Explain why Kinect is in every Xbox One SKU?

  • 125 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by arkephonic (6208 posts) -

I always see people say the reason is so every Xbox One owner will have a Kinect and that will encourage developers to incorporate it into their games. However, I have yet to see it used in any meaningful way that screams, "you need this thing". So far, it looks to me like it could have been entirely optional and even then, it'd barely even be used because it's getting no support. I was pretty shocked how at E3, they didn't show any games using Kinect in a meaningful way and they haven't really shown anything since other than Kinect Sports. They're doing a bad job of justifying the mandatory inclusion of this peripheral which is responsible for the $100 price difference.

#2 Posted by getyeryayasout (6876 posts) -

Because if it were optional no one would want it? Just a guess.

#3 Posted by Couth_ (9916 posts) -

It was supposed to be built into the operating system as a requirement for a lot of xbone features.. The xbone was supposed to be a lot of things in the Mattrick era but a lot of things changed, he left the company and Microsoft released a rushed product.

They are steadily fixing things and I don't think anyone would be surprised to see a kinect-less sku. They have already changed heads of the division at least twice now? Shiiiet I think even Ballmer was running things for a moment there.

#4 Posted by R3FURBISHED (10021 posts) -

I always see people say the reason is so every Xbox One owner will have a Kinect and that will encourage developers to incorporate it into their games. However, I have yet to see it used in any meaningful way that screams, "you need this thing". So far, it looks to me like it could have been entirely optional and even then, it'd barely even be used because it's getting no support. I was pretty shocked how at E3, they didn't show any games using Kinect in a meaningful way and they haven't really shown anything since other than Kinect Sports. They're doing a bad job of justifying the mandatory inclusion of this peripheral which is responsible for the $100 price difference.

Kinect is no longer an accessory, it's a much more integral piece in the Xbox design. Sit down and spend some quality time with the machine and you'll see why and how.

#5 Posted by arkephonic (6208 posts) -

@R3FURBISHED:

I already have and it was just a frustrating experience trying to navigate the UI while grabbing and pulling stuff when I could just use a controller with 100% accuracy. Besides, I see no meaningful implementation in games, nothing that justifies $100. It's sloppy UI navigation at best. The problem I have with it is that it's not accurate enough. I mean, it'll never be used in competitive gaming because people want 100% accuracy when competing which is only attainable with a controller or KB/M at the moment. Could you imagine a Starcraft 2 tournament being controlled using Kinect?

#6 Edited by R3FURBISHED (10021 posts) -

@arkephonic said:

@R3FURBISHED:

I already have and it was just a frustrating experience trying to navigate the UI while grabbing and pulling stuff when I could just use a controller with 100% accuracy. Besides, I see no meaningful implementation in games, nothing that justifies $100. It's sloppy UI navigation at best. The problem I have with it is that it's not accurate enough. I mean, it'll never be used in competitive gaming because people want 100% accuracy when competing which is only attainable with a controller or KB/M at the moment. Could you imagine a Starcraft 2 tournament being controlled using Kinect?

The hand gestures are entirely superfluous and inept.

Voice on the other hand is incredibly useful - being able to mute from another room, being able to sign in with your voice, signing into a profile automatically. The UI was built to be navigated with your voice and is very straightforward when navigated with the assistance of Kinect.

#7 Posted by mems_1224 (45737 posts) -

Anyone with half a brain can see why MS chose to include it with every system.

#8 Posted by RossRichard (2305 posts) -

They are depending on advertising revenue, and are hoping you will hook up the Kinect so they can "tailor your advertising for you".

#9 Edited by arkephonic (6208 posts) -

@mems_1224:

Correction. Anyone with half a brain can see why so many people don't want to buy an Xbox One primarily because Kinect is included in every SKU. If their reasoning for including it with every system was to deter people from buying it and convincing them to buy a ps4 instead, their plan is working wonderfully.

#11 Posted by getyeryayasout (6876 posts) -

Anyone with half a brain can see why MS chose to include it with every system.

Agreed. People with half a brain should love Kinect.

#12 Posted by arkephonic (6208 posts) -

@mems_1224:

Riiiiiight. The fact that PS4 is outselling the Xbox One by such a large margin pretty much proves my point. This mandatory Kinect hikes the price up $100 bucks. So tell me, which games justify the $100 and make great use of the Kinect?

