09-18-2013 05:12 PM
146 ... 3456
tools
  1. Reflexx's Avatar
    You are missing a very fundamental part of the strategy.

    The XB1 was promised from the start that it will have certain methods of input available in EVERY CONSOLE.

    That is the same thing as promising developers that the controller will have 8 buttons, but then shipping it with 4 buttons a year layer. Bad idea.

    It is a breach of trust, and likely a breach of contract.

    That is not something a responsible company would do.

    And you dont screw them over daring them to not make games for you. No. Really bad idea.
    08-29-2013 11:53 AM
  2. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    No, not a fact at all. There is no requirement to use the Kinect by the buyers, so even owning the Kinect offers no guarantee to developers. Adding controller buttons would mean that they would always be at the ready whenever the person was using the controller (technically, the controller has more than 8 buttons, but I get that you mean the face buttons). The Kinect offers no guarantee of user input at any time, and it is still not the primary input method of the console, in most cases.

    So, this assumption of a contract proves nothing. All you are saying is that the Kinect MUST stay because MAYBE something says it does. I'm saying that there is no proof of it, so building your argument as factually-based on hypotheticals accomplishes nothing. You're working off what might be, I am working off of what I know. That's why I said it should be CONSIDERED, not that it must happen.

    Contract or not, if this Kinect's tech does not prove to be powerful-enough to handle high-importance tasks, developers still won't develop for it. Also, considering that not all games have Kinect functionality guaranteed, that's something of a sign that a contract requiring the Kinect doesn't exist. Why would Microsoft guarantee a Kinect presence if developers won't guarantee development for it? That's a one-sided deal that has the potential to hurt Microsoft (by limiting sales) more than it could help (by popularizing the Kinect).
    08-29-2013 01:16 PM
  3. spaulagain's Avatar
    No, not a fact at all. There is no requirement to use the Kinect by the buyers, so even owning the Kinect offers no guarantee to developers. Adding controller buttons would mean that they would always be at the ready whenever the person was using the controller (technically, the controller has more than 8 buttons, but I get that you mean the face buttons). The Kinect offers no guarantee of user input at any time, and it is still not the primary input method of the console, in most cases.

    So, this assumption of a contract proves nothing. All you are saying is that the Kinect MUST stay because MAYBE something says it does. I'm saying that there is no proof of it, so building your argument as factually-based on hypotheticals accomplishes nothing. You're working off what might be, I am working off of what I know. That's why I said it should be CONSIDERED, not that it must happen.

    Contract or not, if this Kinect's tech does not prove to be powerful-enough to handle high-importance tasks, developers still won't develop for it. Also, considering that not all games have Kinect functionality guaranteed, that's something of a sign that a contract requiring the Kinect doesn't exist. Why would Microsoft guarantee a Kinect presence if developers won't guarantee development for it? That's a one-sided deal that has the potential to hurt Microsoft (by limiting sales) more than it could help (by popularizing the Kinect).
    Dude, just let it be. There are VERY good reasons for packaging it. End of story...

    http://www.windowscentral.com/micros...without-kinect
    08-29-2013 02:07 PM
  4. Reflexx's Avatar
    Keith, you obviously don't have experience in game development. So I can't fault you for not understanding, but you seem very closed to looking at this objectively.

    MS tells a developer what the console consists of. There are things they say may increase, like processor speed or RAM. They also note things that are static, like input methods that ship with the console. At that point it is set in stone. Developers create their design documents based on that, and they set aside their development budgets and timelines. Multi-million dollar multi-year projects are dependent on the information supplied by MS. And whatever is designated as guaranteed available input MUST stay available during the whole development cycle.

    Budgets are dependent on the knowledge that every single consumer with the console has access to the controls. Anything different would have resulted in completely different design document and budget.

    Making changes by SUBTRACTING input methods a year later will severely impact many muli-year and multi-million dollar projects. That is a fact.

    What you are proposing is that MS basically tell the whole development community that they can't depend on any specs that MS gives them for the console. It is exactly the same as removing buttons in a future controller shipped with the console.

    It would be the end of the XBOX brand with developers.
    08-29-2013 04:08 PM
  5. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    I ma looking objectively, I'm just also looking from facts only. I'm not basing my opinions on hypotheticals like a POSSIBLE agreement about the Kinect. Without knowing of its existence, I cannot argue in favor of that point. I don't have experience in game development (nor do I want any), but that's irrelevant here. I'm simply saying that I want to reserve judgment for the facts, because your argument of keeping the Kinect for all based on something that is not even legitimately rumored is a poor debate position.

