XBOX ONE Kinect will fail like Wii motion controls (gogle plus reupload 2013)

Originally posted August 13th 2013.


The short, "full market adaptation of the kinect" will only bread shovelware and stupid tacked on kinect controls. The long, well read.

A message to all the Microsoft fan boys saying that Microsoft is moving in the wrong direction by not making the kinect required and developers will develop amazing titles and uses for it because of full market adaptation. All you need to do is look back 1 generation, and I'm not talking about Kinect 1.0, I'm talking about the Nintendo Wii.

Now all you Wii fans out there, I am NOT talking about the wii as a whole and am only talking about the motion controls. With that in mind, continue reading.

Let's look at the Wii. By design of the freaking controller, every consumer had 100% market adaptation of the motion controls. By your logic, every game would have either used the gamecube controllers or utilized the wiimote in a revolutionary, immersive way that completely revolutionized gaming. Unfortunately, that is far from the truth. I can count the number of worthwhile games that fully utalized the motion controls of the wiimote or just used gamecube controls. Now I am not, I repeat, NOT, talking about if a game was good or not, just if the motion controls of the wiimote were fully utilized or if they just said "screw the motion controls, let's use the gamecube controller." And if someone can produce a list of over 6 games that are actually worth while, not a collection of mini games, that fully utilize the motion controls or just say no, I highly doubt you can produce a list of games that is larger than 31, and with counting in binary, I can get up to 31 on one hand.

But back to the subject of motion controls, aside from maybe 4 games, every other game had tacked on motion controls because developers felt they needed to put some kind of motion controls into their games, and this includes good games like Mario Galaxy and DK Country Returns. That, or they did utilize the motion controls but were not worth while and only fun for 30 minutes, like wario ware.

Now here's now I see the kinect. First, most developers are probably going to go the rout of "screw that, let's use gamecube controllers." If developers do decide to include some kinect controls into their game, it will likely be the "whack-a-mole" like controls we found in so Wii games. Sure, they won't be literal "whack-a-mole" like controls like with wii games, at least I hope developers won't make you suddenly put down your controller and start flailing your arms mid-game, but they won't be super useful and wanted by gamers and they'll just wish that it wasn't there and now you're shovel ware. There might be a hand number of games that fully utilize the kinect and are worthwhile, but for most people, that doesn't warrant an extra $100 to be "included" with the console.


Originally posted August 16th 2013


I decided to torture/laugh today by looking at articles about the kinect no longer being required and I cringe laughing at people saying "but the kinect 2.0 is awesome. Sure the original kinect didn't go over well, and neither did wii motion controls, playstation 2 eyetoy, playstation 3 move, and the PS4 isn't including the eye because people don't want it, but we know that full market adaptation will encourage developers to utilize the kinect in a great way." OK, it's more the just the thing about full market adaptation and then the comments bring up the other failed attempts, but really, it won't go over well. I heard one developer say it's like trying to program for a mouse with no click button. I wish people would realize that it doesn't matter how good the screwdriver is, they're all equally useless when trying to drive a nail and you're better off just using a hammer. That's how I see home motion controls. Home gaming is trying to drive a nail. I don't care how good your motion tracking hardware is, all I foresee is shovelware and tacked on motion controls.

You can use the thing about screwdriver driving a nail, just give me credit. It's a great analogy.

Kinect is Officially Dead

"XBOX ONE is Kinect, we are not going to sell them separately." My how the times have changed.

Hey there everyone, Happy Gamer here, and it's official, Microsoft has stopped manufacturing the Kinect 2.0 for XBOX ONE. Microsoft has finally admitted that the Kinect was a mistake, and are no longer wasting their time with it. For those of you who forgot (and I don't blame you), the Kinect was a motion control device that allowed you to control games without a controller using cameras and infra-red. It would sense joints, articulation, and interpret it as control inputs; as well as various voice commands. Now I will admit, from a purely technological standpoint, it's pretty cool. It's kind of space age sci-fi. Buuuuuttttt...that didn't make it worth while.

