Poll: How long before Microsoft releases a non-Kinect version of Xbox One?

Microsoft recently announced the next-generation Kinect bundled with its upcoming Xbox One actually won't be required to use the console, though the company says it has no plans to release a version without the motion sensor. Does the announcement mean it's only a matter of time before a version of Xbox One is released without Kinect, however?

That's what we're asking you. Do you think Microsoft will backtrack on its Xbox One plans yet again and release a Kinect-free version of the console at a lower price, or is the console forever going to be bundled with the motion sensor? Microsoft has remained adamant the next-generation Kinect is essential to the Xbox One experience, though not requiring it seems to indicate the opposite. At the same time, however, not including a Kinect with each console could fragment the user base.

There currently aren't any known titles that require Kinect for the Xbox One's launch window, though numerous games will make use of Kinect in a non-mandatory fashion.

Image via Microsoft

Poll

How long before Microsoft releases an Xbox One without Kinect?

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft confirms no voice-chat between Xbox One and 360

Next Story

Class action lawsuit filed against Microsoft over Surface RT sales

94 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

If kinect is such an important part of xbone, then they should've integrated it inside the very console itself and not sell it as a peripheral.
It would be like "hey, this is as important for the xbone as the air you breathe and this is how you should buy it, use and play" (it would be fairly easy for their engineers to do it).

Integrating it inside the console is contrary to how the technology works. Kinect needs to see as much of your living room as possible. You don't want to mount the Xbox One on top of your TV do you? Keeping them separate lets you choose where to put the console (behind glass inside an enternainment center for instance, which interfere with the Kinect's sensors) without worrying about optimizing placement for kinect operation.

tomasse said,
If kinect is such an important part of xbone, then they should've integrated it inside the very console itself and not sell it as a peripheral.
It would be like "hey, this is as important for the xbone as the air you breathe and this is how you should buy it, use and play" (it would be fairly easy for their engineers to do it).

I know where you're coming from and you're absolutely right, however as ModernMech stated, it's not possible, otherwise we'd have to be balancing our consoles on our TV's.

Within a year of launch, if someone wants multiple consoles in their house. Surely they wont want a kinect device with every console. I wouldn't. But that's me I guess.

Has anyone noticed the dissappearence of the ring of lights on both the console and the controllers. Does that not kind of imply they will use kinect to link a profile to a controller? They even mention in one of the videos that you can give a controller to someone else and the system understands it. Sounds pretty integral to me.

Microsoft should not buckle for removal of the Kinect in the XB1. Its a tight race now with gaming consoles, with the inclusion of Android based systems now in the mix. The Kinect is a differentiating addition that is a huge plus. The PlayStation 4 is your regular dedicated game console with motion sensing added on as an after thought.

Apparently most users are voting with their wallets by pre-ordering the PS4. They don't care about motion sensing, they just want to mash buttons for 5 hours.

do it microsoft, before the launch stay competitive by having a kinect less version for 100 dollars less its going to be amazing how Sony will react to this...

Within a year, easily. It depends on how the sales are initially to some degree, but they will give consumers the option sometime shortly down the road.

I've been on Microsoft's ass to get their crap together, and they've done a pretty good job in listening. However, I really want them to keep the bundle up. As a consumer, while I love having options, I also want to see the Kinect take off into the hands of developers.

Consumers still have the option of buying it or not, but thankfully they're not required to have the Kinect component just to use the console.

dead.cell said,
I've been on Microsoft's ass to get their crap together, and they've done a pretty good job in listening. However, I really want them to keep the bundle up. As a consumer, while I love having options, I also want to see the Kinect take off into the hands of developers.

Consumers still have the option of buying it or not, but thankfully they're not required to have the Kinect component just to use the console.

Microsoft never stated the Kinect was required for the One to work. This is where everyone failed. It doesn't matter what this marketing guy claimed. He isn't the company.

