Support NeoGAF

[tinfoilhatman]

Did people seriously believe X1 would NOT function if you unplugged Kinect?

On what planet do you live on for this to make any common sense at all?

 

[medze]

Still not seeing how the paywall hurt 360 though...

Realistically Live cost about $40 a year, 12month+1 cards are easy to find at this price point, so $3 a month is a small percentage of the over all income I apply to 'paywall' subscription services.

I understand that not all people see it that way, and for those who don't, yes, the PS4 is the best value for them, and I would expect that is what those people will buy. So no issues.

I'm not doing a PS4 vs XB1 discussion, I'm doing a "keep Kinect included" discussion.

$3/month for all my media needs in one place, easily and instantly accessible is preferable to having everything fragmented and requiring multiple steps to access.

Again, I unfortunately can't get behind your "Paywall = fail" argument, mainly because this wasnt' the case for the 360.

First of all, you're using a sale price and not a retail price for XBL which is a bit disingenuous for the discussion at hand. Also, many people may not want to commit to over a year of XBL at one time, especially if there's no multiplayer game worth playing at the time. My XBL account lapsed several times and I actually only had gold for 6 months total out of the entire last generation when there were titles out that I really wanted to play online.

Also, the 360 was a different beast. Using a game console as a media device wasn't nearly as common when 360 established its user base as it is now. We have many other devices now that allow usage of these media apps WITHOUT a paywall, so who in their right mind would pay twice for a service like Netflix? Not to mention less than half of 360 users even subscribe to Gold, I would say that putting these features behind a paywall is indeed a "fail" and likely to be their next 180.

Did people seriously believe X1 would NOT function if you unplugged Kinect?

On what planet do you live on for this to make any common sense at all?

Umm. Microsoft did say that it would not function without it. So should we have believed otherwise when it was coming from the horse's mouth?

 

[Guevara]

People said THE EXACT SAME shit about the Wii. How can you guys not see this?

Largely I agree. 24 million Kinect systems out there and (to me) not one piece of interesting software. The safe bet is that nothing changes with Kinect 2.

The burden is on MS to come up with or incentivize others to make use of Kinect. Personally I don't buy hardware based on potential.

 

[Alx]

I agree. Until those dreams become a reality, or until they give us the option to not flush more of our money down the drain, we as a community should boycott this shit.

Dreams don't become a reality overnight. You have to build them and improve them.
The first cars were slow, smelly and dangerous. The first mobile phones were huge, had low battery life and couldn't call from everywhere. The first computers filled entire rooms and required cryptic punchcards to be used.
But without people to make them and others to use them, they wouldn't be at the state they are now. You may want to wait for a more "finished" product, but don't blame the people who are working on the technology and improving it to get there. If people "boycott this shit", then the "dream" will never become reality.

 

[tinfoilhatman]

Umm. Microsoft did say that it would not function without it. So should we have believed otherwise when it was coming from the horse's mouth?

People believe what they want to believe to suit their needs, I interpreted MS original statement(which was not crystal clear) to mean exactly what it means......that Kinect functionality will not work without Kinect plugged in.......anything other than that defies logic and common sense.

 

[Raide]

I can't really fault someone for being wooed by the tech. That was mostly my motivation to try the first one.

I have always been a bit more positive on the tech side. Always fun to see if people actually do things with new tech, or if it gets sidelined and forgotten in a few weeks. I think MS used the first Kinect as a test-bed to see what the early response was like and, sales wise, it did ok. Hopefully they push Kinect 2 much more and actually get devs to do something with it. That is why I am glad they have the bundle.

Give it a year down the line and then we can all have a good moan when they still fail to do anything.

 

[wapplew]

People said THE EXACT SAME shit about the Wii. How can you guys not see this?

This is how I feel about Kinect 2.0 too. People keep saying with that bundle, more dev will spend time on it and eventually we'll get the definitive high budget AAA game cannot be done without kinect that will change how we play games.

I really can't see that happen, not from the big publisher at least. Almost every third party games will go multiplat, no publisher will green light such project. Plus they have Kinect 1.0 for like 2 years plus. If they really have great idea about Kinect but can't do it due to limit install base, they should do it out of the gate for Xone, yet we saw nothing outside some voice control or optional feature.

