Microsoft Xbox One: Kinectless SKU for $399

...

 

As a shipped product it was designed to have dedicated online, integrate Kinect and cloud gaming. That's why there's a day one patch backpedalling on dedicated online, that's why there is a dedicated kinect port, that's why cloud gaming allowed Forza to experience 'Drive-atar' and is apparently used to support more games in the future. The shipped product was one thing, but the Xbox we know now is being shifted to be nothing like that. But it doesn't change what it's been, that the launch console is the same as this Kinect-less one. It's not like they'll remove the Kinect port, they'll just not bundle it and likely produce the same console on a hardware level
You're comparing hardware and software, which is different. Microsoft's design on a console is different than what a third party developer chooses to do on their game. Software can be manipulated, altered a lot more easily than hardware which physically needs to be replaced. A peripheral like Kinect actually uses about 10% of the GPU, along with the apps, furthering adding to my point that Kinect was designed with the console and not as an optional accessory. So much so that there are ideas of what may come to that now open 10% http://www.videogamer.com/news/ditching_kinect_could_improve_xbox_one_performance.html
I can't see any other conclusion except that they're ditching it altogether.

Well it might as well not exist. Isn't that what Microsoft is saying, since they're basically not supporting it as integral any longer?
Wiimotes are not optional though, because they were designed as integral to the WiiU system, and they've stuck partly because of that, because Nintendo made consumers use it as the required controller for certain games and for multiplayer stuff. Kinect has always been seen as an add on, it was released half way through the 360's life cycle as an add on. Kinect 2.0 however was bundled and sold to us as a required piece of tech that would enhance the experience along with the controller. Bundled means it was seen as part of the console. Now it's not, it's optional and throw away. The fact Kinect based devs are really hating this is telling they believe that the market will go speaks volumes.
http://www.videogamer.com/news/kine...s_chance_of_making_original_kinect_games.html

Apart from that, libre says it all about right.

 

I see your point Digital...

But as a person who used to play Halo and has friends who played it. It's kinda dying down. A friend of mine expressed zero interest in the next Halo game, he thinks the series is over, another who practically has memorized every book out there is not even touching a One or a four until he sees vast improvements and has shown little to no interest in the next game. Halo won't be the miracle game it used to be if there's people losing interest.

Another factor is that: People didn't buy the Kinect because they didn't like it. They go a lot like me who don't like the fact there's a camera in your house, if I want to not have my webcam on, I close the lid of my computer even with the computer off because all it would see is my keyboard. My godmother has ductape over her webcam. When you have to pay a $100 for a device you don't want, it's going to make people not want to buy the system. Or even just have to pay less but still have it.

I honestly don't like Kinect, my room is too small for one, only four feet of space. The whole appeal to it is baffling to me, and the games that come with it in a lot of the times for me look kiddie (Disneyworld), poorly made (Sonic Free Riders/Star Wars Kinect), or just a throw on to a game that doesn't need it. There are some good games that go well with the Kinect (Dance Central off the top of my head.) But for me, it's not worth the money and it's not worth looking at.

I'm glad they're dropping it, I might even get the system now. But for me, the price has to drop more, I can't afford a $400 console. I can't afford a PS4 at the same price.

 

BOY YOU'RE GOING TO BE SURPRISED

The only issue with that article right there is that the writer forced out an unsolicited opinion at the end where he said most wouldn't pick up a Kinect on his own. Clearly selling out of his own pocket as history has proven otherwise.[DOUBLEPOST=1400107844][/DOUBLEPOST]

As a person who still plays Halo 4 and see's an average of 10,000 people on a single, non-DLC compatible playlist, I think you need to look at Halo 4's sales numbers. It kept up with BLOPS2 during launch week which is a tremendous feat, to say the least. Anecdotal evidence there against the best selling game in the franchise isn't winning me over. But the rest of your post I commend you for keeping it to your tastes and preferences

 

Dude... ALL articles for anything has the writers opinion added to it. Unless you somehow find the most neutral person on the planet, it's written by someone, meaning they're going to have an opinion. Just saying, hell, look at history books and you'll see that all the time.

As for the rest, it doesn't mean Halo 4 was a "fantastic" game. People probably bought 4 after seeing the trilogy, I rented it due to the trilogy and semi-liked it, not as much as the other games, but somewhat liked it. It's like people buying a Final Fantasy game after seeing the previous ones, not liking it, and deciding to not get others. People buy a game from a series, thinking they'll love it, and realize that the series isn't as good as it was before, tastes change, people lose interest, a lot of factors happen. Granted, some people still do it in the hopes to see the series bounce back, though people do like the games now, it depends on a lot of factors, not just a name on the game. I have a lot of series come and go, hell, I've seen series with a name and face slapped on to make it sell better even though it's utterly different than the original. (Super Mario Bros 2/Doki Doki Panic, anyone?) I'm not saying Halo is going to make or break Microsoft, but it's probably not going to have such an impact as it did in 360 with Halo 3.

