Xbox One without

[Darrian]

I love how the majority think the kinect is nearly useless but MS is being bullheaded as usual and trying to convince gamers that it's essential without any kind of demonstration.  They're just trying to push gamers into gaming the way they want them to.  I'm still not sure they ever had any business getting into the console business.  I'm glad for the 360 only because it gave me a good controller I could use on my PC.  They aren't losing any sales from me regardless of whether they include the kinect or not because I have not and never intend to buy a MS console.  Still, it's pretty obvious here that they could be more successful if they had kept the kinect an optional peripheral from the start, and their refusal to admit that is going to cost them sales.  They should start listening to what gamers want instead of trying to tell gamers what they want.  Then maybe I might possibly consider buying one (though, honestly, they're gonna have to force developers to stop developing for PC, too, in order to pry more money out of my wallet).

[Skin]

I use my voice commands non-stop, and use web conference and calls, etc.

 

I cannot imagine my experience without the Kinect, but that said, I can see how some would want to shave some cost off and never use those features.

 

 

But how is the NSA and all the other agencies supposed to spy on you? Oh, by the other devices you have. Dang it, carry on and remove it.

[neoadorable]

Yes, the same folks that decry the cameras and mics on Kinect don't give a second thought to the ones on smartphones and tablets. And Darrian, i think you're wrong. MS have long stopped trying to shove Kinect down people's throats. It's just in the box and part of the price, take it or leave it. Certainly a lot of people choose to leave it, but they have very deep pockets and reserves, and can gamble with X1. Don't forget 360 is now in prime cash cow land, it's mostly profit for the next couple of years with the old gal. MS and contractors can make 360's in their sleep for next to nothing, and soon you'll be able to get one for like $100. People still buy them, let's not forget a mere five months ago 360/PS3 were mainstay gaming platforms bar none. De facto they still are.

 

Bottom line, I don't blame anyone for resenting Kinect but it's not true about MS. Not their evangelist or anything, but simply not true that they are pushing Kinect. The message is now very different than it was last May.

[trooper11]

That's not what he means. MS had a checklist for games i.e every game must be HD, every game must have 1000 GS, every XBLA must have a demo etc. I didn't know about the Kinect API requirement but interesting to know.

So wait, is that confirmed, or are you just accepting the word of one forum poster?

 

 

Delays: https://www.neowin.net/news/kinect-to-blame-for-delay-to-bbc-iplayer-app-for-xbox-one-insider-claims (just a quick search)

That is an app, not a game. If you find someone claiming their game was delayed because of a Kinect requirement, that is what you implied was happening.

 

 

Now I know you can immediately say that's ridiculous, but that's not the point.  The point is for some they'll say that's awesome.  Others, like me, will say "I just don't need that bundle, please remove it."  It is money spent on something that really could've been spent on 3-4 games, which in turn would drive more sales of the unit.

Then they just need to drop the price enough to the point where you accept it being in the box just as you accept wireless or a disc drive. Then everybody wins. MS gets their mass support and you can finally buy an X1 because the pricing is no longer out of whack for you personally.

 

Heck even on Microsoft's page they label the Kinect as "a controller" and "Xbox One does not require a Kinect to be plugged in for the system to function".  If the Kinect were truly integrated, they wouldn't separate these items. 

 

Now, just to clarify here, there are people who are taking this to near-religious levels of argument.  I don't think this deserves it.  I like the Kinect, but it's not for me.  It clearly is awesome for others.  Great!  But Microsoft should've never bundled it.  They didn't compel developers to really use it (current games and forecasted games do not show a significant % of games requiring or using Kinect), and if people want to spend $100 for ease of login, voice control, that's great too!  Just don't make the rest of us do that.  That's the point of this whole thread.

Kinect is integrated at the software level, as I said before. There are literally software functions that don't exist without Kinect. That makes it different from something like say a light gun.

Again, MS just needs to drop the price. If they truly want everyone to have Kinect around, then they have to eat the losses and drop the price. If they can't eat the price drop, then drop Kinect, get rid of it. It does little good as a separate add-on, history and the first kinect offer a lot of evidence.

 

 

I love how the majority think the kinect is nearly useless but MS is being bullheaded as usual and trying to convince gamers that it's essential without any kind of demonstration.  They're just trying to push gamers into gaming the way they want them to.  I'm still not sure they ever had any business getting into the console business.  I'm glad for the 360 only because it gave me a good controller I could use on my PC.  They aren't losing any sales from me regardless of whether they include the kinect or not because I have not and never intend to buy a MS console.  Still, it's pretty obvious here that they could be more successful if they had kept the kinect an optional peripheral from the start, and their refusal to admit that is going to cost them sales.  They should start listening to what gamers want instead of trying to tell gamers what they want.  Then maybe I might possibly consider buying one (though, honestly, they're gonna have to force developers to stop developing for PC, too, in order to pry more money out of my wallet).