And I don't think MS studio have anything to show us their vision on Kinect outside pure motion gaming and OS feature. Changing Rise into traditional control and delay Kinect Sport Rival only show they don't have much faith on Kinect.
Kinect 2.0 is not something new, its just upgraded version of old one. This is not like we first saw Wii mote or Kinect 1.0. Back than, we saw some demo video, its spark our imagination, hoping it will fulfill all our gamers wet dream.
Now we already know what Kinect2.0 can and cannot do, that dream is pretty much over for some.

We might get some interesting idea from indie, that's what I looking forward more.

I love innovation of any kind, I just don't think motion capture is the right innovation for game, at least for now.

 

[shaolinwind]

Awesome news MS. Just keeps getting better and better.

On this topic, I am completely bewildered over and over by gamers that lack any vision whatsoever.

I just hope people understand that MS does NOT want to divide the user base by making a 'Kinectless' console. That would utterly defeat the purpose of their millions spent devoloping that innovative piece of technology. When developers know every xbox owner has one, they will spend resources innovating and making it useful. Much different case than last gen kinect development, with a segmented user base.

Microsoft is allowing you tinfoil hat wearing sheep to disconnect the device, even though it is really an integral part of the console. Just be happy for that, and stop hating on innovation. Seriously, disconnecting the Kinect2 will be like hiding the Wii motion controllers on last gen's Wii, and just using the old school game pad. Sure people do it, but everything the entire point of the console is missed.

I pray to the Zods of Gaming MS NEVER backs down on this point, and continues bundling the kinect with every X1.

 

[medze]

People believe what they want to believe to suit their needs, I interpreted MS original statement(which was not crystal clear) to mean exactly what it means......that Kinect functionality will not work without Kinect plugged in.......anything other than that defies common sense.

"Kinect does require to be connected to Xbox One in all cases, yes"

How you interpreted this the way you did is a mystery. And didn't Albert say in his post that this is a "change", basically confirming that it was required originally for the system to function? Your interpretation of reality defies common sense.

However, this is a discussion for 24+ hours ago. Since their policy has changed, its not really relevant to discuss how things used to be.

The same people who complain about Kinect not being used in innovative ways are against it being sold as a required part of the system so it can be.

Now its on Microsoft to prove that to us before selling us the product. Let's hope for some Kinect game reveals at Gamescom that shows this time around, it will be more than Dance/Sports/Fitness games. The burden of proof is on them. While I agree that this will encourage devs to use the technology knowing it has a 100% attach rate, this means nothing to me as a consumer until I see these uses. When else do you buy a product based on what it might be able to do? I would be cautiously optimistic about it until Microsoft shows us that Kinect games will break the mold of their predecessors.

 

[MechaZain]

Kinect usage in games is gimmicky because there's not a high enough install base for a developer to justify giving it any more attention than that, unless you're going specifically for Kinect audience. If you're Rockstar, why would you devote any significant resources to the relatively small percentage Kinect owning GTA fans?

The same people who complain about Kinect not being used in innovative ways are against it being sold as a required part of the system so it can be.

 

[NullPointer]

People believe what they want to believe to suit their needs, I interpreted MS original statement(which was not crystal clear) to mean exactly what it means......that Kinect functionality will not work without Kinect plugged in.......anything other than that defies logic and common sense.

You're stretching things. The Xbox used to require the Kinect to be plugged in to work, like at all.

Now it doesn't.

 

[Copenap]

Did people seriously believe X1 would NOT function if you unplugged Kinect?

On what planet do you live on for this to make any common sense at all?

Wow, please show me your posts from months ago where you already knew the exact opposite of what MS said is actually the only logical conclusion.

 

[Laughing Buddha]

I'd imagine a Star Trek future has some strong basic privacy controls. A corporation saying "trust us" doesn't count as privacy controls.

Being able to disable the thing as needed, including physically disconnecting it is a very good thing. The customer can now choose how comfortable they are with it, whereas people would have previously just avoided the console altogether.

And yes, phones and webcams should have similar physical disconnects or controls or true shutters. For peace of mind at the very least.

Its not an unreasonable ask.

My mother-in-law covers the webcam on her laptop with a post-it note every time she uses it, just in case. I personally think its a little crazy but to each their own. I'm sure there are many people like her that don't want an internet connected camera watching them in the living-room. I'm glad those that don't want the Kinect connected all of the time have the option to turn it off or disconnect it.
LB

 

[border]

Then they still have the balls to go into a thread and whine about how the industry as a whole is not 'innovative' enough.

