Microsoft: Xbox One and Kinect are not separate systems

Even though Microsoft has now said that the Xbox One will work without the included Kinect sensor if it is not plugged into the game console, the company is sticking with its original message that the Kinect and the Xbox One are a team.

In an interview with Computer and Video Games, Microsoft Xbox exec Phil Harrison is blunt when it comes to the link between the Xbox One and the Kinect. He stated, "Xbox One is Kinect. They are not separate systems. An Xbox One has chips, it has memory, it has Blu-ray, it has Kinect, it has a controller. These are all part of the platform ecosystem."

Harrison added that he has an Xbox One in his home and claims that the Kinect sensor's features, including being able to launch the Xbox One and load his player profile just by the sensor "seeing" him is a "very magical experience."

In the same interview, Harrison said that they have yet to announce a specific launch date for the Xbox One, beyond just "November 2013", due to "a certain number of marketing reasons." Sony announced this week that the rival PlayStation 4 console will launch in the US on November 15th and in Europe on November 29th. Recently, Microsoft revealed that a number of European countries will have to wait until sometime in 2014 to get a localized version of the Xbox One.

Harrison would not comment on if the North American Xbox One bundle will get a free digital game like the company is offering in Europe with FIFA 14. Microsoft will also make more announcements about its non-gaming media partnerships for the Xbox One at a separate event in the near future, according to Harrison.

Source: Computer and Video Games | Image via Microsoft

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft's new Windows Phone ad touts Lumia 1020, continues fight against Apple, Samsung

Next Story

Report: US government expanding bribery probe involving Microsoft

74 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Wut. Last week there was some Microsoft exec saying you could leave the Kinect unplugged and it wasn't necessary unless you're playing a game that explicitly needs Kinect functions, and there are a very small number of those.

Now another Microsoft exec says "they are not separate systems"? What am I supposed to get from this?

Personally I think the Kinect should be included and always should have been.
I dontdon't really use it, but iI have always though it was one of the coolest inventions ever.
I'm totally looking forward to Xbox One and its enhanced KinectKinesthetic.

ill be skipping the xbox one and will wait when microsoft sells them without the kinect. which they will do eventually. i have no use for a kinect sensor and wont pay the $100 MS is charging for it. it isnt necessary for the xbox to have one.

Ive read about project spark that MS are doing which incorporates the kinetic via having yourself in the game youve created or creating an avatar in a game someone else has created. I think this is very important (project spark at least) for the future of game development in the sense that its getting early users/potentially great creative artists into game development by giving them the chance to create there own game simply by- lets face it a really advanced/simplified (depends how you see it) SDK. Get them interested in seeing the possibilities of what they could achieve and attracting talent to the gaming industry to benefit everyone as a whole. Not just xbox releases, PS releases or PC... just games in general... but of course there must be some kind of evil motive behind MS's master plan, oh to cap it all off from MS's master plan its all free to do, i think pretty sure it is.

I like MS they innovate, they can pave the way for future integration of stuff and the way we do things, sure they dont get it all right and there marketing although seems good, doesnt really check the right boxes with the majority of the audience there targeting but they do innovate, they give tons of stuff away for free from MS research and basically they are pushing the boundaries of technology.

Sorry for smashing apple but theyve got $100+billion in the bank, if they really innovated/came up with any of there own tech that could actually pave the way in the future, made massive gambles creating something really new not trying to just improve whats already out there and they really tried they'd be burning that cash pile up but there not. I think thats the difference between MS and apple atm. obviously there other companies like IBM pushing the boundaries with AI like watson and stuff but the main contenders to ppl are Google for andriod apple and MS atm.

I agree with you and might I add that Microsoft loves competition, because that drives companies to innovate. By resurrecting Apple, comes android and WP. By resurrecting Nokia, high end camera on smart phone.

if the world lost nokia, it would be a sad day in history cus there hardware is amazing, fair play they dont make there own cpu and stuff but how they put it togther is brilliant but there crowning achievment is there camera hardware, in sheer performance no other, say mobile space cameras are anywhere near as good, despite the praise from apple cameras which the software adjusts the picture without the user knowing it, if the pictures came out as RAW, nokias would beat the **** out of anything any mobile phone cameras have

by the time that they realize that people its not buying the xbox one they will remove kinect and have it at a cheaper price to be competitive

kinda like how sony realized last time when the ps3 was 499 and 599 that it wouldnt sell and make changes. Oh wait they didnt and people still payed the higher price. Funny how that happens.

