Kinect 2 is the game changer for next gen

Within a month the first next gen system would retail. And there has been much debate on each system. So before anyone gets unnecessarily bent by the title try to read the entire post before counter arguing.

Gaming history has proven that the performance of a system has never determine or equated to success. Both the PS4 and Xbox One performance are within the same scope. They are possibly the most similar consoles to ever be released that directly competes with each other. If history is a guide, it is without a doubt the the marginal ( bait inserted :P ) performance difference between the two systems would have no real effect on their road to success or failure.

There are very few things that separate these consoles. The two main aspects are price and the Kinect 2. The price is without a doubt a factor but I don't believe it would be problematic. The main reason being the Xbox One is priced higher but you get more for that additional $100 independent of personal preference. It would have been a harder sell if it was $100 more with no additions and being the weaker of the two.

Microsoft is banking on the Kinect 2 for they believe (based on their data) that the Kinect 2 is the next big thing. Not necessarily in gaming but in user interaction with the console which includes both gaming and non gaming application. The Kinect 2 is not something that is needed but if done correctly can be something that users/gamers want. It is the main difference between the two systems and it offers features that are not "out of the box" available on the PS4. If(power full word) the Kinect 2 catches on and succeeds, Sony would be struggling to catch up with MS and their offering would be more of second though than a fully realized implementation. MS strategy is heavily reliant on offering a user friendly entertainment system that can cater to most of the gamer/user "needs".

However, if the Kinect 2 tanks, then MS would be forced to concede and the absolute reverse would transpire. They would be force to release a SKU that does not have Kinect or take an additional $100 loss in order to compete with Sony's offering. By that time Sony would be luxuriating in a larger userbase and a stable gamecentric platform.

The reason for this emphasis on the Kinect is that outside of Kinect their isn't anything on either platform that would sway the masses one way or the other. So, what do you think? Is the Kinect the device that would to MS downfall or their unexpected success.

While I do like the new xbox and would get one I am unsure how usefull Kinect will really be. It all depends if they finally manage to make some good games with it. The menu functionality and voice commands are enough alone for me to want it (feels very next gen), I am leery on whether they will actually produce good software with this thing.

I think the title is completely appropriate -- it IS a game changer. Microsoft currently leads in North America, and due to the inclusion of Kinect and the higher cost incurred from it, that will no longer be the case.

Excellent to see we agree on something, Pedro!

I can't say that I agree pedro. The first kinect was just bad in every way, and the new one definitely is following the same path as the first. There really was nothing beneficial about it, and I can't say that I've seen a single instance of where it made any game better.

Maybe my mind can be changed, but at least show one instance where kinect makes a game better, I have yet to see it. I have seen a hell of a lot of promises though.

It's almost guaranteed that there's going to be a non-kinect SKU released eventually. Given the fact that a large mass of the gaming population want to see it gone, I don't see there being any other way. At this point there's no way I'd fork over money to mircosoft without them offering an SKU minus that crap.

Gamers didn't accept motion control or the eye toy, same for Kinect and those games that go along with those gimmicks. Microsoft clearly has a narrow target audience in mind (casuals and bro gamers), and are banking on appealing to that crowd. If you are in that demographic, then you'll probably enjoy what the Xbox One will offer.

Ah, yes, but being a true believer doesn't require proof of anything. In fact, the absence of anything proving otherwise still allows Kinect advocates to throw out the argument that it's going to give Microsoft an edge. In the world of Kinect advocates, the lack of anything allows for the belief in something.

That makes no damn sense, i hope you realize that at least. In about a year when no games are using it to good effect and everyone has seen how lame it is for gaming (still) your stance might change. We shall see...

It outta tell you something when what should have been the prime example of kinect gaming, Ryse, completely ditches the use of the shiny new kinect.

Given that you told Solid you didn't care about the Xbone or the PS4 back when you two were arguing specs in the other thread, you are spending a lot of time talking about the Xbone :).