Just goes to show how awful their PR has been though. So many misunderstood "facts" about the console, coupled with Microsoft backtracking here and there. There shouldn't be confusion regarding what your products or services can and cannot do.

dead.cell said,
I've been on Microsoft's ass to get their crap together, and they've done a pretty good job in listening. However, I really want them to keep the bundle up. As a consumer, while I love having options, I also want to see the Kinect take off into the hands of developers.

Consumers still have the option of buying it or not, but thankfully they're not required to have the Kinect component just to use the console.

+1

How embarrassing it must be for MS to have to keep reversing these decisions.

Considering how many back steps MS is doing, maybe the Kinect won't even come bundled at release. You'll open the box and the thing will be missing.

compl3x said,
How embarrassing it must be for MS to have to keep reversing these decisions.

Considering how many back steps MS is doing, maybe the Kinect won't even come bundled at release. You'll open the box and the thing will be missing.

So how many backtracks do you think they're doing? Most of these things aren't backtracks, just the rumour mill making people think they are.

Holday 2014 it'll come unbundled, when they release an XBone with a 1TB HDD.
So people can 'upgrade' their existing consoles, because the XBone doesn't have a removable HDD remember. You heard it here first folks

ModernMech said,
The HDD isn't removable but storage space is still upgradeable via USB3.
Techically the 360's HDD isn't removable, but it can be done. As long as the XB1 has a standard PC HDD of some kind, it can be swapped somehow as long as you can open the case. Which you can I am sure.

well since they have gone back on pretty much everything else, I'd say 2014

XBOX ONE - we'll make it up as we go along

glen8 said,
well since they have gone back on pretty much everything else, I'd say 2014

XBOX ONE - we'll make it up as we go along

So they go back on two things and that means everything now?

MS, you listened to the vocal minority last time, please don't make that same mistake again, even if you have to take an initial hit on sales, you'll soon make it up.

If you can't afford an XB1, then you can't afford an XB1. End of story, don;t try to destroy it for those that can.

The Markets today are not really forgiving. Companies get only one shot at success and with an initial hit on sales; the product may never recover.

Retailers had aways been given the ability to create their own bundles. I am sure they can make a Kinect-less bundle for people who think they don't want it.

What I am personally not happy about is, the original Kinect really didn't get that many games. The ones it did get most sucked and were really kiddie games. I did like Kinect Adventures as me an my wife get to compete head on which was cool. But the camera many times didn't respond to movement or was a bit delayed. I just think the 360 just wasn't capable of pushing the Kinect like it needed to be to work properly.

Forcing everyone to get one with this release, could push devs into making more games. But we don't need MORE games for Kinect, we need BETTER games. Driving games which I thought would be cool, were terrible.

I dont plan to use Kinect with Skype, I have PC for that. I don't use it to switch screens or talk to people as I prefer using the pad and mic. I rather have 2 joypads and a lower price vs a camera I ill rarely use. Even now I rarely use my Kinect. In fact I havent use it in about 4 months.

TechieXP said,
Retailers had aways been given the ability to create their own bundles. I am sure they can make a Kinect-less bundle for people who think they don't want it.

That's not accurate. They work in partnership with Microsoft for exclusive bundles -- they can't just open up a box, take Kinect out and sell it for less. It'd require Microsoft approval and support to make the bundles.

Anthony Tosie said,

That's not accurate. They work in partnership with Microsoft for exclusive bundles -- they can't just open up a box, take Kinect out and sell it for less. It'd require Microsoft approval and support to make the bundles.
Ok so Microsoft simply had to approve the bundle. That really doesn't change anything. If you noticed with the 360, some retailers had bundles that other did not. Which means they create their own bundle to try to sell the system. Obviously they got approval from MS. This is the same thing they did with Nintendo and Sega.

Today's console normally doesn't come with a game. Microsoft did do a few as my 360 came with that crappy Splinter Cell. But I also saw at Best Buy a couple Xbox that were bundled with Kinect and a couple games that I didn't see everywhere else. Approval? Fine. But that doesn't mean a retailer can't do a unique bundle, which is all I am saying.