Probably because people want innovative games, not voice controls for watching a movie.

 

[shaolinwind]

One other point, thank you Sony fanbois for continuing to make the Xbox One a better console. It just keeps getting better and better, and you guys never fail to find something else they can iterate on.

Gotta love the squeaky wheels

Edit: Now if you could just make sure to continue asking for that price drop. I wouldn't mind it at all, as long as the Kinect is still bundled.

 

[Dimensional Weave]

You freakin canards don't you dare believe it!

 

[RiccochetJ]

People believe what they want to believe to suit their needs, I interpreted MS original statement(which was not crystal clear) to mean exactly what it means......that Kinect functionality will not work without Kinect plugged in.......anything other than that defies logic and common sense.

Seeing as people seem to be just jumping to the end of the thread, it was a confirmed change even in this thread and Bish put it in the OP:

We still believe in Kinect. We aren’t interested in splitting the development base. The more demos I’ve seen, the more I’ve used it – the more impressed I am. The team feels strongly about Kinect, and I hope we’re able to prove that when you use it.

We also have a ton of privacy settings to allow people to turn off the camera, or microphones, or put it in a state just for “Xbox On” and IR blasting – there will be a lot of user control for that.

The thing we all understood, and hence this change, is that there are some scenarios where people just may not be comfortable. We wanted people to be 100% comfortable, so we allow the sensor to be unplugged. And clearly the “it dropped” scenario is possible.

The most obvious thing is watching a DVD/BD, or streaming a movie, or HDMI pass-through, your experience isn’t impacted (except you miss voice and IR blasting)

There is no “gotcha”, but obviously, if there is a game that REQUIRES Kinect (like Rivals), or something where Kinect IS the experience (like Skype), those won’t work.

That said, for people who have privacy concerns there are user control settings, which we believe are great.

 

[border]

When developers know every xbox owner has one, they will spend resources innovating and making it useful.

I don't think that's the case at all. Developers weren't interested in Kinect when it sold 20 million units. So how many units does Xbox One have to sell before developer interest perks up? And how many years away is that?

Very few developers will not gamble by making a game that only works on one platform. That's what the "You can't divide the userbase" people always ignore. The userbase is already divided between Xbox One, WiiU, PS4, PC, etc.

 

[Corleth the Fey]

Awesome news MS. Just keeps getting better and better.

On this topic, I am completely bewildered over and over by gamers that lack any vision whatsoever.

I just hope people understand that MS does NOT want to divide the user base by making a 'Kinectless' console. That would utterlye defeat the purpose of their millions spent devoloping that innovative piece of technology. When developers know every xbox owner has one, they will spend resources innovating and making it useful. Much different case than last gen kinect development, with a segmented user base.

Microsoft is allowing you tinfoil hat wearing sheep to disconnect the device, even though it is really an integral part of the console. Just be happy for that, and stop hating on innovation. Seriously, disconnecting the Kinect2 will be like hiding the Wii motion controllers on last gen's Wii, and just using the old school game pad. Sure people do it, but everything the entire point of the console is missed.

I pray to the Zods of Gaming MS NEVER backs down on this point, and continues bundling the kinect with every X1.

All Microsoft is doing with Kinect in the box is making it an easy choice for a lot of 360 owners to go buy a PS4 instead.

A Kinectless SKU at $399 makes it lot harder to go PS4.

 

[HiredN00bs]

I don't think that's the case at all. Developers weren't interested in Kinect when it sold 20 million units. So how many units does Xbox One have to sell before developer interest perks up?

The irony is they're not going to sell anywhere near the amount they sold the first Kinect so long as they try and force the sensor on traditional gamers that don't want it.

 

[ElTorro]

Largely I agree. 24 million Kinect systems out there and (to me) not one piece of interesting software. The safe bet is that nothing changes with Kinect 2.

That is my expectation as well. They have improved Kinect's accuracy but not its general feature set. So I don't expect anything world changing for established gameplay models. Otherwise, we would have already seen the basic idea, maybe not in a well implemented form, but in principle.

If they manage to make a decent general purpose App Store on the XB1 then I expect some interesting use cases there. I actually already have one or two ideas I would try out myself. However, I don't expect a significant amount game changing stuff compared to tablets here either.

