As announced at E3, Microsoft will be bundling a Kinect sensor with every Xbox One. Did Microsoft do this just to raise console prices or was there method to their madness?
Wise...actually the original Kinect was $150 at launch, Kinect v2 is selling for $400 on pc by itself so I believe the extra $100 is a bargain price. Now more importantly this means that kinect will be fully supported over th X1 life cycle with cool options that will not only improve dedicated kinect games but also truly add to the experience of X1 core games which will benefit from more immersion. Its already being used in subtle ways for many of the announced games and if you read about what devs are doing I think there is some cool implementation can be done in core games. Finally Kinect makes the X1 X1 functionality for the UI freakin sweet, the intergration is hands down the best I've ever seen for a home console.
That's one way of looking at it, the other way is that is adds $100 to the base price of the system for a peripheral not everyone wants.
True but thats like saying nintendo should cut the new wii u gamepad because they could sell the console cheaper...NO, its a part of their vision, if you don't want it then you don't want a wii-u. Also in reference to your theory about there being 78mil 360 sold vs 24 mil kinect(as of feb) #1 kinect hasn't been available nearly as long #2 and more importantly you really are making my point for me, aside for a few core games the 1st kinect catered only to a very casual crowd who bought it specifically for kinect only games= it was barely used in core games, the devs making AAA popular titles like Dice/Battlefield didn't take it serious because it WAS a add-on peripheral not everybody had now they can be confident if they use it properly ALL gamers will notice and they might do well in the future because gamers want the added options/experience.= proofs in the pudding already many devs are talking about using kinect in core games including Dice of course.
Agreed Jokes but you should try more kinect games they are really fun especially if you have some kids or young relatives, also Dance Central is a blast for a small get together like a Bar BQ, I just cut it on and people naturally gravitate to it and start messing around. Yeah but I'd love to see big games like COD, Battlefield, take advantage of Kinect but really for me I think somebody like Remedy could truly show it off in a game like Quantum Break because of the type of action I imagine makes up that game: you know things like a quick hand off the controller out in front of you to stop time, a swipe to move those glass fragments etc.
Yeah I've tried a few, not my thing but it was OK for about 2 min, lol, no seriously I actually just got it to mess around with the UI/Skype/menu navigation stuff. Its cool tech no doubt.
It's really cool to utilize the machine with voice commands or sign in with facial recognition
Not everyone will want it now, but if the games or features for the Kinect 2 prove to be very good and adds more engaging elements and design then everyone will be glad it was included.
actually it added more than $100. recent articles are saying it cost as much as the rest of the xbox one which would mean xbox one without it could have probably costed around $300-$350
@ jokes: "True but thats like saying nintendo should cut the new wii u gamepad because they could sell the console cheaper...NO, its a part of their vision, if you don't want it then you don't want a wii-u." terrible analogy. there's a difference between a controller that you need to play the games, and a camera peripheral that is not even required to navigate the system menu or even required to play any of the non-kinect games.
I think its a costly Mistake.
@edonus If I'm not mistaken, you should be able to play games on Nintendo pad itself, while you can't do that on Kinect alone.
GrandTheftZamboni, what difference does that make? Nowhere did the comparison say that the wii game pad and kinect both work the same way. So that doesn't negate the point here which is that both while yes using different methods are still part of a vision of how each company wants you to interact with games other than a standard controller.
@JokesOnYou I replied to edonus because he defended your analogy: "True but thats like saying nintendo should cut the new wii u gamepad because they could sell the console cheaper" I disagree that's the same because in case of Wii U cutting the gamepad you'd lose ability to play on a handheld, while in case of X1 cutting the Kinect you wouldn't. But I see what you're trying to say. Actually to be honest you used "like" which is not the same as "the same".
Yes. I am very interested on how devs will make use of the high end sensory camera from UI manipulation to actual gameplay elements. Damn it. Would have been so much cooler without the weird strings attached like those NSA stuff and MS targeted adds via cam.
Kinect spying is just ridiculous.. If you got a cell phone, it also has a camera and microphone, and it follows you around everywhere and anytime
MS is already trying to clarify that NSA thing now, so it won't be a matter again soon
This is very civilized here... Unusual.... As for NSA, they know everything they need to know about us anyway.... If you own a smartphone or a cell connected tablet, you have no secrets.
@Kanzes/Gman: "False equivalency." Look it up.
