Controller-less gaming will be more than a gimmick. It's a natural evolution of interactive entertainment experiences like Heavy Rain and The Walking Dead. Removing the controller (and intuitively including more than one person) is key to breaking the boundaries between entertainment you play and entertainment you watch.

These experiences are a part of the future, as are more traditional controller-based games. They are for different audiences, but there is some overlap.

Having said all that, I'm not sure the Xbox or the PS4 Eye will penetrate the homes of ordinary non-gamer people enough capitalise on this revolution. I expect it to happen when smart TVs or cable boxes have that kind of muscle.

I see this product as little more than a half hearted answer to the Kinect. Say what you want about the Kinect but the first one sold quite a bit and even though the tech the first time around was good and not great, this new one looks very promising. And to anyone who doesn't believe that they kept the camera out of the PS4 package to make sure they stayed at least $100 below the XB1, I probably won't be able to convince you anyway.

It's not about being convinced but it doesn't stack up. It was never announced that they would add a camera and they can still undercut MS by a long way with the camera added.

Where does this stop. The PS4 demoed with a stand but that also is sold seperately. Sony have other peripherals that they've shown off, all sold seperately. Why would it be any different with the camera?

MS sell the XBO with a camera and Sony didn't. Sony have made it clear, and shown us, that they are taking their own path and own vision so they would never add a camera to follow suite and they have never bundled in peripheral in the past (other than promotional bundles) so I'm just wondering why you came to that conclusion.

It was widely rumoured to be included I'll give you that but that's mainly due to people jumping the gun which seems to happen a lot. Once confirmed not to be included we have no reason to believe that they ever intended to include it. There is nothing that stacks up to suggest that they would.

@hankmoody
Even as far back as the eye toy, Sony has never included the camera with theirs systems! Unless of course it was a promotional bundle. So how could it ever have been in response to what Microsoft does with Kinects?

As far a support, it will always be left up to the first party developers to show the true capabilities of the tech at their disposal, that in itself will entice outside developers to try their hand at seeing what they could also do. Just like with Kinects, their is no true guarantee that developers are going to take advantage of it 100% even though it's included with every system! We are already that statement to be true, because even now there are launch titles due to be released with no Kinects integration whatsoever! Matter of fact Ryse started out being a Kinects only title, but yet they have removed that integration.

That's exactly what Microsoft used to say about HD-DVD. And the approach worked very well for the 360, not so well for HD-DVD :)

Because it adds to the game, have you read how Kinect will be used for D4? It's something different that adds more immersion or a different style of gameplay.

Why use the touchpad for the Vita? Why use the touchpad for the DS4?

Because these are put there for the developer to be more creative if they want to. This adds to any and all creativeness.

It is there for developers to use and THAT is what is most important.

Edit:
This seems like an evolution in the way we control or play games. TRhe same way NES added an extra button to the controller, the same way Sega added three to theirs, the same way SNES added shoulder buttons and so on and so forth.

time to start thinking ahead, instead of now. Ask yourself how can I use this to better a game not "why should I use it".

I respect your answer XboxFun, but the reality of the situation is that just because the availability of the feature is there, doesn't mean that devs are going to spend the time to make MEANINGFUL use of it.

Just looking at this gen, most of the tacked on features just aren't really worth the entry price of the peripheral. Vita's touchpad/screen for the most part goes for superflous features that add little unless the game is specifically designed to take advantage of it. Half the games don't use it, and more than half of those do it in such a way that is meaningless and nothing more than a novelty. Once novelty wears off, people stop using it. The same way they stopped using their WiiMotes and the same way they stopped using their Kinect. The same way people with Samsung TV's that have the same voice/motion features stopped using them. The same way they'll stop using the Kinect 2.0 down the road to change channels or maneuver around the UI.

The evolution of the control pads you speak of what because there was a need for more input controls to handle more complex games. Arcades were already doing it, and home consoles had to follow suit.

The evolution of motion controls is hindered because the technology for precise and effective motion control is extremely expensive right now. Until that changes, motion control will always be a tacked on feature, with the rare exceptions where a game take advantage of it.

Case in point. Ryse was originally a Kinect game. Why is it now primarily a controller game with Kinect features under the "Better with Kinect" moniker? One of the biggest launch titles and MS(or Crytek) don't have faith in the Kinect 2.0. That in itself should be telling enough to say that the technology is going to offer exactly what it does now, but with higher resolution.

I don't understand why everyone touting the Kinect 2.0 right now completely ignores history on motion controls and expects more than the same as we have now.

@ rainslacker

"I don't understand why everyone touting the Kinect 2.0 right now completely ignores history on motion controls and expects more than the same as we have now."

So just because things didn't work out the way it was intended means it will not be successful now?

Maybe touch, motion and everything else was relegated to minimal tasks because the tech wasn't there yet.

By your logic anything that wasn't a success in the past means it should be abandoned or not improved on for the future. We expect more because the tech is there.

Remember when CD-ROMs were first introduced to gaming and all we got were FMV games that mainly sucked. But then they got better did they not?

Remember when Sega released online play for Dreamcast? back then all you had was a 56k connection and online sucked. Should the rest of the companies given up because of that past failure?

Remember when touch phones only had one touch functionality? But it was improved upon and now is the standard in all smartphones.

Point, tech grows and becomes better, just because something wasn't the success it was in the past doesn't mean it won't be now. And the tech inside the Kinect 2.0 looks promising and we have already seen cool uses for it in games like Project Spark and D4.

"...doesn't mean that devs are going to spend the time to make MEANINGFUL use of it."

I could also spin that another way...

Having a Kinect in every box DOES mean that a dev could use it in a meaningful way.