First, a brief history. In 2006 Nintendo released a little console called "Wii." It used motion controls as it's native input, and aided by the pack-in title Wii Sports, it became the second best selling console in history. Microsoft seeing the popularity of the Wii, Microsoft decided to make their own motion control device for the XBOX 360 and in 2010 the Kinect was released. It received generally positive reviews with how innovative of technology it was, but it didn't really latch on to gamers. Despite their best efforts to make Kinect a thing, primarily through the use of Rare, Kinect for XBOX 360 never received that killer app that made everyone want buy one like Wii Sports did for the Wii. This lack of an install base made developers not want to develop for it in fear of their game not selling. Microsoft tried to remedy this by bundling a Kinect 2.0 with every XBOX ONE and integrating it's operating system to utilize the face recognition and voice commands, forcing an install base. Unfortunately this made the XBOX ONE $100 more expensive than the PS4 which didn't have a motion control camera and gave gamers the option as to if they wanted the motion controls or not. The requirement to always have it plugged in also really blew up in Microsoft's face as it made many gamers question why Microsoft would want to do that if not for spying on them. Eventually Microsoft reversed the requirement to always have it plugged in, but didn't sell a Kinectless bundle until about a year later. The downfall of the Kinect was further advanced when the XBOX ONE S didn't come with a port specifically for the Kinect. And on October 25th 2017 Microsoft officially stopped production of the Kinect 2.0. See ya later guys, DFTBA.

OK, so with my foot of a ferret rip-off complete, let's analyze what happened and why I saw this coming 3 years ago. Kinect just wasn't a good input device for videogames, plain and simple. I now have a 360 Kinect I got at gamestop for $20 to play star wars Kinect, and it just isn't good. It's not that the controls aren't responsive, or that you need to be far away from the TV (a luxury I don't really have), while those are problems, they could have fixed those and it still would be a turd. Motion controls are just not a good input for videogames. The Wii controller could be used like a conventional gamepad; not very easily with a lot of input options, but it could be done. But not the Kinect. Almost every Kinect game I know of was Kinect only. Even if you fix the unresponsive problem, holding your hand up to an option for 5 seconds to select the menu was tedious. If you want to play the whole "Kinect in tandem" card, I know it can be done. There was an XBOX 360 game that utilized Kinect for certain control inputs but not all (name escapes me at the moment), and I saw some gameplay. Rather cool, but rather tedious to control. I'd rather just have it mapped to a controller button. It just wasn't going to be a good idea, and forcing people to buy it wasn't going to make it successful.

OK, but what about all the other OS features? You know, turning on your xbox by saying "XBOX on" and automatic sign-in based on who's playing. Well...I've been using my xbox for a while now and I don't feel like I'm missing anything. Lets look at the different features: voice commands to turn on the XBOX and select games, using Cortana, automatic sign-in, QR code reader, and skype. I've never used Cortana, and I have no intention to ever start. I'm the only one that uses my XBOX ONE, there's only 1 profile on it (mine), and it signs me in automatically every time I turn it on. Skype? I don't use skype all that much after I graduated college. The only thing that really sort of interests me are the voice commands, and that's just because some things weren't that easy to use (clip recording comes to mind). However, Microsoft has made it much easier to use these features. Now I can record with just the press of 3 buttons, no longer do I have to suspend the game, open the app, and then record. The QR code reader is pretty useful, I'll admit, since entering a 12 digit code with a "hunt and peck" on-screen keyboard using my controller is a little tedious. But, I honestly don't buy enough digital content to really make an impact, plus, I tend to have a lot of trouble lining up the QR code with the little box, so I really don't know which would be easier.

"But the Wii was the 2nd best selling console because of the motion controls." Yes, because it was a good casual gaming device that came out before mobile gaming really took off. People bought Wii sports, and maybe Wii sports resort, because they were good casual games that were pick up and play in a time when there weren't really any casual games (aka, a killer app for the console). After the casual hype died out, the Wii was able to keep a player base with Nintendo exclusive games. Remember the Wii U and how it failed? Well, Nintendo was trying to live off the hype of the Wii, and failed. People just aren't interested anymore. Luckily, Microsoft had a pretty good base console to keep itself afloat. Well, this has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and looks like XBOX ONE ISN'T Kinect.

Happy Gamer Tries out HTC Vive

I tried out the HTC Vive at my Microsoft Store today.

Hey there everyone, Happy Gamer here and I've been a little weary of VR since I tried the Wii and the Occulous Riff. I've already explained why I dislike the Wii, and why it left much to be desired. However, I don't know if I ever really explained why the Occulous Riff disappointed me. Well at my college the computer club had a demo unit and I tried it out when they were showing it off, and they had this roller coaster demo video. After a couple minutes I started feeling disoriented because my eyes were telling me I was moving, but my other senses were telling me I wasn't. It was a cool experience, but a rather negative one (even though when we were talking about it in class I was the only one able to say "I tried one out.")