MS may not approve a bundle without Kinect. However, if more people start complaining or sells are low, they wont have a choice. The system doesn't NEED a Kinect Sensor, it NEEDS a Joypad and a MIC. They will have to do a basic system because everyone one can't pay $499 for a new XB1 which means automatically there is going to be low sales vs having a lesser option. The only way to knock $100 or so off is to remove the connect to make it affordable.

I only said they had a ability to create a bundle. I didnt say whether it had to have approval or not as I wasn't aware of that.

TechieXP said,
Ok so Microsoft simply had to approve the bundle. That really doesn't change anything. If you noticed with the 360, some retailers had bundles that other did not. Which means they create their own bundle to try to sell the system. Obviously they got approval from MS. This is the same thing they did with Nintendo and Sega.

Today's console normally doesn't come with a game. Microsoft did do a few as my 360 came with that crappy Splinter Cell. But I also saw at Best Buy a couple Xbox that were bundled with Kinect and a couple games that I didn't see everywhere else. Approval? Fine. But that doesn't mean a retailer can't do a unique bundle, which is all I am saying.

MS may not approve a bundle without Kinect. However, if more people start complaining or sells are low, they wont have a choice. The system doesn't NEED a Kinect Sensor, it NEEDS a Joypad and a MIC. They will have to do a basic system because everyone one can't pay $499 for a new XB1 which means automatically there is going to be low sales vs having a lesser option. The only way to knock $100 or so off is to remove the connect to make it affordable.

I only said they had a ability to create a bundle. I didnt say whether it had to have approval or not as I wasn't aware of that.

Well, it isn't even approval really... They go to Microsoft and say that they want an exclusive bundle and Microsoft comes back and tells them what they can do... "You can include this game, or this exclusive controller design, etc."... They will not be coming back and saying that they can make a Kinect-less bundle...

Spicoli said,
As long as the cheap version comes second and not first it doesn't really matter. That way game developers can assume most people have it.

It would have to be quite a bit after they have marketshare... But even then, you will likely see some hit. "Should I do this cool new thing that requires Kinect? What about the people that don't have one? Nah, I won't bother."

You won't see a Kinect-less Xbox One until the One hits the same level of market penetration as the 360. Probably somewhere within that 60-70 million range. Then Microsoft can squeeze out a few more sales by offering a cheaper system but not compromise developer support.

Figure 8 Dash said,
......

doubtful.

By that time, they'll be ready for a hardware refresh, meaning smaller die size on chips, more integration to SoC style computing which will bring the price down to compete equally with the competition while keeping Kinect bundled.

And let's not forget about the subscription model that the 360 already has. There's enough ways to squeeze profits out of the industry without castrating your bull.

That was a very controversial policy that was changed, the already changed the policy on requiring Kinect too.

Saying they will drop Kinect is like saying they will drop the controller 'cos it makes the console cheaper. Well that's not gonna happen, but what I think (know) will happen is a price change that will still include Kinect, to get rid of this argument.

Difference is the spent just as much or more on kinect research and development for the kinect 2 as the console itself to make it an integral part of the xbox one instead of some accessory and unbundling it now would just be stupid. I do think after a really long time and they have a solid consumer base they would be smart to release a unbundled one for the people who break their crap and dont need to buy a new kinect and just need the console

Houtei said,
Difference is the spent just as much or more on kinect research and development for the kinect 2 as the console itself to make it an integral part of the xbox one instead of some accessory and unbundling it now would just be stupid. I do think after a really long time and they have a solid consumer base they would be smart to release a unbundled one for the people who break their crap and dont need to buy a new kinect and just need the console
Serious games won't use it just like they didn't really use the Kinect 1

This is one thing they will never back down on. The kinect is just as integrated as the controller. MS, don't you dare release one without. I wan't to see what this can do to games and UI, don't ruin it.