 

[m23]

I don't think that's the case at all. Developers weren't interested in Kinect when it sold 20 million units. So how many units does Xbox One have to sell before developer interest perks up? And how many years away is that?

Very few developers will not gamble by making a game that only works on one platform. That's what the "You can't divide the userbase" people always ignore. The userbase is already divided between Xbox One, WiiU, PS4, PC, etc.

Who said a game has to be exclusive to Xbox One in order to use Kinect?

 

[DericLee]

First of all, you're using a sale price and not a retail price for XBL which is a bit disingenuous for the discussion at hand. Also, many people may not want to commit to over a year of XBL at one time, especially if there's no multiplayer game worth playing at the time. My XBL account lapsed several times and I actually only had gold for 6 months total out of the entire last generation when there were titles out that I really wanted to play online.

Also, the 360 was a different beast. Using a game console as a media device wasn't nearly as common when 360 established its user base as it is now. We have many other devices now that allow usage of these media apps WITHOUT a paywall, so who in their right mind would pay twice for a service like Netflix? Not to mention less than half of 360 users even subscribe to Gold, I would say that putting these features behind a paywall is indeed a "fail" and likely to be their next 180.

Well, first of all, I never was talking about Live or the price of admission, this is a direction you chose.

Yes, retail is $60, but it's hard for me to create a value proposition using numbers I that do not apply to me. I pay $40, my friends pay $40, my co-workers pay $40, we all are aware of how easy it is to find a sale and get that price. So my value proposition uses the numbers that are accurate for me.

Second, I am aware that you can use Netflix, Hulu, HBOgo on other devices with out a paywall, and I'm aware that others are completely satisfied using said devices.

I apologize though if you think I am out of my 'right mind' for being willing to pay for Live.

I did not say it was great for everyone, I did not say that anybody who doesn't see the value in Live is misguided.

Everyone has opinions. That is cool with me, and since it's a personal choice I can't very well claim that they are 'wrong'.

For me(and the majority of my social circle) my options to watch Netflix, Hulu, or HBOgo are all fragmented.

I have a Wii U, a PS3, a 360, a media/gaming PC, a 3DS, smart phone, and tablet, all of which offer me some level of access to such applications.

Having all that stuff in one place, with no transitional steps for access, is well worth the price of admission for me and my family.

Being able to go from watching DirecTV, to Hulu, to HBOgo, ect in a 'Snap', with out changing my inputs on the receiver, and then navigating the menus for those separate devices, is a benefit with value for how I use my theater system.

IMO plenty of people "in their right minds" would agree in the end.

If not, cool, you deem value with a different subset of rules then me.

Again though, sounds like the PS4 is a perfect fit for you, so why care what the system you are not going to buy is doing with their features?

If the Paywall equates to long term failure, then things will inevitably change, but that has yet to be proven, especially considering the system is not even out yet.

I found value in the 'paywall' of Live long before media became a consideration, I enjoyed (and still do) a multitude of features/aspects/streamlined uses from the service that have absolutely nothing to do with Netflix or Hulu, and for me it was hands down the most cohesive experience in that regard.

I don't expect everyone to feel the same, we are all individuals with separate needs/wants.

If everything is the same between competitors, then the competition doesn't exist, and the innovation stagnates.

1:1 attach ratio is what I believe will help us to determine if Kinect and it's features are the future or not, if we don't have the 1:1 it just makes that determination take longer, and slows progress.

I'm not here to debate PS4 vs XB1 vs WiiU, I love all my systems for their strengths.

I'm here to talk about why I feel it's important for Microsoft to keep Kinect at 1:1 with system sales to further innovation and ideas, and to keep on keeping on towards a future that is beyond my imagination.

What fun is it if every car for sale comes in only black, with the exact same features of every other car? Sound like a boring existence to me.

 

[Liquidsnake]

Give them credit for backing down on all of those things they so arrogantly gloated about for the past few months ?

Yup.

 

[DericLee]

Probably because people want innovative games, not voice controls for watching a movie.

Blanket statement.

I've read plenty of threads with people complaining about gameplay changes, graphical changes, and such.

Not just Kinect.

Also not sure how the inclusion of Kinect will keep developers from innovating in the gameplay department, and would further point out that additional tools for future ideas only helps to give more options to try new things.

