XBOX One will work without Kinect plugged in

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

I hope they don't. Kinect is what sets them apart from PS4. If not, it just increased specs and nothing special.

 

Why would it bother you which box I or anyone else buys if they offer 2 SKUs like they did with 360?

[trooper11]

Why would it bother you which box I or anyone else buys if they offer 2 SKUs like they did with 360?

 

 

This is a tough one.

 

Anyone that is half interested in Kinect would prefer to see it get serious support.  In order to do that, bundling it with the X1 seems essential. Without that, how do you convince developers to take chances on making use of it.

 

The problem is the divide in the community.  Those that hate Kinect are not interested in better dev support, while those that are see that its essential to making it a better experience then this gen.

[BajiRav]

Why would it bother you which box I or anyone else buys if they offer 2 SKUs like they did with 360?

trooper11 answered it perfectly.

[Showan]

trooper11 answered it perfectly.

 

This...

[spenser.d]

Why would it bother you which box I or anyone else buys if they offer 2 SKUs like they did with 360?

 

Because I want developers to use Kinect in a more meaningful way, and they won't do it if it's not guaranteed that everyone has it.

 

[edit] Which I see is what trooper said.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

This is a tough one.

 

Anyone that is half interested in Kinect would prefer to see it get serious support.  In order to do that, bundling it with the X1 seems essential. Without that, how do you convince developers to take chances on making use of it.

 

The problem is the divide in the community.  Those that hate Kinect are not interested in better dev support, while those that are see that its essential to making it a better experience then this gen.

 

 

trooper11 answered it perfectly.

 

 

Because I want developers to use Kinect in a more meaningful way, and they won't do it if it's not guaranteed that everyone has it.

 

[edit] Which I see is what trooper said.

 

 

Just because you force something onto users doesn't mean they will like/use it.

 

You could spend millions on a Kinect game on the assumption that every box will include it. Does that mean your sales are going to skyrocket? Not even close and you'd pay a heavy price finding out the hard way if you pitched a game on that assumption.

 

After years of owning Kinect & initially being a supporter of the device, it is an expensive UI experience and a terrible game experience. It's also a fantastic exercise tool, but that's always a touchy subject with gamers ;)

 

I don't doubt for a second Kinect 2 will be a great UI device for the X1, but I have zero interest in more Kinect games. I'd much rather see Oculus rift support than Kinect / Illumniroom / Move on next-gen consoles. Motion controls barely deliver on the Wii and it was designed with it in mind from the beginning. Even if you have a game which makes use of it, does it really add to the experience or provide something better than a controller or m/k does? I can't think of 1 example on any of the 3 consoles.

[trooper11]

Just because you force something onto users doesn't mean they will like/use it.

 

You could spend millions on a Kinect game on the assumption that every box will include it. Does that mean your sales are going to skyrocket? Not even close and you'd pay a heavy price finding out the hard way if you pitched a game on that assumption.

 

After years of owning Kinect & initially being a supporter of the device, it is an expensive UI experience and a terrible game experience. It's also a fantastic exercise tool, but that's always a touchy subject with gamers ;)

 

I don't doubt for a second Kinect 2 will be a great UI device for the X1, but I have zero interest in more Kinect games. I'd much rather see Oculus rift support than Kinect / Illumniroom / Move on next-gen consoles. Motion controls barely delivers on the Wii and it was designed with it in mind from the beginning. Even if you have a game which makes use of it, does it really add to the experience or provide something better than a controller or m/k does? I can't think of 1 example on any of the 3 consoles.

 

 

Then what do you propose? 

 

Your clearly in the 'hate motion/voice controls' camp, so you just want Kinect gone, but should MS be only concerned with that side of it?

 

If the new Kinect is improved hardware, its possible that the experiences that were poor this gen are better and we will see more hybrid scenarios that make sense. This isn't about Kinect only games in my opinion.  Just as Move was used to add to traditional controls, that is where Kinect can be more useful to most of us core gamers. As you said, its also about offering new ui interaction options.

