Kinect Reportedly Costs "Almost As Much" as Xbox One

[Something Amyss]

Maybe a few examples of the uses of the Kinect would be nice. For gaming I mean.
There are too many to count,right? So I'm sure this wouldn't be a difficult thing to list off.

Unfortunately, they're almost certainly talking from their ass.

alternatively, there does remain the possibility that there are useful applications for the device from the perspective of the developer, and we just don't/won't care. I mean, the first Kinect was practically magic; a device with seemingly limitless possibilities. Except, of course, for gaming.

Kind of a problem.

This console seems to have considered everyone but gamers for the most part, though. It wouldn't surprise me if they were telling the truth, but only from their perspective.

I don't believe them, though. Not just because no examples are given but also because if it was that good, it could sell itself.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

What i'm saying is that MS have no competition in this area(unlike apple products)of the market they are actually trying new things but for some reason are being vilified for a piece of tech that people haven't even fucking TRIED yet. To be brutally honest the ps4 have brought absolutely no new features except upgraded performance, that's it. it's a glorified ps3.1.

I honestly had preordered a ps4 when the price was announced because it beat microsoft when it came to policies and that's it. The moment that the 180 happended i switched to the one because it had a lot of features that really appealed to me and the 100 price increase was justified ----->TO ME<------, I made sure that was visible so i won't get mauled by fanboys.

Weren't you saying earlier that the first Kinect 'sold like gangbusters?'

You can't have your cake and eat as well, the Kinect does have competition with its predecessor as well as the Wii. The Wii especially is going to be tough to supplant in the eyes of casual players, just ask Nintendo how well the WiiU is doing.

And while we're with Asian companies, lets talk a little about Smart TV's.

Various hardware manufacturers have been releasing Smart TV's with many of the features the Xbox has, hell Samsung's latest offerings include sensors for motion controls.

I suppose wMS could be aiming for consumers who don't want to shell out for a fancy high def TV but want some of the features... Wait.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/124272-Xbox-One-Wont-Support-SDTVs

Oh.

 

[LT Cannibal 68]

Just getting your attention.

And now that I have it: Are you familiar with the concept of "Once bitten, twice shy?" Because that's pretty much what the entire Xbone incident boils down to. Why do people hate the new Kinect, even though it isn't yet available? Because the first one wasn't particularly good. Why do people freak out about "Always Online?" Because Diablo 3 and Sim City happened. It doesn't matter how good it actually is because people rely on experience first when it comes to judging things and experience says that this is not going to end well.

I do apologize if that comes off as a tad harsh. I'm actually in a hurry right now, but thought I'd pitch in my two cents.

not harsh at all friend, all that i'm saying is judge AFTER you try it not before and certainly don't condemn something based on it's predecessor.

 

[iniudan]

The Kinect failed miserably.

Like....really miserably.

We all saw and heard how "awesome" the thing was until we had to try to use it in an actual game. Then you needed to have at least 6 feet of space. Oh, also, there shouldn't be a lot of stuff behind you because it confuses the sensor. Oh, you also need to make sure your area is lit in a way that the Kinect deems acceptable or it's going to confuse the sensor. Oh, also the microphone will sometimes hear the game and confuses itself...

Frankly, you made all these promises once before. Maybe you're right and you've fixed all the problems that the sensor causes but I'm not exactly going to hold my breath...

Good thing this Kinect is made not to fail b/c its several times as precise and is bundled into every console so devs know the userbase for it is large enough to develop for it. Durr

But why developer would develop for it ? Every central feature you develop for the Kinect, cannot be used on other platforms, that basically mean it will only be used for gimmick, if used at all, by anyone who is not making xbox exclusive.

 

[Nazulu]

the 1/3d of the hardcore gaming community that despise the device aren't being told to fuck off it's essentially if you don't like it you don't have to fucking buy it. And even then half of that one third will probably buy it anyway when that shiny new game that they must have comes out.

And right there, you fell into that cop out argument routine where you are exactly those people Kalezian is talking about.

Kal is too aggressive and should tone it down, but do you really think telling people just to ignore it is a sound solution? To you it is (and for Microsoft), I'm sure, but if others find it annoying then they have every right to complain about it. The only way to counter it is too see if the positives outweigh the negatives, which I don't believe you're going to convince anyone with.