They said the same thing about Internet Explorer until they were forced by governments to make it so you did not have to have it on by default. Yes it is still there but you do not HAVE to use it any more.

This is true not but option to not have it as default was not always an option and the EU made a HUGE stink about it. Changes were made.

It was always an option. When you installed a third party browser like Netscape one of the first things it asked you is if you wanted to make it the default browser. The whole EU thing was dumb, why not have a ballot to choose a text editor, calculator, etc.

moloko said,
This is true not but option to not have it as default was not always an option and the EU made a HUGE stink about it. Changes were made.

You speak nonsense. There has always been an option to change your default browser in all versions of Windows since 95. 3.11 and earlier cant really be counted.

moloko said,
They said the same thing about Internet Explorer until they were forced by governments to make it so you did not have to have it on by default. Yes it is still there but you do not HAVE to use it any more.

You like others at the time get lost in what Microsoft was arguing. They were NOT arguing that the IE browser was a requirement, but the IE Engine was a requirement, as it was a 'core feature' of Windows that developers could call to render HTML content, just as it STILL is today.

To fully remove IE would have required fully removing Windows' ability to render HTML content and break applications that developers wrote that relied on Windows to process/render HTML content for them.

Removing the 'engine' from Windows would have been like ripping out the OS's ability to render Fonts or Bitmaps as it was no longer just a separate product starting with Windows 95 SR 2.5.

You can't get stuck on IE as only defined as a browser.

Microsoft's design all along was to make it a part of the OS, giving applications the ability to render HTML content. Microsoft assumed other developers would make 'superior' browsers based off the HTML rendering features in Windows, which the actual IE browser was just a showcase/example application for browsing. In the early days of Win95/Win98, 3rd party browsers using IE's engine were very common, and additionally AOL and MSN used the IE engine but didn't use the IE browser itself.


Just coming up with excuses to justify forcing a useless gimmick upon everyone when the majority of them don't want it.

Oh well, maybe microsoft will wake up when their sales fail to remotely compete with the ps4.

They do not need a damn excuse. Their sales will not fall. They designed something, they spent millions, they sell it like they freaking want and as THEY intended. They did not HAVE to make anything for you. Be happy buy it or don't and get over it. Your just one person ...

Blackhearted said,
Just coming up with excuses to justify forcing a useless gimmick upon everyone when the majority of them don't want it.

Oh well, maybe microsoft will wake up when their sales fail to remotely compete with the ps4.

Using your logic, anything one user never uses should not be included as a designed part of the system. So the PS4 should NOT offer both WiFI and an Ethernet Port. The PS4 should NOT offer a BluRay, as some users only want to buy games online. The PS4 should offer ANY size of HD, so people that don't need the space can save money with a cheaper HD. And on and on and on...

Mobius Enigma said,

Using your logic, anything one user never uses should not be included as a designed part of the system. So the PS4 should NOT offer both WiFI and an Ethernet Port. The PS4 should NOT offer a BluRay, as some users only want to buy games online. The PS4 should offer ANY size of HD, so people that don't need the space can save money with a cheaper HD. And on and on and on...

Except the flaw with your argument is that outside of the microsoft fanboy haven that is neowin, there are MANY people out there, not 'just one', who don't want to pay for things that, unlike what you listed, IS completely useless for games outside of the casual and dance market.

Blackhearted said,

Except the flaw with your argument is that outside of the microsoft fanboy haven that is neowin, there are MANY people out there, not 'just one', who don't want to pay for things that, unlike what you listed, IS completely useless for games outside of the casual and dance market.