 

MS has made it clear that Kinect is an integrated feature, transcending the add-on status it had this gen. 

 

Again, I don't know what the answer is.  Make people happy that don't want anything to do with this stuff by unbundling it, or make people happy that are interested by giving it the best chance to be useful (i.e. giving devs a reason to care).

[srbeen]

Always online? YES.. err, wait.. NO!

Need the kinect? YES.. err, wait.. NO!

c'mon microsoft, make xbox live gold free now...

[trooper11]

 

I don't doubt for a second Kinect 2 will be a great UI device for the X1, but I have zero interest in more Kinect games. I'd much rather see Oculus rift support than Kinect / Illumniroom / Move on next-gen consoles. Motion controls barely deliver on the Wii and it was designed with it in mind from the beginning. Even if you have a game which makes use of it, does it really add to the experience or provide something better than a controller or m/k does? I can't think of 1 example on any of the 3 consoles.

 

If Oculus Rift was bundled with every X1 @ $500, I agree that you would see a group of people very happy to have it.  Bundling it would mean serious dev attention. 

 

Oculus Rift combined with Kinect would make a very potent VR combination.  You would just need some form of force feedback to complete the experience.

 

Kinect for me has always been a combo of voice and motion controls.  I look forward to much more voice control use in next gen games.  I'm not super excited by a Kinect only game, but I've seen some cool concepts with Skyrim pc mods that make use of gestures in a smart way to manage inventory or load outs that can be tedious in all the menus. 

 

One thing that has aggravated me is that we have yet to see an adventure game (adventure as in old school like Heavy Rain) or RTS game attempted using motion controls.  I can think of some pretty cool concepts that would translate well to motion controls, but no one ever attempted such with Kinect or Move.  I'm hoping that we actually see that attempt next gen.

[BajiRav]

Just because you force something onto users doesn't mean they will like/use it.

 

You could spend millions on a Kinect game on the assumption that every box will include it. Does that mean your sales are going to skyrocket? Not even close and you'd pay a heavy price finding out the hard way if you pitched a game on that assumption.

 

After years of owning Kinect & initially being a supporter of the device, it is an expensive UI experience and a terrible game experience. It's also a fantastic exercise tool, but that's always a touchy subject with gamers ;)

 

I don't doubt for a second Kinect 2 will be a great UI device for the X1, but I have zero interest in more Kinect games. I'd much rather see Oculus rift support than Kinect / Illumniroom / Move on next-gen consoles. Motion controls barely deliver on the Wii and it was designed with it in mind from the beginning. Even if you have a game which makes use of it, does it really add to the experience or provide something better than a controller or m/k does? I can't think of 1 example on any of the 3 consoles.

It's not forcing on users but more like making sure everyone has it. They did the same thing with a standard HDD and Ethernet port on the original Xbox. That ethernet port was pretty much useless until XBL launched an year later (except for local Halo MP).

They screwed up a little with optional HDD and Wifi on Xbox 360. I still remember faces of few of my friends after they realized that their brand new Xbox 360 couldn't play Halo 3 co-op.

 

I want to see Kinect getting bigger than merely a voice control / UI navigation accessory. I hoped v1 will be that but it was disappointing (I gave away mine). With increased processing power, better sensors and support built into every controller, v2 will hopefully deliver.

[HawkMan]

Just because you force something onto users doesn't mean they will like/use it.

 

You could spend millions on a Kinect game on the assumption that every box will include it. Does that mean your sales are going to skyrocket? Not even close and you'd pay a heavy price finding out the hard way if you pitched a game on that assumption.

 

After years of owning Kinect & initially being a supporter of the device, it is an expensive UI experience and a terrible game experience. It's also a fantastic exercise tool, but that's always a touchy subject with gamers ;)

 

I don't doubt for a second Kinect 2 will be a great UI device for the X1, but I have zero interest in more Kinect games. I'd much rather see Oculus rift support than Kinect / Illumniroom / Move on next-gen consoles. Motion controls barely deliver on the Wii and it was designed with it in mind from the beginning. Even if you have a game which makes use of it, does it really add to the experience or provide something better than a controller or m/k does? I can't think of 1 example on any of the 3 consoles.