Games have always been what distinguished consoles, not hardware. Nine gamers out of ten have no idea of what is going on inside consoles and a smaller chunk than that can interpret a spec sheet. Sony has a talented and diverse line-up of first party studios and they have aggressively reached out to indies (while MS has spent the past few years pushing them away for reasons I have yet to figure out). I'm not saying gamers buy consoles for indie games, but once they buy them they play them (heck, the retail version of 2012 Xbox indie game Minecraft has been high on sales charts in 2013).

As Nintendo will be the first to tell you, the Wii was the first (and probably the last) successful 'blue ocean' console. The sorts of casuals that bought the Wii in mass quantities (accounting for much if not all of the 80 million unit difference between the GC and Wii sales) have largely moved on stuff like smartphones (nods towards Candy Crush Saga). Kinect is the most successful peripheral ever but its sales are nowhere near those of the Wii in the same timeframe. Its also worth keeping in mind that based on the reception to the Wiimote Plus and the PS Move (both of which were orders of magnitude more precise than the Kinect) casuals don't give a damn about precision or what happens onscreen (for them the fun is doing silly motions with their friends). More precision isn't going to make Kinect 1 buyers splash out $500 bucks. MS would have to offer something novel and simple to attract their attention, which the Kinect 2 manifestly fails to do.

As for Kinect's prospects as a non-gaming device, bloating the price of a system with stuff which doesn't clearly benefit gaming tends not to play off (Sony was forced to wipe out the price differential between the PS3 and the X360 because gamers were unwilling to pay a premium for something unrelated to gaming). Non-gamers aren't going to pay $500 so that they can shout and wave at the tv rather than press a button on the remote.

Based on what MS has said and done, Kinect is most attractive to/useful for advertisers, not game designers or consumers (MS funded games like Crimson Dragon and Ryse which were once Kinect only have pushed it to the side).

I'm not an advocate of Kinect. I was being sarcastic.

And yes, Kinect fans are not rational about its uses as a gaming controller, because it requires the belief in either something intangible or a complete hatred of well-made games.

To add to what Carnage said about 'games being what matters to gamers', the PS4 looks to be THE system for gamers, having more of everything in that department: more exclusives, more indies, the exact same bro games, the exact same multies.

Why buy a system with a useless but mandatory $100 attachment with less games?

Please don't bump 2009 threads ;)

Haha, ouch!

@Pedro: No. Kinect is useless. I don't know anyone that would want one. I refuse to pay a 100 bucks more for something i freaking don't want. I will continue refusing to buy it until they release a bundle without with other games or just ditch it entirely. Hell they said at first it was required to be plugged in at all times first for the Xbox One to work! They suddenly change their minds and say you can play the console without the camera, yet you are still have this forced down your throat? It's clear they want to use it for ads and data collection. Who buys a console for the Kinect and its games for just that? Not many core gamers, they want the box and the games that work without the camera

Kinect isn't a big deal off the rip for anyone I don't think. Like I don't think anyone is going to be searching to use the Kinect solely to be honest. I don't honestly see a lot of innovation there either. But voice commands are pretty damn cool. The tech is there too. There could be something or not. I really don't care. Dat Halo 5 in 60 FPS tho.

Discussing anything else would not be as fun since more people hate the Xbox One than the PS4 and Wii U combined. :)

So it your opinion that scenario to would most likely be the result. Understood. But I am not sure what we are agreeing on because I don't know which of the two scenarios would be more probable.

@Pedro:

We are at a very interesting cross roads in gaming these days, as the focus will start to shift from hardware to services offered.

Whether the core community wants to accept this or not, we are knocking at the door of a digital age. Where we now do not just play games but use services through a connected game console via the internet. The console that can deliver a stable online network of services, games, and accessibility to content on the fly, will in long term be better poised to succeed.

MS inclusion of the Kinect 2, is in many ways a bridge to provide services outside of gaming, and to connect gamers in new ways, and to provide increased functionality to an inviduals TV set. And of course potentially change the way we experience games on our consoles.

