Would you rather X1 bundle power instead of Kinect?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by arkephonic (6658 posts) -

Would you prefer if Microsoft made the X1 a more powerful system than the PS4 and sold the Kinect separately?

#2 Edited by FreedomFreeLife (3175 posts) -

i prefer if they had system same powerful like PS4 and Kinect cost only 100 dollar more, still 500 euro price tag. No, i think Kinect is good because if we had X1 and PS4 almost same powerful and no Kinect then it would be so boring. Some want play Mario in Wii, some want to play hardcore and casual games and party games on Xbox One(with Kinect) and some just want focus on hardcore games on PS4. I still think Kinect should not sold separately because else we would have not Kinect games coming. I have fun playing with friends Kinect games. Im sure we see more stuff at E3 2014.

#3 Posted by Crypt_mx (4219 posts) -

@arkephonic said:

Would you prefer if Microsoft made the X1 a more powerful system than the PS4 and sold the Kinect separately?

Power is close enough to the PS4, so it shouldn't make a huge difference in the overall quality of the games. If resolution or a slight graphics setting difference is the only difference between the two consoles, then it shouldn't really matter all that much.

I think MS did it the best possible way, making sure every console had a kinect so that way more devs would use it. Not only that but I'm a personal believer that the whole console works better with the kinect and we're just gonna see better kinect games, apps, and kinect based game features. It's a really powerful piece of tech that I'm personally very happy with.

If you prefer that MS made a more powerful console without a camera, you should just buy a PS4. What you want already exists.

#4 Edited by Chutebox (38103 posts) -

They should have ditched Kinect entirely and focused on the damn hardware. If they put that money they spent on the damn worthless camera and put it into hardware and kept it at the same price, it would have been a fucking beast.

But no, they somehow thought that casuals would buy a fucking system at 500 US dollars!

#5 Edited by Floppy_Jim (25834 posts) -

Such a thing would probably have been better for everyone. I mean that Kinect thing inflated the price and has nothing to show for it so far but that dreadful fighting game.

#6 Posted by 93BlackHawk93 (6157 posts) -

If I liked M$ exclusives more and if it wasn't a Spybox, then yes.

#7 Posted by Crypt_mx (4219 posts) -

@Floppy_Jim said:

Such a thing would probably have been better for everyone. I mean that Kinect thing inflated the price and has nothing to show for it so far but that dreadful fighting game.

You do know the console JUST came out right? When consoles last almost 10 years nowadays we are but a small percentage of the way into the generation. How about we give the Kinect more than a couple months to prove that it was worth the investment. MS has lots of money and no plans to ditch Kinect, so expect it to do some cool things.

#8 Posted by FreedomFreeLife (3175 posts) -

@93BlackHawk93 said:

If I liked M$ exclusives more and if it wasn't a Spybox, then yes.

Spybox? Oh god... another american who seen too many spy movies..

#9 Posted by FoxbatAlpha (8863 posts) -

But THE ONE is more powerful.

#10 Posted by Wickerman777 (1528 posts) -

I think that about 90% of people would prefer that. I certainly would. If X1 were 2 tflops or more and didn't have Kinect I'd get one for sure.

#11 Edited by Couth_ (10317 posts) -

If xb0ne had a 7970, no kinect and was $500 it'd obliterate the ps4.. Old microsoft would have done that. MS used to be on the cutting edge of powerful tech.. Now they are lost

#12 Edited by Wickerman777 (1528 posts) -
@Chutebox said:

They should have ditched Kinect entirely and focused on the damn hardware. If they put that money they spent on the damn worthless camera and put it into hardware and kept it at the same price, it would have been a fucking beast.

But no, they somehow thought that casuals would buy a fucking system at 500 US dollars!

This.

I'd gladly pay $500 for a Xbox with $500 worth of GPU and CPU power in it. But the box they delivered instead I won't be getting. And I kinda hope it fails very badly as a message to gaming companies that we don't like gimmicks (But in another way I don't want it to because if MS leaves the biz that ain't gonna be good for console gaming. Competition is a good thing. So I'm conflicted.). Just play it straight and build the best box you can.