So don't get an Xbox One then. It comes with Kinect. That's part of the whole system. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

When you get a few hundred million dollars to invest in a game system then you can create a game console without kinect and sell it for $399 like sony. MS is selling theres $499 "deal with it" lol.

Lucky for you people outside of neowins MS Fanboyism there is the thing called PS4. I hear its pretty good.

Blackhearted said,

Except the flaw with your argument is that outside of the microsoft fanboy haven that is neowin, there are MANY people out there, not 'just one', who don't want to pay for things that, unlike what you listed, IS completely useless for games outside of the casual and dance market.

The things I listed are completely useless if people don't use them, JUST LIKE THE KINECT.

The costs of the Kinect hardware are not huge when compared to creating an ecosystem that is not fragmented.

The Kinect is far more than just 'fringe' gaming, especially when you see how harder hitting titles are using it for ancillary functions. The Kinect is also essential to Voice commands and navigation of the entire UI of the console.

Even with the Xbox 360, there are a LOT of Kinect owners that DID NOT buy it for gaming and use it as a voice interface for controlling movies and music.

The 'complete' experience is what MS has defined as being an Xbox One. If they left the Kinect out, they would let users skip the opportunity in using the Kinect, where the biggest leap is necessary in interactive UI adoption.

It would be like making the Ribbon in MS Office an optional purchase, or even the original toolbars back in 90, users would have continued to take classes to learn Fn key combinations and never evolved to use a more productive UI.

It really is not all about you.

Mobius Enigma said,

The things I listed are completely useless if people don't use them, JUST LIKE THE KINECT.

Exactly.

So if one person, or even more than one person, or maybe even a lot of people -- enough to even make this article and newsworthy -- think that the kinect is useless, you just proved our points. Thanks!

mram said,

Exactly.

So if one person, or even more than one person, or maybe even a lot of people -- enough to even make this article and newsworthy -- think that the kinect is useless, you just proved our points. Thanks!

Except that he didn't. Quit you self-entitled moaning. Don't like it? Don't buy it.

TCLN Ryster said,

Except that he didn't. Quit you self-entitled moaning. Don't like it? Don't buy it.

You don't get to make the decision whether one can or can't complain about a system who's included hardware inflate the cost.

For example, Microsoft could make the claim that the Xbox2 comes with a headphone, microphone, kinect, server, mouse, keyboard, and back massager to enhance the overall gaming experience. Whether you or I agree that this is all useful or necessary is irrelevant, I can still register my general disagreement, as this entire article and topic is presenting, that this is unnecessary additions to a suite of products. It is not self-entitlement when many people (this thread and article show that I'm not alone in my opinion) believe that this shouldn't have been forcibly bundled to raise the overall cost. MS states that this enhances the overall experience. This may be so, I want to choose whether I buy into that. I bought the Kinect 1.0, I fail to see how even improving this system would make anything really better.

And here's the irony -- I like the XBox1. I just don't like the kinect. What am I supposed to do? I don't even remotely want something different, I just don't want to pay for things I won't use or need. You can't push me away, I'm a supporter! In general (not directed to quoted person or topic but to everyone) stop treating people with dissenting opinions like they suddenly need to jump ship if they don't agree. I have zero investment in Sony nor do I care to go there, or nintendo, etc.

mram said,

You don't get to make the decision whether one can or can't complain about a system who's included hardware inflate the cost.

For example, Microsoft could make the claim that the Xbox2 comes with a headphone, microphone, kinect, server, mouse, keyboard, and back massager to enhance the overall gaming experience. Whether you or I agree that this is all useful or necessary is irrelevant, I can still register my general disagreement, as this entire article and topic is presenting, that this is unnecessary additions to a suite of products. It is not self-entitlement when many people (this thread and article show that I'm not alone in my opinion) believe that this shouldn't have been forcibly bundled to raise the overall cost. MS states that this enhances the overall experience. This may be so, I want to choose whether I buy into that. I bought the Kinect 1.0, I fail to see how even improving this system would make anything really better.