Yeah, the vast majority hate Kinect, that much is clear. MS might indeed just be in the wrong market. It was pretty silly to think they could do much in the console market. I'm sure many MS investors agree with you that they had no business getting into the market.

I don't think they are trying to push gamer to play the way MS wants them to play. I think they truly feel like they needed to offer something special to try and stand out in the market. Something that was in addition to what gamers were already familiar with. Its weird that some people claim that MS is forcing people to use Kinect for gaming when MS has gone out of its way this gen to downplay that aspect of it.

[Darrian]

From a financial perspective, obviously they made the right choice.  I don't care whether they are making money, though, I care about whether they are doing it right, and they're not.  They rule the PC market, but where is gaming for the PC?  Well, actually I probably get 95% of the games I want to play on consoles on my PC, so it's not like PC is hurting.  However, they were supposed to revolutionize it.  Xbox games were supposed to play on Windows with the same ease of simply inserting the disc.  Obviously that never happened, and now they're pushing what are essentially really low end PCs as consoles, because everybody who owns a PC wants to buy a crappier one just for gaming.  It's been like a decade, but I'm still bitter about that betrayal.

 

I know that not every gamer is like me.  I started with an Atari, and my favorites from my youth are the SNES and the PSone.  For me, consoles started going downhill when they started adding ethernet ports and they've only gotten worse since.  The whole point of a console was that it was isolated from the world.  It was just you and your TV and if you had a multiplayer game, a friend or sibling on the couch next to you.  If you wanted to network your games it made sense (and still does) to use a computer.  FPS games don't belong on consoles.  MMORPGS don't belong on consoles.  But they are doing it anyway.  Consoles are meant for gaming, yet now it's a selling point that you can use one to watch Netflix.  I used to be a console gamer, but now it seems the great games are on the PC and the crappy games are on the consoles.  Most of the time they're on both, but I don't need to buy a new system just to play the same crappy games I ignore on my PC.  And so now I'm a PC gamer.

 

There are still gems to be found in consoles.  The Last Of Us has garnered so much praise one can hardly ignore it.  I'll probably get a PS3 at some point just to play that (and also the God of War games, neither of which are on Xbox).  Now it appears that MS has Titanfall, but it remains to be seen whether that game will end up being the game of the year or spectacular hype.  I no longer get excited when a new console comes out.  Instead I wait 5 years or so and see which of "last gen," if any, had enough great games to make it worth buying.  Even then it feels like a waste of money and a shame that I can't just go download those financially-motived exclusives on Steam.

 

MS isn't forcing people to use Kinect for gaming.  They're forcing you to buy it, or go without their system entirely. They claim they can't separate it because it's essential somehow to the function of the system when apparently it's mostly just used for raising or lowering the volume and other mundane tasks.

[trooper11]

MS isn't forcing people to use Kinect for gaming.  They're forcing you to buy it, or go without their system entirely. They claim they can't separate it because it's essential somehow to the function of the system when apparently it's mostly just used for raising or lowering the volume and other mundane tasks.

Its actually used for more tasks, but I'm tired of trying to lay that stuff out.

MS has failed to explain that point and its not up to me to correct it.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

So wait, is that confirmed, or are you just accepting the word of one forum poster?

 

I'd be more inclined to believe it than not based on MS' previous XBL "Essentials", not because it came from a forum poster. It makes sense too since it's supposed to be a system wide accessible feature.

[PGHammer]

From a financial perspective, obviously they made the right choice.  I don't care whether they are making money, though, I care about whether they are doing it right, and they're not.  They rule the PC market, but where is gaming for the PC?  Well, actually I probably get 95% of the games I want to play on consoles on my PC, so it's not like PC is hurting.  However, they were supposed to revolutionize it.  Xbox games were supposed to play on Windows with the same ease of simply inserting the disc.  Obviously that never happened, and now they're pushing what are essentially really low end PCs as consoles, because everybody who owns a PC wants to buy a crappier one just for gaming.  It's been like a decade, but I'm still bitter about that betrayal.