    If there IS a contract, then it obviously ends the discussion. I'm just saying that without proof of its existence, I have to argue from what I know. Not having knowledge of a contract means that I make my points from the perspective that there isn't a contract. In the case of there not being a contract, I believe that a non-Kinect option could be a way to increase sales and customer happiness, due to the lowered costs (though it could also happen that those who bought the Kinect because there was no alternative might complain).

    We don't know that the Kinect is guaranteed input, it is only a belief on your part. Again, though, the presence of the Kinect has not created a 100% involvement in it from developers. You're making a wild guess on the death of the Xbox brand as well, despite the fact that there was belief that the PS4 was to include the Eye until the last minute, yet Sony is not getting shut out. The Kinect's absence would not break the Xbox brand, plain and simple, even if it came as a complete retirement (which it wouldn't, in this case). Do you really think that developers would break it off with Microsoft if they told them that they could get more consoles into homes to increase game sales? I highly doubt it.

    But my point is not related to that. It is that you are making this assumption of a contract, essentially presenting it as an absolute, and saying that it is the lynchpin of the brand, which is silly.
    08-29-2013 04:42 PM
  6. spaulagain's Avatar
    I ma looking objectively, I'm just also looking from facts only. I'm not basing my opinions on hypotheticals like a POSSIBLE agreement about the Kinect. Without knowing of its existence, I cannot argue in favor of that point. I don't have experience in game development (nor do I want any), but that's irrelevant here. I'm simply saying that I want to reserve judgment for the facts, because your argument of keeping the Kinect for all based on something that is not even legitimately rumored is a poor debate position.

    If there IS a contract, then it obviously ends the discussion. I'm just saying that without proof of its existence, I have to argue from what I know. Not having knowledge of a contract means that I make my points from the perspective that there isn't a contract. In the case of there not being a contract, I believe that a non-Kinect option could be a way to increase sales and customer happiness, due to the lowered costs (though it could also happen that those who bought the Kinect because there was no alternative might complain).

    We don't know that the Kinect is guaranteed input, it is only a belief on your part. Again, though, the presence of the Kinect has not created a 100% involvement in it from developers. You're making a wild guess on the death of the Xbox brand as well, despite the fact that there was belief that the PS4 was to include the Eye until the last minute, yet Sony is not getting shut out. The Kinect's absence would not break the Xbox brand, plain and simple, even if it came as a complete retirement (which it wouldn't, in this case). Do you really think that developers would break it off with Microsoft if they told them that they could get more consoles into homes to increase game sales? I highly doubt it.

    But my point is not related to that. It is that you are making this assumption of a contract, essentially presenting it as an absolute, and saying that it is the lynchpin of the brand, which is silly.
    So if people like you hate the B button, Microsoft should just cater to your (minority) demands and remove it? With Xbox One, the Kinect is integral part of the console just like the standard controllers. The Kinect is standard. And similar to the controllers, you can technically power up the console and run it without them (unplugged) but it doesn't mean you can use it well or as effectively.

    Microsoft is treating the Kinect as a principle part of the Xbox as it should be. It is not an accessory. Don't like it, don't buy an Xbox.
    08-29-2013 06:19 PM
  7. JonnieLasVegas's Avatar
    I haven't read all the comments here, too busy. Just wanted to say the Kinect seems like a waste to me. Granted I've never tried it on my 360, but I don't get the hype. IF I get an Xbox 1 the first thing I will do is toss out the Kinect. Don't want it don't need it. Really wish Microsoft was smart enough to sell some without the Kinect, you know give people options. Novel idea, I know!
    08-29-2013 06:25 PM
  8. JoeDizzle33's Avatar
    I haven't read all the comments here, too busy. Just wanted to say the Kinect seems like a waste to me. Granted I've never tried it on my 360, but I don't get the hype. IF I get an Xbox 1 the first thing I will do is toss out the Kinect. Don't want it don't need it. Really wish Microsoft was smart enough to sell some without the Kinect, you know give people options. Novel idea, I know!
    They are trying to change how we interact with our games. They are including it so developers are more likely to use that feature. I, for one am excited to see how games start using Kinect.
    08-29-2013 06:48 PM
  9. _Emi_'s Avatar
    really this thread continues? Microsoft already said they wont unbundle kinect.

    I haven't read all the comments here, too busy. Just wanted to say the Kinect seems like a waste to me. Granted I've never tried it on my 360, but I don't get the hype. IF I get an Xbox 1 the first thing I will do is toss out the Kinect. Don't want it don't need it. Really wish Microsoft was smart enough to sell some without the Kinect, you know give people options. Novel idea, I know!
    pfft... please.