#13 Posted by tymeservesfate (1469 posts) -

@arkephonic: why don't you try to figure it out on ur own O_o?

why do cows always try and make lems justify their purchases when they're the ones that brought the shittiest of the two systems lol smh.

#14 Posted by superclocked (5822 posts) -

So everyone will be properly ready for complete immersion using the XB1 VR headset?

#15 Posted by mems_1224 (45737 posts) -

@mems_1224:

Riiiiiight. The fact that PS4 is outselling the Xbox One by such a large margin pretty much proves my point. This mandatory Kinect hikes the price up $100 bucks. So tell me, which games justify the $100 and make great use of the Kinect?

Which games justify spending $400 on a PS4 and make great use of the hardware? None. Thanks for playing.

#16 Posted by WilliamRLBaker (28309 posts) -

I would assume when you are trying to push something you pack it in...much like the touch pad, sixaxis, built in speaker, camera light that does nothing in the dualshock 4.

#17 Posted by arkephonic (6208 posts) -

@mems_1224:

You're setting yourself up here.

Here's what the Kinect has done for the Xbone so far. Since we all agree that it's done nothing to improve games and hasn't even been implemented in any meaningful way in any games, what is the Kinect good for and what has it done for the Xbone?

Let's consider a few things. They made the decision to include Kinect in every SKU, so by doing so, they needed to make sacrifices to the console itself in order to include it while still making the package affordable. Thanks to Kinect, you get a significantly weaker system resulting in 720p multiplats with frame rate and other performance issues. Thanks to Kinect, for the next 7+ years, Xbone owners will have the luxury of getting to buy the inferior version of every multiplat. They will also get to experience exclusives that will be a mere shell of what they could have been had the proper hardware been there in place of a mandatory Kinect.

So far, all you Lems have to show for the Kinect is a less powerful system. No games to show for it, not even any on the horizon. You get some sloppy UI control and some UI voice commands that work 50% of the time where every time it fails, you're left wondering why you're not just using a controller instead. What Kinect has given you, what this extra $100 dollars spent has given you is a generation of inferior multiplats. It's given you a weaker system.

So when you ask the question, "what games justify owning a ps4"? The answer is all of them, because they are all better than their Xbone counterparts.

#18 Posted by always_explicit (2619 posts) -

@mems_1224:

You're setting yourself up here.

Here's what the Kinect has done for the Xbone so far. Since we all agree that it's done nothing to improve games and hasn't even been implemented in any meaningful way in any games, what is the Kinect good for and what has it done for the Xbone?

Let's consider a few things. They made the decision to include Kinect in every SKU, so by doing so, they needed to make sacrifices to the console itself in order to include it while still making the package affordable. Thanks to Kinect, you get a significantly weaker system resulting in 720p multiplats with frame rate and other performance issues. Thanks to Kinect, for the next 7+ years, Xbone owners will have the luxury of getting to buy the inferior version of every multiplat. They will also get to experience exclusives that will be a mere shell of what they could have been had the proper hardware been there in place of a mandatory Kinect.

So far, all you Lems have to show for the Kinect is a less powerful system. No games to show for it, not even any on the horizon. You get some sloppy UI control and some UI voice commands that work 50% of the time where every time it fails, you're left wondering why you're not just using a controller instead. What Kinect has given you, what this extra $100 dollars spent has given you is a generation of inferior multiplats. It's given you a weaker system.

So when you ask the question, "what games justify owning a ps4"? The answer is all of them, because they are all better than their Xbone counterparts.

Im glad you love your PS3.5.

#20 Posted by Salt_The_Fries (8145 posts) -

@mems_1224:

Correction. Anyone with half a brain can see why so many people don't want to buy an Xbox One primarily because Kinect is included in every SKU. If their reasoning for including it with every system was to deter people from buying it and convincing them to buy a ps4 instead, their plan is working wonderfully.

That's why so many PS4 users are rushing to buy cameras and participating in a multi-tiered milking accessories scheme (I mean this word in all of its meanings)?

#21 Edited by arkephonic (6208 posts) -

@Salt_The_Fries:

You're missing the BIG point here.

HUGE!!!

