Kinect Reportedly Costs "Almost As Much" as Xbox One

[pandorum]

Whilst this is a smart strategy they have to also realize that they are basically including a piece of shitty hardware with a gaming system for no reason. Nobody WANTS a Kinect because it is IMPOSSIBLE to control a game fluently based on upper body position and movements.

Ask yourself when did you last play a good Kinect game that was not a bunch of minigames or a dancing game. We saw what happens when you attempt to push the Kinect to it's limits. You get Steel Battalion, an utter atrocity that has possibly buried the franchise for a second time.

It is a pipe dream Microsoft, wake the fuck up! The Kinect is to inaccurate to register detailed movements. It is to expensive to offer at a reasonable price. No games can be played with it that require any kind of movement. Even Steel Battalion had to rely on a controller for that.

Basically you tried to do what Nintendo did, only you went for the Sony PS2 route with a motion detection camera rather than a cheap gyroscope stick.

I know i'm gonna get flamed and get called a fanboy for this but fuck it.
have you even SEEN the video demonstrations done by the press?
every reporter that has tried it loved it!
how about you Look up some info before you make baseless assumptions on a product you haven't even tried or seen in action?
Also bashing something based on the hardware that came before it is downright stupid in my opinion.
and as per your first point a LOT of people do want kinect, they're children and casual players and parents (including myself, my kids love playing with kinect and my wife likes that nike trainer game.) that want to play with they're kids, you know the other 2/3ds of the fanbase?
"hardcore gamers" need to stop being so selfish and self centered and accept that we're a small part of a larger ecosystem of consumers.

I'm sorry since when do I have to consider the desires of other demographics? Especially children who already have a Wii, with more games for it that they can flail around with. I don't usually walk into a lingerie store and buy a set of lingerie along with my regular boxers because women seem to like the stuff.

As such I don't desire to have the Kinect should I ever consider to buy an Xbone. It's the third wheel, the flimsy attachment, the vestigial organ to what should be a gaming console. They long since gave up on it actually being that and instead decided to fight a losing battle as a multimedia device. They shoot themselves in the foot by adding 150$ on top of the console price to at least partially recoup the added Kinects. A colossal mistake when your competitor releases a cheaper console than you. As we saw in the last pointless console war.

"The gaming press was absolutely raving about the new Kinect!" Yeah they were doing the same thing over the first Kinect, then the regular version got released and they also hyped that one up to the max and it was a collosal dissapointment. You basically saying "The GaImeJurNAlisTs" liked it is like telling me Nintendo power (RIP) wrote a positive review about the WiiU. Yeah I am totally shocked that they liked it.

Why would I resort to calling you a fanboy when I can pick your arguments apart in so many different ways?

i never told you to consider other demographics, all I said is that "hardcore gamers" arent the only demographic and pretending you are and speaking for the entire community by saying "NOBODY WANTS IT" is a little immature. and as for the press raving about the first kinect you're right they were in several write ups, what i'm saying is that i've SEEN it being used and working as advertised.

Going by the losing battle argument trying to be a multi media device is a little dumb it's like saying "oh this truck has tv's in the headrests so it's trying to be a tv and not a truck." It's called having other features because as i've said "hardcore gamers" or gamers in general aren't the only demographic in existence. Them trying to expand their userbase by bringing new things to the table can only be good for the gaming industry, reviling a product based on new features totally baffles me considering that the competition literally just upped the graphics and nothing else and are called the white knights of the industry for it, is vexing to me.

on another note ps3 launched to the same price point i believe and that was a huge success to this day so i don't see how it's shooting themselves in the foot seeing as how last gen was just how this one is going to be.

and as for picking my post apart in different ways (which i really don't see) coming back with wet paper tissue thin responses doesn't really do it.

P.S. I applaud you for not resorting to calling me a fanboy, a spirited debate is very refreshing.

The problem you do not see is that half the features do not apply for the rest of the world and as we out number Americans 36-1, the features are a mute point. The features that will work we already have on devices cheaper and better that do not hide them behind a paywall they are part of the system not a ca$h cow.

 

[TomWiley]

If you want me to give your spy cam a chance you need to let me have choices.

How about the choice to deactivate the spy-cam? Would that do anything for ya? Because you'll have that choice with the Xbox One. This might be difficult for you to grasp, but just because it needs to be plugged in an hardware level, doesn't mean its features can't be deactivated on an OS-level, which Microsoft will let you do.

Make it optional and add a free Kinect required game that showcases how, "cool", "awesome", and "advanced" the Kinect 2.0 is.