    1. kinect 1 and kinect 2 are different, since kinect 2 is by far too superior to kinect 1.
    2. not many games supported it, because not many Xbox users had it. but Xbox one interface is built around kinect, and more games will take advantage of it
    3. you havent even tried it, so what are you talking about? you DONT even know it.
    4. you are the one who doesn't seem to be the smart one, since its pretty obvious why Kinect is bundled with Xbox One. so developers can take advantage of it, and make better games around Kinect technology because its not only about waving your arms to the Kinect and talking to it.
    5. Microsoft is giving people options to unplug and don't use the Kinect, don't like it don't use it. still games can require you to plug it in order to play it. you never know, and this is not negative since developers know every single xbox one user should have access to Kinect.
    08-29-2013 07:10 PM
  10. JonnieLasVegas's Avatar
    3. you havent even tried it, so what are you talking about? you DONT even know it.
    4. you are the one who doesn't seem to be the smart one, since its pretty obvious why Kinect is bundled with Xbox One.
    Personal attacks and name calling proves you've already lost the argument! I stated I've never used the Kinect yes, so what is your point there? Yes you can unplug it, but you obviously don't comprehend what I said. They should sell the unit without the Kinect as well. I know they won't, just stating they should give us, the consumers that option. Stop being a fanboy for a few minutes and just realize that it's always better to have options. Not just blindly accept what your favorite company tells you.
    08-29-2013 08:18 PM
  11. JonnieLasVegas's Avatar
    They are trying to change how we interact with our games. They are including it so developers are more likely to use that feature. I, for one am excited to see how games start using Kinect.
    Yeah, I get that, and appreciate it. Just wish they would give us the option of purchasing the Kinect or not. I know I don't have to use it, but wouldn't mind saving some money on something I will not use. Kind of like how I won't go see Batman vs Superman due to Ben Affleck being casted as Batman, lol.
    08-29-2013 08:21 PM
  12. Matt Fara's Avatar
    If they gave you an option developers wouldn't think twice about it.
    How hard is this for people to understand?
    Reflexx likes this.
    08-29-2013 08:23 PM
  13. Reflexx's Avatar
    I ma looking objectively, I'm just also looking from facts only. I'm not basing my opinions on hypotheticals like a POSSIBLE agreement about the Kinect. Without knowing of its existence, I cannot argue in favor of that point. I don't have experience in game development (nor do I want any), but that's irrelevant here. I'm simply saying that I want to reserve judgment for the facts, because your argument of keeping the Kinect for all based on something that is not even legitimately rumored is a poor debate position.
    Developers have been told that Kinect is guaranteed to be an integral part of every XBOX ONE console. You personally may not have heard it, but that's what has happened.

    Developers have been told that they can feel 100% safe and secure that if they design experiences that REQUIRE some sort of input from Kinect, every XBOX ONE owner will be able to use it. Every single one.

    If there IS a contract, then it obviously ends the discussion. I'm just saying that without proof of its existence, I have to argue from what I know. Not having knowledge of a contract means that I make my points from the perspective that there isn't a contract. In the case of there not being a contract, I believe that a non-Kinect option could be a way to increase sales and customer happiness, due to the lowered costs (though it could also happen that those who bought the Kinect because there was no alternative might complain).
    There isn't a separate contract that just says... "Kinect included."

    There is an agreement that specs provided that are listed as final will not be removed.

    We don't know that the Kinect is guaranteed input, it is only a belief on your part.
    No. It's guaranteed to be part of the XBOX ONE.

    Again, though, the presence of the Kinect has not created a 100% involvement in it from developers. You're making a wild guess on the death of the Xbox brand as well, despite the fact that there was belief that the PS4 was to include the Eye until the last minute, yet Sony is not getting shut out. The Kinect's absence would not break the Xbox brand, plain and simple, even if it came as a complete retirement (which it wouldn't, in this case). Do you really think that developers would break it off with Microsoft if they told them that they could get more consoles into homes to increase game sales? I highly doubt it.
    Absence of Kinect at launch wouldn't have broken the XBOX brand with developers.

    Saying that it is guaranteed to be part of every single XBOX ONE and then removing it at a later date would hurt the XBOX brand with developers.

    But my point is not related to that. It is that you are making this assumption of a contract, essentially presenting it as an absolute, and saying that it is the lynchpin of the brand, which is silly.
    It's not silly. I've been in game development and I have a pretty good idea how this works.
    08-29-2013 09:17 PM
  14. Reflexx's Avatar
    I haven't read all the comments here, too busy. Just wanted to say the Kinect seems like a waste to me. Granted I've never tried it on my 360, but I don't get the hype. IF I get an Xbox 1 the first thing I will do is toss out the Kinect. Don't want it don't need it. Really wish Microsoft was smart enough to sell some without the Kinect, you know give people options. Novel idea, I know!
    Tossing it out wouldn't be a very smart thing to do.