Because not being connected and not having it at all are totally different. Its a compromise for all the crazy people who want to unplug it when they are not using it because of the NSA spying on them doing stuff on the couch. I use my 360 without a controller all the time to watch movies but the problem is the 360 was designed with the controller and the kinect came later. The xbox one is designed knowing the kinect is available out of the box so im sure the integration will be even deeper. So now they are just saying ok you crazy people you can unplug your kinect and use just your controller instead of both but you will be limiting your xbox experience greatly.

JonnyLH said,
This is one thing they will never back down on. The kinect is just as integrated as the controller. MS, don't you dare release one without. I wan't to see what this can do to games and UI, don't ruin it.

This, a million times this!

greenwizard88 said,
If that's true, why would they bother letting you use the xbox without it connected? How many people can use an xbox 360 without a controller?

Because of the NSA malarkey which has arisen recently. People want to unplug it to be sure it isn't looking at them while jerking off and sending snapshots to Obama.

JonnyLH said,

Because of the NSA malarkey which has arisen recently. People want to unplug it to be sure it isn't looking at them while jerking off and sending snapshots to Obama.

I think it's a bit deeper then that. A lot of people assumed the government was doing stuff like that, but when it's an unknown, people can rationalize it's not as bad as they think.

With the recent leaks, it's caused people to at least think about the internet, cloud / connected devices in a way that has not been done in a long time.

Oh no, please NO. We don't not need a Kinect-less bundle.

1) It will be uncertain wether a user will have Kinect or not and the developers will decrease their attention on Kinect features.
2) All the research and investment in this technology will be partly lost because the technology will not be used in its full extent by everyone.

kostas_pav said,
Oh no, please NO. We don't not need a Kinect-less bundle.

1) It will be uncertain wether a user will have Kinect or not and the developers will decrease their attention on Kinect features.
2) All the research and investment in this technology will be partly lost because the technology will not be used in its full extent by everyone.

Now if only the vocal minority had that much sense! lol

kostas_pav said,
Oh no, please NO. We don't not need a Kinect-less bundle.

1) It will be uncertain wether a user will have Kinect or not and the developers will decrease their attention on Kinect features.
2) All the research and investment in this technology will be partly lost because the technology will not be used in its full extent by everyone.

1) good
2) I don't care

mrp04 said,

1) good
2) I don't care

Vocal minority.

Truth of the matter is that few gamers are against advancing the industry... lol

I really wish they wouldn't do this. Kinect should be mandatory for all XBox Ones. Otherwise it will end up like the first gen where only some devs supported it and less than 15% of XBox 360 owners bothered with it. Including it in every purchase almost ensures that devs will create unique and interesting NEW experiences, but if they go the route of PS4, virtually noone will buy it as a stand alone product. I want a next gen product and experiences, Not XBox 540.

Drewidian said,
I really wish they wouldn't do this. Kinect should be mandatory for all XBox Ones. Otherwise it will end up like the first gen where only some devs supported it and less than 15% of XBox 360 owners bothered with it. Including it in every purchase almost ensures that devs will create unique and interesting NEW experiences, but if they go the route of PS4, virtually noone will buy it as a stand alone product. I want a next gen product and experiences, Not XBox 540.

+1 To actually *want* them to unbundle the Kinect has to be the clearest sign of shortsightedness and low intelligence I've ever seen. It isn't that complicated to understand... lol

MikeChipshop said,
and another +1 from me. Having it bundled in every box is one of the +'s for me that are keeping the XB1 just above the PS4.

For me it was the digital library, integration with WP8 and W8, great OS (and especially the interface!) and Kinect.

We have already lost the DRM/Digital Library/Diskless installs. Losing the Kinect would really be killing everything Microsoft and Ballmer wanted with the Xbox One. Since the Kinect is the real "special-sauce" and was a large part of the RnD budget.

Coolicer said,

For me it was the digital library, integration with WP8 and W8, great OS (and especially the interface!) and Kinect.