It's not about developing kinect games, it's about extending games with (optional) kinect functionality.

Imagine a tactical tam shooter, like proper old school rainbow six games, where ou can use hand signals to control your team, freeing up buttons. Racing games using head tracking for looking into corners. Leaning to lean around corner or over ledges. Head tracking in combat flight sims.

That's not even taking into account all the other unique functions developers could do, but simply what we know can be done already, just a lot better with the high res K2. Then there stuff like it being able to some degree see how excited or scared you are, letting horrors games spook you at just the right moment(as if that freaky Japanese game with the ghost camera wasn't freaky enough already).

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Then what do you propose? 

 

Your clearly in the 'hate motion/voice controls' camp, so you just want Kinect gone, but should MS be only concerned with that side of it?

 

If the new Kinect is improved hardware, its possible that the experiences that were poor this gen are better and we will see more hybrid scenarios that make sense. This isn't about Kinect only games in my opinion.  Just as Move was used to add to traditional controls, that is where Kinect can be more useful to most of us core gamers. As you said, its also about offering new ui interaction options.

 

MS has made it clear that Kinect is an integrated feature, transcending the add-on status it had this gen. 

 

Again, I don't know what the answer is.  Make people happy that don't want anything to do with this stuff by unbundling it, or make people happy that are interested by giving it the best chance to be useful (i.e. giving devs a reason to care).

 

Well see that's not true is it? That's the difference between us. I don't like it and choose to ignore it. I certainly don't hate it. I see a lot of worth in it if you wanted to navigate the dashboard/video call/exercise games. You guys enjoy it or see some worth in it, but want everyone to pay the "Kinect tax". Why should I have to pay for something I don't want to use just because there's a chance some developer might make another Steel Battalion. The biggest mistake Microsoft made with Kinect 1 wasn't that it wasn't included in the box. It was removing the on board processor. No doubt they did it because they were planning Kinect 2 and decided to cut some costs. In the end it has tarnished the opinions of Kinect and Kinect games though. They're thought of worse than "waggle" games on the Wii at this stage.

 

Like I said, my "proposal" is to offer 2 SKUs. The install base has already been split at this point making it non-mandatory. Might as well offer a cheaper box and gain more sales from those who have walked away from Xbox.

 

If Oculus Rift was bundled with every X1 @ $500, I agree that you would see a group of people very happy to have it.  Bundling it would mean serious dev attention. 

 

Oculus Rift combined with Kinect would make a very potent VR combination.  You would just need some form of force feedback to complete the experience.

 

Kinect for me has always been a combo of voice and motion controls.  I look forward to much more voice control use in next gen games.  I'm not super excited by a Kinect only game, but I've seen some cool concepts with Skyrim pc mods that make use of gestures in a smart way to manage inventory or load outs that can be tedious in all the menus. 

 

One thing that has aggravated me is that we have yet to see an adventure game (adventure as in old school like Heavy Rain) or RTS game attempted using motion controls.  I can think of some pretty cool concepts that would translate well to motion controls, but no one ever attempted such with Kinect or Move.  I'm hoping that we actually see that attempt next gen.

 

I really don't think Kinect is a good fit for RTS. Not even Kinect 2.0, although we've yet to see what it's capable of. If they still haven't adapted controllers to RTS, there's little hope Kinect could. Not to the same level of precision a PC RTS gamer would be enticed to buy one anyway. Just :laugh: at the thought of SC2 with Kinect.

 

 

It's not forcing on users but more like making sure everyone has it. They did the same thing with a standard HDD and Ethernet port on the original Xbox. That ethernet port was pretty much useless until XBL launched an year later (except for local Halo MP).

They screwed up a little with optional HDD and Wifi on Xbox 360. I still remember faces of few of my friends after they realized that their brand new Xbox 360 couldn't play Halo 3 co-op.