#13 Edited by tdkmillsy (1681 posts) -

Kinect is what makes the Xbox One more powerful it many ways.

#14 Posted by SirSlimyScott (275 posts) -

@arkephonic: Power over a gimmicky product that will go no where.

#15 Edited by Wickerman777 (1528 posts) -
@Crypt_mx said:

@arkephonic said:

Would you prefer if Microsoft made the X1 a more powerful system than the PS4 and sold the Kinect separately?

Power is close enough to the PS4, so it shouldn't make a huge difference in the overall quality of the games. If resolution or a slight graphics setting difference is the only difference between the two consoles, then it shouldn't really matter all that much.

I think MS did it the best possible way, making sure every console had a kinect so that way more devs would use it. Not only that but I'm a personal believer that the whole console works better with the kinect and we're just gonna see better kinect games, apps, and kinect based game features. It's a really powerful piece of tech that I'm personally very happy with.

If you prefer that MS made a more powerful console without a camera, you should just buy a PS4. What you want already exists.

Except that the PS4 is weak too. It just isn't as weak as X1. I do think Sony built the best possible console they could have for $400 but I'd prefer both companies had targeted $500 instead (Without a camera). Yeah, I know PS3 was overpriced back in 2006 but a lot has changed since then. The value of the dollar has tanked! $400 now ain't what it was then and to make a console with appropriate power for the times they needed to target a higher price range. X360 and PS3 were good systems for their time but X1 and PS4 are not what they should be for theirs. What they've done reminds me of food companies shrinking their products (As though we don't notice, lol) instead of being straightforward and raising the prices. C'mon, ya can't keep having $400 consoles forever when the value of the dollar keeps falling or you're gonna end up with weak hardware ... and that's what we've gotten.

Both boxes should be 2.5 tflops, what Epic Games wanted. Might have taken a $500 price tag to get there but I'd have gladly payed it. X1 being only half of that is absurd and it's gonna tank because of that misguided decision. I mean, what were they trying to do ... be the Wii? The Wii was an unexplainable freak occurrence, kinda like the hula hoop. Trying to imitate it is a fool's errand. Even Nintendo doesn't understand how they did it otherwise they would have duplicated that same success with the Wii U.

But having said all that I do think PS4 is an excellent console given its price. When it comes to putting together a $400 box they made all the right decisions. MS, however, with their ESRAM and DDR3 and bottom-of-the-barrel GPU and Kinect made bad decisions. Yeah, I'd prefer a $500 console with $100 extra silicon but if a $400 console is what it has to be PS4 is a good one. I plan on getting one but not until late in the year cuz I figure that by then there might be enough games available to make it worthwhile. As it stands now there's very little to play on either of them.

#16 Posted by Vatusus (5129 posts) -

@FoxbatAlpha said:

But THE ONE is more powerful.

lulz

#17 Posted by I_can_haz (6511 posts) -

@93BlackHawk93 said:

If I liked M$ exclusives more and if it wasn't a Spybox, then yes.

#18 Posted by Floppy_Jim (25834 posts) -

@Crypt_mx: Well it's the number 1 reason the Xbone is more expensive and therefore losing. It's mind boggling how they don't have a killer app/game ready for the thing yet. I don't consider barking voice commands at it like an elderly drunkard to be said killer app. It's just same moronicness we saw from Sony last gen; taking goddamn forever to justify a higher price.

#19 Edited by BattleSpectre (6888 posts) -

To be honest, I like the Kinect as an addition to my Xbox One, just simple things like using voice commands make the experience more enjoyable to me. Truthfully though I don't plan on using games for my Kinect unless they really revolutionize the way they do things on it. If making the Xbox One more powerful means stripping away some features from the Kinect than yes I'm in.

#20 Edited by ronvalencia (15528 posts) -

@arkephonic said:

Would you prefer if Microsoft made the X1 a more powerful system than the PS4 and sold the Kinect separately?

If MS wasn't willing to bet on 8GB GDDR5, then 2GB GDDR5 with 192 GB/s bandwidth would do the trick.

