Kinect Pricing Not Confirmed After All

[Baby Tea]

snip

The problem with your post, is that you seem to assume the Kinect is designed for the 'core' gamer.
Your example of the Sega CD isn't the same.

The Sega CD was designed to loop in a similar audience, Kinect is made for an entirely new audience.

Of the thirty million people who own a 360, how many of those people have friends, family, spouses, or girl/boyfriends who aren't into gaming? Thinking of everyone I know who owns a 360, a huge mount. I'm sure it'd be more then 50%. That's 15 million, at least, and that a huge market. Kinect isn't made for people who already game with Mass Effect or Halo.

If you want to call it an 'effect', call it the 'Wii effect'.
A device that lures the 'non-gamer' into the gaming light with easy to use, fun, simple games. Why do you think the Wii blasted off in sales? Not because there are that many Nintendo fans (Though there are plenty), but because it was aimed at those who don't game. Microsoft is pointing at the same target.

But they've got an in! They've got already got a thirty million person fan-base, most of whom have friends and family who don't game regularly. As a long-time gamer myself, Kinect would be awesome for my wife, our non-gamer friends, my mom, my sisters, my nephews, and my nieces. I will more then likely pick it up just for that reason. Not because I'll be at home playing Kinect by myself, but that I'll have a way to bring family and friends into the world of gaming without confusing them with a 10 button, two analog stick controller that they have no idea how to use.

The Wii did it with it's pseudo 'active gaming', and Kinect will do the same, albeit differently.

Developers like Bioware, Bungie, and Epic might not see the Kinect as for them, but that's because they aren't making 'introduction to gaming' games for non-gamers. At some point, I'm sure we'll see big-name developers making use of Kinect for the gaming enthusiast, but, in the mean time, those enthusiasts just have to realize that, for once, some big budget release involving games isn't directly about them.

 

[Loonerinoes]

Like watching bears doing a tapdance on hot coals.

 

[NickCaligo42]

Snip

Finally a decent argument! Well met and excellent points, good sir.

Here's the trouble as I see it, though. A Wii is still more worthwhile, even in that group of Xbox owners who have friends and family and whatnot that'd appreciate the Kinect. I get the whole "appeal to a bigger audience" thing, but the Wii's sales figures aren't just because of the appeal of motion control. That's a big, BIG part of it, yes, that's what got everybody's attention, but it was also half the price of a 360 at launch, a third the price of a PS3, and promised the support of an entire console, backwards compatibility with the Gamecube (for the five or six of us that cared), and more. It took off both because of the motion control gimmick and because it was far and away the most affordable, most bang-for-the-buck console on the market, even if you're not strictly a Nintendo fan. Today it costs the same price, but it's bundled with two games instead of one as well as a Motion Plus.

The bottom line here is that it's still a better deal than the Kinect can possibly hope to be unless Microsoft drops the price to below $100, at which point it will at the very least become competitive with the Playstation move, which has all the same problems. Otherwise, though, I already own a Wii. So do my parents, my grandparents, my sister, her boyfriend's parents, the rest of their kids, and all of my friends--literally all of them. You see where the problem arises? The Wii has a distribution of 70,million units and climbing, and you can bet a good chunk of that overlaps with 360 sales. We have Wiis, we have Wii sports, we have Raving Rabbids, and some of us even have Wii Fit. Even acknowledging the family demographic, why do any of us need a Kinect and how is it even a remotely compelling alternative to a Wii?

The other point I'd like to make is that with the Kinect you may not be confusing people with eight buttons, two sticks, and a superfluous D-pad, but you're gonna have a lot of fun confusing people with an intangible input system that has no feedback instead. I absolutely agree that we've gone overboard with the steady rise in button inputs (hence why as a designer I make it my prerogative to avoid using L3/R3 at all costs), but it hasn't stopped kids from learning to use them and at this point they're stable, consistent, and reliable whereas motion input is kinda' janky. Admittedly it's difficult to do anything more than speculate about the Kinect's accuracy and appeal until it's released, but honestly, I see motion input as the kind of thing that works best as a way to supplement traditional input as opposed to as a substitute for it. Maybe that's just me, being an oldschool gamer and a narrative guy, but I'm having a tough time picturing playing even, say, Raving Rabbids without a trigger or something tangible for pointing at the screen, or at least some kind of consistent frame of reference. I picture people playing this thing and having a really rough time trying to figure out how exactly they're supposed to move.

 

[aaronmcc]

Ok everyone, it's time to ***** like crazy that $150 is too much so they charge less...go on!....well....start bitching

 

[dochmbi]

So if kinect is not for core gamers, then who is it for? Casual gamers? But why would they buy it, they already have a Wii and if they don't, they can buy a Wii much cheaper. The only demographic who this would thus be targeted at is casual gamers who accidentally bought a xbox 360 instead of a wii, and haven't gotten rid of it yet and want to play with it, so maybe it will sell 10000 units

NickCaligo42 has an excellent post above me. The Kinect would have to be a lot better than the Wii in order to justify the huge increase in price and from what I've gathered it just isn't quite that good.
My prediction is that Kinect will be a massive commercial failure.