However, the inclusion of the Kinect 2 and its $100 added price point may hurt the Xbox One early on in the devices life cycle. Outside of that, time will tell how much of an impact the device will have this generation.

Although, objectively speaking the kinect 2, whether you have a need for it or not, does instantaneously transform your TV into a high tech, multimedia smart TV. The ability plug your cable feed into the Xbox One, and customize your viewing preferences and manipulate content via voice and hand gestures. A feature that is now show cased on more higher end HDTVs. For an additional $100, one could significantly upgrade inrs TV set, without upgrading at a cosylt $1500.

While understand that these features do not related to gaming, they do add value outside of gaming, and allow us to enjoy a variety entertainment services as we please and on the fly.

Core gamers only think about games, but it is becoming more than just about games. These consoles have to evolve for their own survival as the younger generation of gamers are no longer experience games on consoles first, but rather mobile platform's first, where they will expect a device to do more than just games. And if future consoles cannot offer more than just playing games, they will fail to garner the attention of future gamers.

Perhaps MS took a big gamble to include the Kinect 2, but I applaud them for doing so, as they look to push innovation among game consoles.

Now to answer your last question. The kinect if it does not succeed, will mean MS will have to re-think its approach. But the kinect 2 lack of success will not totally doom the Xbox buf force MS to drop its price drastically to compete with the PS4. If the kinect 2 does succeed, than MS would have really set its self apart as a trully next gen system. See, next gen does not necessarily equate to power, as the shift moves from hardware to services.

Well it's hardware manufacturer's job to invest in anything that could improve video games and help developers make games as they intended without any limitations. Hardware makers are tying to come up with many things that could improve the game play, by introducing new ways of playing games as motion sensing or graphics to enable designers to go crazy with their backgrounds and characters or sound or any of the things that makes a video game. It's unconventional ways of playing video games that sets Sony, MS and Nintendo apart from PC gaming. Before you jump and say some managed to create a Kinect type of device and connected it to their computer, I doubt it's as user friendly and economic as motion sensing devices for games. This Kinect buzz is a natural step in Xbox's growth as a console.

Wii U Tablet is the game changer for Next Gen

Nintendo is banking on the Wii U tablet for they believe (based on their data) that the tablet is the next big thing. Not necessarily in gaming but in user interaction with the console which includes both gaming and non gaming application. The tablet is not something that is needed but if done correctly can be something that users/gamers want. It is the main difference between the three systems and it offers features that are not "out of the box" available on the X1 and PS4. If(power full word) the Tablet catches on and succeeds, Sony and MS would be struggling to catch up with Nintendo and their offering would be more of second though than a fully realized implementation. Nintendo strategy is heavily reliant on offering a user friendly entertainment system that can cater to most of the gamer/user "needs".

Okay now that's just a gimmick. ^^ User they say...

Kinect 2.0 being the next big thing is a 50/50 chance in my opinion. Thing is, Microsoft is an old company. old enough to know what happens to companies than don't quickly embrace the future. So Microsoft ain't trying to embrace a future as much as trying to create one from scratch. They're working on multiple fronts to accomplish that. Fronts like Kinect 2.0, TV, Cloud and SmartGlass, and they're waiting for one of these fronts to explode as the future. However, no one can really predict where is the future. On one hand, the industry's future tends to be software-led, a prime example for that is Resident Evil 4 which was released on the then-ageing GameCube and PlayStation 2 the same year the X360 was a newborn. On the other hand, the enormous success of the WII alerted the industry that consoles can be more than just dumb boxes running great software.

Despite Microsoft's serious attempt to secure the future, they haven't paid heed to one of the industry's biggest potential rivals: Oculus VR, you can tell that Oculus VR is a force to reckon with when you learn that industry's technical legend John Carmack holds a full-time job as the company's CTO.