Didn't you read the post? Making it an optional add-on that doesn't ship with the actual console would effectively kill any chance of the new Kinect becoming any better than the original. Why would devs would develop for it unless it comes with every single console? They wouldn't.

Always online DRM is evil, MS wanted to implement always online DRM...

That's simply not true. Microsoft never wanted to implement always-online DRM.

 

[Andrew_C]

The Kinect is technically impressive and is a pretty good motion control and motion capture device. £500 is about what the cheapest half-decent mocap devices cost before the Kinect came along and started killing them off (basically 4 or so video cameras and capture software). After all why buy a low-end mocap suite when 3 or 4 Kinects and some cheap software can do as good a job as anything under $5,000?

However as a game accessory I think the Kinect at best still has to show what it's capable of and at worst is a failed gimmick. Can anyone think of any game that uses the Kinect to do anything that could not be done easier with a gamepad (and maybe a mike as well)?

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

They keep telling us how integral this thing is without giving us any specifics. How hard is it to just lay out all the amazing things Kinect allows you to do? I'm betting the vast majority of it is just window dressing - a bunch of showy gimmicks that are certainly novel but by no means more practical than existing interface inputs.

Personally, I think motion and voice controls have potential - but they aren't going to realize any of it until they stop viewing Kinect as a replacement for a controller and start viewing it as a window to new mechanics. For nearly all existing actions, like shooting a gun or navigating a menu, controllers are simply faster and more efficient. That's why these mechanics evolved in the first place.

Microsoft and their partners need to start creating new mechanics that meet the following criteria:

1) cannot be done easily (or preferably not at all) with existing interface options

2) are actually fun and attractive activities for core gamers

Until they actually rise to this challenge, Kinect is just a standard controller substitute saddled with functions that evolved around the precise functionality of a standard controller.

 

[cikame]

Developers can be sure that everyone will be able to use their Kinect features, now all you have to do is convince developers that people want to, but it's sort of a wasted effort in time and money because, and i can only speak for myself and my friends because i know them, but non of us want the f****** thing. Knowing that the higher cost of the console is because of a camera/sensor i don't want and won't use makes me actively not want it.

The fact that it needs defending so strongly kind of says it all, if it was a good thing we'd want it, very simple.

 

[SeventhSigil]

If you want me to give your spy cam a chance you need to let me have choices.

How about the choice to deactivate the spy-cam? Would that do anything for ya? Because you'll have that choice with the Xbox One. This might be difficult for you to grasp, but just because it needs to be plugged in an hardware level, doesn't mean its features can't be deactivated on an OS-level, which Microsoft will let you do.

Make it optional and add a free Kinect required game that showcases how, "cool", "awesome", and "advanced" the Kinect 2.0 is.

Didn't you read the post? Making it an optional add-on that doesn't ship with the actual console would effectively kill any chance of the new Kinect becoming any better than the original. Why would devs would develop for it unless it comes with every single console? They wouldn't.

Always online DRM is evil, MS wanted to implement always online DRM...

That's simply not true. Microsoft never wanted to implement always-online DRM.

Yes, but WHY then make it so that it has to be connected on a hardware level at all times? Either the console does indeed absolutely 100% need the features that the Kinect offers, In which case you wouldn't be able to turn it off, Or it doesn't need the Kinect for TV navigation, menu navigation, non-Kinect game playing, etc, In which case the only thing that would cause the console to lock down if disconnected is a specific programming or hardware function that actively bricks it anyway. For which I repeat; Why? If they installed crucial console components, such as the receivers that pick up wireless controller signals, why go down that road? Heat? Expense?

Let me give you an example. If you have a computer, and disconnect the monitor, then it is pretty freaking obvious why you won't get very far. Because you sort of need the monitor to see anything. The flipside of this, the instance of imposed limitation, was that one line of code in the newest SimCity that shut the game off if the Internet was disconnected for more than 20 minutes. The problem here is that while you could make an argument as to why they are packaging the device with every console, the necessity of keeping it plugged in looks pretty much like the SimCity code; The device's hardware link is only necessary because of limitations designed and implemented solely to make it necessary. In which case, again... Why?

The argument that developers need to know people have it doesn't apply to this circumstance, because the number of people who would, say, light the Kinect aflame if they didn't need it plugged in would be miniscule. At worst, the people who don't want it plugged in would just put it in the closet until a product came along that gave them incentive to plug it in. With the PRISM incident, And likelihood of targeted advertisements, The requirement to keep the camera plugged in looks less and less like an attempt to service the customer, and more like an attempt to fulfill some ulterior motive. Even if Microsoft has no particular reason other than a bad design choice, there are still people who simply won't bother taking the risk.