Everyone jokes about the $600 ps3. Everyone knew the new consoles had to be under $600. By making the decision to include Kinect in every SKU, Microsoft had to make sacrifices to the console's power to still keep it affordable. They could have very easily made a BEAST of a console for $500 without Kinect and just offered it separately, and people who wanted it would have paid for it extra. Instead, they gimped the console specs. By giving the consumers no options, they instead forced Kinect on everyone at the expense of the hardware specs, so now every multiplat this gen is going to be inferior on Xbone. Every exclusive will be a mere shell of what it could have potentially been on Xbone.

By including Kinect in every SKU, they made every single game that will be released for the system this generation on Xbone worse. At the same time, Kinect doesn't make any game better. It's the epitome, the literal definition of counter productive.

#22 Posted by IMAHAPYHIPPO (2536 posts) -

@arkephonic said:

@mems_1224:

Correction. Anyone with half a brain can see why so many people don't want to buy an Xbox One primarily because Kinect is included in every SKU. If their reasoning for including it with every system was to deter people from buying it and instead buy a ps4, their plan is working wonderfully.

Whatever you say shitty troll.

That's hardly a troll post. It's a valid argument against the Xbox One that buyers are forced to pay an extra 100 dollars for something many people might not use. I have a surround sound system and the center speaker interferes with my Kinect, relegating it essentially useless.

If I had a choice, I would have rather paid 400 dollars for my Xbox One and left the Kinect on the shelf.

#23 Posted by Salt_The_Fries (8145 posts) -

Pricing aside, you can't deny that at least Microsoft had clear vision how to implement it and integrate it within the system's deep structure and they continuously work on improving it whereas in Sony's case the camera's implementation direction is totally unclear and they're making it up ad hoc as they go, on the fly. So you'll never be sure where it goes. And if it's ever going to be useful - at least as useful as Kinect is now. Which you also must admit, to some extent - it is, gaming aside. But we'll see about gaming in less than 3 weeks since Kinect Rivals has its premiere on April 11.

#24 Posted by HalcyonScarlet (3767 posts) -

I always see people say the reason is so every Xbox One owner will have a Kinect and that will encourage developers to incorporate it into their games. However, I have yet to see it used in any meaningful way that screams, "you need this thing". So far, it looks to me like it could have been entirely optional and even then, it'd barely even be used because it's getting no support. I was pretty shocked how at E3, they didn't show any games using Kinect in a meaningful way and they haven't really shown anything since other than Kinect Sports. They're doing a bad job of justifying the mandatory inclusion of this peripheral which is responsible for the $100 price difference.

Let's be honest, we're only seeing bits and pieces of meaningful software on current gen consoles period. The priority was to get the hardware out. Right now Sony and MS are happy with filler games, ports and indie games why they get development underway on other stuff.

And the console has only been out 4 months.

I think this E3, they're likely to have more stuff to show.

#25 Posted by arkephonic (6208 posts) -

Do you ever hear the term, "don't forget what got you here"?

It's a term that means, remember where your success came from and what got you here. It's a term used all the time in sports like football. For example, if a team finds a ton of success early on running the ball and decides to start solely passing near the end of a close game, analysts will say they should be running because that's where they found success earlier and that's why they're in the game in the first place. Alas, don't forget where your success came from and what got you there.

With Microsoft and the Xbox, they've always been about power and hardcore gameplay. No gimmicks, no bullshit. They set the world on fire with an Xbox launch alongside Halo Combat Evolved. Xbox was a beast, halo brought hardcore gameplay with unprecedented fps controls on a console. 360 was more of the same, hardcore games, good controls, a powerful system. They gained a ton of marketshare from Sony and it was because of their strategy of being a PC centric console. Good power, good controls, hardcore games.

With the Xbox One, they have forgotten who they are. Weakest console? An Xbox? Wait a minute. Gimmicks? Forced gimmicks that I have no choice but to buy? On an Xbox? What??? Poor controls? Casual gameplay? The worst multiplats for the first time ever on an Xbox?

Blame whoever you want at ms. Their management has seen no continuity since mattrick left and he never should have been there to begin with. They have lost their identity and have no sense of direction. Most importantly, they've completely forgotten about what got the Xbox brand to where it was. I say "was" and not "is" because Xbox is a joke now.