 

[Baby Tea]

Finally a decent argument! Well met and excellent points, good sir.

Thanks! I try.
Sometimes.

Here's the trouble as I see it, though. A Wii is still more worthwhile, even in that group of Xbox owners who have friends and family and whatnot that'd appreciate the Kinect. I get the whole "appeal to a bigger audience" thing, but the Wii's sales figures aren't just because of the appeal of motion control. That's a big, BIG part of it, yes, that's what got everybody's attention, but it was also half the price of a 360 at launch, a third the price of a PS3, and promised the support of an entire console, backwards compatibility with the Gamecube (for the five or six of us that cared), and more. It took off both because of the motion control gimmick and because it was far and away the most affordable, most bang-for-the-buck console on the market, even if you're not strictly a Nintendo fan. Today it costs the same price, but it's bundled with two games instead of one as well as a Motion Plus.

The bottom line here is that it's still a better deal than the Kinect can possibly hope to be unless Microsoft drops the price to below $100, at which point it will at the very least become competitive with the Playstation move, which has all the same problems. Otherwise, though, I already own a Wii. So do my parents, my grandparents, my sister, her boyfriend's parents, the rest of their kids, and all of my friends--literally all of them. You see where the problem arises? The Wii has a distribution of 70,million units and climbing, and you can bet a good chunk of that overlaps with 360 sales. We have Wiis, we have Wii sports, we have Raving Rabbids, and some of us even have Wii Fit. Even acknowledging the family demographic, why do any of us need a Kinect and how is it even a remotely compelling alternative to a Wii?

Let's start here: 70 millions Wii's already on the market. Why get a Kinect?

You're right that there are a ton of Wii consoles out there, and there are certainly people who own both, but not everyone. Neither of us has the statistics on it, but I'd be pretty surprised if more then 30% of 360 owners also had a Wii. Hypothetically, let's say it IS 30%. With 30 million 360's on the market, and 30% of those owners having Wiis already, that leaves a potential market of 21 million users.
That's a pretty decent market!

Not only that, but those who don't have either yet, but who have siblings/kids, what do you think they'll get? The Wii, which will appeal to them and their younger kids, but not their high-school aged kids who want Halo, or the 360 which appeals to everyone?

Do I think the Kinect is going to steal Wii owners from Nintendo? No. No I don't.
However, I do think it will provide an alternative for existing 360 owners who don't want an entirely new console, and those who are looking for a system that appeals to a broader spectrum of gamer.

As for the cost, currently: We don't know what the price is for Kinect. We just don't.
I would guess it's going to be $99.99, but we'll just have to wait and see.

It would be far more cost effective for an existing 360 owner to get a Kinect, rather then a Wii. It would be more cost effective to get a Kinect instead of Move if you're planning on playing two player, even at the fabled $150 price point ($180 for Move to get everything you need for two players, Kinect is two player ready out of the box).

But for someone who owns neither to pick one?
I guess it depends on the person, and what they want from a console. Certainly, over all, a Wii will cost less, but it also has an over-all very different appeal. I like the idea of the fun 'little' games on a Wii, but as a 360 owner: I don't want a whole new console for that. But I will get Kinect!

If I didn't have either console, I'd be thinking about whether or not I want a PS3 or a 360.
The Wii wouldn't even be involved.

If My parents were thinking about getting a console for their grandkids, they'd go right out and get a Wii.

But a household that has both 'casual' and 'core' gamers?
I think the 360 with Kinect has more to offer both crowds.

Also:

The other point I'd like to make is that with the Kinect you may not be confusing people with eight buttons, two sticks, and a superfluous D-pad, but you're gonna have a lot of fun confusing people with an intangible input system that has no feedback instead.

Every preview I have read on Kinect says that, yes, there is a bit of a learning curve. It's certainly not 'minority report' style controls (Yet! Here's to the future!). But the Wii is like that too. Let's be honest, watching non-gamers play Wii bowling or Wii sports in general is funny because they flail like crazy. They still ask what buttons to push, they still have to 'get used to it'. Kinect is no different. It takes a few minutes of using it to get 'in the groove', sure, but it happens!

Keep in mind: I have absolutely nothing against the Wii. I think it's a great console.
I also don't think the Kinect is the second coming of Jesus.

What I do think is that Kinect widens the spectrum of appeal with the 360, and the potential for Kinect is pretty high in that regard. I also know that Fable 3 using a symbiotic control scheme, allowing use of both the controller and Kinect for gameplay (Though how it will be used is still up in the air). This means that Kinect won't just be a controller replacement for fun games, but a controller enhancement for more involved games.

It's not perfect, but I'm excited by the possibilities.

 

[superbatranger]

Microsoft, when will you learn? What you might think is a good price...is almost never a good price. But, if they only lower it by 10-20 dollars, I don't know what I'll do.