 

I want to see Kinect getting bigger than merely a voice control / UI navigation accessory. I hoped v1 will be that but it was disappointing (I gave away mine). With increased processing power, better sensors and support built into every controller, v2 will hopefully deliver.

 

It's just as much force as Sony bundling BR into the PS3 IMO. I still don't give a damn about the medium, but you can bet the console would have sold better without it at the start and would definitely be cheaper today.

 

HDD and Ethernet were great ideas. They both had clear advantages over their predecessors. Memory cards and split screen were expensive and broken on small screens. I still don't like split screen MP today. So they aren't in the same ball park as Kinect which is lagging very far behind controllers.

 

And as for the 360 Arcade vs Premium. Microsoft gave choices. You could always add a HDD later and you'd have exactly the same console as a Premium owner besides the chrome dvd tray. So again, choices = good :p Offer a Kinectless X1, if a game is lucky enough to make use of it, the sales will take care of themselves. It worked for Wii Fit, N64 Rumble, light guns, buzz controllers and a million more accessories.

 

 

 

It's not about developing kinect games, it's about extending games with (optional) kinect functionality.

Imagine a tactical tam shooter, like proper old school rainbow six games, where ou can use hand signals to control your team, freeing up buttons. Racing games using head tracking for looking into corners. Leaning to lean around corner or over ledges. Head tracking in combat flight sims.

That's not even taking into account all the other unique functions developers could do, but simply what we know can be done already, just a lot better with the high res K2. Then there stuff like it being able to some degree see how excited or scared you are, letting horrors games spook you at just the right moment(as if that freaky Japanese game with the ghost camera wasn't freaky enough already).

 

That's not what they had in mind though is it. It's more what they turned into because the device wasn't capable of the more complex tasks required for full games. Kinect was marketed as a completely new input device to experience games. The first wave of titles is proof of that. Eventually it turned into "better with Kinect", and the basic game stayed the same as other platforms but with extras like voice controls. And might I add that Kinect isn't required for features like that. Even the OG Xbox was capable of it.

 

As for Rainbow Six etc, I don't know how serious you guys are about your shooters, but the last thing I want to do when playing an FPS is take my hands off the controller or k/m :no: Especially if I can do it with a button vs remembering an army instruction manual. I want to kill the enemy and win the game, not spin my finger in the air to tell AI to move on me. People suggest freeing up buttons like they are in short supply? When it comes to FPS there's little need for buttons other than fire, grenade and reload. What exactly are you rushing to free buttons up for? Have I missed a fad in FPS?

 

As for the horror games example. I'd rather a controller with the sensors we've heard about which can read temperture/heart rate/sweat etc. Better yet, every console needs a controller in the box so it's not a nusiance to anyone that needs to be set up, calibrated or even used if they don't care for it. Just like many games allow you to turn rumble off.

 

 

*sorry for the walls of text but I'm being ganged up on :laugh:

[dead.cell]

I don't think the Kinect will be the success others make it out to be, but I'd like for it to stay bundled, if only but to say, "I told you so," should it flop.

 

And of course, if it doesn't, well hey, that's a pleasant surprise! I don't think my opinion on that should be taken too seriously, as I'm not worried about footing the bill as the company I work for will be paying for my XBone. :P

[BajiRav]

I don't think the Kinect will be the success others make it out to be, but I'd like for it to stay bundled, if only but to say, "I told you so," should it flop.

 

And of course, if it doesn't, well hey, that's a pleasant surprise! I don't think my opinion on that should be taken too seriously, as I'm not worried about footing the bill as the company I work for will be paying for my XBone. :p

win-win situation? :laugh:

[trooper11]

Well see that's not true is it? That's the difference between us. I don't like it and choose to ignore it. I certainly don't hate it. I see a lot of worth in it if you wanted to navigate the dashboard/video call/exercise games. You guys enjoy it or see some worth in it, but want everyone to pay the "Kinect tax". Why should I have to pay for something I don't want to use just because there's a chance some developer might make another Steel Battalion. The biggest mistake Microsoft made with Kinect 1 wasn't that it wasn't included in the box. It was removing the on board processor. No doubt they did it because they were planning Kinect 2 and decided to cut some costs. In the end it has tarnished the opinions of Kinect and Kinect games though. They're thought of worse than "waggle" games on the Wii at this stage.