#26 Posted by Spartan070 (16307 posts) -

I always see people say the reason is so every Xbox One owner will have a Kinect and that will encourage developers to incorporate it into their games. However, I have yet to see it used in any meaningful way that screams, "you need this thing". So far, it looks to me like it could have been entirely optional and even then, it'd barely even be used because it's getting no support. I was pretty shocked how at E3, they didn't show any games using Kinect in a meaningful way and they haven't really shown anything since other than Kinect Sports. They're doing a bad job of justifying the mandatory inclusion of this peripheral which is responsible for the $100 price difference.

It's been a few months... :\

#27 Posted by FoxbatAlpha (5884 posts) -

The Kinect is where it's at. How many threads do u see about the MOVE and eye toy?

#28 Posted by CrownKingArthur (3739 posts) -

its a talking point

'what's that?'

'kinect'

'what's that for?'

'i don't know'

#29 Edited by TheRealBigRich (690 posts) -

The question I have is why do you care since your not forced to but the xbox one at all. Nobody knows what would of happened if the made a more powerful 500 console with out the kinect. Ps4 could still be out selling the X1 at the same rate. Add that to the fact that it's only been 4 months why not wait to see what happens instead of making a post every week asking why this or that.

#30 Posted by hippiesanta (9732 posts) -

to see through your wee wee

#31 Posted by Wickerman777 (1110 posts) -

Because Don Mattrick was a Sony troll on a mission to destroy the Xbox brand, and he was very successful at it.

#32 Edited by RimacBugatti (1170 posts) -

@arkephonic:

It doesn't make sense, or does it? They just want people to have it hooked up for what reason I don't know... I left mine in the box and had no thought of ever using it. It was a way to scam us out of an additional $150. Since the Xbone is worth about $350. I like the Xbone itself but game wise I don't think it will have all that many good games for it. The launch was great but the momentum will die.

#33 Edited by misterpmedia (3362 posts) -

@WilliamRLBaker said:

I would assume when you are trying to push something you pack it in...much like the touch pad, sixaxis, built in speaker, camera light that does nothing in the dualshock 4.

Games already use those features. Bearded gorm strikes again. It's like he can't do anything but talk about his precious 'sheens'(lmfao) that he holds dear to his beard.

#34 Edited by misterpmedia (3362 posts) -

@mems_1224 said:

@arkephonic said:

@mems_1224:

Riiiiiight. The fact that PS4 is outselling the Xbox One by such a large margin pretty much proves my point. This mandatory Kinect hikes the price up $100 bucks. So tell me, which games justify the $100 and make great use of the Kinect?

Which games justify spending $400 on a PS4 and make great use of the hardware? None. Thanks for playing.

Translation: "Grrrr this is my angry opinion rawrrr. Stop liking what I don't like! Stop asking the questions I can't answer rawr!"

#35 Edited by Silent-Assasin7 (1495 posts) -

It's an integral part of the system. The voice and gesture features are not only fun to use, they're generally quite practical. I generally browse the net, watch youtube, check out my friends list, or other things like that, before I play a game. I can do all of these things quickly without touching the controller. In fact, I can do all of them with something else in my hands, like food or drink. It's by no means perfect, but, it's a stepping stone into the future of electronics, where I'm sure we'll one day be able to give very smooth, free flowing natural commands to our computers, like you see in a lot of movies. "Xbox, go to Titanfall" will hopefully one day be, "Xbox, download an update, then download the map DLC for Titanfall, then find me a game in matchmaking". I'll gladly support that progression.

#36 Edited by handssss (1623 posts) -

@arkephonic said:

I always see people say the reason is so every Xbox One owner will have a Kinect and that will encourage developers to incorporate it into their games. However, I have yet to see it used in any meaningful way that screams, "you need this thing". So far, it looks to me like it could have been entirely optional and even then, it'd barely even be used because it's getting no support. I was pretty shocked how at E3, they didn't show any games using Kinect in a meaningful way and they haven't really shown anything since other than Kinect Sports. They're doing a bad job of justifying the mandatory inclusion of this peripheral which is responsible for the $100 price difference.

Kinect is no longer an accessory, it's a much more integral piece in the Xbox design. Sit down and spend some quality time with the machine and you'll see why and how.

You don't need a Kinect to operate the Xbox.

"Oh but it was designed that way!"