And here's the irony -- I like the XBox1. I just don't like the kinect. What am I supposed to do? I don't even remotely want something different, I just don't want to pay for things I won't use or need. You can't push me away, I'm a supporter! In general (not directed to quoted person or topic but to everyone) stop treating people with dissenting opinions like they suddenly need to jump ship if they don't agree. I have zero investment in Sony nor do I care to go there, or nintendo, etc.

Of course you can complain all day long. There is a guy on the corner that does it everyday about the world ending. However it doesn't mean we have to take him or you seriously. After a while you start to lose credibility when you step back to defend inane self centered arguments.


Here is a car analogy from my own life, that if I complained continually about most people would correctly discount my arguments or deem me mad...

I don't like that GM provides leather seats as a 'standard' feature on the Corvette, but it is not a huge jump in costs and I am willing to live with the seat covering to drive a Corvette.

I hope you can see how this starts to sound silly after a while.

Analogous to Microsoft, GM is not forcing me to buy a Corvette and they are not even telling me I have to leave the leather on the seats.

Except that is your only option. If you absolutely object to paying for a console that includes Kinect, then your only option is to not buy it. Microsoft will not be changing their stance on this any time soon. There are valid reasons for including it as part of the core experience, not least of which is to provide developers with the confidence to commit resources into developing for it, something many developers couldn't do with the low install base on the Kinect 360.

Houtei said,
When you get a few hundred million dollars to invest in a game system then you can create a game console without kinect and sell it for $399 like sony. MS is selling theres $499 "deal with it" lol.

Lucky for you people outside of neowins MS Fanboyism there is the thing called PS4. I hear its pretty good.

Haha, what's funny is you same people talking the BS about the 499 price tag for the 360 gladly paid 600 for the PS3 only to find the price drop drastically over the next couple of years. I get it, you still bitter about that.

Most of the people (I said most) whining about Kinect being part of the XB1 are indeed PS3/PS4 fanboys trolling. They have no desire to buy an XB1 even if it didn't have Kinect bundled. This is the oldest Fanboy trick in the book.

The said thing about it is that they have nothing better to do with their time but to troll MS news sites.

I am going to step way a little bit on Xbox subject and use Sony PS3 and 4 as an example.

All you PlayStation knows that you can swap HDD right? Answer me this, why don't Sony don't include HDD for people that will change it t 1TB. That PS4 that you buy for $399 can be sold for $299. Am I right? Choices right?

ozzy76 said,
You seriously just made that comparison?

I thought the comparison was fair. They could call it the PS3-Barebones Edition.

I love the idea of Kinect, especially if they ever get features that I personally find appealing, which I think is getting there. What I don't love is being forced to keep in active. Like it or not, most people don't want an always on camera and mic in their living room that's connected to some company or whatever else. The first time they get hacked and/or have a spying incident discovered will result in a collective unplugging and outrage. Making it optional has no down side...for the consumer.

This is just wordplay, semantics in marketing. Of COURSE they ARE separate systems.

The kinect is a glorified webcam and microphone. How would you need this in some games?

The only reason they would keep this kind of marketing speak is to:

1. Keep the price elevated.
2. Keep the developers happy -- "everyone has a kinect because that's the only thing we sell" -- consistency in environment is always easier, even if it's only used by a small percentage of developers.

But don't for a second have any illusions that you can't completely disable your kinect within the XBox One UI, or simply not plug it in, and have functional games. That alone tells you the truth vs the marketing.

I have limited space for a kinect to work well, nor will Microsoft ever say on their box "Must have 125ft of cubic space (5x5x5) of free space in front of your television for your required Kinect sensor to function correctly", so there you go. Reality meets sanity. If it's not printed on the box, you don't need it. Or alternatively, they only expect the kinect for the microphone alone? Kinda silly.

mram said,
This is just wordplay, semantics in marketing. Of COURSE they ARE separate systems.

The kinect is a glorified webcam and microphone. How would you need this in some games?

The only reason they would keep this kind of marketing speak is to:

1. Keep the price elevated.
2. Keep the developers happy -- "everyone has a kinect because that's the only thing we sell" -- consistency in environment is always easier, even if it's only used by a small percentage of developers.