 

[LT Cannibal 68]

What i'm saying is that MS have no competition in this area(unlike apple products)of the market they are actually trying new things but for some reason are being vilified for a piece of tech that people haven't even fucking TRIED yet. To be brutally honest the ps4 have brought absolutely no new features except upgraded performance, that's it. it's a glorified ps3.1.

I honestly had preordered a ps4 when the price was announced because it beat microsoft when it came to policies and that's it. The moment that the 180 happended i switched to the one because it had a lot of features that really appealed to me and the 100 price increase was justified ----->TO ME<------, I made sure that was visible so i won't get mauled by fanboys.

Weren't you saying earlier that the first Kinect 'sold like gangbusters?'

You can't have your cake and eat as well, the Kinect does have competition with its predecessor as well as the Wii. The Wii especially is going to be tough to supplant in the eyes of casual players, just ask Nintendo how well the WiiU is doing.

And while we're with Asian companies, lets talk a little about Smart TV's.

Various hardware manufacturers have been releasing Smart TV's with many of the features the Xbox has, hell Samsung's latest offerings include sensors for motion controls.

I suppose wMS could be aiming for consumers who don't want to shell out for a fancy high def TV but want some of the features... Wait.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/124272-Xbox-One-Wont-Support-SDTVs

Oh.

I did say it sold very well and going by several sales numbers such as:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/kinect-sales-reach-24-million-6403766

as for the smart tv point, when smart tvs come with an integrated games console THEN the xbox will be pointless.

and never in any article written on the x1 was it said that they're "aiming for consumers who don't want to shell out for a fancy hdtv. And let's be honest how many people under the age of 50 still have mono sdtvs? If they do then they're probably aren't or can't buy into next gen.

 

[LT Cannibal 68]

the 1/3d of the hardcore gaming community that despise the device aren't being told to fuck off it's essentially if you don't like it you don't have to fucking buy it. And even then half of that one third will probably buy it anyway when that shiny new game that they must have comes out.

And right there, you fell into that cop out argument routine where you are exactly those people Kalezian is talking about.

Kal is too aggressive and should tone it down, but do you really think telling people just to ignore it is a sound solution? To you it is (and for Microsoft), I'm sure, but if others find it annoying then they have every right to complain about it. The only way to counter it is too see if the positives outweigh the negatives, which I don't believe you're going to convince anyone with.

for starters i never said to "ignore it" all i said is don't act like you're being forced into purchasing it, if the kinect is honestly the dealbreaker he says it is then no one will/should try to change his mind. He has a lot of other wonderful alternatives such as ps4,pc or a wiiu.

on the second point i never said people shouldn't complain, All i said is complaining for it's own sake is pointless.

I do so enjoy spirited debate, thanks for keeping it civil. Unlike most of the ign and gamespot community *shudders*

 

[Nazulu]

the 1/3d of the hardcore gaming community that despise the device aren't being told to fuck off it's essentially if you don't like it you don't have to fucking buy it. And even then half of that one third will probably buy it anyway when that shiny new game that they must have comes out.

And right there, you fell into that cop out argument routine where you are exactly those people Kalezian is talking about.

Kal is too aggressive and should tone it down, but do you really think telling people just to ignore it is a sound solution? To you it is (and for Microsoft), I'm sure, but if others find it annoying then they have every right to complain about it. The only way to counter it is too see if the positives outweigh the negatives, which I don't believe you're going to convince anyone with.

for starters i never said to "ignore it" all i said is don't act like you're being forced into purchasing it, if the kinect is honestly the dealbreaker he says it is then no one will/should try to change his mind. He has a lot of other wonderful alternatives such as ps4,pc or a wiiu.

on the second point i never said people shouldn't complain, All i said is complaining for it's own sake is pointless.

I do so enjoy spirited debate, thanks for keeping it civil. Unlike most of the ign and gamespot community *shudders*

"if you don't like it you don't have to fucking buy it"

That was your choice of words, which means 'ignore it'. You are not keeping it civil either.

Also, he's not complaining for it's own sake, he's pointing out that he doesn't trust them at all and that the mandatory kinnect will not prove itself as a worthy purchase. Especially if it's true that it costs as much as the console itself, cause that's absolutely ridiculous.