Kojima said that he is looking forward to work with kinect this generation, DICE also and kinect is getting a better support than the 360 generation. Now KI is confirmed to use kinect for players detection, i'm looking forward for this newgen for kinect
If the cloud thing is a real deal, and Kinect got more support, I'm sure MS gonna win the next-gen on a the long-run. It's much better than just an X360 with steroids though, if you know what I mean.
Joke I hope your faith in MS supporting the Xbox1 and Kinect though it's life cycle is rewarded.Myself I'm not so sure,I feel they drop their support of the Xbox when the 360 came on to the scene.And I feel MS exclusive games dried up a few years into the 360's run.For those reasons I don't even trust them to release all the exclusive titles they say they will in the 1st year.
This will be up to developer utilization of the device in games to decide. If devs can coax gamers into wanting to use this instead of/in conjunction with a controller to the degree that its marketable then yes its genius. Likely not though otherwise we would have seen it on kinect one last gen :/
Costly mistake due to the fact it's made the console more costly. The fact there's 77m XBox 360s out there and 24m Kinects should pretty much tell you that not everyone wants or needs it and, yet, if you want to play Halo you have to pay a Kinect fee.
I don't agree with it. They are forcing a feature on us that most of us don't want. But From a business standpoint Microsoft knows that unless they force it on us the market penetration will never be significant.
Exactly! It's good for them to not give us a choice. +1 for intelligent.
It remains to be seen whether this was actually a good decision. Seeing as there is a larger majority of the 360 audience that do not have a Kinect it's safe to say they don't want it.. Will these people be willing to pay the extra $100 to have Kinect 2 or will they jump ship? I am personally not getting a One at launch.. I might do like I did with the 360 and wait for a while to see how everything shakes out...
More like complete and total blunder
The kinect is already being intergrated in meaningful ways for Xbox One for example being able to use it for Xbox live(UI), able to upload the barcode off an xbox live card, reading your heart rate, ability to use in the dark, being able to adapt to the player control configurations, voice commands and ability to make movements in games like DeadRising 3.
They are making Kinect matter more by including in every box. What remains to be seen is if the standard inclusion with the console will make a meaningful impact on games and experiences in the future. Even though every One will come with Kinect, I wonder if Microsoft will make it so that it doesn't need to be hooked up to the console in order to play games? Obviously, it would be needed for some of the extra stuff that the console can do, but I'm sure that some will appreciate the ability to stash it away somewhere if the feel that they have no use for it.
All I'm going to say is, is that people like options. Honestly, if they gave us an option to buy an Xbox One version that doesn't require Kinect, more people would buy the Xbox One.
They really can't do that though, if they want it to matter. They could make the Xbox One not require Kinect but still have it in the box for those that want to use it. They could drop the price down some more if they want, but its obvious that they are trying to make as much profit as they can.
Its a costly Mistake!
Forced gadget, that not everybody wants, therefor more of a mistake not making it optional...
A little of column A and a little of column B. From a developer's point of view, it's wise because they'll know that when they make a game, every console will have the ability to have Kinect implementation. But will developers utilize the Kinect? Who knows. If the majority of devs don't, then it's just an unnecessary cost passed on to consumers. Not too many people wanted a Kinect 2.0 forced on them in the next generation so that wasn't a wise decision. Let's see what happens because I remember not long ago when Sony put Blu-rays in every PS3, making the console more expensive, people complained. I remember when Microsoft made broadband a requirement in every Xbox console and people complained. The Kinect requirement can either backfire or turn out to be something really beneficial. We'll see.
Even if developers utilize Kinect features it doesn't matter if not everyone uses the Kinect features. The danger lies in developers requiring Kinect functionality because every console will have a Kinect, turning off those that have no interest in using it.
Very true. And the key word you used there is "requiring". Seems like every generation gamers are "required" to do more and more. Freedom of choice seems more and more limited these days.
It's 100$ or even lower as stores will press it down. It's pocket change for most people that are buying this at the launch window. Here in Norway Microsoft has priced the XBO 83$ higher then the PS4. And with these new consoles being more social with pictures of yourself on gamercards and in games. Live streaming of gameplay and yourself I bet most people are going to buy a Playstation Eye sooner then later. And no one know's what that will cost yet...
i doubt that many people care to share themselves over a gaming device. I know some do and im okay if im the minority but gaming devices are not somewhere i see alot of people bragging about social interaction wise. A huge chunk of the market is still 25yr old + gamers. Alot of people still clamor towards anonymity on the video game devices.