1. The camera is faulty and has even been caught trying to identify a houseplant as a person.

2. Motion gestures for menu navigation are terrible

3. Voice controls are only limited to Kinect instead of all headsets for the Xbox One because MS says so.

4. There is literally nothing wrong or slow about using a goddamn controller.

Kinect 1 and now Kinect 2 fail to demonstrate any significant practical use for the core gamer. Sure, they are great for minigames and party games, but that's about it. And why the hell would a dev waste time working on a game when many instances will result in the same thing as before. If the dev isn't 1st party and the game isn't exclusive, then all other system versions of that game aren't going to have Kinect.

Face it. It's a forced add-on that hardly anyone wants and that price tag is acting like an anchor for the Xbone. MS not pulling it out of at least one SKU by now can either be attributed to them being stubborn dumbasses who don't want to admit they were wrong yet again and/or they feel they've put too much money into that damn thing only to see it pile up on shelves.

#37 Posted by iambatman7986 (383 posts) -

I like the Kinect a lot more than I thought I would. It makes navigating a breeze and i honestly thought I would be unhooking it when I got my One. I own both and like both for their own reasons. The One is taking up all my time at the moment though and that's what i care about, the games.

#38 Posted by Bigboi500 (28804 posts) -

Why? Nazi-ism.

#39 Posted by k2theswiss (16598 posts) -

lets see

Microsoft product

SO they can put w/e they want in the box because it is THEIR product

IF a consumer don't want it, then that is fine. Don't buy their product

#40 Posted by Gargus (2147 posts) -

Its mandatory because MS uses it as a selling point for its media center box. They don't care if games uses it, they just need to justify their ads that show people doing scifi movie level motion controls to change the channel when watching NFL and using Skype.

No one actually wants one or really uses. I mean the Kinect has been around for 5 years on the 360 and even though it isn't as powerful its been around 5 years and has functionality in over 100 games and a dozen or so games that require and not a single one of them has managed to create a compelling game for it, or done anything that actually improve gameplay. Why the hell would a slightly more powerful version of the exact same thing be any better?

At least sony made theirs optional.

Because if it were optional no one would want it? Just a guess.

So by making it mandatory then everyone wants one? That is your reasoning correct?

#41 Posted by donalbane (16136 posts) -

We haven't seen any games that use it really well yet, and I don't imagine multi-platform games will ever really use it, but based on the tech demos that came out prior to launch, there are some interesting gesture ideas that could work really well with something like Halo 5 or other first party titles.

#42 Posted by shawn30 (4288 posts) -

I always see people say the reason is so every Xbox One owner will have a Kinect and that will encourage developers to incorporate it into their games. However, I have yet to see it used in any meaningful way that screams, "you need this thing". So far, it looks to me like it could have been entirely optional and even then, it'd barely even be used because it's getting no support. I was pretty shocked how at E3, they didn't show any games using Kinect in a meaningful way and they haven't really shown anything since other than Kinect Sports. They're doing a bad job of justifying the mandatory inclusion of this peripheral which is responsible for the $100 price difference.

I have owned the One since it was released and have used it for a number of things, so I'll try to answer. First off, I was always interested in voice/motion controls for more than games, but the OS, apps, and as a television remote. Kinect allows for that and looking at how you can add picture-in-picture along with audio with your gameplay clips via Upload Studio, and the way Twitch broadcasting is seamless via voice command, or the voice command for quick switching between games/tv/apps is something never seen before in a gaming console. I'm a big fan of Xbox Fitness and the way Kinect tracks your body movements keeping score for proper movements while telling you onscreen what you need to do better. Getting home from work and being able to say "Xbox On" and have your console, TV, and cable box all come on at the same time, and then to be logged into Xbox Live via facial recognition is pretty cool to me. Game wise is where MS has to sell the thing, but outside of navigating all of the console I have always felt Kinect's gaming side will be family and party games, with minor enhancements to core games still controlled by a controller. Seeing some of the early previews for Kinect Sporks Rivals shows the promise of Kinect, but again, in the family and social friends way. Not core gaming.