 

[dragongit]

So in Short. Microsoft is taking a large hit to it's profits by including the Kintect 2.0. Nearly doubling it's potential cost from 500 to 1,000 bucks for a peripheral that no one initially liked in the first place. Where as Sony is selling for 400 bucks from a potential cost of 500-600 bucks. granted it could still be a lot more and they are of course selling at a loss, but it is definitely a much smaller margin the the XBOX one.

 

[RJ 17]

Snip.

So what you're saying is that the Kinect is, like most of the bells and whistles on the XBone, just a hunk of tech that does something which we already have the tech to do? The point of my post was that there is no way having a Kinect can add to a game. If it truly was the wave of the future, the Kinect for the 360 would have been a smashing success, but it wasn't. It was seen for what it is: a gimmick. Sony tried it with their Move controllers and it was as big of a flop as the Kinect. The difference being they actually learned their lesson rather than tying themselves to a sinking ship.

True, few developers programmed for the Kinect because it wasn't wide-spread enough. It wasn't wide-spread enough because (obviously) it didn't sell enough units. It didn't sell enough units because no one wanted the damn thing. How is forcing people to use something they don't want (which can apparently just be turned off and utterly ignored anyways) going to suddenly make it popular? Do you honestly believe that games for the XBone will be programmed specifically for the Kinect to do most of the controlling? Or will that be relegated to games that are just a collection of mini-games like for the 360?

To use your example: just as you don't NEED a mouse to play a text-based game, you don't NEED a Kinect to play a console-based game...that's why god invented controllers. If the failure of the Kinect should have taught MS anything, it's that most gamers don't want to dance around in front of their TV like an idiot. Then there's the fact that it also doubles as an advertising spy-cam that's always watching and listening to you...but for now I'll stick with my point that it adds nothing to any genre of game, except of course for gimmick mini-games (such as a jousting tournament) specifically designed for a gimmick accessory. In your theoretical Knight Commander game, I can almost promise you that the majority of battle controls would be handled on the controller, with the Kinect just giving you the option for voice commands. Ask Mass Effect 3 how well that turned out.

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

The Kinect failed miserably.

Like....really miserably.

We all saw and heard how "awesome" the thing was until we had to try to use it in an actual game. Then you needed to have at least 6 feet of space. Oh, also, there shouldn't be a lot of stuff behind you because it confuses the sensor. Oh, you also need to make sure your area is lit in a way that the Kinect deems acceptable or it's going to confuse the sensor. Oh, also the microphone will sometimes hear the game and confuses itself...

Frankly, you made all these promises once before. Maybe you're right and you've fixed all the problems that the sensor causes but I'm not exactly going to hold my breath...

you should probably look at some articles with video links that show the press taking it for a spin themselves and being impressed with the new sensor.

Because media outlets could never be bought off by Microsoft to endorse their products. That could never happen...

or you could look at the footage and see that the sensor DOES work and MAYBE not be so cynical?

You DO realize that people are lazy, and that they're not going out their way to prove someone on a forum they disagree with right, by wasting time searching up YouTube videos? That and the fact that it's common knowledge that the information about games and hardware that haven't been released tends to be strictly regulated by the developers to prevent any bad press where possible?

the 1/3d of the hardcore gaming community that despise the device aren't being told to fuck off it's essentially if you don't like it you don't have to fucking buy it. And even then half of that one third will probably buy it anyway when that shiny new game that they must have comes out.

And right there, you fell into that cop out argument routine where you are exactly those people Kalezian is talking about.

Kal is too aggressive and should tone it down, but do you really think telling people just to ignore it is a sound solution? To you it is (and for Microsoft), I'm sure, but if others find it annoying then they have every right to complain about it. The only way to counter it is too see if the positives outweigh the negatives, which I don't believe you're going to convince anyone with.

for starters i never said to "ignore it" all i said is don't act like you're being forced into purchasing it, if the kinect is honestly the dealbreaker he says it is then no one will/should try to change his mind. He has a lot of other wonderful alternatives such as ps4,pc or a wiiu.

on the second point i never said people shouldn't complain, All i said is complaining for it's own sake is pointless.

I do so enjoy spirited debate, thanks for keeping it civil. Unlike most of the ign and gamespot community *shudders*

I think the point is 'Oh, you don't have to buy it' isn't a valid argument, or even an argument at all. Not if you're trying to convince people how awesome your favorite console is.

