Rumors Xbox one with out kinect

[Reflexx]

It might end up being that the option comes as a separate SKU next year. They use the release to prop up the in-house Kinect numbers, then offer a lower-cost alternative once developers have seen a decent user base for the peripheral through sales over the first 6 or 12 months. To put it bluntly, there is likely a good number of people who would purchase the console if it was dropped $100 via Kinect removal. I think that Microsoft will see that at some point. They'll either dump the Kinect-for-all setup and have a $400 option sans-Kinect or they'll drop the bundle price to $400 to match the PS4.

That wouldn't work.

Keep in mind that they are going to be asking developers to spend a lot of time and resources on Kinect. They are doing so with the promise that Kinect will be packaged with every XBOX ONE.

They'd open themselves up to many (large) lawsuits if they went back on that after developers have invested in putting those controls into their games.

Imagine if you were a large developer that was making a multi-million dollar game for the PS4. You invested time and resources on this game. You've been working on this game for a year, and you're still another year away from launch.

Then Sony announces that they're going back to using Atari joysticks.


Why would that be a horrible idea? Because it would be removing input methods that developers are depending on being there.

 

[Keith Wallace]

That is the most moronic comparison you could have come up with.

1. They're not disabling Kinects in this scenario, so they are still allowing that peripheral to be purchased (even in a bundle), and the ones in the wild are as usable as they were beforehand.
2. This would be 6-12 months after launch, and if 6-12 months of sales doesn't provide enough Kinects to incentivize developers, then the fact becomes that it's an unattractive accessory to those people, and nothing short of 100% retirement of traditional controllers will change that.
3. The Kinect is STILL the secondary method of console input. The controller is still there. The developers are still focusing on the controller, first and foremost. We're talking about not forcing people to purchase a peripheral that there is no requirement to use. Presence of a Kinect in my house against my will doesn't make me more likely to use it.
4. Until I see where Microsoft has a legally-binding contract to FORCE the Kinect upon buyers from developers, I'll say that the "lawsuit" idea is stupid--and that's the nice way of putting it.

You're basically drawing up random falsehoods to defend a pointless point. A non-Kinect option opens the door to more buyers, buyers who might actually invest in the Kinect at a later time (which would lead to more profit, if they kept the $400-console and $150-Kinect standalone options).

 

[Robert Carpenter]

Mods, can we please close this thread? Microsoft officially stated this will never happen...today.... AGAIN....

IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

 

[dwigfor]

I'm more interested in getting the new Kinect than the xbox one....

 

[Reflexx]

That is the most moronic comparison you could have come up with.

Perhaps you're not focusing on what my analogy was illustrating. It's about promising developers that Kinect (an input method) would be included, and then taking it away.

1. They're not disabling Kinects in this scenario, so they are still allowing that peripheral to be purchased (even in a bundle), and the ones in the wild are as usable as they were beforehand.

In the analogy I illustrated,they're not disabling controllers. They're just including a controller that has fewer inputs than what was promised to developers.

2. This would be 6-12 months after launch, and if 6-12 months of sales doesn't provide enough Kinects to incentivize developers, then the fact becomes that it's an unattractive accessory to those people, and nothing short of 100% retirement of traditional controllers will change that.

Developers invest in game projects that can take years to make.

These developers may very well decide that their games will use Kinect. If you take that away after they've invested millions, then you've just destroyed a relationship. These developers aren't creating their project plans based on Kinect as an accessory. They're basing it on Kinect being an input method that is guaranteed to be present.

3. The Kinect is STILL the secondary method of console input. The controller is still there. The developers are still focusing on the controller, first and foremost. We're talking about not forcing people to purchase a peripheral that there is no requirement to use. Presence of a Kinect in my house against my will doesn't make me more likely to use it.

Then don't buy it.

But every console must come with a Kinect because developers depend on a guarantee that those inputs are available.

It would be just like taking away some buttons or taking away the 2nd joystick.

4. Until I see where Microsoft has a legally-binding contract to FORCE the Kinect upon buyers from developers, I'll say that the "lawsuit" idea is stupid--and that's the nice way of putting it.

Then you don't understand the game business. The developers aren't forcing Kinect. Microsoft is just saying, "These are the input methods that will be available to you with every XBOX ONE. You can use them knowing that every consumer that chooses an XBOX ONE will have these.