 

Like I said, my "proposal" is to offer 2 SKUs. The install base has already been split at this point making it non-mandatory. Might as well offer a cheaper box and gain more sales from those who have walked away from Xbox

 

 

 

Its a tough argument, you aren't interested in seeing devs try to use Kinect, so you have no interest in how it does next gen. 

 

This isn't a knock or anything, its the simple truth.  You say offer it unbundled because the user base is already split, well wouldn't that insure it remains split since there would be less developer interest and therefore less content to even see potential?

 

I don't get why its wrong for some of us to want to see devs actually use the darn thing.  There were so few serious attempts outside the usual casual stuff.  I often feel like expressing interest in the concept puts a target on your back.

 

I just don't see the solution.  I guess someone will just need to be unhappy in the end.  MS has to figure out how many fall on your side, and how many fall on my side of it.  If they cant figure that out, then maybe the easy answer is to just drop it or unbundle it and let it be relegated to add-on status like this gen. 

 

If they do offer 2 skus, it'll be great news for those of you opposed to its use.  I will be disappointed to see them waste the effort they put into the new hardware, but I'll still be happy with the X1 platform.

 

 

I really don't think Kinect is a good fit for RTS. Not even Kinect 2.0, although we've yet to see what it's capable of. If they still haven't adapted controllers to RTS, there's little hope Kinect could. Not to the same level of precision a PC RTS gamer would be enticed to buy one anyway. Just :laugh: at the thought of SC2 with Kinect.

 

 

But that is the wrong thinking.  If you shoe horn an existing game to use Kinect controls, your doomed to fail.  It would be insane to drop StarCraft 2 into motion or voice controls.  No, what you need is to build something from the ground up and see if it can offer the responsiveness and depth needed.  As far as rts games that use a controller, the last Civ console game and Halo Wars did a great job making a game pad work and feel smooth during gameplay. Its not impossible.

 

I don't know, I'm not a game designer, I just think the lack of developer interest doomed the add-on, not to mention some of its hardware limitations.  If MS has really improved the hardware, then letting it remain a niche add-on likely means little dev interest.  Maybe it just has to be that way, we will see.

[HawkMan]

 

That's not what they had in mind though is it. It's more what they turned into because the device wasn't capable of the more complex tasks required for full games. Kinect was marketed as a completely new input device to experience games. The first wave of titles is proof of that. Eventually it turned into "better with Kinect", and the basic game stayed the same as other platforms but with extras like voice controls. And might I add that Kinect isn't required for features like that. Even the OG Xbox was capable of it.

 

As for Rainbow Six etc, I don't know how serious you guys are about your shooters, but the last thing I want to do when playing an FPS is take my hands off the controller or k/m :no: Especially if I can do it with a button vs remembering an army instruction manual. I want to kill the enemy and win the game, not spin my finger in the air to tell AI to move on me. People suggest freeing up buttons like they are in short supply? When it comes to FPS there's little need for buttons other than fire, grenade and reload. What exactly are you rushing to free buttons up for? Have I missed a fad in FPS?

 

As for the horror games example. I'd rather a controller with the sensors we've heard about which can read temperture/heart rate/sweat etc. Better yet, every console needs a controller in the box so it's not a nusiance to anyone that needs to be set up, calibrated or even used if they don't care for it. Just like many games allow you to turn rumble off.

 

 

*sorry for the walls of text but I'm being ganged up on :laugh:

Actuall, the kinect was never intended just for pure kinect games, and outside of certain types of games where it in fact works very well, generally a lot better than nun chucks and glow in the dark dildos, it was primarily meant to enhance games. But developers chose to ignore it was no guarantee the player would have it. Now they know everyone has one, and they can get to work.