As a Nintendo fanboy, I've had trouble convincing people that the Wii and Wii U DOES actually have very good games for the hardcore (or at least not casual) crowd, namely the Nintendo exclusives, etc., but I'd never use the 'You don't have to buy it' argument because I know that the response will be 'okay, I won't, because you haven't convinced me that it isn't a piece of shit". That isn't a win. I haven't proved anything, I've just made myself look stupid, and it baffles me that so many people are suddenly so fucking willing to use that as an end-all justification of a console (it's also reminiscent of the "If you don't fit the requirements of having an Xbox One, piss off and buy a 360" bullshit that a certain Microsoft executive has been feeding us). It's, as Nazulu said, the mother of all cop-out arguments.

Hell, I will happily accept that a console is not for me because I'm not 'the target audience' (I don't like facebook games for example, but no-one's trying to convince me that they're actually awesome and that I'll really enjoy it, and I'm fine with that), but don't expect people to think that your favorite console is "awesome shit that unfortunately isn't my style" with that nonsense.

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

True, few developers programmed for the Kinect because it wasn't wide-spread enough. It wasn't wide-spread enough because (obviously) it didn't sell enough units. It didn't sell enough units because no one wanted the damn thing. How is forcing people to use something they don't want (which can apparently just be turned off and utterly ignored anyways) going to suddenly make it popular?

short answer yes because going by how the original one sold like gangbusters for a $150 for the sensor alone then this time around microsoft just has to show off the new capabilities on magazines and late night tv and they'll flock to it just like the first one. mass consumers are like magpies you see, if something is new and popular they'll swoop in to buy it to be "hip" and such, just think about the YEARLY installments of the iphone and how it always sells out. That alone proves what I mean.

Okay, I'm getting really sick of these conflicting messages from people either saying that the Kinect sold really well or that it didn't.. Seeing as noone made any games for the hardcore/non-casual crowd that even came CLOSE to competent, I'm more willing to believe the latter, but could someone actually give me proper reference? I have a feeling it sold well on launch due to all the hype, and was a massive failure otherwise.

 

[Tanakh]

but could someone actually give me proper reference? I have a feeling it sold well on launch due to all the hype, and was a massive failure otherwise.

I can and you should be able too if not for sheer laziness... whatev, here are the numbers:

Kinect sold 24 M ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinect ), taking into account the xbox sold 77 M ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360 ) that means 1 in 3 owners got it (more or less, taking into account the RRoD it might be a bigger percentage). Not bad IMO, and it did sold a lot, but not enough to warrant AAA games focused on it (probably).

 

[RJ 17]

True, few developers programmed for the Kinect because it wasn't wide-spread enough. It wasn't wide-spread enough because (obviously) it didn't sell enough units. It didn't sell enough units because no one wanted the damn thing. How is forcing people to use something they don't want (which can apparently just be turned off and utterly ignored anyways) going to suddenly make it popular?

short answer yes because going by how the original one sold like gangbusters for a $150 for the sensor alone then this time around microsoft just has to show off the new capabilities on magazines and late night tv and they'll flock to it just like the first one. mass consumers are like magpies you see, if something is new and popular they'll swoop in to buy it to be "hip" and such, just think about the YEARLY installments of the iphone and how it always sells out. That alone proves what I mean.

Okay, I'm getting really sick of these conflicting messages from people either saying that the Kinect sold really well or that it didn't.. Seeing as noone made any games for the hardcore/non-casual crowd that even came CLOSE to competent, I'm more willing to believe the latter, but could someone actually give me proper reference? I have a feeling it sold well on launch due to all the hype, and was a massive failure otherwise.

Damnit, google seems to have devoured the website I saw the other day when I looked up the to-date sales figures of the Kinect, now everything that's coming up when I try is a few years old.

When I looked it up, the numbers were that the total Kinect sales were less than half of total 360 sales by a few million. To be fair, it did sell a respectable number of units...the problem is people soon learned that it was a piece of crap and word of mouth began to spread. That's why the sales peaked relatively early with a boom just because "Hey! It's new!", as Cannibal said. But it's popularity dropped off considerably once people found out it was a piece of crap. The problem was the same problem that will exist for the new one on the XBone: there's no good way to implement it into a game that actually adds to the game rather than just being something tacked on just as an excuse to use the Kinect (such as the example I mentioned: voice commands in Mass Effect 3). The controls for it were absolute crap in the few games that had Kinect compatibility, and about the only thing it was good for was gimmick mini-game bundles that were specifically designed to show off the gimmick that was the Kinect...and even those didn't really work too well.