You're basically drawing up random falsehoods to defend a pointless point. A non-Kinect option opens the door to more buyers, buyers who might actually invest in the Kinect at a later time (which would lead to more profit, if they kept the $400-console and $150-Kinect standalone options).

Irrelevant. The Kinect inputs are part of the XBOX ONE. Every consumer has it, so any developer can feel free to require any of the Kinects inputs just as much as he can have them press the A or B buttons.

Developers have already started working with this knowledge in mind. Some may be working on games that won't be out for another 2 or 3 years. But they have some Kinect inputs as necessary components.

 

[Keith Wallace]

I'm not even reading the response, because you've made ridiculous posts that make no sense for too long. I'll just ignore you form now on, because your points are nonsensical.

 

[Reflexx]

I'm not even reading the response, because you've made ridiculous posts that make no sense for too long. I'll just ignore you form now on, because your points are nonsensical.

Hahaha.

I win!

 

[TonyDedrick]

Mods, can we please close this thread? Microsoft officially stated this will never happen...today.... AGAIN....

IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

Microsoft has stated a s@#tload of stuff, Xbox related and not, that turned out to be the opposite of what they stated. Heck, the whole damn Xbox One is different from what they stated 3, 4 months ago. I kinda hope continuous chatter clamoring for a Kinect-less console leads to one actually being sold.

 

[Reflexx]

Microsoft has stated a s@#tload of stuff, Xbox related and not, that turned out to be the opposite of what they stated. Heck, the whole damn Xbox One is different from what they stated 3, 4 months ago. I kinda hope continuous chatter clamoring for a Kinect-less console leads to one actually being sold.

Hey Tony,

Since you're with Keith in actually wanting a Kinectless console sold, could you read my post above? I give reasoning why it won't happen.

Keith says that I'm not making any sense. So I'd like to get the opinion of someone that agrees with him. Am I making sense?

I'm not asking if you want my post to be true. But instead, about the argument itself. Because the logic in it appears pretty crystal clear to me.

 

[spaulagain]

Hey Tony,

Since you're with Keith in actually wanting a Kinectless console sold, could you read my post above? I give reasoning why it won't happen.

Keith says that I'm not making any sense. So I'd like to get the opinion of someone that agrees with him. Am I making sense?

I'm not asking if you want my post to be true. But instead, about the argument itself. Because the logic in it appears pretty crystal clear to me.

It doesn't matter how much sense your post makes, Keith has been so adament about a Kinectless Xbox that even if they offered it for free, discounted the Xbox by $150, threw in 4 extra controllers, 5 free games, and a happy ending, he'd still be pissed that he is "forced" to get a Kinect with the X1.

 

[TonyDedrick]

Hey Tony,

Since you're with Keith in actually wanting a Kinectless console sold, could you read my post above? I give reasoning why it won't happen.

Keith says that I'm not making any sense. So I'd like to get the opinion of someone that agrees with him. Am I making sense?

I'm not asking if you want my post to be true. But instead, about the argument itself. Because the logic in it appears pretty crystal clear to me.

I understand your logic completely. MS seems determined to make the Kinect a success and in order for that to happen, developers have to take developing for it seriously. That requires getting it in as many hands as possible.

I'm just advocating for a choice of a bundle not featuring the thing at all if it results in a cheaper console in the stores.

And I'm not speaking as someone with absolutely no experience with the peripheral. I currently have an original Kinect. I understand the X1 Kinect is far more advanced, I just don't care all that much for using it for gaming purposes. I only purchased it (very cheap) off Amazon so my wife can use Kinect video to see our nieces in California. But even then, skyping on an actual PC is still a preferred method.

 

[Vallos]

You know, 50 to 100 years from now, people are going to look back on us and say ,"damn, guys actually used physical controllers?"

The way I see it, Microsoft is pushing the Kinect to be an integral machine to interact with. Both within games and a user interface. There is going to be a time when physically touching an interface will be very minimal or nonexistent. This transition has to start at some point and Microsoft is choosing to do it now. Actually, Nintendo started it, with MS making it even better. Now they are progressing the technology which is in line with what we expect the next generation to be -better than the last. The backlash seem like a redundant fight against the future. If you are not going to do it now, then when? The change is going to happen whether you like it or not. You see it as being "forced", I see it as embracing the future!

 

[Keith Wallace]

It doesn't matter how much sense your post makes, Keith has been so adament about a Kinectless Xbox that even if they offered it for free, discounted the Xbox by $150, threw in 4 extra controllers, 5 free games, and a happy ending, he'd still be pissed that he is "forced" to get a Kinect with the X1.