Well at my local Microsoft store they had a demo unit of the HTC Vive. I got in line, signed a waver, and got to try out 3 demo games. Before the demos started, there was a "get oriented" thing where I inflated balloons and punched them away. The first game was "Deep Blue," I think it's called. It was just a "walk around and look at the fish" game. It was meant to get us used to the way things work. I had some fish fly right into my face. It was all pre-rendered as all the people in front of me had the same video. It was really cool.

Now we get into the actual games. The first game was a bow and arrow tower defense game. That was really fun. You use the 2 controllers to be the bow and arrows. Where you point is where you aim and where they fire. Now this is what I was expecting with the Wii back when that launched. It was really fun. I got quite into it, and I didn't let any of the enemies even hit my fortress door. I did quite well and probably could have kept going but my 3 minutes were up.

Next was the "space pirates" shooter. Now this, this is what the HTC Vive was made for. With the 2 controllers, you get the guns that you aim 1 to 1. I got REALLY into it. I used the 3 shot automatic. I was moving, dodging, crouching on the ground, all of it. When you see VR in cartoons, this is what it is like. Like, even the VR gags you would see in cartoons from 10 years ago on Danny Phantom, this is what it was like.

So now I think I should talk about the hardware. It was really comfortable. The face pads were soft and the headset wasn't really heavy like the Occulous was. It also requires a long cable to be connected to the computer, which wasn't that bad. I didn't find myself tripping over it at all. The controllers were also very comfortable, much better than the Wii and PS Move. The screen was a little pixelated, like if I get less than 1 inch away from the TV, but that is to be expected some, I guess.

So yeah, the HTC Vive is REALLY cool, but I don't think it's 3 grand cool. The HTC Vive headset, controllers, and sensors cost $800 alone. Then you need a PC that is powerful enough to run it. The store was using a $2500 Alienware with like top of the line components. The demo unit assistant said he knew a guy that built one himself for like $1000, but you still need a rather high end gaming PC. My sack of potatoes won't be able to run it, so I would need to buy all new hardware, plus all the games. Plus, I don't know how often I would play it since it is a VERY active experience.

So will I buy one? Definitely not yet. It's a really fun experience, but it's not $3000 fun. I'll wait until the Vive is $100 and the computing hardware I need is standard computer components. Well this has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and lets see what comes from the HTC Vive.

Cross Platform Online is Good for Consumers, Bad for Platforms AKA Why I Own an XBOX360

Microsoft wants to do cross platform online with Sony, and that's a bad idea for them.

Hey there everyone, Happy Gamer hear and I heard that Microsoft is going to do cross platform online with the XBOX ONE and Windows 10 (not Steam, Windows 10 store), and they are trying to get Sony to do cross platform online with them, so if you have a PS4 and your friend has an XBOX ONE, both of you can play online so long as the game is on both consoles. This is something that online gamers have been dreaming about since online gaming became mainstream. However, this is a REALLY bad idea for Sony and Microsoft, and here's why.

First, lets go back to 2008; the XBOX 360 and PS3 were the current gen consoles. My brother and I were looking to get one of them (the Wii was off the table for reasons explained in numerous different posts). Since we were coming of the PS2, I said "hey let's get a PS3 because we liked the PS2 so much." He said "no let's get an XBOX 360 because that's what all my friends have and I want to play online with them," and while every online game he wanted was also available on PS3, he couldn't play with his friends on the PS3. Online didn't really matter to me since I prefer single player games, and since all I really cared about were multi-plats, we got an XBOX 360. Sure, I wanted the blu-ray and rumored Sly 4, but pretty much every game I wanted on the PS3 I could get on the 360. However, I didn't play it much because the 7th gen didn't do much for me since most games were shooters or sports (2 genres I don't care for). And even though I wanted to use the streaming services like Hulu Plus and Crackle, I couldn't because I needed Xbox Live Gold to do that, and by the time I got into streaming services neither my brother nor I wanted to pay for gold anymore.

Well in 2011 Wreck it Ralph came out and I said "I refuse to get this movie on DVD, I am getting a blu-ray player of some kind so I can watch this movie right." Since there was a killer deal on a black friday PS3, we bought a PS3. From then on, the PS3 was our primary gaming machine. Every multi-plat from then on we bought was for the PS3. We bought multiple exclusives like Last of Us and Sly 4. Once we bought the PS3, it became our primary gaming device with our XBOX 360 collecting dust. We bought maybe 3 XBOX360 games since buying the PS3, and those were exclusives I got for cheap at garage sales. Even after Microsoft dropped the whole "you need XBL Gold for streaming services" we prefer to use the PS3 for streaming. If it wasn't for platform locked online, we probably wouldn't have an XBOX 360. (Well, we wouldn't have an XBOX 360 as our 7th gen console. I'm a collector, I would have bought an XBOX 360 eventually because I want every console, but it wouldn't have been before I got a PS3).