The point is, there's two ways you can describe the sales of the Kinect: "It sold a little less than half of what the total 360 sales were" or you can be more specific and point out that that "little less" equates to millions less. I'm just clarifying that "no one wanted the damn thing" is obviously an exaggeration, as there's obviously a fair number of people that actually got it...but then again, there were also a fair number of people that voted Mitt Romney in the last election, but the difference in the vote total was a gap of millions.

Edit: In looking at the post above mine, either I misread the numbers when I looked it up, or the site I looked it up on was full of shit.

I guess the point remains that it sold fewer than half the number of 360's that got sold.

2nd Edit:Then again, the info on the wiki page says it's as of February, so the numbers could be up since then to make it closer to what mine were (I thought I saw it somewhere in the low 30 millions)

 

[Snotnarok]

I couldn't help but notice him say...roughly: no one wants this, but we think it's cool so we're you're going to try it because we're pressuring devs.

It's like they didn't see this happen before with another company forcing motion controls in games.

 

[SeventhSigil]

True, few developers programmed for the Kinect because it wasn't wide-spread enough. It wasn't wide-spread enough because (obviously) it didn't sell enough units. It didn't sell enough units because no one wanted the damn thing. How is forcing people to use something they don't want (which can apparently just be turned off and utterly ignored anyways) going to suddenly make it popular?

short answer yes because going by how the original one sold like gangbusters for a $150 for the sensor alone then this time around microsoft just has to show off the new capabilities on magazines and late night tv and they'll flock to it just like the first one. mass consumers are like magpies you see, if something is new and popular they'll swoop in to buy it to be "hip" and such, just think about the YEARLY installments of the iphone and how it always sells out. That alone proves what I mean.

Okay, I'm getting really sick of these conflicting messages from people either saying that the Kinect sold really well or that it didn't.. Seeing as noone made any games for the hardcore/non-casual crowd that even came CLOSE to competent, I'm more willing to believe the latter, but could someone actually give me proper reference? I have a feeling it sold well on launch due to all the hype, and was a massive failure otherwise.

I came across an article a while ago, released back in 2011, suggesting the Kinect only had a 1:1 attach rate at the time. In other words, so it was one of the fastest-growing items of all time, when people had it, they didn't really invest in very many games exclusively for it. That could explain the dissent, as technically the device itself sold very well, but software and games exclusively intended for it may not have done so wonderfully. It would explain the relative lack of developer interest, as even if you have a high install base, low attachment rate can still mean very little market available. Which brings me to...

the 1/3d of the hardcore gaming community that despise the device aren't being told to fuck off it's essentially if you don't like it you don't have to fucking buy it. And even then half of that one third will probably buy it anyway when that shiny new game that they must have comes out.

And right there, you fell into that cop out argument routine where you are exactly those people Kalezian is talking about.

Kal is too aggressive and should tone it down, but do you really think telling people just to ignore it is a sound solution? To you it is (and for Microsoft), I'm sure, but if others find it annoying then they have every right to complain about it. The only way to counter it is too see if the positives outweigh the negatives, which I don't believe you're going to convince anyone with.

for starters i never said to "ignore it" all i said is don't act like you're being forced into purchasing it, if the kinect is honestly the dealbreaker he says it is then no one will/should try to change his mind. He has a lot of other wonderful alternatives such as ps4,pc or a wiiu.

on the second point i never said people shouldn't complain, All i said is complaining for it's own sake is pointless.

I do so enjoy spirited debate, thanks for keeping it civil. Unlike most of the ign and gamespot community *shudders*

On my mobile, apologies for any poor grammar, but should point out one problem. Although there has been great discussion on the rock capabilities of the device, when it comes to its ability to track motion and facial expressions, it has shown little solid applications for upcoming games, given many reported innovations rely more on the microphone. Ryse, once being touted as a Kinect only game for 360, has arrived on the One as a controller-centric title. D4's creator, a Kinect-focused game, has made it clear that the game can be played on controller instead. Even with the requirements making it on absolute guarantee that every Xbox One customer will have it, Even with a guaranteed install base for the peripheral, there seem to be precious few companies, even first party studios, looking to make that big innovative Leap.