If PC gaming is a indication then I personally think it will explode when console gamers gets gamecapture equipment build in the console as it is in XBO and PS4. Live streaming from PC games is HUGE as is Let's Play videos. Usually when doing this one also has the players face on screen in a little part of the screen. As demonstrated at E3 I think it was, this is possible with the XBO. And probably with the PS4. I perfectly understand some people don't want the consoles to be more social then it is. But as I understand the XBO and especially the PS4 will have this. It's a option to use it but as I see it's what opens up the potential of how fun social gaming can bee. If im not mistaken the avrage gamer is 35 years old, latest survey was in the UK I think. A quick search online verifies this age.
Im not saying a screen shot of your monitor is the same thing. Also if you think about it less then probably .0001% actually provide channels into their video games and even less actually advertise themselves personally in the videos.
I'm sick of reading these same recycled articles Boring- bring us something different to discuss
Better than reposting cerny interview over and over
Its a mistake. Its not about price as much as it is not having a choice, basically MS is just saying "deal with it" instead of giving people a choice if they want to get spied on or not.
Kinect2.0 isn't bundled with the Xbox One, it's a part of the system.
Well written! This is a part most people don't understand. It's not a peripheral it's a part of the console.
It is an unnecessary part of the console that in the end drives up the cost of it.
no, it's still a peripheral. why? because it's a separate thing that you have to plug into the console, and it's not integrated into the hardware design.
which it shouldn't be.
I'm not saying it should be either. Personally I've never been interested in Kinect, although I will say I think the best environment for gamers is one with consoles that do things their counterparts don't. Having three consoles that are slight variations of the same thing is just redundant, and I don't want that.
My problem with it is you are forced to use it.. lol @ the disagrees.. well if it isn't fanboys.
No body forces you do do anything your not a child.i think it's great and every game on Xbox one uses some form of kinect.
Laptops have cameras Phones have cameras Just deal with it and stop moaning- it's really isn't a big deal- if you don't like it then buy a ps4 simple
adam orth? is that you?
You aren't necessarily forced to use it. It'll need to be plugged in, but then that's it. Some games will use the Kinect functionality, it'll just depend on how they utilize it to see if it's actually worthy of utilizing while playing and if it helps with immersion of playing the game.
But by no means do you have to use the Kinect. You can power it on via the power button or the controller.
Those of you who don't know i am going to explain why kinect doesn't work for certain things. Look guys ,kinect can work, for games like dance. It can even works if you point your finger like gun and start using. Kinect 2.0 is powerful in technology but it isn't gamers interest for lot of reason. That's why kinect 1.0 didn't attract. Because no one wants to use their hands I the air for while. Also video games are really great with ,kinect just yet, with how fast it sync to use it as controller. It's like mouse wired vs mouse wireless. Believe it or not wireless has a huge difference against wired. Hardcore gamers will want to use it only wireless. Also if touchscreen were to be available for starcraft 2 would it work yes, but no one will use it because two reason, fast function and sync can not compete with physical buttons. Kinect 2.0 is going to be great for lot of things but I wouldn't want it for games though, but for something else maybe.
To each their own really, I'm not personally interested in it myself. If you like it cool, that's your thing. If I was getting it I'd be scrutinizing the Terms and Conditions with a fine-toothed comb though. I usually just see those conditions as jargon and scroll to the bottom, hit agree, and go on with things, but in this instance it just seems like they they're a little too loose with your personal data. I can see this as being a great tool for corporate marketing data. Everything in big business nowadays is Mindshare. You can't even go to Taco Bell anymore without them asking you to take a survey on the receipt. Do you have any idea how much better than a survey this can be for them to find out about consumer data? They can tell how many people are in a household, what they're eating drinking, age brackets, reactions to commercials and what-not. They can see it all happen in real-time without the loose bits of information that people put down in surveys. I used to do surveys for companies for some extra bucks on the side, and I even had a scanner at home that I could scan products and tell them what store I bought them at for companies trying to get consumer data. It became too much of a hassle though, and I stopped because it was annoying. But it's obvious that data mining and finding about how many people and what ages in households is actually a very big deals to companies. A lot more than the average person actually realizes I think. You can go on about "tin hats" and what-not all you like, but it is a real thing. Companies strive for this data, they love their surveys and evaluations
Including it in every console and requiring it to be hooked up only benefits those that like Kinect and want to use it. MS must assume the rest of us will convert and become lovers in their Kinect fetish. If Kinect 2.0 turns out to be great than people would buy it seperately and enjoy the optional Kinect features. MS themselves say you can turn off Kinect and not use it (pause in MS speak). Developers may count on a 100% adaption rate but how does this matter if the Kinect features aren't a selling point for those that don't want Kinect? Developers aren't going to be any more inclined to make Kinect only games if people don't buy them, even with 100% adaption rate. If this were the case than why remake Ryse to be Kinect optional? Making it Kinect only would be a selling point for people that like Kinect games, which would be the same small fraction with the One that it is with the 360.