We have already lost the DRM/Digital Library/Diskless installs. Losing the Kinect would really be killing everything Microsoft and Ballmer wanted with the Xbox One. Since the Kinect is the real "special-sauce" and was a large part of the RnD budget.

Totally agree on all points

Drewidian said,
I really wish they wouldn't do this. Kinect should be mandatory for all XBox Ones. Otherwise it will end up like the first gen where only some devs supported it and less than 15% of XBox 360 owners bothered with it. Including it in every purchase almost ensures that devs will create unique and interesting NEW experiences, but if they go the route of PS4, virtually noone will buy it as a stand alone product. I want a next gen product and experiences, Not XBox 540.

I wish they will unbundle it. I'm never going to use it. I don't like motion controls. I in fact really dislike motion controls and if any game requires me to use them to play it I will not buy the game.

mrp04 said,

I wish they will unbundle it. I'm never going to use it. I don't like motion controls. I in fact really dislike motion controls and if any game requires me to use them to play it I will not buy the game.

You still will have the ability to take advantage of those features if you wish. And who says that it will just be motion controls? Voice controls are possible as well, and with it being in every box, developers are more likely to spend the time and money coming up with new and exciting uses for the tech. Who knows, maybe one of those uses will entice you as well...

mrp04 said,
.......

So when your favorite run and gun game lets you vocally mod your hardware instead of being locked into a visual/controller menu system, you're done with that franchise?

Or perhaps an RPG where you can yell at the NPC instead of walking around them to see which one has the glowing orb you're supposed to click on.


There are so many ways Kinect 2.0 can enhance the game experience beyond the motion aspect, yet you're too short-sighted to even give it a chance.
Good on you.

Edited by deadonthefloor, Aug 13 2013, 9:48pm :

M_Lyons10 said,

+1 To actually *want* them to unbundle the Kinect has to be the clearest sign of shortsightedness and low intelligence I've ever seen. It isn't that complicated to understand... lol

It shouldn't be that complicated to understand that people don't want to spend the extra money on something that they have no interest in, and are just going to turn off anyways. And you say that those people have low intelligence? Yeah, good one.

Wont happen, microsoft want developers to create games for it and developers wont do that if a proportion of people with the console cant play them.

I think it depends on sales of their competition.

If the PS4 $100 price difference is affecting them enough, they will eat the cost to match, or loss the Kinect to drop the price.

Personally, I'd rather see them build unique and compelling experiences that sets the XBox One apart from the PS4 and makes it worth the extra $100 than to have a unit without the Kinect and save $100 for 1-2 games.

Drewidian said,
Personally, I'd rather see them build unique and compelling experiences that sets the XBox One apart from the PS4 and makes it worth the extra $100 than to have a unit without the Kinect and save $100 for 1-2 games.

Personally I don't need, want, or in any way desire to have a Kinect and would rather have $100 off. Motion and voice controls suck and will continue to suck this generation.

They'd probably go for the 100$ loss before dropping the Kinect if the price affected sales. MS can afford to sell at a loss, Sony can't.

The Kinect is part of the console. They might as well just cancel the entire thing rather than release a model without.

While it's part of the console now, I wouldn't be surprised if after a while when there's a lot of games that don't need it are out that they will consider making a cheaper SKU without the kinect (and I'll consider buying one then)

Yes, i do wonder how many people missed when they were talking about:
- Turn on your xbox with a voice command
- Control your xbox with your voice (yes: it's that TV! TV! TV! reveal).
- Automatically determine player+controller combo using kinect.

And one thing that really intregues me is that major nelson said the kinect is an IR blaster. Since kinect floods your room with IR signals anyway, it wouldn't be too hard to imagine it being able to control not just your cablebox, but your entire entertainment system.

wabboo said,

- Turn on your xbox with a voice command

This is such a deal breaker feature.

I will never buy a console again without this must have feature /s

LaP said,

This is such a deal breaker feature.