X1's 32MB eSRAM+14 CU GCN die size could have supported 28 CU Radeon HD i.e.

2X scaled 7790 with the following specs

4 tesselation units i.e. 7790 has 2 tesselation unit.

4 rasterizer units i.e. 7790 has 2 rasterizer unit.

28 CU i.e. 7790 has 14 CUs.

32 ROPS i.e. 7790 has 16 ROPS.

4 ACE units i.e. 7790 has 2 ACE units.

At 700Mhz, it would yield 2.508 TFLOPS.

----------

R9-290/290X is basically 4X scaled 7770 i.e.

4 tesselation units i.e. 7770 has 1 tesselation unit.

4 rasterizer units i.e. 7770 has 1 rasterizer unit.

44 CU i.e. 7770 has 10 CUs.

64 ROPS i.e. 7770 has 16 ROPS.

8 ACE units i.e. 7770 has 2 ACE units.

#21 Posted by The_Last_Ride (74284 posts) -

Hell yeah

#22 Edited by CrashNBurn281 (436 posts) -

What's done is done. At this point, Microsoft's best bet is to eat the cost of the Kinect and keep it bundled in. All the while, stressing that the Kinect is not mandatory, yet enhances the Xbox experience. At 400 dollars, you would be seeing more Xbox's being sold.

This generation, Microsoft needs to focus on new ips that will draw people in. Black Tusk was supposedly working on a new interesting game. It may not have panned out, but at least they would be trying to create something new that was exclusive. Microsoft could have contracted out Gears of War to an AAA developer.

It surprises me how badly last gen was handled by Microsoft, and now it is hitting home at the start of the next gen. They pushed the same ips over and over, and now the have a first party offering that lacks diversity.

Microsoft had a goldmine when the bought Rare. They seriously had no fucking idea how to let them be Rareware! It really is simpler than what they tried to make it out to be. Give them the freedom to make games they want to make. No one is going to put their all into a game when they are being forced to make the same thing over and over. Black Tusk isn't even out the door and it looks like they are going to be forced into the same pigeon hole.

Xbox has the potential to be an outstanding games platform, and yet its greatest enemy so far has been Microsoft, not Sony. If they get their head out of their ass, maybe they can make something out of this gen, and maybe they can make a run for top contender next cycle.

So far I have not been swayed to buy a Xbox. At one point last gen I was thinking about getting a 360, but realistically I am glad I didn't. The later half of the gen Microsoft pushed the same old crap and started to focus on the Kinect more than exclusive games. Kinect is an interesting tech, and I really can see its potential, but not at the cost of what really matters on a games platform, the GAMES.

#23 Posted by silversix_ (15932 posts) -

You need to be seriously shallow to say no to that knowing Kinect will never ever serve you in anything gaming involved in the next 10 years.

#24 Edited by TheTruthIsREAL (806 posts) -

I'd rather have a more powerful system. Microsoft tried to cater to the casual gamer and forgot who were their real fans are. Casuals are a fan of Kinect but the console is more expensive and weaker. They would want more bang for their buck I would guess. To anyone who wants to say that the casuals don't care about power, I guarantee you that those casuals ask their friends which system is the best. Casuals want the most bang for their buck. They WILL take price into consideration as well.

#26 Edited by Stevo_the_gamer (43223 posts) -

I'd prefer a new way of playing games that isn't limited to dance, and on rail games. So I would prefer Microsoft to omit and trash the whole notion of Kinect and start over. The whole evolutionary move forward with just "more powerful hardware" is fine, but it's boring. You end up with more developers making games prettier to look at, but not more fun to play.

#27 Posted by MonsieurX (31586 posts) -

It'd be a stupid move to split consoles like that

#28 Edited by arkephonic (6658 posts) -

I suppose it makes sense to include Kinect in every SKU so developers can implement Kinect features into their games that are both mandatory and standard as they know each and every XB1 owner will have access to a Kinect. That said, and this is just my personal opinion, I don't like the Kinect and I don't want one in my room. I own a 360, but I didn't get the Kinect bundle for the same reason. As Stevo said, Kinect is basically relegated to dance games and on rail experiences. I'm not interested in that and I'm not confident that Kinect has a place in gaming outside of voice commands and UI navigation, which I'm also not interested in.