its not a costly mistake. we can't say that yet because the system isn't even out yet. people will let it be known after a full year of the systems release with their dollars. its more so a wise but costly gamble. we can sit here and go back and forward all day about hate for a system and a peripheral that we've never experienced to properly judge, but the truth is that its not out so we can't say until we play it for ourselves
Is Microsoft requiring all games for Xbox One to have Kinect features similar to Sony requiring remote play on the Vita? If they are then it would go a long way to justify its inclusion as part of the system, rather than an extra that is forced upon the consumer.
A mix of mandatory kinect and the fact kinect has to always be connected to the Xbox One has completely put me off buying the console and unless Halo 5 turns out to be a radical improvement over 4, can't see any reason to ever buy an Xbox One at this point.
I think it was smart to add Kinect. The console offers something for everyone and can add something unique to games. Since it's part of the system, developers will work with it; especially if it works as advertised. The problem with making it optional is optional support. Just look at PS Move; no games, no support. I agree that the price could come down some, a $50 cut would be amazing.
Hmmm can't really comment on this until we see & try some actual games for the Kinect 2.0, maybe they deliver this time, maybe they suck like current Kinect games, you never know, nevertheless it is a risky move on MS part but i guess they can take it since they got deep pockets.
I won't even trust the Kinect tech till its out and actual people using it , the gaming media were all praises and hyping it before release of the first one so i bought my niece and nephew one. It was just a mess, arms twisting everywhere, having to move sofas and block out too much sunlight. All that effort and from my experience they kinda like it for about 20 minutes when it works, then it gets old. The kids seriously have played more hours of minecraft then all the kinect games combined.
Mistake. It's the reason I went PC instead.
Many developers will probobly work with Kinect in some form since its included, but at the same time make the Kinect features optional. If they don't then they risk making the game appeal to only those that like Kinect, which is a small percentage of gamers. I would gamble that many other developers won't bother with Kinect because the cost of including its functionality in development won't be offset by any increase interest in the game having Kinect functionality. Kinect only games won't sell more due to Kinect being included than they would if it was sold seperately. If I bought a One I wouldn't suddenly like Kinect and go buy Kinect games. Assuming I and every other 360 owner bought a One how many would go out and buy Kinectimals 2? Probobly the same amount that bought a Kinect 1.0. How many would look at a game and say "I'm sold" becuase it has some Kinect functionality? Ms is basically subsidizing the minority of its fans that like Kinect by making everyone have one. My greatest concern is developers, or MS, requiring some Kinect functionality in games due to the 100% install base. Bottom line is MS risks losing a lot of customers, particularly Xbox fans, due to either the price increase or privacy concerns over the included mandatory Kinect.
Very important they did this. Knowing each Xbox One gamer has a Kinect makes developers use the technology and will advance the uses of it in games and how it is used in-general. I await the first developer who will track you sitting on your couch playing a shooter and allowing you to lean and turn your head to see more.
It has nothing to do with marketing.. Its included to ensure its their over then life span of the console.. But peoples biggest flaw is looking at it as a peripheral.. Its not sold separately.. Its an extension of the console..
"It has nothing to do with marketing." And bears don't **** in the woods.
Including the Kinect was smart, making it required is the problem. I get that you want everyone to have one, and the developers know everyone has one. But it should always be 100% optional. There should always be a standard option and Kinect option when it comes to games and applications. Of course that would not apply to Kinect focused games. What bothers me is what happens if this Kinect breaks and system wont run without? What if they do implement their patent to scan how many people are watching a video.