 

I know that not every gamer is like me.  I started with an Atari, and my favorites from my youth are the SNES and the PSone.  For me, consoles started going downhill when they started adding ethernet ports and they've only gotten worse since.  The whole point of a console was that it was isolated from the world.  It was just you and your TV and if you had a multiplayer game, a friend or sibling on the couch next to you.  If you wanted to network your games it made sense (and still does) to use a computer.  FPS games don't belong on consoles.  MMORPGS don't belong on consoles.  But they are doing it anyway.  Consoles are meant for gaming, yet now it's a selling point that you can use one to watch Netflix.  I used to be a console gamer, but now it seems the great games are on the PC and the crappy games are on the consoles.  Most of the time they're on both, but I don't need to buy a new system just to play the same crappy games I ignore on my PC.  And so now I'm a PC gamer.

 

There are still gems to be found in consoles.  The Last Of Us has garnered so much praise one can hardly ignore it.  I'll probably get a PS3 at some point just to play that (and also the God of War games, neither of which are on Xbox).  Now it appears that MS has Titanfall, but it remains to be seen whether that game will end up being the game of the year or spectacular hype.  I no longer get excited when a new console comes out.  Instead I wait 5 years or so and see which of "last gen," if any, had enough great games to make it worth buying.  Even then it feels like a waste of money and a shame that I can't just go download those financially-motived exclusives on Steam.

 

MS isn't forcing people to use Kinect for gaming.  They're forcing you to buy it, or go without their system entirely. They claim they can't separate it because it's essential somehow to the function of the system when apparently it's mostly just used for raising or lowering the volume and other mundane tasks.

And notice that the real issue isn't even Kinect - the real issue is the price gap between XB1 and PS4.

 

Because the price gap exists, the decriers are trying to find ways of making the two systems price-equal - and since XB1 includes Kinect (while PS4 does NOT include Move), Kinect is targeted.

 

What about HDMI-inline (another XB1 exclusive)?  Wouldn't that ALSO be value-additive?

 

It is STILL tunnel-vision - which I have decried about the entire argument.

[PGHammer]

That's an incorrect statement.  The Kinect is not part of the core product, it is bundled with the core product.  The proof is in the MS admittance that you can in fact run the XBox One without even having the Kinect attached.

 

https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-xbox-one-can-still-work-without-kinect-sensor-connected

 

Additionally, developers are required to incorporate Kinect API usage into their products - at the minimum, voice overlay - which has been known to stall product-to-market.  There really is no "win" here.

But would it be as usable - outside of gaming, mind you?

 

I referred in particular to features of the XB1 that rely on Kinect being present, but do not require even a single game - those Kinect features are part of the Dashboard.

 

The reason for the backpedal on certain features that were planned on requiring Kinect is due to privacy concerns - for those users (for whatever reason) the privacy concerns trumped usability.

 

So what's the REAL concern - privacy or price?

[PGHammer]

Its actually used for more tasks, but I'm tired of trying to lay that stuff out.

MS has failed to explain that point and its not up to me to correct it.

trooper11 - it isn't that it hasn't been laid out properly - it is just that (for some users) price is the be-all and end-all, and they are perfectly willing to accept a stripped-down XB1 Core (no Kinect or any of the features that required it) to meet that price metric.  (How many of these SAME users purchased the old XB360 Core?)

 

You can tell them about the additional usability, additional features, et. alia., until you are blue in the face - all that matters to THIS group is price.

[trooper11]

I'd be more inclined to believe it than not based on MS' previous XBL "Essentials", not because it came from a forum poster. It makes sense too since it's supposed to be a system wide accessible feature.

Ah ok, so no confirmation then, just wondering.

[Hedon]

 

 

The Xbox One Kinect is not going to be required for all games, just the ones that the developers want to use the hardware for. 

http://www.ign.com/wikis/xbox-one/Xbox_One_Kinect

 

Titanfall has no Kinect support:

 

http://www.craveonline.com/gaming/articles/614911-titanfall-wont-support-kinect-despite-being-one-of-xbox-ones-most-important-games

 

Clearly, developers are not losing money due to the Kinect being part of the core product of Xbox One. Developing for or using Kinect API's is optional.

[Darrian]

trooper11 - it isn't that it hasn't been laid out properly - it is just that (for some users) price is the be-all and end-all, and they are perfectly willing to accept a stripped-down XB1 Core (no Kinect or any of the features that required it) to meet that price metric.  (How many of these SAME users purchased the old XB360 Core?)

 

You can tell them about the additional usability, additional features, et. alia., until you are blue in the face - all that matters to THIS group is price.