I have over 20 consoles hooked up in my house and I mean it when I say I don't want to dedicate precious shelf space to the Kinect. I have an arcade of sorts set up here and it's awesome. I do want the Xbox One because I'm a huge fan of Halo, one of my favorite franchises. I will probably end up buying an X1 when Halo comes out, but I won't be happy about paying extra for the Kinect. I won't be happy that the system is weaker due to the compensation of Kinect and keeping an affordable price tag. It's the reason PS4 was a no brainer for me, no gimmicks, just games and a controller which is my kinda style since I'm an old 29 year old man who doesn't want change.

I'm old school, probably one of the more old school gamers here. I have owned a PS4 for a few weeks now and have played my SNES more since I bought it than anything. Not because I don't like the ps4, I think it's amazing. I just really like classic gaming. I spent all last night mastering Contra 3: The Alien Wars on hard trying to beat it with no deaths. I like tight, precise controls in games that showcase skill while maintaining solid gameplay mechanics. Kinect is the opposite of all that. My SNES controls better than Kinect.

#29 Posted by WitIsWisdom (3844 posts) -

Well this thread is irrelevant... but yes, I would imagine that if they had gone the "kinectless" route with stronger hardware... then we would be seeing much different results right now.

#30 Posted by arkephonic (6658 posts) -

You know, on second thought, I really don't think they need to or should bundle Kinect with every SKU. Afterall, they made it so the X1 functions without Kinect, and we have yet to see any game use it in any meaningful way. I strongly doubt games will start using the Kinect as the norm. It will most likely be a couple games here and there that use voice commands or something like that, with a few Kinect only titles thrown in like we saw for the 360. It's more of a niche thing, like a side project, and the support for the Kinect both then on the 360 and now on the X1 is proof of that. It makes no sense to put it front and center like they did when it has so little use and meaning. I mean, how many games use the Kinect in a really cool meaningful way? I just think that it's not an integral part of the X1 experience and the proof is in the games. They should have made it like the 360 where you can buy a system bundled with Kinect or a system that doesn't have a Kinect at all and if you end up wanting one later, then get one.

#31 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

I don't like Microsoft's business practices and simply don't like nor trust them. I have no desire to own and microsoft console regardless of what they do.

#32 Posted by highking_kallor (594 posts) -

@arkephonic said:

Would you prefer if Microsoft made the X1 a more powerful system than the PS4 and sold the Kinect separately?

Would splinter there console base and be bad for business. I’m all for it.

#33 Posted by millerlight89 (18641 posts) -

I'd rather them keep Kinect and just make it suck less. The thing is so sluggish and pitiful.

#34 Posted by TheEroica (14412 posts) -

I'd rather go on not worrying about hardware and looking forward to the games.

#35 Posted by Bigboi500 (31030 posts) -

I don't care about power in a console, I just wish Microsoft would have a sku for Xbox One without Kinect.

#36 Posted by Boddicker (3059 posts) -

@FoxbatAlpha said:

But THE ONE is more powerful.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

To address the original post; please explain to us how this would not be the equivalent of taking a load of diarrhea in the face for the millions of early adopters the release of a more powerful Kinectless SKU would be.

Go on. I'm waiting.

#37 Posted by Bigboi500 (31030 posts) -

@FoxbatAlpha said:

But THE ONE is more powerful.

Your trolling is terrible.

#38 Edited by McStrongfast (4279 posts) -

Duh.

#39 Edited by littlestreakier (2949 posts) -

I bought a kinect for my 360 with a lot of games for it. I told myself that it'd be fun. Found out I really just want to sit on the couch and play games (cause I'm more lazy that previously thought prior to buying kinect) My nieces had fun playing it though, so I guess it was still worth it. With XB1 however, I have no intention of really using kinect. So there has to be a big price drop for me to consider buying a XB1. But after how MS handled e3, and the whole thing with the NSA...I doubt I get a XB1 this gen.