I will never buy a console again without this must have feature /s

There's a reason every sci-fi movie in existance features voice activated technology. Human-Computer Interaction research shows that the biggest barriers to users of technology, especial new users, are archaic interfaces.... like a remote control with 100 buttons.

How many times have you gone over to a friend or relative's house and tried to turn on the TV, only to be presented with a 100 button remote that controls 20 set top boxes.... or 20 remotes that do the same. Or how many times have you lost a remote and had to spend a half hour digging through your couch?

Naturally speaking to a device promises to be a game changing feature in technology. This is the first step. I *guarantee* you that 20 years from now, your statement "I will never buy a console again without this must have feature" will be absolute fact for most consumers, and not sarcasm.

ModernMech said,

;I will never buy a console again without this must have feature" will be absolute fact for most consumers, and not sarcasm.

We will see. I personally highly doubt it. Voice command will never totally replace mechanical inputs because of the noise. And you'll always need a controller to play games (until you can play them matrix style) so controlling your video game console with the remote is not worse than controlling it via voice command. BTW not every sci-fi movies feature voice command. In fact lot of them don't. I can think of more sci-fi movies not featuring voice commande than sci-fi movies featuring it.

My wife wants me to use wireless headphones past 9pm so voice command would not go well with her. And i know there's a LOT of people in my situation. I'll keep my harmony 880 thank you very much (there's at most 40 buttons on it and i use at most 25 of them very far from the 100 buttons you're claiming).

LaP said,

This is such a deal breaker feature.

I will never buy a console again without this must have feature /s

Why is voice activation a deal breaker feature? Enlighten me? If Microsoft could supply you with proof that all they did was listen to the phrase 'Xbox On' you would still think it's a horrible feature?

Personally i would find it a great feature if i could say 'Xbox on' and my entire entertainment system would turn on (tv/amp/cable box/xbox) with the correct inputs selected. Although i don't think Microsoft will actually deliver on that.

wabboo said,

Why is voice activation a deal breaker feature? Enlighten me? If Microsoft could supply you with proof that all they did was listen to the phrase 'Xbox On' you would still think it's a horrible feature?

Personally i would find it a great feature if i could say 'Xbox on' and my entire entertainment system would turn on (tv/amp/cable box/xbox) with the correct inputs selected. Although i don't think Microsoft will actually deliver on that.

You missed the /s in my post probably

ahhell said,
You can still turn on the bloody thing with a controller. Quit whining about something that isn't relevant.

I'm not whining. Voice command is a nice plus as long as you have alternative inputs. You are totally right and i agree 100% with you. I was just pointing out that voice command is not as much of a big deal as same people say it is.

If the XBox One doesn't sell well because of the price MS will have 2 options only. Create a less expensive bundle without Kinect or reduce the price and take a charge. Voice command won't be taken into consideration when making the decision if it ever comes to that.

LaP said,

Voice command will never totally replace mechanical inputs because of the noise.

Why is this a fact? People can have a conversations in busy and loud places all the time. It's only a matter of time before the technology and algorithms are developed that allow a machine to do the same.

And you'll always need a controller to play games

Why? Kinect 1.0 was the first real technology to give us a glimpse of what controller-less gaming could be like. Now we're on gen 2.0 and its capabilities have increase exponential in terms of resolution, processing power, sensor capabilities, etc. So we're on gen 2.0 of this technology and you're ready to pronounce it a dead end? This smacks of shortsightedness and lack of imagination.

My wife wants me to use wireless headphones past 9pm so voice command would not go well with her. And i know there's a LOT of people in my situation.

And I know a LOT of people who don't have the fine motor skills to control a remote, don't have the technical know-how to operate our current technology offerings, or are afflicted by some other disabilitiy that prevents them from enjoying the things you and I enjoy. Voice control promises to make technology more accessible and enjoyable for everyone. No one is taking away your harmony remote. But for this technology to become mature and flourish it has to go mainstream, and that's exactly what Microsoft is doing.