No, that's just what you're assuming. I've said before that my issue has been with the required CONNECTION more than the cost. I don't like the cost, but if you actually look around, you'll probably also find my post that stated that the removal of the required Kinect connection was when I said that I was sold on the console. I openly stated that the removal of THAT FEATURE put me in the camp to buy the console.

However, that does not change the fact that I would PREFER a non-Kinect option, nor does it mean that I will not argue in favor of doing so. I believe that it keeps up with the actions of appeasing complaints, and it lowers the cost to include more potential buyers, meaning a greater marketshare. I've said that I don't mind paying for the Kinect that much, just that it's not my preferred option. Plugging it in is what I said was a deal-breaker, because I simply dislike the possible implications and potential for such a matter.

 

[Keith Wallace]

I understand your logic completely. MS seems determined to make the Kinect a success and in order for that to happen, developers have to take developing for it seriously. That requires getting it in as many hands as possible.

I'm just advocating for a choice of a bundle not featuring the thing at all if it results in a cheaper console in the stores.

And I'm not speaking as someone with absolutely no experience with the peripheral. I currently have an original Kinect. I understand the X1 Kinect is far more advanced, I just don't care all that much for using it for gaming purposes. I only purchased it (very cheap) off Amazon so my wife can use Kinect video to see our nieces in California. But even then, skyping on an actual PC is still a preferred method.

Same story for me. I get their intentions. I get incentivizing developers. However, you also have to ask if incentivizing developers is a better move than incentivizing customers. Like you said, offering a cheaper bundle is an option that they should consider. I've even said that it's something that they should wait to do, in order to get a solid base of Kinect owners for developers to focus on, meaning release the non-Kinect option 6-12 months after the initial launch.

I don't own the Kinect myself, though I have a friend and two relatives who have it. I've tried it out, and I've seen it tried out. It's very slow to accept input on Kinect: Disneyland Adventures (which I personally played). It didn't want to function appropriately most of the time on Angry Birds Trilogy. It didn't want to pick up the fact that I (or my little brothers) was waiving to sign in. When my friend was talking to his to tell it to open and close his disc tray, it took multiple commands to get it done.

The Kinect's unproven technology. That's a big reason why I don't like the idea of forcing it on people. Even if it is a LOT better, it could still not be close to enough for many actions. I don't think that it works well for any fast-paced games whatsoever. Watching the demo of it on one of the games (don't recall the name), there was still noticeable (though much less) input lag, and it resulted in missed movements on a couple of occasions. I'd rather see them perfect the technology before pushing it out there and making it a required cost.

 

[Storl]

Same story for me. I get their intentions. I get incentivizing developers. However, you also have to ask if incentivizing developers is a better move than incentivizing customers. Like you said, offering a cheaper bundle is an option that they should consider. I've even said that it's something that they should wait to do, in order to get a solid base of Kinect owners for developers to focus on, meaning release the non-Kinect option 6-12 months after the initial launch.

I don't own the Kinect myself, though I have a friend and two relatives who have it. I've tried it out, and I've seen it tried out. It's very slow to accept input on Kinect: Disneyland Adventures (which I personally played). It didn't want to function appropriately most of the time on Angry Birds Trilogy. It didn't want to pick up the fact that I (or my little brothers) was waiving to sign in. When my friend was talking to his to tell it to open and close his disc tray, it took multiple commands to get it done.

The Kinect's unproven technology. That's a big reason why I don't like the idea of forcing it on people. Even if it is a LOT better, it could still not be close to enough for many actions. I don't think that it works well for any fast-paced games whatsoever. Watching the demo of it on one of the games (don't recall the name), there was still noticeable (though much less) input lag, and it resulted in missed movements on a couple of occasions. I'd rather see them perfect the technology before pushing it out there and making it a required cost.

There is at least one feature that doesn't seem to work as quickly or even possibly without Kinect, "xbox, record that" will store the last 30s of Video as extra clip, not sure how they would put that into the Interface, there is no share button or similar, but you really would need to go into the Menu and press "save clip" or something.
Lack of full Interface Video doesn't help x.x

From what i've seen the Kinect offers some pretty interesting new possibilties, Project Spark lets you do a lot of modifications with hand/voice and can track your body for animating a model (still alpha'ish, looked like a freshly implemented feature)
Also look at this Xbox gamescom 2013 -- Kinect Sports Rivals 'Champion' - YouTube which is pretty impressive, it's not 100% accurate but it allows for quite some unique characters/make it easy to have a Avatar that looks very much like yourself.
If you are a strategy lover, you could litteraly now send units to a certain location etc KinectV2 has a lot of improvements in voice detection and noise reduction that should allow this to actually work properly.