 

PR talk alot of it, which is a 'take it with a pinch of salt' situation. Especially reading this, lots of diplomatic and political words here.

Or backpedalling as consumers would call it. Very consistent backpedalling, at least.

Arguably, that's all just personal opinion. On average I think XO exclusives have reviewed ok compared to the PS4 exclusives, even if some people don't care for review scores. Still, sales wise PS4 exclusives have sold much better. So take a pick on which one he means.

Had being the operative word. Relying on a past gens success to explain your current gen's system when the two are nothing alike is desperate and not exactly factual?

First, it was seen as a remote-less device, where voice and motion would be the future. It's gone back on some of its original functions there, and everything is controller based for its media uses, like it has been since the PS2.
The second statement is also false as libre's argument states that the PS4 is equivalent in a lot of ways or will be soon with its entertainment features. The entertainment apps are almost equivalent to each other.

Why would you if you're buying the kinect-less model? Isn't that the whole point of buying a non-bundled version? Also, the likelihood is that Kinect 2.0 when it's sold separately will be a higher price than the £50 difference of the Kinect bundle. The original Kinect when sold separately was £120, I doubt the 2.0 would be cheaper and if it was not by much. So let's say it's a bit cheaper, about £99. The Kinect-less console will be £349. If that person wanted to add a Kinect to their console, it'd be £448, an extra £48 if they had just bough it bundled. Who would buy it at that point?

To believe MS on their word at this point on Kinect seems misguided, since their actions seem to speak opposite of the situation.

 

Got another article for ya

This post is proof that further discussion is a waste of time. That's what you just argued, as you didn't even respond to the point the interview was posted in retort to- Microsoft is going to continue developing with the Kinect in mind. In fact, everything you guys talked about was mentioned here showing that the company is conscious of it. All of it. The company's official statement is to do something with Kinect still and to use it. If consumers show no interest in it, it will drop or they'll try to make another killer app, but if consumers repeat history and choose the Kinect bundle over it, then we'll see more from it. As of this point, the company wants to do more with Kinect. You can skew their words however you like, but that's what was said officially.

 

Sure, they'll keep it in mind, but now it's in their mind as less of a priority, as an optional and not an integral part of their future. That's evident, not conjecture.
Kinect game devs have said this is a bad thing for them because they know the market for Kinect games will now shrink. That's not just my view, that's an actual first hand experiencing dev saying that. Are they wrong because Microsoft has said the opposite to them, that they still care about Kinect? If so, why make it an optional peripheral? It reeks of falsehood on there part. Their actions have to prove they still care, maybe E3 will change that?

 

...

 

I honestly think the Kinect as something like the Virtual Boy, THOUGH being fair before everyone jumps down my throat for comparing the two...

The Virtual boy was much worse than the Kinect. Or Dreamcast, another comparison.

Sometimes something comes out that either the technology isn't ready for, the public isn't fully ready for, or both. This has been shown tons of times before, I.E: Virtual Boy, which had 3D gaming barely down and caused severe eyestrain to anyone playing it. (I played a demo of it when it came out and felt very lightheaded after 30 minutes of playing.) Or Dreamcast which had a whole bunch of add-ons, Internet, cd, etc... Both of which didn't do well in the market because they were ahead of their age.

Will it hit a point where it will actually be a great venture? Sure, look at the 3DS, hell, look at any system today that has everything and then some the Dreamcast offered. Will it have games better than Sonic FreeRiders and Star Wars Kinect? Yes, it will do so once programmers get a full feel of Kinect like controls that don't go nuts when you lean too far to the side... Or stand too close... Or too far... Or wear white after Labor Day... (I.E: VGA's Star Wars Kinect playthrough where Fraser battled with the Kinect for five minutes because it refused to sense him. Or when he does the X Box One day and he spends another 20 minutes wrestling with the Kinect's sensors to compare 2.0.)

It just needs more time to develop, and there are some good Kinect games out there, but the technology is still new and still needs a lot more improvements to get a boost in the market. A lot of people have complained about the Kinect, including a lot of fair reviewers, (Angry Joe being one of the more vocal ones who loves the Xbox.) And for that reason a lot of people look at it and think: "Seriously, you're still trying to shove that thing down my throat for another $100?" Some will still buy it, but a lot will turn away from it. Microsoft thought they were ready for such a product, the public didn't and haven't seen anything to convince them otherwise, especially gamewise.

Get a fantastic Kinect game, well-marketed and well-liked, and not Dance Central, but something very interactive that works, and make a few more kinect games that are fantastic, and you could probably turn this around. I remember when Star Wars Kinect came out and people were thrilled to play like an actual Jedi, then... They actually played it and heard other people play it, and it died down probably faster than it was hyped.

They have the hype, but most of the time, they don't have the punch that follows it.

 

It's a shame the Kinect broke the Virtual Boy's and Dreamcast's record. Though I hear the Dreamcast was accused of taking HGH the year it came out.

 

...

 

...