Less peripherals = mo' betta

EA's honest response to the money pit of 3D has me thinking.

I was doing some housekeeping in my gaming room, and stumbled into a bunch of Wii remotes, remote gun shells, and the balance board. None of it really got any use, other than the Wii remotes in the few games I actually purchased for the system. Did any of it really do anything special?

Without a thought, my head turned to look at the Kinect. Other providing questionable stats on my balance and weight, the balance board didn't really do anything that could be done with a camera. Having to fumble with less peripherals made for a better experience. As for EA Active, using my own weights instead of the Wii remotes is certainly more effective.

Utilizing voice commands rather than trying to figure out where the remote was last placed is great as well.

So for 3D, Nintendo tried to help us out in a similar way. However, 3D doesn't really make anything easier. It doesn't make "more sense" either. If we can't interact directly with a 3D object, then what good is it?

I am surprise that Microsoft hasn't found a way to use 3D and Kinect together in a way that gives value to the extra dimension. Yet, if the 3D effect doesn't seem to pop out, what could they do? They have done some interesting things with head tracking, but we need implementation. Changing the 3D picture per your position has possibilities. If you could get up and look to the side or behind something, with the view changing as you inch closer, they might be a step in the right direction. Again, plenty of tech demos but no usage.

Affordability and more direct interaction. That is where we need to go from here with the tech. Or just drop it. I am fine either way.