The difficulty with this is that when it comes to selling a product, it is vital, beyond all else, to demonstrate what the product WILL deliver. I.e. By demonstrating a new game or title that uses the peripheral in an innovative and irreplaceable fashion, one that is integral to the experience, and not just tacked on for minor convenience or sparkle. It is a simple, and inevitable truth when it comes to marketing and promoting anything to give them a Killer App as it were. While the sensor does make strides in demonstrating its use for menu navigation and controlling the television functions, it has proven considerably less effective at demonstrating a coherent and compelling application that makes it, in and of itself, worth the purchase on the gaming platform. You didn't succeed at selling an Xbox or a Playstation brand console because of the box, you sold it because of Halo, God of War, titles that make you want the hardware, not for jts own sake, but because of what you can access as a result.

As things currently stand, the Kinect 2 has even less going for it, pre-release marketing wise, then it's predecessor. Nothing I have seen for it comes even close to comparing to the Milo demonstrations back before the original Kinect came out. Had it become a game, like Molyneux hoped, That sort of thing would have been the Killer App for me; I would have gotten it then.

If down the road they develop something truly innovative, something truly inspiring for a game using the Kinect 2.0 sensor, then I will purchase the console as my Exclusives platform in a couple of years. But as things currently stand, they just do not offer me a strong enough showing for the Kinect to draw my interest.

 

[RicoADF]

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.

Question?

Are those casual consumers willing to shell out $500 dollars plus for it?

Its one thing for reporters and kids to like a product, its getting them to throw down a rather hefty sum to buy it.

short answer yes because going by how the original one sold like gangbusters for a $150 for the sensor alone then this time around microsoft just has to show off the new capabilities on magazines and late night tv and they'll flock to it just like the first one. mass consumers are like magpies you see, if something is new and popular they'll swoop in to buy it to be "hip" and such, just think about the YEARLY installments of the iphone and how it always sells out. That alone proves what I mean.

Iphones, which are cutting production (which could mean number 6 is coming admittedly) and experiencing a slump as well as some actual competition from the large stable of Android devices?

We are not talking about a peripheral to an established product but a entire rather expensive console package whose competition is undercutting it by a fifth.

You have to remember the Wii success wasn't only its motion control system, it was its cheap price of $250USD which allowed such wide appeal.

And lets not begin to talk about how 'hip' Microsoft is.

What i'm saying is that MS have no competition in this area(unlike apple products)of the market they are actually trying new things but for some reason are being vilified for a piece of tech that people haven't even fucking TRIED yet. To be brutally honest the ps4 have brought absolutely no new features except upgraded performance, that's it. it's a glorified ps3.1.

I honestly had preordered a ps4 when the price was announced because it beat microsoft when it came to policies and that's it. The moment that the 180 happended i switched to the one because it had a lot of features that really appealed to me and the 100 price increase was justified ----->TO ME<------, I made sure that was visible so i won't get mauled by fanboys.

The attitude they had to their customers is unforgivable. Plus their still forcong a spy camera in our homes to run the system, yes it can be turned off but it cannot be unplugged which leaves it to us trusting them that its actually off.... which most of us dont. Oh and btw, PS4 also has a motion sensor camera which is as good if not better than the Kinnect. You do realise Sony was releasing Eye toys back in PS2 days right? Its never taken off because the controls don't work outside of a few genres. Its avaliable though for those that want said features and play said genres with the bonus that they can be unplugged....
That is called competition, and a better product at a cheaper price too.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

They're just trying to make it sound like you're getting a lot of value for $500.

Even if it's true, it only means that I would have to pay $500 for something that I don't want. Why would I do that when I have other options? The value is subjective. I don't give a fuck about the Kinect. I don't want to flap my hands around and scream at the TV. I want to sit back and play the game with a gamepad. That's what I expect from a console. Not this useless gimmick. The only way to sell the damn thing is to make it mandatory. And awesome thing is that because it's mandatory, I will never get an Xbone.

 

[Strazdas]

is to guarantee to game developers if they implement Kinect features into their games, everyone who has an Xbox will be able to experience it.

we dont want developers to implement kinect features.
forcing us into a situation where developers are free to force us into kinect makes you purely evil. you should feel ashamed of yourself for even thinking this is a good thing.

 

[Vausch]

So they're sitting on the ability to cut the price of the Xbone to 300 dollars and not using it because they want the Kinect to be an integral part of the system despite nobody wanting it?