Ultimately you may not care about any of the features that I enjoy, but they are there and that's what they do. Calling yourself an all in one entertainment console requires being able to do more than gaming, and Kinect creates that experience by allowing you to do so much outside of gaming, and then quickly going right back to gaming. Using Snap or launching the NFL fantasy app while gaming or Bing voice search. There are some One owners who never even hooked up Kinect and that's fine. I know everyone isn't interested in it. But looking over how much I use it with the One, I see exactly what its in the box. MS needs to drop the price, not Kinect, IMHO. As it improves and more apps like the Twitch app are designed around it instead of just a few basic commands I think you'll see even greater integration into what the One is designed for. Hope this helps.

#43 Posted by locopatho (20041 posts) -

If the KInect actually improved gaming, packing it in would be a good move. Ensure no fragmentation of the market. Compare the amount of Wii games with motion controls vs the amount with Wii Motion+.

Unfortunately motion controls have failed to improve 99% of games, so packing in an expensive motion controller was a bad idea.

#44 Posted by shawn30 (4288 posts) -

The Kinect is where it's at. How many threads do u see about the MOVE and eye toy?

Lol, so true, but Move is a failure completely. Overall Kinect broadens the experience of using everything the console does. If that doesn't interest you oh well. But it interest me and my buds so it all good. If a higher resolution matters so much in multiplats by all means get a PS4 if the trend of it hitting 1080p more often continues. But when I see this gaming line-up of Quantum Break, Killer Instinct, Titanfall, Dead Rising 3, Kinect Sports Rivals, Gears of War 4, Sunset Overdrive, Forza Horizon 2, Fable Legends, Halo 2 Anniversayr and Halo 5, along with the fact that I'll have every single third party game my PS4 pals have, and the games Phil Spencer said haven't been announced or rumored about yet the One is looking pretty spectacular. Mass Effect 4 is my most wanted game and I don't give a flying fuck what its resolution is. I just want to play it. When there are more games on the PS4 that grab my interest I may buy the console, but right now if I talk about gaming only the One is far ahead of the PS4 and about to get indie games regularly from now on. By all mans enjoy your PS4's. I'm damn sure enjoying my Xbox One.

#45 Posted by FragTycoon (6430 posts) -

Kinect is a good addition... who would even think of playing...... um.. yeah....that game.... um.... with out it.....??????

#46 Edited by lhughey (4221 posts) -

@arkephonic said:

I always see people say the reason is so every Xbox One owner will have a Kinect and that will encourage developers to incorporate it into their games. However, I have yet to see it used in any meaningful way that screams, "you need this thing". So far, it looks to me like it could have been entirely optional and even then, it'd barely even be used because it's getting no support. I was pretty shocked how at E3, they didn't show any games using Kinect in a meaningful way and they haven't really shown anything since other than Kinect Sports. They're doing a bad job of justifying the mandatory inclusion of this peripheral which is responsible for the $100 price difference.

The gen is just beginning. There will be some very good games for it over its lifetime.

The perfect validation for MS is the fact that Sony is selling a lot more PS4EyesToys than expected, so using the "nobody wants the technology" argument is based on people living in the SW world and not the real one. http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/03/19/sony-underestimated-demand-for-ps4-camera

The link above shows that the market demand for this technology is good and will potentially be great IF solid games are created for it . Word has it that Sony has sold about 900k PS4Cameras. MS has sold ~4.5M Kinects. And, as you referenced above, developers will be more willing to create games if the market potential is higher. The adoption rate for the PS4Camera is about 15% of PS4 owners. If the PS4 sells 100M over its entire lifetime, only about 15M owners will have the camera. I predict that 8M will have the Kinect by the end of the year and 15M will have one by holiday next year. Which system would you create games for it you were a developer?

Companies have to exploit their competitive advantage whenever they can. The Kinect is a technology that Sony wont be able to duplicate (or beat) this gen, so it only makes sense that Microsoft exploits that. If they had simply added more RAM and lowered the price, as some had suggested, they would be on even ground with Sony, but they made the right move. This game is chess not checkers, and will be decided over many moves over many years. Microsoft can drop the price of the Bone when they want to, but they are currently building a foundation that separates them from the other competitors (and will be competitors) in this marketplace.