Microsoft may need to release extension cables for Kinect though, not everyone will be able to place the X1/Kinect in front of the TV, so a longer cable is required. People who do not connect their Kinect will miss out massivly in features, switching to whatever you want by a simple voice command is worth it alone.

Now image Apps (Developers can create Apps!) get access to the Kinect voice/tracking which would basicly make it possible to link something like the expensive phillip bulbs to your X1 and now you could litteraly say "xbox, (app) turn on the lights in my bedroom" "xbox turn off the lights (in this room)", **** like this could possibly be Kinects biggest advantage. The most easiest way would be if the OS simply displays all Voice commands in a list and Apps can register their own commands and you can change them, so you you could just Select your bulb, enable Kinect voice support and input "turn off the lights" for your Room's bulb.. Now all you need is to say "xbox turn off the lights" and holy ****, your room gets dark..!
If you would be one insane Dev, you could literally create a beer/coffee robot, create a App for it.. now you could litteraly say "xbox, give me a beer" and your robot comes with a fresh beer

The possibilites, use your imagination! As devices and new peripherals with WiFi support come out the Kinect/X1 can get better and better.

But it really depends on Microsoft, if there are only HTML5/JS Apps possible, then the whole thing is almost impossible or just way too limited and also the Kinect needs to be accessable by Apps.

 

[Keith Wallace]

The possibilities aren't enough of a selling point for me, but that's just me. I don't have a strong desire to use my Xbox for more than gaming. I'm not a Netflix/Hulu subscriber. I have my PC connected to my TV, the same one my Xbox is connected to. I do all of my media consumption on there (except for listening to music on my phone while not at home). I use all of the non-gaming apps that I need on my TV through my desktop PC. Project Spark looks cool and all, but it's not one of the games that grabs my attention, as I am more into the shooter and sports genres. I might mess with it a bit, but not heavily. I get the potential for use, but the whole non-gaming experience stuff just doesn't intrigue me at this time.

My whole point is that while I get the potential and all of that, I'd rather see them provide a solid product BEFORE making it a required-purchase accessory. If people were required to pay $100 for the first Kinect when the 360 launched, they would have been pretty irritated, I would imagine. Paying an extra $100 for an unproven technology that ended up mostly a gimmicky flop? If that happens now, it'll be pretty disheartening towards the users, and if it gets back to developers that people aren't pleased with/interested in the technology (despite already owning it), that might have as much of an affect on developer commitment as anything.

 

[TonyDedrick]

As I've said before, I get what MS wants with the Kinect. I've used my first generation Kinect while playing Madden 13 to change and audible out of plays. I actually do use it while watching Netflix and Hulu Plus. But like Keith said, its really hit or miss and I find myself having to shout things 5,6 times to get the menus to pop up.

Also, I honestly have nothing against change. Especially when it comes to technology. Mp3 and iPods' came to the forefront, I was right there ready to rid myself of my CDs. I hardly buy movies and TV shows box sets and mostly stream stuff. I don't buy physical books cause I have my Kindle. I'm a big fan of Xbox Live Arcade and Games on Demand (when there are sales of course). I just have no interest in Kinect.

 

[Reflexx]

Considering what has been promised to developers as a guaranteed control scheme, why do any of you think it's even remotely reasonable to screw them over?

 

[TonyDedrick]

Considering what has been promised to developers as a guaranteed control scheme, why do any of you think it's even remotely reasonable to screw them over?

I highly doubt EA or Ubisoft will lose any sleep if the Kinect wasn't guaranteed. Sure, they might be pissed, having dropped resources into the features. But that's all these companies do is drop money on useless games and sequels anyways. They'll get over it and release Madden 3000 and Assassins Creed 25, respectively.

 

[gollum18]

I'd rather not see it included, but as an optional accessory like with the 360. It's kind of creepy having an always on eye following you even when the console isn't on.

It would also bring the price down to a range that people could actually afford. Instead of just the wealthy owning them. I feel like Microsoft is making their products more and more exclusive.

Sent from the stars...