I see Kinect as more then voice controls, and I've seen gamers bitch(constantly) about any type of change, weather software or hardware, and that was what my statement was regarding.

 

[BigDug13]

Still not seeing how the paywall hurt 360 though...

Realistically Live cost about $40 a year, 12month+1 cards are easy to find at this price point, so $3 a month is a small percentage of the over all income I apply to 'paywall' subscription services.

I understand that not all people see it that way, and for those who don't, yes, the PS4 is the best value for them, and I would expect that is what those people will buy. So no issues.

I'm not doing a PS4 vs XB1 discussion, I'm doing a "keep Kinect included" discussion.

$3/month for all my media needs in one place, easily and instantly accessible is preferable to having everything fragmented and requiring multiple steps to access.

Again, I unfortunately can't get behind your "Paywall = fail" argument, mainly because this wasnt' the case for the 360.

It wasnt the case for the 360? You don't think 2/3 of your userbase not using your console as a multimedia machine hurts your mindshare as the console to get for multimedia? The fact is that all 75 million PS3 owners could use their multimedia features while only 30 million 360 owners could use theirs. It did not hurt the 360's bottom line by doing what they did, but I certainly feel that it hurts their attempt this time to be the "multimedia console" when the reality is that the PS3 has greater worldwide marketshare and mindshare as the multimedia device due to Blu-ray and free access to media apps.

If you don't think this is a problem for Microsoft's marketting department trying to make American families see that the XBO is a superior multimedia device compared to the free media access on PS4, you're delusional. Again, 30 million people on Microsoft's side with media app access and 75 million people on Sony's side with media app access RIGHT NOW during this current generation. Surely that hurts their argument that MS is the place to be for multimedia heading into next gen.

I don't care if you can talk to your machine now. It is still attempting to sell to an MS market 30 million strong.

 

[watership]

So if there is the possibility to just say "Xbox, play latest Game of Thrones episode", and the show instantly loads and starts playing then that is a bad thing versus the other option?

People would rather instead use the controller to select the 'Video/media' tab, then scroll to 'HBOgo', then scroll to 'Series', then scroll to 'Game of Thrones', then scroll to 'Episodes', then scroll to the latest episode, select it, then select play?

If you can instantly answer/make a Skype call along side of the game/video/webbrowser you are playing using your voice, would that not be better then having to pause a game, access the menu, select to answer, or select whom to call, then initiate the answer/call?

If I'm in the middle of a game of Madden online(or any other game), why would I want to have to stop that game to answer/make a call instead of just telling the Kinect to answer/make the call?

I don't get this logic. Crow and craw all you want about price and NSA, but it's sounds silly and pointless to me.

Do we really prefer to get up to change a channel or volume on the TV? Do we really prefer our landland phones over cell phones? Do we still use typewriters instead of computers?

It's about evolution, and I'd rather have a companies try to evolve and change instead of just rehashing old ideas with new paint.

Everyone wants the StarTrek future, yet every one is going to complain every step of the way?

When I was a kid we where excited about innovation, and used our imaginations to try and see what the future may hold.

Now? Now the new gamer generation just complains, complains, complains, fights against all change in the industry, is pessimistic with the evolution of hardware and software, and demands dev's/publishers/console manufacturers NOT move forward.

Then they still have the balls to go into a thread and whine about how the industry as a whole is not 'innovative' enough.

SMH

Fantastic post.

I am of this same frame of mind, because I always want more abilities from my technology. Yet I understand that new features, especially non gaming features, frightens or angers enthusiasts. I still remember people scoffing at thumb-sticks, saying they'll always perfer dpads. This will always be the way, it's human nature. Sometimes changes are bad, and they die in infamy. And sometimes they change the way we do things, immediately. Or take decades to catch on, like tablet computing.

And sometimes they elevate us all as human beings. Like horse armor.

 

[CadetMahoney]

ppl who say kinect will not add anything to games. . . if they can use voice commands for UI they can use it for games, since everyone will have one all they need to do is add features to games to cut down on tiresome menu navigation. On RPG's that would be one step closer to unique features that seperate it from the competition. I doubt devs will simply ignore it altogether.

If the voice software is patented then it might be harder for Sony say "me too devs. . . .devs?".