 

Well, yeah, of course.  I absolutely agree.  Gamers want to play games.  You put the game in, you turn on the TV, you pick up the controller.  If Kinect isn't used to play the game, what use is it?  That's not to say the Kinect is useless, just that it is not being used.  Though, if motion was going to be a popular control device in gaming you'd think the Wii would be selling more.  It's still early in the development cycle, and maybe there will be some killer games made down the road that absolutely actually require it, but right now there is no obvious reason to have it other than to make consumers spend more money for something they don't stictly need to do what they want to do with their console: play games.

[PGHammer]

Well, yeah, of course.  I absolutely agree.  Gamers want to play games.  You put the game in, you turn on the TV, you pick up the controller.  If Kinect isn't used to play the game, what use is it?  That's not to say the Kinect is useless, just that it is not being used.  Though, if motion was going to be a popular control device in gaming you'd think the Wii would be selling more.  It's still early in the development cycle, and maybe there will be some killer games made down the road that absolutely actually require it, but right now there is no obvious reason to have it other than to make consumers spend more money for something they don't stictly need to do what they want to do with their console: play games.

Again, that is VERY narrow-minded (tunnel-vision) thinking - in other words, the older XB360 (pre-Kinect) or even Wii market - which both Sony and Microsoft have rejected.

 

To be honest, the Wii DOES hew closer to that games-only market than either the XB1 or PS4; the problem is that the hot game properties aren't on the Wii, are they?

 

As much as you want price to be the only factor, the console developers AND the game publishers have made price-only a non-starter.  Instead, the battleground has moved to content and features.

 

If price (not content or features) were the sole criteria, the Wii would be a runaway winner - yet not only is it NOT a winner, it's likely to be the first casualty of the next-gen console marketplace.

 

Both Sony AND Microsoft moved the needle away from price-only - if anything, Sony made the first move with the PS3 (with the BD support), with XB1 being Microsoft's counter; integrating Kinect into the entire experiece was Microsoft's response to the lack of overall utility that was the case with both the original Kinect and Move.

 

In order for a feature for any product (any product - including a game console) to make sense, it has to be usable across as many of the product's capabilities as possible - that was the issue with the original Kinect, as XB360 didn't support all of the features OF Kinect merely when it (Kinect) launched - wasn't a rather hefty patch required merely to ADD Kinect support upon installation?  That was something that Sony didn't do with PS Move - worse, PS Move was priced HIGHER than Kinect, and brought less to the table than Kinect besides.

 

Kinect in XB1 is far more integrated than it was with XB360 - even a completely updated XB360; that is why XB1 is worth more than XB360+Kinect - even resale pricing on eBay reflects that.  As much as the one-piece-at-a-time game-console purchaser wants to have kept the old XB360 Core type deal, that window has closed, and may have, in fact, closed forever.

[uxo22]

Truth be told they haven't shown how it's a fundamental part of the Xbox One experience yet.  All of the things that Kinect does right now could be done by something else.  They still need that one killer app, Kinect's Wii Sports if you will.

But why do it with something else when you already have something (Kinect) doing it.  I love having Kinect bundled with the XBOX One.  I think people will always complain about something, if they shipped XB1 without Kinect, there would be people whining that they had to buy Kinect separately and that the DEVs won't support it.  I personally think that once the DEVs become more ambitious with Kinect that it's going to be even nicer that it already is.  I love it!

[spenser.d]

Given sales during February (only 10% fewer than PS4 in the US), I'm betting they're not any closer to giving up Kinect. March should increase even more due to Titanfall.

[M_Lyons10]

Truth be told they haven't shown how it's a fundamental part of the Xbox One experience yet.  All of the things that Kinect does right now could be done by something else.  They still need that one killer app, Kinect's Wii Sports if you will.

Which will NEVER come if developers can't expect that consumers have the Kinect...  They just won't invest in something that may or may not be there.  Same with any other "Optional" accessory in the past.

 

That's why bundling the Kinect was the right decision, and will benefit consumers long term...

[PGHammer]

But why do it with something else when you already have something (Kinect) doing it.  I love having Kinect bundled with the XBOX One.  I think people will always complain about something, if they shipped XB1 without Kinect, there would be people whining that they had to buy Kinect separately and that the DEVs won't support it.  I personally think that once the DEVs become more ambitious with Kinect that it's going to be even nicer that it already is.  I love it!

I DID watch all the pre-launch XB1 ads (especially the ones posted on xbox.com) because I knew I was part of that target market - those that did not own any console at all.  Unlike the *pure gamer*, I needed more than simply game-console features - for the rather straightforward reason that I have a PC (which is, in fact, why I have not purchased ANY game console to this point).  Because of the high price points ($399 for PS4 and $499 for XB1), even that $399USD PS4 price moved the needle away from a straightforward price-fight (as much as SCEA wants prospective customers to think otherwise) - it becomes "what do you got for the price".

