Xbox One Will Work Without Kinect

[natster43]

Cool, now if they announce a version of it that doesn't include a Kinect and is like 100 dollars cheaper, I'll actually get an Xbox One.

 

[SeventhSigil]

now when they release a Kinect free bundle (which would be significantly cheaper) i will put strong consideration in buying it

Reversing online connection once a day, I can understand.
Reversing Kinect always being on, I can understand.

Not including a Kinect would undermind all the technology architecture that went into the Xbox One.

except isnt making the Kinect an optional thing already doing that? if so then there is no further harm in manufacturing less and opening up your consumer base to a much larger market

The biggest problem with developing for the original Kinect is there wasn't a large enough player-base to make it worth developing for. If every system has a Kinect, developers do not worry if a player has a Kinect or not. Most of the innovation around the Xbox One was around minizing Kinect latency and integrating it into the operating system. Microsoft spent a lot of money on that part.

too bad not everyone wants a Kinect, let alone has the room for it to work right.

I know with how little space I have in my room the Kinect, hell, even the Move or a Wii would have a horrible time attempting to work with the games I have absolutely no interest in.


Maybe once Microsoft pulls at the very least their ears our of their ass and listens to customers, thus actually making a console people would want to buy, by example, a console that doesn't include bullshit that a majority wont use, then maybe they will see a small increase in pre-order sales.


I know for sure that I still wont get a Xbox one until they make a bundle that doesn't have the Kinect, and by their own admittance, would then be $100 cheaper, if not more.

Hell, I'm still sure the 'completely customizable homepage' really isn't, I mean with how much Ad's they showed I can guarantee that you cant remove any of them.

Because why should you get a discount on a subscription if there is Ad's, it just means more money for Microsoft.

It is an integral part of the system. It like saying WiiU should sell without the Tablet controller. If almost all games use it's function and consumer complain that they don't have it, then it becomes a problem.

You still basing your decision on the Kinect 1 and not the Kinect 2, which will work in limited spaces.

Integral in this sense means that the Xbox One wouldn't ever work without the Kinect, but Microsoft just said that it would.

so, no, it is not 'integral' to the Xbox One, or the system would not work without it plugged in.

Which is funny, because:

Does anyone recall:

"It is an integral part of the Xbox One experience ... The number of features on the Xbox One that uses the Kinect is almost too many to count. I can't imagine using the console without it."

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.822167-Kinect-Reportedly-Costs-Almost-As-Much-as-Xbox-One

Looks like they got someone in there that is capable of imagining using the console without kinect.

This guy just pulled up the post where Microsoft said that the Xbox One wouldn't work without the Kinect.

So, either way Microsoft is lying once again.

Not all games are going to use some gimmick motion control either, if I can get two version of a game, one requiring me to stand up and act like I'm having a seizure to play the game, and one where I can just use the controller like any sane person would, which one am I more likely going to buy?

which leads me to this next part:


No one has ever convinced me that I absolutely need a Kinect. No one has ever claimed a Kinect game was an absolute must buy for 360 owners. No game has ever used the Kinect in a way that actually utilizes it to the extent people claim it has.

Star Wars Kinect is an example, the one part of the game that should of been easy beyond fuck, the lightsaber duels, where you could actually play like you were having an actual duel was the second worst part of the game, the first of course is the dance mini-game. The only portion of the game that actually worked was, yet again, the one where you flail around the room like you are having a seizure. Which makes another point, nearly all Kinect games are nothing more than bundled mini-games.

I can hear it now though, "BUT KALEZIAN, Skyrim uses the Kinect! So does Mass Effect 3!"

Voice commands. Even then there is the technology available to make it so that the headset can do the exact same thing.

In fact, it was made last generation.

If you want to go farther, it was first introduced back with the SNES.


yea, think about how these 'new and innovative' mechanics hold up now.


Let's make this easy, name one game that I should absolutely must own that uses the Kinect as a primary input device.


just one.

Your making the assumption that the Kinect 2 is exactly the same as the original Kinect.

You're making the assumption that I wanted a Kinect in the first place, regardless of what version.

This discussion is not about what "you" want or not want to begin with, that is called entitlement. You can have your opinions about it, but the world does not revolve around you.

To be fair, the world doesn't revolve around those who want the Kinect packaged with every system either. Like I said, it's all going to come down to a numbers game; Majority versus minority, and we don't really have any way of knowing who is on which side. Not reliably anyway.

 

[Jabberwock King]

Well that certainly is nice to see. I have some good friends on Xbox, and I'd like to jump into a few next-gen games with them. Not having to worry about my living room be some permanent microphone for targeted advertising makes me feel better.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

now when they release a Kinect free bundle (which would be significantly cheaper) i will put strong consideration in buying it

Reversing online connection once a day, I can understand.
Reversing Kinect always being on, I can understand.