 

[Raist]

ppl who say kinect will not add anything to games. . . if they can use voice commands for UI they can use it for games, since everyone will have one all they need to do is add features to games to cut down on tiresome menu navigation. On RPG's that would be one step closer to unique features that seperate it from the competition. I doubt devs will simply ignore it altogether.

If the voice software is patented then it might be harder for Sony say "me too devs. . . .devs?".

We've already the 360 Kinect fantasies for games back then, and know how it turned out. I think MS will have to demonstrate a bit more before people start considering this as a viable addition to gameplay.

 

[border]

Who said a game has to be exclusive to Xbox One in order to use Kinect?

If it's going to use Kinect in any kind of appreciable way beyond simple voice commands, it pretty much has to be exclusive to the platform.

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

So if there is the possibility to just say "Xbox, play latest Game of Thrones episode", and the show instantly loads and starts playing then that is a bad thing versus the other option?

People would rather instead use the controller to select the 'Video/media' tab, then scroll to 'HBOgo', then scroll to 'Series', then scroll to 'Game of Thrones', then scroll to 'Episodes', then scroll to the latest episode, select it, then select play?

If you can instantly answer/make a Skype call along side of the game/video/webbrowser you are playing using your voice, would that not be better then having to pause a game, access the menu, select to answer, or select whom to call, then initiate the answer/call?

If I'm in the middle of a game of Madden online(or any other game), why would I want to have to stop that game to answer/make a call instead of just telling the Kinect to answer/make the call?

I don't get this logic. Crow and craw all you want about price and NSA, but it's sounds silly and pointless to me.

Do we really prefer to get up to change a channel or volume on the TV? Do we really prefer our landland phones over cell phones? Do we still use typewriters instead of computers?

It's about evolution, and I'd rather have a companies try to evolve and change instead of just rehashing old ideas with new paint.

Everyone wants the StarTrek future, yet every one is going to complain every step of the way?

When I was a kid we where excited about innovation, and used our imaginations to try and see what the future may hold.

Now? Now the new gamer generation just complains, complains, complains, fights against all change in the industry, is pessimistic with the evolution of hardware and software, and demands dev's/publishers/console manufacturers NOT move forward.

Then they still have the balls to go into a thread and whine about how the industry as a whole is not 'innovative' enough.

SMH

I don't see a single case for why I shouldn't be able to leave the camera in the box.

If you want to use your voice controls, go right ahead. I, for one, think that sort of thing should be optional. If I wanna play Just Dance or whatever, I'll grab the camera and plug it in, same like I do for PS3 and 360 today. There's no need to substitute good UI design with voice control.

 

[Xamdou]

Since the Kinect 2.0 is included in every Xbox One packaging, lot's games will make use of it's motion sensing capabilities. Kinect 2.0 has a much higher chance being used by game developers than the PS4's move accessory, that's for sure.

 

[border]

Since the Kinect 2.0 is included in every Xbox One packaging, lot's games will make use of it's motion sensing capabilities.

They're not exactly off to a good start.

 

[NullPointer]

They're not exactly off to a good start.

And definitely not anywhere near a bad start either.

If the Kinect-in-the-box-but-detachable was the case from the very beginning things would be just fine. There'd be no worry about people using the Kinect.

This change only came about because of a nonsensical bricking of the console when the Kinect was unplugged. And now somehow dropping that weird and unnecessary requirement means the Kinect support/future is in bad shape? Yeah, I just don't get it.

Its fine.

 

[Killing_Joke]

I don't mind Kinect even though i don't have a proper setup for it. The fact that it MUST be connected in order for X1 to work that made no sense to me. Since they switched it off makes me believe they must have had something weird up their sleeves before.

Begging and crying for a Kinectless bundle is sad though. They're not going to sell a $399 console with a $100-$200 camera. And if i had to take a big guess, they probably put more money into the camera then the system itself. Can't send it off to die.

 

[PrimaNocta]

Xbox One is looking better and better everyday.

 

[DesertFox]

Fantastic news! Hopefully a Kinectless sku appears for $399.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

They're not exactly off to a good start.

Impressions of Kinect Sports Rivals at Gamescom will be the first real test IMO.

 

[SwiftDeath]

And definitely not anywhere near a bad start either.

If the Kinect-in-the-box-but-detachable was the case from the very beginning things would be just fine. There'd be no worry about people using the Kinect.