As for voice control and how the original Xbox could do it. Sure, but the kinect has the full voice control library and commands coded in, based on the same excellent voice recog they added in vista, which I found worked a lot better than even the industry standard dragon naturally speaking when I tried it.games simply use the API and without needing to do any coding, they have voice control

As for rainbow six, I'm guessing you never played RB6 or any other tactical shooter. Sure for silly hyper active bunny hopper games like unreal tournament you would take your hands of the controller. But for a game like RB6 being able to use easy to remember hand signals to tell you team to stop, go, breach, spread it would be great, especially added in with the ability to lean by actually leaning.

As for freeing up buttons, I suggest you play a proper tactical shooter, preferably the last of the true RB6 games, Raven Shield. Still and awesome game. Or what about a game that requires such a ridiculous amount of controls it could never be done on a console... Without kinect and voice control, like ARMA.

And why have a special controller with extra sensors when the console comes with a sensor that can already read this? Thanks to the camera it can read and analyze you better than sensors that merely measure skin surface conductivity anyway.

[trooper11]

I don't think the Kinect will be the success others make it out to be, but I'd like for it to stay bundled, if only but to say, "I told you so," should it flop.

 

And of course, if it doesn't, well hey, that's a pleasant surprise! I don't think my opinion on that should be taken too seriously, as I'm not worried about footing the bill as the company I work for will be paying for my XBone. :p

 

What would be considered a success in this case?  Since its now an integrated feature, are you just talking about it functioning reliably?

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Making something mandatory doesn't mean games instantly turn into gold nuggets.

[spenser.d]

Making something mandatory doesn't mean games instantly turn into gold nuggets.

 

Nobody is saying it is. 

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Actuall, the kinect was never intended just for pure kinect games, and outside of certain types of games where it in fact works very well, generally a lot better than nun chucks and glow in the dark dildos, it was primarily meant to enhance games. But developers chose to ignore it was no guarantee the player would have it. Now they know everyone has one, and they can get to work.

As for voice control and how the original Xbox could do it. Sure, but the kinect has the full voice control library and commands coded in, based on the same excellent voice recog they added in vista, which I found worked a lot better than even the industry standard dragon naturally speaking when I tried it.games simply use the API and without needing to do any coding, they have voice control

As for rainbow six, I'm guessing you never played RB6 or any other tactical shooter. Sure for silly hyper active bunny hopper games like unreal tournament you would take your hands of the controller. But for a game like RB6 being able to use easy to remember hand signals to tell you team to stop, go, breach, spread it would be great, especially added in with the ability to lean by actually leaning.

As for freeing up buttons, I suggest you play a proper tactical shooter, preferably the last of the true RB6 games, Raven Shield. Still and awesome game. Or what about a game that requires such a ridiculous amount of controls it could never be done on a console... Without kinect and voice control, like ARMA.

And why have a special controller with extra sensors when the console comes with a sensor that can already read this? Thanks to the camera it can read and analyze you better than sensors that merely measure skin surface conductivity anyway.

 

So many assumptions in so little time :laugh: I've played/own all the games you've mentioned and many more tactical shooters. I'm taking into account both SP and MP experiences though and if you're too busy twirling your finger in the air you're as good as dead in RS MP. It's very different to the SP where you have all the time in the world to scope out a room before you enter. Again though, doesn't really add to the experience. You're swapping something that works perfectly fine on a controller and cramming it into a device to justify it.

 

And yes, Kinect was intended for pure Kinect titles. Otherwise why take the stage and use Milo as an example of it's technology and not something familiar like Halo. There's still nothing like that available for the device and that was over 4 years ago almost. It was most certainly going to be available to all sorts of games to use voice controls too, but never their only/primary intention. Of course the API allows easy implementation of features. It'd be silly to release it without those. That doesn't really push the device to it's limits, and if you aren't doing that, then you're not doing anything worthwhile. You're just recreating the same old experiences with a different input. Had Kinect kept it's processor you can bet **** like Joy Ride and Steel Battalion wouldn't have ended up steaming piles.