And there you have it. My family wouldn't have bought an XBOX 360 if my brother could have played with his XBOX 360 friends from a PS3. It would have been great for us, but it would have cost Microsoft a sale. If I were an online gamer, I would be really happy about this because it is great for consumers. However, we honestly wouldn't have bought an XBOX 360 as our primary platform and bought all our games and live gold if cross platform online was an option in the 7th gen. Well, this has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and if I were Sony I wouldn't agree to cross platform online.

Here's Why the Wii is so "Underrated"

So I saw this post on 9gag and I felt compelled explain why. This is the comment I left.

Lets see; not HD, no REAL 3rd party support, more than half of the games are shovelware, the motion controls ruin most games, no standard gamepad option (VC and gamecube controllers were exceptions, not norms), stupid name, it's hardware and architecture was almost identical to the PS2 (a console from the previous generation), it's the reason Microsoft pushed the kinect so much, Nintendo didn't care about "the gamer" at all with how they marketed it, online was terrible, the only decent games on it were nintendo first party and guitar hero (and that's being generous), Netflix was like the ONLY media app available, no DVD or Blu-Ray playback (my PS3 is my primary movie watching device), the controls were unresponsive and laggy in many situations, and was the most OVERRATED console of the generation. And that is why "the Wii is so 'underrated.'"

The PC is Old News and PC Gamers Need to get with the Times

(Disclaimer, I love retro games and collecting for older consoles. This is not from a consumer/collector stand-point, this is from a marketing and resource allocation standpoint).

We should be focusing on current gen, not last gen.

Hey everyone, happy gamer here and today I had an epiphany. First I noticed that of the 3 main console manufacturers, Nintendo is the most current and with it and Sony and Microsoft are living in the past. Here's why; 2 months after the release of the Wii U, Nintendo stopped making games for the Wii and focused all their attention on the Wii U. Sony and Microsoft on the other hand, are still making games for the PS3/XBOX360 over a year after the release of the PS4/XBOX ONE. Sony and Microsoft are lagging behind Nintendo. They'll never be able to remain competitive if they focus so much effort on last gen consoles. But then I realized, they aren't the worst offenders. The worst offender is the game console known as the PC.

Here's a little background. Videogame consoles come out in generations; pong consoles were the first generation, Atari2600 was the second generation, NES was 3rd generation, so on and so forth. Well, the PC came out around the 2nd generation. It was a good console for the time. Well, when everyone else realized how technology was changing, they released brand new consoles to keep ahead of the competition, the PC made add-ons. Yeah, they took the same old PC and made an "upgrade" accessory. It gave you better gameplay, and they eventually came per-installed, but at the end of the day, it was still just a PC. Just like the 32X and SegaCD.

Now one would think that PC would eventually learn it's lesson and release the PC2 right? I mean Sega eventually wised up and stopped supporting the genesis and it's add-ons in favor of the Saturn. Wrong. Instead of releasing a PC2, PC just kept making add-ons to replace the old ones. And you know what, THEY'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR 30 YEARS!!! GAMING ON THE PC IS STUCK IN THE 1980's BECAUSE THE PC MAKERS THINK THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH RELEASING ADD-ONS INSTEAD OF JUST RELEASING A SECOND CONSOLE! Really, with all the effort you put into making add-ons, just release the PC2 already.

But you know what, I don't really blame the makers of the PC. They said "hey, instead of making an entirely new console, lets make an add-on to extend the life of our current console." It could extend the life long enough while they work on the next PC console. It was just supposed to be a band-aid. However, unlike the Sega gamers and the Genesis add-ons, PC gamers ate it up. They said "hey this is pretty awesome. If I install this on my PC I can keep it for 3 more years, and then I can just put the next add-on on? Most definitely." It's not the PC executives, it's the PC fans. They settle for mediocrity. They will accept the add-on bandage instead of the next-generation release medical treatment. Sure, they can get a PC with all the current add-ons, but they're just going to have to be replaced in a few years.