This change only came about because of a nonsensical bricking of the console when the Kinect was unplugged. And now somehow dropping that weird and unnecessary requirement means the Kinect support/future is in bad shape? Yeah, I just don't get it.

Its fine.

He was referring to the kinect software

Which imo is off to a bad start as I haven't seen anything past rivals and fantasia

Rivals is fine but what about it is so much better than kinect 1's kinect sports game?

Fantasia really was underwhelming to me

 

[NullPointer]

He was referring to the kinect software

Oh, well on that point I completely agree, unless they have some incredible stuff to show at Gamescom.

 

[SwiftDeath]

Oh, well on that point I completely agree, unless they have some incredible stuff to show at Gamescom.

I have a feeling they might

Have something kinect to show I mean

I make no predictions on its quality

If MS really want kinect to be used in games, guess what? Use it in games

Honestly i don't like the kinect personally but if MS really want it so bad I want them to sell it regardless of what the core will inevitably say

Would either make innovation happen faster or show us how pointless kinect really is for gaming faster

Just want all the "potential" hyperbole to be done with

 

[eival]

we'll see if this isnt another smoke and mirrors effect similar to EA canceling the online pass and we later found out it wasnt all that great.

if they start making developers put features into the game that require Kinect, i can guarantee you'll see a bunch of achievements that are kinect related like "play the game with it connected for x-number of hours" and if you think thats stupid, go back and look at all the EA sports games that had similar stuff like "create a character with your Xbox Live camera", for every title, every year, im sure they're be something like "issue voice commands to x-number of AI in the game", they can just ad and make up achievments on the fly now, so you can garuntee they'll be using it to entice you to keep it plugged in, just like Developers have stated they've used achievments to entice you to buy DLC or keep playing the game longer, Rod Furgesson is one in paticular i know of who stated this in interviews from when he worked on Gears 3 and Judgment.

we already know Forza 5 is going to have the drive-atar which will require you to be connected online for it to work, im sure they'll have something to entice you to plug in your kinect as well, along with the other exclusives atleast, less so for the 3rd parties who dont really care about MS' agendas.

 

[DericLee]

It wasnt the case for the 360? You don't think 2/3 of your userbase not using your console as a multimedia machine hurts your mindshare as the console to get for multimedia? The fact is that all 75 million PS3 owners could use their multimedia features while only 30 million 360 owners could use theirs. It did not hurt the 360's bottom line by doing what they did, but I certainly feel that it hurts their attempt this time to be the "multimedia console" when the reality is that the PS3 has greater worldwide marketshare and mindshare as the multimedia device due to Blu-ray and free access to media apps.

If you don't think this is a problem for Microsoft's marketting department trying to make American families see that the XBO is a superior multimedia device compared to the free media access on PS4, you're delusional. Again, 30 million people on Microsoft's side with media app access and 75 million people on Sony's side with media app access RIGHT NOW during this current generation. Surely that hurts their argument that MS is the place to be for multimedia heading into next gen.

I don't care if you can talk to your machine now. It is still attempting to sell to an MS market 30 million strong.

I've not said other wise to any of your 'facts'.

Bottom line is they are making money on systems, 30 million people willing to pay for Live is apparently enough, and the other 2/3rds that don't use live, but still bought the system for a couple of single player games, well I'd imagine they think those same people will eventually purchase an XB1 to once again play those couple single player games they must have.

If you are making profit, then why change?

Like I said, if it fails, it fails, and things will change, so why worry about it if it's not for you?

Really don't want to do a Live vs. what ever argument, I have personal preferences, and you have personal preferences.

I am willing to pay for Live because of how I view it as a service overall, I like it better, it's my opinion, and 30million other people found their own value proposition with the service.

I know PS3 has 75 million people who can use their service(that is if they have internet, and access to said services in those areas of which they live), never said otherwise, and I use the PS3 for said media services(even streaming from my PC) in my bedroom.

If you think I'm a moron, then so be it, I must be on some level because I can't comprehend the logic you are using to say it will fail.

But in my ignorance I believe they are fine keeping the subscription practice, but I can only go off what is happening in my immediate social circle, and friend/family/co-workers in my sphere, enjoy Live.

It will all come out in the wash, the market will dictate, and I'll fun every step of the way.

Not sure why you are getting so hostile for me being different then you and having a separate opinion.