Not including a Kinect would undermind all the technology architecture that went into the Xbox One.

except isnt making the Kinect an optional thing already doing that? if so then there is no further harm in manufacturing less and opening up your consumer base to a much larger market

The biggest problem with developing for the original Kinect is there wasn't a large enough player-base to make it worth developing for. If every system has a Kinect, developers do not worry if a player has a Kinect or not. Most of the innovation around the Xbox One was around minizing Kinect latency and integrating it into the operating system. Microsoft spent a lot of money on that part.

too bad not everyone wants a Kinect, let alone has the room for it to work right.

I know with how little space I have in my room the Kinect, hell, even the Move or a Wii would have a horrible time attempting to work with the games I have absolutely no interest in.


Maybe once Microsoft pulls at the very least their ears our of their ass and listens to customers, thus actually making a console people would want to buy, by example, a console that doesn't include bullshit that a majority wont use, then maybe they will see a small increase in pre-order sales.


I know for sure that I still wont get a Xbox one until they make a bundle that doesn't have the Kinect, and by their own admittance, would then be $100 cheaper, if not more.

Hell, I'm still sure the 'completely customizable homepage' really isn't, I mean with how much Ad's they showed I can guarantee that you cant remove any of them.

Because why should you get a discount on a subscription if there is Ad's, it just means more money for Microsoft.

It is an integral part of the system. It like saying WiiU should sell without the Tablet controller. If almost all games use it's function and consumer complain that they don't have it, then it becomes a problem.

You still basing your decision on the Kinect 1 and not the Kinect 2, which will work in limited spaces.

Wouldn't it be better for everyone if they sold these things separately as well as bundled? That way those who don't care about using the Kinect (or the Wii tablet for that matter) can ignore it, then buy it later if they decide they want it. Customer choice is important to most people, including myself.

I'd be very surprised if everything needs the Kinect to even function.

 

[RicoADF]

Well I always said that if they dropped the Kinnect requirement I'd buy one, so time to put my money where my mouth is *pre-orders day one edition*. PS4 will still be my primary system

EDIT: Thats primary console system, PC is my primary gaming system.

 

[Ariyura]

Well I always said that if they dropped the Kinnect requirement I'd buy one, so time to put my money where my mouth is *pre-orders day one edition*. PS4 will still be my primary system

EDIT: Thats primary console system, PC is my primary gaming system.

I also said I'd buy one when they dropped the Kinect requirement but they still need to sell me a console without it in the box for about $100 dollars cheaper. I wont pay for hardware I don't want to use.

 

[RicoADF]

Well I always said that if they dropped the Kinnect requirement I'd buy one, so time to put my money where my mouth is *pre-orders day one edition*. PS4 will still be my primary system

EDIT: Thats primary console system, PC is my primary gaming system.

I also said I'd buy one when they dropped the Kinect requirement but they still need to sell me a console without it in the box for about $100 dollars cheaper. I wont pay for hardware I don't want to use.

Fair enough, personally I don't mind the kinect as a peripheral that I can use if I feel like it, I was against the fact they wanted to force it to be required to play. I believe in options, for it to be my choice if I want it plugged in/to be used. Was never against Kinect as an optional peripheral. I can see why you wouldn't want to waste the $100 if you never plan to use it though.

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

You still basing your decision on the Kinect 1 and not the Kinect 2

So, where are all these videos showing how awesome the Kinect 2.0 is and how it works, with actual gameplay use? This is an honest, serious question.
I've been on Escapist since the XBone launch and other than the original tech demos, I've only heard promises and PR words from Microsoft and XBox fans saying "Oh, you've just got bad memories from the original Kinect."
Just as I was writing this, I decided to actually bother trying to look it up on Youtube... Sure, there's a genuinely impressive tech demo, but with all the aforementioned promises, shouldn't we have in-game video trailers by now showing off how it works in action by now? Microsoft may have this awesome technology, but they don't seem to have enough confidence to show it in action yet.

Btw, yes, I know I'm taking what you said a little out of context, I just wish that people would give actual evidence as to why the Kinect 2.0 going to be good rather than saying "Oh it will be, because Microsoft said so, honest!" I WANT to be impressed by the damn thing, really.

 

[Lightknight]

Well I always said that if they dropped the Kinnect requirement I'd buy one, so time to put my money where my mouth is *pre-orders day one edition*. PS4 will still be my primary system

EDIT: Thats primary console system, PC is my primary gaming system.

I also said I'd buy one when they dropped the Kinect requirement but they still need to sell me a console without it in the box for about $100 dollars cheaper. I wont pay for hardware I don't want to use.

Note that the kinect 2 costs almost as much as the console to make. If they only took $100 off the price then it'd be their little way of sticking it to everyone who made them do this.