 

Why a special controller? Because you don't need to sell the idea. It's just part of the controller that every gamer is going to have in their hands anyway. Just like the force feedback triggers and thumbsticks/rumble before it. Asking people to sit Jonny 5 above/below their tv is bad enough, never mind shoving it down their throats with a higher price tag and **** experiences.

 

And finally, it may be in the box, but I've already explained and believe me this will be a decent percentage of users, it doesn't mean it will be used. Now that they've announced it's non-mandatory I won't even unpack the thing if I'm forced to buy it :yes: In fact, any takers want to buy it from me? First come etc etc :p

 

 

 

Its a tough argument, you aren't interested in seeing devs try to use Kinect, so you have no interest in how it does next gen. 

 

This isn't a knock or anything, its the simple truth.  You say offer it unbundled because the user base is already split, well wouldn't that insure it remains split since there would be less developer interest and therefore less content to even see potential?

 

I don't get why its wrong for some of us to want to see devs actually use the darn thing.  There were so few serious attempts outside the usual casual stuff.  I often feel like expressing interest in the concept puts a target on your back.

 

I just don't see the solution.  I guess someone will just need to be unhappy in the end.  MS has to figure out how many fall on your side, and how many fall on my side of it.  If they cant figure that out, then maybe the easy answer is to just drop it or unbundle it and let it be relegated to add-on status like this gen. 

 

If they do offer 2 skus, it'll be great news for those of you opposed to its use.  I will be disappointed to see them waste the effort they put into the new hardware, but I'll still be happy with the X1 platform.

 

 

 

 

 

But that is the wrong thinking.  If you shoe horn an existing game to use Kinect controls, your doomed to fail.  It would be insane to drop StarCraft 2 into motion or voice controls.  No, what you need is to build something from the ground up and see if it can offer the responsiveness and depth needed.  As far as rts games that use a controller, the last Civ console game and Halo Wars did a great job making a game pad work and feel smooth during gameplay. Its not impossible.

 

I don't know, I'm not a game designer, I just think the lack of developer interest doomed the add-on, not to mention some of its hardware limitations.  If MS has really improved the hardware, then letting it remain a niche add-on likely means little dev interest.  Maybe it just has to be that way, we will see.

 

Put it this way. I won't be taking an interest until I see it prove itself. I might not use the thing, but I'll definitely keep an eye on the latest happenings just like I do with anything else game related. I don't own nor plan to own an Ouya for example, but I still keep up to date with the PoS :P

 

If you remove it from the box it doesn't mean they can't offer it seperately like they do today. I bought my Kinect 1.0 without a console. Why wouldn't people do that for Kinect 2.0 if they see value in it? Hell they could even jack up the price this way. The news has already split the consumers. Let's not kid ourselves. That's why we have Neowin members creating silly topics about falling out of love with the X1. There is absolutely no assurance that every owner of an X1 is going to plug the Kinect in. Do you then plump down a huge amount of your budget to hope those who do actually plug theres in even bother to 1: buy your game and 2: use the features. Removing it from the box isn't going to make the situation any worse with so many "ifs" already.

 

As for SC2, I'm not saying that it should be back ported to games like it. Just that you're never going to convince the RTS gamer to give up m+k for a Kinect. Those guys are some of the most hardcore gamers on PCs and you think they'll give up their hotkeys and timing to wave at a tv screen? Please. Let's not kid ourselves here. Even Halo Wars would be a nightmare to control with a Kinect and the interface was very simple. They are ok games, but in comparison to the leaders in their genre they're laughable. I would never give up my Civ 5 for Revolution. Microsoft couldn't even pay me to.

[dead.cell]

What would be considered a success in this case?  Since its now an integrated feature, are you just talking about it functioning reliably?

 

I mean with developers finding ways to add new levels of immersion to games we like/want to play.

 

Many companies often forget that detail. It's like when developers create a graphically stunning game but forget gamers actually like to have a story... only to tack it on in some half-arsed sort of way. That's when I'd feel it to be a real success, but that's merely my own opinion at least.