Especially since I only came here to talk about Kinect, and how I wanted it to stay bundled for a 1:1 ratio.

 

[DericLee]

I don't see a single case for why I shouldn't be able to leave the camera in the box.

If you want to use your voice controls, go right ahead. I, for one, think that sort of thing should be optional. If I wanna play Just Dance or whatever, I'll grab the camera and plug it in, same like I do for PS3 and 360 today. There's no need to substitute good UI design with voice control.

No I agree, do what you want with it.

Just want to make sure it's bundled with every system, so every dev knows every customer has access to it, so they will take time to think of new ways to experiment with it.

1:1 is my only concern, I believe everything else will come out in the wash and we can all be happy regardless

 

[fatgamecat]

MS is taking a big risk selling a more expensive, less powerful console with a peripheral that doesn't seem to interest most gamers. They went the more expensive, less powerful route with MS phones and tablets and those went nowhere fast.

At least by making kinect optional they're opening the doors for a future kinect-less bundle if the console isn't selling well. I would not be surprised at all to see that happen.

 

[MogCakes]

I said it earlier, but if XB1 sales don't live up to MS's expectations and Kinect is spotted as one of the reasons, there's a good chance there will be a Kinect-less SKU. That may not happen, of course, and MS may choose to tough it out and hope for better days ahead like Ninty is with the Wii U.

That's assuming the XB1 doesn't sell well anyway. It will more likely break the bank, at least in NA/UK and for the first month or two, and all hopes of a Kinect-less version will be dashed.

EDIT: dammit I should have read the last post before typing this up. Redundancy...

 

[border]

And definitely not anywhere near a bad start either.

They don't have games for the launch that do anything to demonstrate the value or purpose of Kinect. And the post-launch lineup is not exactly that great either.

Whether or not the system will operate with Kinect connected is not really that relevant. Microsoft's lack of interest in making Kinect games is pretty telling though.

 

[Elrina]

Bottom line is they are making money on systems, 30 million people willing to pay for Live is apparently enough, and the other 2/3rds that don't use live, but still bought the system for a couple of single player games, well I'd imagine they think those same people will eventually purchase an XB1 to once again play those couple single player games they must have.

If you are making profit, then why change?

I don't really see an issue with the Kinect being in the box. It's an innovative and integral part of the new Xbox, and the PS4 is offering (for the most part) everything you could want from a core gaming machine that doesn't require it. Microsoft has reversed their stance on both major pieces of DRM (physical game ownership + online check in requirements), and now they've made it possible to not only disable the Kinect, but remove it entirely, which satiates privacy concerns (or at least gives much more control over privacy, which is sufficient).


There are still two problems left that I can see. One is Microsoft's mindshare. A lot of people don't trust them after all of this, and those fears are justified. Not only their terrible initial direction and what they wanted to do, but how badly and incrementally they've changed things. All of these 180s should have taken place together, and put forward as a unified change in direction. Instead, we have the appearance of them scrambling to constantly change one thing after another, hoping that each change would be the one that turns the tide back in their favor. Which lends credence to concerns of them reversing their policies again mid-generation. They're going to need to work hard to regain this from a lot of people.

I like the picture a few pages back of 2/3 switches turned to off, because it aptly reflects the second problem. The media apps being behind a paywall. I can see arguments for them wanting to increase the value of XBL Gold, and their inclusion previously, but when Silver has no value and everything requires Gold it just means that owning the console has no feature value outside of single player video games, even with the Kinect 2 included. Meanwhile, they're marketing it as a major multimedia box, and want it to become the center of people's living rooms. There is no upfront feature value for those who are interested in purchasing it for it's multimedia/Kinect related functions.

Media apps and the TV guide just don't belong there. It's inflated value that would be better off free, especially now with the Kinect 2.0 capabilities, showing that just owning the device offers it's own real value for multimedia. It would drive adoption among that casual crowd that want the "futuristic" ease of use it offers, especially when the hardware price eventually starts to go down. People can be given reason to pay even a large upfront cost in exchange for specific features/functions, but nobody is going to want to pay that upfront cost if they'll also have to pay an annual fee to access anything those features are used for.

 

[Ken Masters]

now drop the price $100 and MS might get a sale from me

 

[shinobi602]

we'll see if this isnt another smoke and mirrors effect similar to EA canceling the online pass and we later found out it wasnt all that great.

Huh?