I'll keep my harmony 880 thank you very much


You can keep it. No one is taking it from you. But the Harmony 880 is exactly what I'm talking about. It's a response to the problem created by the amount of technology in our living rooms, and how complicatd it has become to manage it.

The Harmony 880 works great for you, fine. But in my future I want to use my voice to access all the functionaliy the harmony remote provides. So I'm glad you're complacent, but I'm not. Please don't let your complacency ruin things for the rest of us.

ModernMech said,

Why is this a fact? People can have a conversations in busy and loud places all the time. It's only a matter of time before the technology and algorithms are developed that allow a machine to do the same.

What i mean is when you send a command by voice you are creating noise. Noise that some people in your house might not want you to do if it's late and the kids are slepping and the wife reading a book.

ModernMech said,

Why? Kinect 1.0 was the first real technology to give us a glimpse of what controller-less gaming could be like.

If you think Kinect like technology will one day totally replace controllers you are mistaken i'm afraid. It's a nice option but not a replacement.

ModernMech said,

And I know a LOT of people who don't have the fine motor skills to control a remote

I think you did not understand my point. My point was never to say voice command sucks or is worthless. I never said that. What i said is it is not a deal breaker. In the end it will not matter much if Microsoft ever needs to reduce the price of the Xbox One by either creating a bundle without kinect or taking a charge.

Edited by LaP, Aug 13 2013, 3:32pm :

wabboo said,
Yes, i do wonder how many people missed when they were talking about:
- Turn on your xbox with a voice command
- Control your xbox with your voice (yes: it's that TV! TV! TV! reveal).
- Automatically determine player+controller combo using kinect.

And one thing that really intregues me is that major nelson said the kinect is an IR blaster. Since kinect floods your room with IR signals anyway, it wouldn't be too hard to imagine it being able to control not just your cablebox, but your entire entertainment system.

Meh. I'm going to grab the controller either way. I will just press the guide button like I did on the 360 to turn it on.

I like the Kinect's potential but I'm broke at the moment so I would rather save even just £50. Especially since in the UK they added an £41 to the price, the PS4 is £349 and I think the Xbox would sell much more if they offered a non-kinect option for £349. Currently it's £429.

mrp04 said,

Meh. I'm going to grab the controller either way. I will just press the guide button like I did on the 360 to turn it on.

For games yes. Entertainment on the other hand, can be traversed much easier by voice. Examples:
- "xbox play latest episode of game of thrones"
- "xbox espn"
- "xbox play deadmau5 playlist"

When voice commands are no longer replacements for menu clicks, it's going to be superior to a controller/remote/keyboard. Now i'm not saying the xbox one will have these natural language capabilities, but it can be capable of doing those due to kinect

ModernMech said,

There's a reason every sci-fi movie in existance features voice activated technology. Human-Computer Interaction research shows that the biggest barriers to users of technology, especial new users, are archaic interfaces.... like a remote control with 100 buttons.

How many times have you gone over to a friend or relative's house and tried to turn on the TV, only to be presented with a 100 button remote that controls 20 set top boxes.... or 20 remotes that do the same. Or how many times have you lost a remote and had to spend a half hour digging through your couch?

Naturally speaking to a device promises to be a game changing feature in technology. This is the first step. I *guarantee* you that 20 years from now, your statement "I will never buy a console again without this must have feature" will be absolute fact for most consumers, and not sarcasm.

And then reality sets in when you try to use it. I tried setting up Samsung's "Smart" TVs with voice recognition, then demoing it..."TV on!" "TV ON!" TV ON TV ON TV ON!!!" Yeah, one demo like that and you will NEVER sell another. If it works 100%, then great...but the last Kinect was FAR from 100%, and games that tried to use it (Steel Battalion) were BROKEN beyond playability by the Kinect. I know this version is "improved", but I doubt they are at that 100% relability yet.

What i mean is when you send a command by voice you are creating noise. Noise that some people in your house might not want

You create noise with a remote too, just not a lot. What if you could simply whisper to the kinect and it could pick up your voice?

