EyePet?

Kotaku has an article about a new product called EyePet. If you don't want to check the link, which you probably should as I can wait until you get back to explain why this is dumb, even if you can figure it out all on your own, the idea of this is that you will use Sony's EyeToy to interact with a virtual pet, allowing play with the creature in 3D space, and I can assume, train it and do other such pet related tasks.




Of this is said: "Eyepet promises to have all of the perks of pet ownership without any of the mess."

Really? I beg to differ. All the perks of pet ownership would be a broad list of items, but I think I can narrow it down to a few big ones. The first I can think of is: tactile response. One of the greatest things about a pet is the ability to pet said pet. You touch it, run your fingers through it's fur, feel the warmth of it, and typically from this you're given a sense of love and sanctuary. Another point: love. I can't say that this will always be true, but I can't ever feel love for an a piece of software, especially as that software can't really love me back. It's idiotic, because it's like dating someone who is just going through the motions, acting the part... The EyePet is simply a whore. You pay for it, and it pretends that it loves you, and pretends to give you the simulation of being real.

Also, like those Tamagatchis of old, and so many other 'virtual' and 'simulated' pets, I just can't see caring about it. I mean, let's be real, even if you don't feed it and it dies, you just make a new one, you reset and all is well. No matter how well they build the software, how unique your pet is, it's still just a piece of code.

I can accept the concept of these virtual creatures, and certainly, I'm not saying they don't have their place in the world. My problem is making claims like, "Eyepet promises to have all of the perks of pet ownership without any of the mess." It just doesn't jive. I could say that the cardboard box my refrigerator came in has all the perks of being a car without the cost of fuel and risk of accident, but really, that statement just doesn't quite cut it, does it?