Within this generation, we will see console functionality from many new competitors including Valve, Google, Apple, Amazon, and possibly a Super WiiU :) from Nintendo. Valve is going to win on power (PC). Google and Apple will be strong on integration with their existing ecosystems that will allow you to play IOS and Android games. Rumors have it that Amazon is going to have a strong Andriod tie in. Who knows what Nintendo will do (if anything), but they wont make the same mistakes of the WiiU or they are doooomed. Microsoft wants to win on providing games for core gamers, casuals, and ecosystem integration and they are in the best position to do so. If Sony wants to integrate into an OS (which I predict they will), they will to go down the route of Android. This will give them ties into an existing infrastructure, but they will won't own and make profit off these things, Google will. And lets not forget that this is a business, and profitability decides whether you'll stay alive.

I mentioned Apple above, but didn't reference the fact that they purchased the company that originally created the Kinect camera. You've be silly not to expect them to integrate the camera tracking technology in a console or AppleTV device that will allow users to control their interface and play games on their TV. Apple is playing catch up to Microsoft when it comes to ecosystem integration. The Bone contains 3 OS's, which allows Microsoft to adjust as their plan to spread apps and games across the XBone, Tablets, touch enabled computers, consoles, and windows Phone. The Kinect is also important because it is a user input device that can be used Xbone that can mimic (or more accurately map) gestures on tablets, touch enabled computers and winPhone.

I wish I had more time to about the virtues of the Kinect and my opinion on why they decided to go down that road, but I have to get to work...

#47 Posted by HashCrypt (10 posts) -

It really is a nifty piece of tech. Once you start skipping chapters on BluRays, opening Netflix, turning the volume up and down, and turning your console off...all with your voice...the kinect really starts to grow on you.

I downloaded and played the demo for Rival Sports, and I must say it was really fun and immersive. Even with only the wave runner demo, I felt like I was driving a real one.

I guess an argument could be made to leave it out, but I think with Microsoft's push to make the Kinect work...it was better to have a 100% install base than to have it be optional.

#48 Edited by bforrester420 (1008 posts) -

Anyone with half a brain can see why MS chose to include it with every system.

In your case, someone with one-third.

#49 Posted by lostrib (31519 posts) -

@mems_1224 said:

Anyone with half a brain can see why MS chose to include it with every system.

In your case, someone with one-third.

That's rather inspirational

#50 Posted by arkephonic (6208 posts) -

Let's face the facts, guys. We are almost a page in this thread and no one can say how the Kinect is good for games. No one can point out any games that use it well or any games in the future that could potentially use it well. Let's face it, Kinect isn't good for video games. It sucks as a controller, period. There's nothing Kinect can do that a controller can't do 100 times better. Like many others have pointed out, Kinect had many years on the 360 to prove its worth and never could. This gen appears to me more of the same. After all, it's the same exact device, just slightly improved. It was basically relegated to dance games and could be shoe horned in to ultra casual games like Kinect sports. It will never be used in a real game with competitive gameplay because you can't have competitive gameplay without good controls.

Now I've seen people mention that Kinect isn't for games. They argue that Kinect is a peek into the future regarding how we will control UI. Although the tech isn't there yet judging by how it only works half the time, these people don't mind paying for it because they're paving the way to the future. They are paying top dollar to be testers. Guess what, guys? There are jobs out there that pay you to be a tester for things like Kinect. If you really wanna pave the way, go get a testing job and offer real input that could actually influence it. Paying top dollar to line ms's execs' pockets for a faulty product that is still in its infancy and far from good is the epitome of a waste of money.

Here's the real kicker, though. Xbox One is a video game console. Kinect, as proven ITT, sucks for video games. By putting Kinect in every SKU, Microsoft made the actual video games worse. This is what I keep saying and people keep ignoring, probably because it's a major flaw and people just don't want to accept it.

Here, I'll say it again and single it out of a paragraph and leave it all on its own.

By including the Kinect in every SKU, they had to castrate the specs of the system to still make it affordable. Every video game ever made for Xbone will now be worse because of the mandatory inclusion of Kinect. To add insult to injury, Kinect does nothing to improve video games. Kinect literally makes every single game on Xbone worse, even games that don't use it at all. Kinect is responsible for all the inferior multiplats. It's responsible for 720p games. It's responsible for lower frame rates and other performance issues. It's basically responsible for everything wrong with the system, including the price.

All these negatives just so you can talk to your system and wave your hands around trying to get it to respond half the time when a controller works 100% of the time? And it isn't even any good for VIDEO GAMES? Sounds like a fair trade off.