 

BD support - now a draw (offered as standard fare by both PS4 and XB1).

Video conferencing over IP - XB1 (entirely due to built-in Skype tag-teamed with Kinect)

Exclusive content - draw.  Both consoles have their exclusive content (shared with nothing else) and both consoles have content shared with PC - hence it being a draw.

Non-controller-related ease of use - XB1 (Kinect again).  NOT needing anything more than my mouth (especially when I'm not gaming) to do things with an XB1 (including, if not especially, using HDMI-inline) is huge-to-monstrous.  In my case, an XB1 will be connected between my existing Tivo Premiere (which is acting as an HD STB) and my HDTV - and in my bedroom. I can record a snippet from my Premiere on the XB1's HDD and upload it - entirely hands-free.  I don't need to record entire shows - if I did, I would have subscribed to the Tivo service, and unlocked that feature in my Premiere.  But recording a snippet?  That's something the Premiere can't even do.  Editing?  I can shoot the snippet to my PC - wireless via my existing LAN - to my PC for editing, then upload it wherever.  Extra cost for any or all of it?  None.  XB1 includes wireless-N as standard fare (which XB360 did not), it connects inline with my Premiere without either roadblocking or handshake-blocking (which no other console can do), and I can even free up my PC to do more complex tasks by doing simple things right from the XB1 (again, Skype is an obvious example - besides, XB1 is actually better to Skype from than my PC is, entirely due to camera quality).

HDMI-incline (which I referred to before) - XB1-exclusive.

 

Note that only the exclusive content section refers to games - and as someone that is not tied to either console, I recognize it as a draw.

[+mram Subscriber²]

But would it be as usable - outside of gaming, mind you?

 

I referred in particular to features of the XB1 that rely on Kinect being present, but do not require even a single game - those Kinect features are part of the Dashboard.

 

The reason for the backpedal on certain features that were planned on requiring Kinect is due to privacy concerns - for those users (for whatever reason) the privacy concerns trumped usability.

 

So what's the REAL concern - privacy or price?

 

From my perspective, the real concern is price.  Privacy issues generally are omnipresent - people will claim that spy satellites are watching them - so at some point you just gotta let it go.  But when two separate products merge together to become one product, with very little reason to do so, it's bundling.

[compl3x]

See, here is another clear example of MS not getting the message out to gamers.

MS has done a lot to distance Kinect from being a solely gaming peripheral. Notice how every event MS did leading up to launch offered very little attention to Kinect itself as a gaming device? MS' goal has clearly been to change the perception of Kinect from being its own gaming device to just being a feature built into the X1, something that worked behind the scenes and added the experiences in various ways. Heck, MS would have probably stopped using the term 'Kinect' at all if it was for the brand recognition it already had.

To me, the impression I get from MS is that they know most developers are not interested in doing a Kinect only title, but many are interesting in using parts of it within their title. That can range from things like the Forza devs using gesture controls to tour around cars or for head tracking in game or just making use of the microphone to offer extensive voice commands.

 

 

For me, voice commands and novelty in-game controls isn't worth the extra money. If there is no interesting use of this Kinect for games in this Xbox then it will end up being only marginally more useful than the last version. I am more interested to see what others do with the Kinect when/if an SDK is released for desktops.

[Luc2k]

Speaking of Kinect 2.0, has anyone played this gem?

[neoadorable]

Speaking of Kinect 2.0, has anyone played this gem?

 

Not yet because no interest in motion controls, but am buying it the second Ubi regains their sanity and add normal controller input to this. I honestly think this looks like a really cool fighting game, with proper controls it might be excellent. Reminds me of Tai Feng, i think that was the name of that game for the original Xbox.

[MikeChipshop Member]

If people are really worried about price, instead of hoping MS unbundles the Kinect, how about they try shopping around?

 

I managed to pick up a bundle with BF4 and Plants vs Zombies for ?399.

[George P Global Moderator]

Wait for a price cut, I bet we'll see one after titanfall starts to die down, May or June, might just be $50 but toss in a free game and it's worth it.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

If people are really worried about price, instead of hoping MS unbundles the Kinect, how about they try shopping around?

 

I managed to pick up a bundle with BF4 and Plants vs Zombies for ?399.

 

UK retail > US retail though.

 

Only over here are we used to paying ?14.99-?17.99 for most games month(s) after launch :P