If you think Kinect like technology will one day totally replace controllers you are mistaken

I said no such thing. I smiply questioned why games will *always* need physical controllers, as you asserted. The kinect shows some games don't need controllers. I don't see it as a far stretch that in the future, controllers will be replaced with some combination of vision, voice, and maybe even eyeball tracking and BCI. There's simply nothing intrinsic to gaming that *requires* a controller.


What i said is it is not a deal breaker.

And what I said is maybe not today, but in the future it will be. With the inclusion of the Kincect with every Xbox One, Microsoft is bringing us one step closer to that future. Removing it from the bundle will do the opposite.

John Nemesh said,

And then reality sets in when you try to use it. I tried setting up Samsung's "Smart" TVs with voice recognition, then demoing it..."TV on!" "TV ON!" TV ON TV ON TV ON!!!" Yeah, one demo like that and you will NEVER sell another. If it works 100%, then great...but the last Kinect was FAR from 100%, and games that tried to use it (Steel Battalion) were BROKEN beyond playability by the Kinect. I know this version is "improved", but I doubt they are at that 100% relability yet.

And demanding 100% from new and growing technologies is the fastest way to kill them. By all accounts the Kinect is a revolutionary input device. Before it, there was nothing else like it on the market. Nothing. Then it shows up and you expect it to be perfect?

The first car or first airplane weren't 100% perfect either, but we didn't give up on the promise they offered, and we shouldn't give up on voice technology either, just because it's new and unrefined.

wabboo said,
Yes, i do wonder how many people missed when they were talking about:
- Turn on your xbox with a voice command
- Control your xbox with your voice (yes: it's that TV! TV! TV! reveal).
- Automatically determine player+controller combo using kinect.

And one thing that really intregues me is that major nelson said the kinect is an IR blaster. Since kinect floods your room with IR signals anyway, it wouldn't be too hard to imagine it being able to control not just your cablebox, but your entire entertainment system.

The Kinect will control your TV and cablebox. This is why no IR cables are included with the Xbox One.

The Kinect has an incredible IR blaster that makes the whole system function as a universal remote replacement. When paired with SmartGlass which now has volume control it is essentially a Logitech Harmony Ultimate Hub replacement. That's a $99 device.

mrp04 said,

Meh. I'm going to grab the controller either way. I will just press the guide button like I did on the 360 to turn it on.

The majority of time the Xbox One will be used is for non-gaming activities. Over 40% of the time the 360 is used is for video apps today, when you add the ability to watch live TV forget about it. Time spent TV watching outstrips games, DVD, on-demand video by a huge margin. Most of the time the Xbox will be turned on will be for TV. And you'll be able to control your entire entertainment center thanks to the IR control built into Kinect. You'll be able to control volume, channels and search via SmartGlass apps, voice, or gestures (something no other universal remote offers).

LaP said,

I'm not whining. Voice command is a nice plus as long as you have alternative inputs. You are totally right and i agree 100% with you. I was just pointing out that voice command is not as much of a big deal as same people say it is.

If the XBox One doesn't sell well because of the price MS will have 2 options only. Create a less expensive bundle without Kinect or reduce the price and take a charge. Voice command won't be taken into consideration when making the decision if it ever comes to that.


While I agree voice commands are not a priority at all for me, as far as sales go, if current trends continue MS wont worry (just keep listening to feedback!).

When you take into account that XB1 preorders are 2x what they were for the 360 in the same time frame and that nearly all retailers are out of their allotted stock, things are looking good. This is, of course, assuming all those people enjoy their new consoles post launch and there isn't some RROD type issue that puts people off - otherwise sales should go well.

ahhell said,
You can still turn on the bloody thing with a controller. Quit whining about something that isn't relevant.
I'll agree it's not relevant when MS lets me buy the console for $50-100 less without the stupid thing

wabboo said,

- "xbox play deadmau5 playlist"

"I'm sorry Wabboo, I can't let you do that, here's some quality Pink Floyd instead"