience though, with Morpheus. Many people that didn't care for the new camera, but love the idea of next gen VR(+AR), will most-likely get the Morpheus+Eye bundle if it's priced right and the launch software lineup looks good.
Yeah cause kinects is just over flowing with great support.
Software wise I still have to see a game that makes me want to have a camera for my console. We are getting the same Kinect games for X1 that we got for the 360. I mean actual games where you play with the camera and not things like VR that use the camera for tracking. For voice control any cheap 5 bucks microphone would do the job and stuff like navigating with your hand is still clumsy and slower than using a controller. To have motion gaming with a camera work really well you would need several high quality cameras in the room and attach motion capture balls to your body.
The camera was much harder to find in stock than the PS4's themselves!
I think this camera is definitely underestimated for what it can do for sandboxy type games, but the attach rate is probably only so high for the video chatting and twitchtv type features. Also, the Kinect is severely underused and underestimated. It has the potential to be as disruptive to the industry as the original ds's dual screens were, but as usual MS is too blind to see the potential, and instead they're just using it as a tv remote. So despite all that extra potential, it's barely being taken advantage of.
If the Kinect 2.0 with its 1080p camera and full body scan can't even provide a killer game then it would have been confusing to the whole PS4 message which is about the 'games' - not the peripherals, the games. And if virtual reality will require a different peripheral then what's the point concentrating so much on the camera? Putting a touch pad and light bar on the controller rather than the PS4 requiring the Move again was a sufficient solution. It is known that Sony need to make more money and busting the bank to include in a sufficiently camera would not only have been overkill but would have invited further scrutiny in comparison to the Kinect where Sony would undoubtedly not quite come out as superior. Sony made the right moves for them and even for us.
I don't think it's that Kinect 2.0 can't provide a killer game. I think it's that they haven't done anything except force internal studios to make any old game, instead of actually incentivizing creativity with the Kinect for internal and third parties. They need to have guidelines like Nintendo does that mandate and support innovative uses. Also, couldn't tell if you already knew this by your phrasing, but the VR will use the camera for head tracking, which is a great way to do it given the flawless tracking even the ps3 was capable of with the eye/move.
I didn't know that - I assumed that the VR would be entirely separate from all existing peripherals.
The reason some Ps4 owners want the camera is because they see how kick ass the Kinect camera is. Everyone that has a XB1 has a Kinect, so if a game developer wants to make use of it on a game they can rest easy knowing that. It doesn't take away from the experience, that's for sure, it only adds. Even if the PS eye is not better then the Kinect it makes the PS4 better. Mr. House recognizes this, that's why he's saying they underestimated its potential.
No. Broadcasting is the reason for the demand. Not motion games. Not voice control. Broadcasting. There is no reason for the camera to be a forced accessory, especially when it is VERY expensive to make. The Wii got away with its motion and tracking (the sensor bar + IR cameras in each controller) in EVERY console because it was cheap and had no effect on the final overall price of the console. The Kinect 2.0 and the PS4 Camera are by no means cheap. The Kinect is obviously more expensive to produce, but both are expensive enough to have an effect on the final price on the console. THIS is why Sony made the camera optional -- they based their decision on the PS3's PSEye adoption which showed a vast majority did not care for camera games. What Sony didn't factor and what both Microsoft AND Sony couldn't begin to fathom was the demand for broadcasting reasons (as broadcasting is new to THIS generation, so no previous data exists to base anything on). In Microsoft's case, since EVERY console has a camera the lack of cameras for broadcasting is a non-issue. In Sony's case, because they didn't have any data to judge the broadcasting demand, they didn't manufacture enough cameras to match said demand -- hence the scalping that occurred on cameras after the PS4's launch. So, no bias. No double standards. Just an unexpected market being created. Despite this though, I'm sure that the VAST majority of gamers (PS4, Xbox One, etc.) would rather the cameras be 100% optional irregardless of the end use this way those that want it have the CHOICE to get it and those that don't aren't forced into a paperweight (it might as well be called that since they won't use it).
Damn it I need to grab one
I still haven't purchased the PS4 camera as of yet, I think it has potential but I just don't see it as added value as of yet, not really much to do with it but I can see them doing a lot with it, so i'll wait to see, since I don't do streaming or anything like that I really didn't need it, so it was definitely a good idea to keep the price of the PS4 down by not bundling it, though I do think if they would have bundled it with the PS4 and maybe charged $450 for it I still would have bought it.
Better to underestimate than to overestimate.
Ps4's camera missing skype app that's the feature it should of had at launch the vita has it
Go figure x box 1 comes with Kinect already, and people complain about it?
Because all Xbox One owners are paying 100$ for it. With the PS4 you have the choice on whether you want to spend then extra cash on a camera. And the conclusion is that those who want it buy it and those who don't save their cash. Thats something that isn't possible on the Xbox One. Learn something new?
Sony knows what we like . PoV while she play with your analog
They are forgetting that what could be one of the reasons that ppl was not happy with the forced Kinect was the whole NSA thing had just came out and Snowden flat out said that MS gives the NSA access to all of their stuff then MS announced the Xbox one with a camera that comes with the system that you could not turn off and was always on and listening to everything and could see in the dark it was a bad time for MS I know that is why all my friends that had Xbox 360's said they were not going to get the Xbox one.
choice is what sony gave us... xbone's kinect was like trying to bundle salad to meat only buffet & make us pay extra for it. i for one find console cams pointless for a hardcore gamer.
im wondering why they increased the price on it.. I mean it sold out for a while but that only lasts so long & ppl will feel cheated by paying more for it later.. UNLESS they have some pretty bad a$$ stuff in the works with that VR headset & games
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.