But don't for a second have any illusions that you can't completely disable your kinect within the XBox One UI, or simply not plug it in, and have functional games. That alone tells you the truth vs the marketing.

I have limited space for a kinect to work well, nor will Microsoft ever say on their box "Must have 125ft of cubic space (5x5x5) of free space in front of your television for your required Kinect sensor to function correctly", so there you go. Reality meets sanity. If it's not printed on the box, you don't need it. Or alternatively, they only expect the kinect for the microphone alone? Kinda silly.

It is more than just words. What Microsoft puts into the design of the overall system is what makes it an Xbox One. The definition of 'what' compromises a system is what makes this a 'console' and NOT a generic general computing device/PC.

Using your logic one could argue that every single component of the Xbox One should be optional. I could argue that the Wireless networking is not needed as I use Ethernet or I could argue the BluRay is not needed as I will only buy online games.

If you want hardware options you don't buy a 'designed system' aka 'console'.

Mobius Enigma said,
Using your logic one could argue that every single component of the Xbox One should be optional. I could argue that the Wireless networking is not needed as I use Ethernet or I could argue the BluRay is not needed as I will only buy online games.
If you want hardware options you don't buy a 'designed system' aka 'console'.

I would agree with that but developers will always code for the lowest, and most fun common denominator. The XBox1 can come with a mouse and keyboard standard too, in theory, and then every developer has that option (key word -- not a REQUIREMENT) to code for it.

But the reality is that a vast majority of us, the consumers, don't care to use those in our gaming systems.

A vast majority of us, the consumers, don't care to use headphones and microphones in our games.

We want - at the lowest common denominator - a fast system with a great handheld controller. Everything else is optional, and in the definition of being optional, you're going to find that 90% or more of the XBox1 games are only using the lowest common denominator, or the Kinect features will be called out specifically on the game box sold. I've looked through the "day one" release games. One of them might use the video part of Kinect (zumba fitness) , and a few MIGHT use the microphone. That's not a huge range showing the integration of Kinect.

And using that principle, I don't want to be forced to buy the extra stuff. $500 for a XBox1 AND kinect and headphones I won't use? Please sell the Xbox to me for $400 or less and remove the stuff I don't want. That's all we're really asking for. If the Kinect features are so cool, we'll BUY IN to that. But seriously, they're not there yet. Like the start screen on Windows 8, we're being told that we're just too dumb to make those decisions on our own, and decisions are being made on our behalf, and those decisions cost us money. I'm offended by that. This thread and topic wouldn't exist if others didn't feel the same. We're not all made of massive amounts of disposable income... money is the real point here.

mram said,

I would agree with that but developers will always code for the lowest, and most fun common denominator. The XBox1 can come with a mouse and keyboard standard too, in theory, and then every developer has that option (key word -- not a REQUIREMENT) to code for it.

But the reality is that a vast majority of us, the consumers, don't care to use those in our gaming systems.

A vast majority of us, the consumers, don't care to use headphones and microphones in our games.

We want - at the lowest common denominator - a fast system with a great handheld controller. Everything else is optional, and in the definition of being optional, you're going to find that 90% or more of the XBox1 games are only using the lowest common denominator, or the Kinect features will be called out specifically on the game box sold. I've looked through the "day one" release games. One of them might use the video part of Kinect (zumba fitness) , and a few MIGHT use the microphone. That's not a huge range showing the integration of Kinect.

And using that principle, I don't want to be forced to buy the extra stuff. $500 for a XBox1 AND kinect and headphones I won't use? Please sell the Xbox to me for $400 or less and remove the stuff I don't want. That's all we're really asking for. If the Kinect features are so cool, we'll BUY IN to that. But seriously, they're not there yet. Like the start screen on Windows 8, we're being told that we're just too dumb to make those decisions on our own, and decisions are being made on our behalf, and those decisions cost us money. I'm offended by that. This thread and topic wouldn't exist if others didn't feel the same. We're not all made of massive amounts of disposable income... money is the real point here.