But here's the truly sad thing, they are stuck in an abusive relationship with the add-ons and their gaming habits. Since new add-ons are constantly coming out, there's no guarantee that a game will work properly with your set of add-ons. Unlike every other console where a game is developed to work specifically with that console, PC games are developed with the intent of working with a certain set of add-ons. PC gamers aren't guaranteed to get the best possible gaming experience out of their PC unless they have specific add-ons. So many games say "for PC," but then there's a list of the type of add-ons that are required. It's very confusing. When you buy a Wii U game, you know it will work on your Wii U. When you buy a PS4 game you know it will work on your PS4. When you buy an XBOX ONE game, you know it will work on your XBOX ONE. When you buy a PC game, you better make sure that you have the proper set of add-ons otherwise it's not going to work.

There's even more to it than just games working with the add-ons, there's also add-ons working with the add-ons. When a PC gamer gets a new add-on, he has to jump through all sorts of hoops to "install" the add-on. He has to make sure that the drivers for the add-on works with the drivers for all the other add-ons. While you can buy a PC with all the current add-ons, soon there will be a new add-on on the market, and you either have to figure out how to make the new add-on work with the old ones, or get an entirely new PC. With every other console, they just release a new console. Plug it in, connect it to the TV, and it's ready to go. No drivers, no compatibility, just simple plug and play.

Now if you're in the gaming world, you've probably heard people say "PC master race." I feel sorry for them. They have fallen into Stockholm Syndrome with the abusive PC console. PC showers them with cheap games and "options," but it's just a sad attempt to milk every last drop out of the 30 year old PC before releasing the PC2. PC gamers, you don't have to stand for this. Leave the 2nd generation and join us in the 8th generation.

Well, this has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and I hope you enjoyed my satire.

Nintendo's history with DLC

Alright, so it's no secret that Nintendo hasn't been to friendly to modern gaming practices, namely online support and DLC. Lots of people complain about online support for good reasons, and it's been mixed with the DLC. Some people applaud Nintendo for not being DLC happy in the 7th gen, others complain about how it drove away 3rd parties. I'm not here to review DLC on Nintendo consoles and handhelds, but rather to give you a history that most people kind of forget, along with a little theory.

OK, so back in the days of the Wii, PS3, and 360, with the advent of internet connected consoles and digital game stores for consoles, there was this thing called Downloadable Content, or DLC for short. This was extra content for a game that was already released, and would extend the life of that game. Things such as new multi-player maps, new characters, new levels, new stories, new other things that weren't included with the original release because it wasn't made at the time, or because the developers wanted more money. Why DLC exists is the topic for another rambling though. Anyways, the PS3 and 360 embraced the concept of DLC. They added sections to their online stores specifically for DLC. However, Nintendo didn't allow DLC on their Wii. With Nintendo games, you couldn't download the extra content, you either had to have it on the game disc or release a second edition. Again, people were mixed about that decision. Well, here's my theory as to why Nintendo didn't do DLC on the Wii.

Many people may think that the first time DLC was really implemented was with the 7th generation of gaming (PS360Wii). While that is when it was really breaking through, Nintendo actually did a form of DLC on the 6th generation, the gamecube and GameBoy Advance. "What? Really? They had DLC on 2 non-internet connected devices?" In a matter of speaking. They did a sort of DLC with the e-reader add-on for the GBA. With certain games, users could connect a GBA with an e-reader to the other game via a link cable, scan special e-reader cards that they bought, and use them to unlock content. Granted, it's not EXACTLY DLC, but the concept of expanding a game through a secondary purchase and downloading the expansion into the game was present in the 6th generation.

"So what does that have to do with Nintendo not having DLC on the Wii?" Well here's the thing, while rather revolutionary, it didn't go over very well. For starters, the e-reader kind of sucked. I have one and I get read error after read error. It's a very finicky device. The next aspect is that it was kind of expensive. I don't remember how expensive the actual e-reader was, but it definitely cost some money. Plus, if you were doing it for GBA e-reader support, you had to have a second GBA, something not everyone had. The other thing is that it wasn't widely adapted. I know I didn't have an e-reader until after the life of the GBA that I found at a garage sale. I didn't know anyone that had an e-reader. It just wasn't well received. There also wasn't a lot of games that supported e-reader. The most notable one is Animal Crossing. Some other games had it, but not many. The somewaht commercial failure of the e-reader and it's "DLC" I think put a bad taste in Nintendo's mouth. But it's only a theory.

Man, I should do a review of the e-reader some day. But not today. Well this has been Happy Gamer signing off, and Nintendo had DLC before the others.