[trooper11]

And as for the 360 Arcade vs Premium. Microsoft gave choices. You could always add a HDD later and you'd have exactly the same console as a Premium owner besides the chrome dvd tray. So again, choices = good :p Offer a Kinectless X1, if a game is lucky enough to make use of it, the sales will take care of themselves. It worked for Wii Fit, N64 Rumble, light guns, buzz controllers and a million more accessories.

 

 

 

*sorry for the walls of text but I'm being ganged up on :laugh:

 

 

I missed this part in my last post.  The WiiFit succeeded without much software support.  The others you mentioned weren't anywhere near the cost that a stand alone Kinect would be.  I just don't see much future for Kinect if it doesn't get substantial developer support.  That doesn't mean a bunch of Kinect only titles.  It means the hybrid stuff and things like voice commands. 

 

As far as the wall of text, I'm sorry if you feel ganged up on, I was just trying to give my opinion on it.  I often feel that way when mentioning anything positive about the subject, so I get how you feel. 

 

 

 

Making something mandatory doesn't mean games instantly turn into gold nuggets.

 

 

I agree, it doesn't.

 

But is it more likely to get wider dev support when its bundled or unbundled? 

 

Heck, go back to Bluray for a second.  Sony forced it on its users with the ps3 and yet that not only aided them in winning the bluray/hddvd war, it ended up as the de facto standard for consoles going forward.  This gen, people argued constantly that MS was wrong not to bundle a hard drive with every console and that it limited developers in completely leveraging it. 

 

I think there is enough evidence to support the idea that if you bundle a piece of hardware vs selling it separately, your more likely to attract developers to use it. 

 

Look, this is really two discussions:

 

1.  Whether you like or don't like the motion/voice control concepts

 

2. Whether bundling Kinect with all X1s gives it a better chance vs not bundling it.

[trooper11]

I mean with developers finding ways to add new levels of immersion to games we like/want to play.

 

Many companies often forget that detail. It's like when developers create a graphically stunning game but forget gamers actually like to have a story... only to tack it on in some half-arsed sort of way. That's when I'd feel it to be a real success, but that's merely my own opinion at least.

 

I agree completely, it still comes down to content.  But isn't that the whole point to the discussion?  Should Kinect be given the chance to get such content or not?

 

If there is serious dev attention, is much more likely we see something interesting.  If MS has greatly improved the hardware, then there is a chance.  My thought is that if you unbundle it, you lose much of your chance to see devs try.

 

I don't know, I guess I am in a minority of users that even want to see if MS can improve the platform with new hardware and proper dev support.  If I am, then MS needs to unbundle this thing and make the majority happy. 

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

I missed this part in my last post.  The WiiFit succeeded without much software support.  The others you mentioned weren't anywhere near the cost that a stand alone Kinect would be.  I just don't see much future for Kinect if it doesn't get substantial developer support.  That doesn't mean a bunch of Kinect only titles.  It means the hybrid stuff and things like voice commands. 

 

As far as the wall of text, I'm sorry if you feel ganged up on, I was just trying to give my opinion on it.  I often feel that way when mentioning anything positive about the subject, so I get how you feel. 

 

I was kidding, relax :laugh: Just poking fun at the fact I have like 4 conversations going on at once here. Every time I finish replying to one of you, another person chimes in and I need to start all over.

 

Honestly though, if Kinect can't sell itself without being bundled, it's not even worth it. I'm repeating myself here but just because it's included in the box doesn't make it a success. The software is what matters which is why silly accessories like guitars, buzz controllers and dance mats sell. Those things are specific to one title, but they can sell millions of copies because people love the games. Kinect just needs a few titles like that and it'll be fine and it doesn't need to be in the box to achieve that.

[Ryster]

MS have only reversed one thing and that was the DRM.

 

I prefer to look at it another way.  What they have removed is the family sharing, all digital game library, games in your account you can install anywhere you log on, etc, which is a crying shame.  The DRM was just there to protect those features, and without them the DRM was not required.