Unfortunately its not your bank account that's paying to research and develop this thing so yeah.... Also your not being told your dumb your being told they spent their money developing the the kinect to be a PART of the xbox one experience and thats what your paying for. If money is the problem then maybe you should hold off on buying a console? This is not a friggin pc that you can pick and choose what you want. MS is not sony. Sounds like Sony is the way you should go if its 100 dollars holding you back.

Speaking of which why do we need a high end graphics card i mean look at the wii lets just dumb that down and make it 299 so i can be happy i dont really care about graphics so why should i have to pay for it?!?! :sarcasm.

I can't argue with this, but the point is if the Kinect is really part of the experience, why don't the games reflect that logic?

And if the games don't use the Kinect as a mandatory part of the experience, then why is it a mandatory part of the purchase?

That's of course a rhetorical question. MS invested their R&D in the option for the kinect, not the requirement. We shouldn't have to pay for their optional equipment or their R&D.

mram said,
I can't argue with this, but the point is if the Kinect is really part of the experience, why don't the games reflect that logic?

How do you know they don't? How do you know what kinect based features all the upcoming games do and do not have? Take Dead Rising 3 for example... I heard a rumour that the kinect microphone will be used to sample the sound in your room, so in-game zombies can actually hear you. Now to me that sounds (no pun intended) awesome.

The point is that Kinect is designed to be there to provide game developers with the tools to enhance the gaming experience should they choose to do so. And by having Kinect be a mandatory part of the console, it allows developers to develop for it with the confidence that their time and effort will be appreciated by all owners of an Xbox One, not just a small percentage.

It's the same as the current controller... Microsoft mandated that it would have two thumbsticks, two triggers, two bumper buttons, vibration and a d-pad. Those buttons were not made optional for consumers to pick and choose, and so game developers wrote their games to make use of those buttons. They didn't have to, they could've written their games to just use the D pad and coloured buttons only. Kinect will be no different.

Mobius Enigma said,

It is more than just words. What Microsoft puts into the design of the overall system is what makes it an Xbox One. The definition of 'what' compromises a system is what makes this a 'console' and NOT a generic general computing device/PC.

Using your logic one could argue that every single component of the Xbox One should be optional. I could argue that the Wireless networking is not needed as I use Ethernet or I could argue the BluRay is not needed as I will only buy online games.

If you want hardware options you don't buy a 'designed system' aka 'console'.

Well Said!

Oh big whoop! You can chose not to plug the kinect in now! I shouldn't be forced to buy the god damned thing if I don't want it! Well, Microsuck, are you going to give me my $100 back now that you are giving me the option not to plug it in and forget it exists? lol nope.

GollyJeeWizz said,
Oh big whoop! You can chose not to plug the kinect in now! I shouldn't be forced to buy the god damned thing if I don't want it! Well, Microsuck, are you going to give me my $100 back now that you are giving me the option not to plug it in and forget it exists? lol nope.

Here's an idea. Don't by the new Xbox, sorted.

Kinnect is just like a controller. Use it when you need it, put it away when you dont.

IDK why you think you deserve money back if your still getting it.
Controller and headset are also optional, should i ask for another $59 and $24? I dont need the HDMI cable that comes with it either, i should ask for another $20 back, also the sticker that i probably will never use, i should ask for $1 back from them? Yay, the system is now 295!!! o.0

GollyJeeWizz said,
Oh big whoop! You can chose not to plug the kinect in now! I shouldn't be forced to buy the god damned thing if I don't want it! Well, Microsuck, are you going to give me my $100 back now that you are giving me the option not to plug it in and forget it exists? lol nope.

So you are arguing that Microsoft should not let users unplug it, or are you arguing that YOU should decide what everyone needs and not the maker of the console?

There are people buying Xbox 360s that don't play games on it, so they should be able to buy it with a cheaper GPU, right? A 'designed' system of integrated components and features is by definition what a console is and why it is designed as a console and is not just another generic PC.

Mobius Enigma said,

So you are arguing that Microsoft should not let users unplug it, or are you arguing that YOU should decide what everyone needs and not the maker of the console?