Oculus Rift or Virtual Reality in general -something that Sony is currently trying to scratch its surface- has the potential to change not just how we play games, but our tech-lives in entirety. Now all this may seem off-topic, but in reality the future is far from being trapped between Sony and Microsoft. On the off chance some think VR ain't much of a rival, then how about Valve's "Steam Triangle" (Machines, OS and Controller), Nintendo's Wii U console/tablet hyperd, the "Master" PC market backed by hardware colossals, the emerging Microconsoles and, of course, the Mobile/Tablet market. When the WII's Motion Sensing innovation popped up 7 years ago it faced zero competition. Now we're on the verge of a battle more fierce than a pack of lions fighting over a wounded mule (you can guess who the mule "are"!). If the past is any indication, the future enjoys running you over from where you'd never seen it coming.

Goddamn.

Weren't you a big proponent of the Wii U a few months ago?

What? lol

The Occulus Rift combined with the Kinect 2 may offer a particularly new and immersive gaming experience. However, like most ideas with regards to a system potential it is rarely realized.

Yeah, still am but I never made claims it's some sort of "game changer". I also don't think the Wii U tablet is useless because it still functions like any other standard controller, but with more control options.

That was ice cold.

Then again, I'm a soulless bastard

Well, actually it all comes down to what kind of games are going to come out, because for the casual gamer Kinect doesn't really give anything special right now, other than some childrens games and party games, and most gamers dont want to run around and do excise while playing, they want to have fun and relax.

And the voicecontrol in kinect and tv option, doesn't really offer anything that most tv´s does not already. Also what gave you the idea that Microsoft is counting on kinect to be the selling point? because i sure havent gotten that impression.

Various news articles from game sources and NPR. Also the fact that they are imposing the Kinect on every Xbox One buyer. It also stems from the migration to voice controls and the anticipation that it would be next big thing. Microsoft, Google and Apple have been pushing their technology in interactivity of the user with the OS. Some anticipate that voice interaction would be a determining factor in the future of computing and the company to "perfect" this technology would have the upper hand. Couple this with the emphasis on the merging of devices. Off course this is all routed in speculation.

Hmm, ok

I agree that them including it in every console which is making it more expensive might look like they are counting on the kinect to be a huge selling point, but that would also mean they are not making a console as they used to. Because i dont know one single gamer who have seen Kinect has anything else than a gimmick and see it as one for the xbox one.

Also what Kinect titles have you heard off that would sell this to? because what sells a console is not its hardware or power, its the games.

I'd like Kinect more of they had more cheap fun downloadable games for it. They had a few cool ones at first, then it was all garbage and dance games. More Child of eden, Gunstringer, and Fruit Ninja. Less everything else.

If there were ever an award for post of the century, this would get it.

Well played, sir.

Motion control on the Wii worked just fine. And how does Kinect = bro gamer?

haha! I'll send myself a "You're winner!" postcard

Pedro is wrong. In other news, the sky is blue and sex is awesome.

@Jacanuk:

It should be noted that not all TV's offer voice command and so forth. While newer HDTVs offer hand gesture and voice command, those features are typically reserved for mid to high range TVs. With said features working best on higher end TVs do to the inclusion of faster processors on higher end sets.

@firefox59: I said most gamers didn't accept it, not that it didn't work. Personally, I like the wiimote waggle on some games. Kinect is just like the motion controlled wiimote and eye toy/move in that they're considered gimmicks that most traditional gamers never accepted.

I'm saying Microsoft wants to romance bro gamers with their focus of "tv, sports and call of duty". If you're a big fan of annual sports game franchises and online first person shooters then chances are you'll enjoy the system.

I believe MS strategy this time around is not games only but games + other stuff facilitated by Kinect interactions. It is my understanding that MS intentions from the inception of the Xbox system was to offer and all in one system that does more or less everything entertainment wise and they have been slowly moving closer and closer to this goal. At the moment the only Kinect game that I have seen is Kinect Sports Rival and to me the only cool thing about that game is the avatar creation.