There are people buying Xbox 360s that don't play games on it, so they should be able to buy it with a cheaper GPU, right? A 'designed' system of integrated components and features is by definition what a console is and why it is designed as a console and is not just another generic PC.

Thank you. This not a custom built PC. People said the same stuff when smart phones started including cameras and now look at it. Its prolly the number one feature people look at.

GollyJeeWizz said,
Oh big whoop! You can chose not to plug the kinect in now! I shouldn't be forced to buy the god damned thing if I don't want it! Well, Microsuck, are you going to give me my $100 back now that you are giving me the option not to plug it in and forget it exists? lol nope.

Quit giving yourself an enema. Nobody is forcing you to buy a Kinect because nobody is forcing you to buy an Xbox One. Don't want a kinect because they offend you in some unspeakable way?, then don't buy the Xbox One and stop giving everybody else ear ache. Simples.

MikeChipshop said,

Here's an idea. Don't by the new Xbox, sorted.

Brilliant, he probably never knew that that was an option available to him...lol

Good. This needs to remain that way. It is good it will work if the Kinect is unplugged but it needs to remain one system!

I am glad they aren't unbundling the Kinect. It needs to be in 100% of homes for developers to truly support it.

ryuh3d said,
I am glad they aren't unbundling the Kinect. It needs to be in 100% of homes for developers to truly support it.

I agree with you 100%.

This is what I have been saying forever! Last time around they had this same uproar but it was because they made wifi and HDD an option to keep price down while ps3 kept them and had higher price. This time people are complaining cause MS inlcuded the Kinect and ps4 decided to not include the EYEtoy to get price down.

I think it is not so much that they are including it, rather that they are forcing you to use it (unless Microsoft backed down on that, I haven't been keeping up). I can also understand people being annoyed at having to pay extra for something they don't want or intend to use.

They never forced you to use it.

They did force you to have it plugged it. Now you never need to hook up the Kinect to your Xbox one.

The number of games that use it will grow, hopefully. MS had a few demos at E3 that showed how a Kinect can be used to augment controller based games

Houtei said,
This is what I have been saying forever! Last time around they had this same uproar but it was because they made wifi and HDD an option to keep price down while ps3 kept them and had higher price. This time people are complaining cause MS inlcuded the Kinect and ps4 decided to not include the EYEtoy to get price down.

HDD or dense capacity local storage was always going to be a requirement along the product lifecycle.
WiFi ended up being included as standard later, but still a convenience.

I don't see the same justification for a camera/sensor. It's a convenience - not a requirement to have users interact with an X86 based game.

That's the point though its all just a convenience. Everything about xbox one is designed around "convenience" so you do not take that away. Whether you like it or not the xbox one is designed to be a lot more than a gaming console. The Kinect makes all that other stuff a hell of a lot more convenient. The games will come once it gets out there and everyone has one.

The Xbox One design centered around Kinect 2. The ONLY reason they are letting you unplug it is for the people that wanna masturbate on teh couch but are afraid the NSA is going to watch them.

Thrackerzod said,
I can also understand people being annoyed at having to pay extra for something they don't want or intend to use.

They are not paying extra for anything, Kinect is part of XB1 this is not a 360. Get past that. They didn't call it "xbox Alacart" where you can pick and choose the features that you want.

Kinect does increase the price of the XBox One so yes we are paying more because of it.

Edited by Bonfire, Aug 23 2013, 10:13am :

Thrackerzod said,
Kinect does increase the price of the XBox One so yes we are paying more because of it.

And you know what, adding a controller adds to the cost, adding an HDMI cable adds to the cost, Adding art to the box it comes in adds to the cost. That still doesn't change the fact the MS has declared Kinect to be part of the System. Again, it is declared as part of the system and not to be considered an accessory.

A controller is required, so is an HDMI cable. A Kinect camera most certainly is not. Microsoft can declare whatever it wants, obviously they want to sell them. It's still an accessory. Eventually there will be XBox One's sold without the Kinect though, bet on it.

Thrackerzod said,
A controller is required

Perhaps I only want to play Kinect games. So I don't need a controller and would like to save money by not having to pay for it if I am not going to use it. /s