    You don't have to plug it in. But what you'll find is that you're left with a very limited experience.

    It's like if you hated trigger buttons, so you took them off and threw them away. You'd still be able to play some games, but you wouldn't be able to play any that used triggers.

    Now that wouldn't have been a big deal when triggers were kind of new. But as time went on, more and more developers started making use of them because they were available. And so after a year or two you'd find that you've severely limited yourself.
    08-29-2013 09:20 PM
  15. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    Developers have been told that Kinect is guaranteed to be an integral part of every XBOX ONE console. You personally may not have heard it, but that's what has happened.
    Until I see a source which says that Microsoft has contractually agreed that to be a certainty, I am done having discussions with you. Trying to shove your assumption down my throat as fact just frustrates me.
    08-29-2013 10:17 PM
  16. Reflexx's Avatar
    Until I see a source which says that Microsoft has contractually agreed that to be a certainty, I am done having discussions with you. Trying to shove your assumption down my throat as fact just frustrates me.
    So be it.

    I tried to educate you about an industry that creates products that you enjoy using. I'm not just making stuff up. This is how it works.

    Apparently, you're not interested. Oh well. To each their own.
    08-29-2013 10:34 PM
  17. peterfares's Avatar
    Requiring and forcefully bundling Kinect for $150 is going to backfire so hard.

    Motion gaming craze came and went. People realized it's only fun for a short time before it gets boring again. Tons of Kinect v1s and Wiis just sitting, collecting dust.
    08-29-2013 10:42 PM
  18. spaulagain's Avatar
    Requiring and forcefully bundling Kinect for $150 is going to backfire so hard.

    Motion gaming craze came and went. People realized it's only fun for a short time before it gets boring again. Tons of Kinect v1s and Wiis just sitting, collecting dust.
    Motion gaming came and went? Riiiiight. 😅

    You guys are special.
    08-29-2013 10:52 PM
  19. spaulagain's Avatar
    Until I see a source which says that Microsoft has contractually agreed that to be a certainty, I am done having discussions with you. Trying to shove your assumption down my throat as fact just frustrates me.
    Hahaha, omg you are funny. A source for what? Some legal contract that you define as being required? He's simply saying if MS outlines given specs for an upcoming device that the developers have been planning and coding for months/years, then MS needs to follow through. That's no different then if they promised there were two triggers and last minute they removed one. Don't you think that would fvck a lot of developers/games up? I think they would be pretty pissed.

    I think you should just stop discussing the Kinect period, with anyone. I mean your obsession for some proof of a "contract" is just ridiculous. This is common sense.
    08-29-2013 11:00 PM
  20. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    So be it.

    I tried to educate you about an industry that creates products that you enjoy using. I'm not just making stuff up. This is how it works.

    Apparently, you're not interested. Oh well. To each their own.
    No, you're assuming. I ask for a source, you claim to be educating, but you offer no source. So, that means you are trying to educate about something you have no proof of. You're trying to educate me on your THEORIES, not anything of factual accuracy to offer. That's my point. As I said, I'd accept your point if you could back it up, but simply saying "I know it," isn't enough.
    08-29-2013 11:16 PM
  21. Reflexx's Avatar
    Hahaha, omg you are funny. A source for what? Some legal contract that you define as being required? He's simply saying if MS outlines given specs for an upcoming device that the developers have been planning and coding for months/years, then MS needs to follow through. That's no different then if they promised there were two triggers and last minute they removed one. Don't you think that would fvck a lot of developers/games up? I think they would be pretty pissed.

    I think you should just stop discussing the Kinect period, with anyone. I mean your obsession for some proof of a "contract" is just ridiculous. This is common sense.
    I need to go dig up that contract that said the XBOX will not remove their triggers. It must be around here somewhere... lol
    08-29-2013 11:20 PM
  22. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    Requiring and forcefully bundling Kinect for $150 is going to backfire so hard.

    Motion gaming craze came and went. People realized it's only fun for a short time before it gets boring again. Tons of Kinect v1s and Wiis just sitting, collecting dust.
    I think you're confusing motion gaming with Kinect-based gaming, which aren't necessarily the same. The Kinect has shown that it can use voice commands to increase convenience in certain actions in game. I agree that motion gaming doesn't hold a great level of interest to me (unless in certain forms), but the Kinect is certainly not something on-par with the Wii, which I believe died off more because of lack of improvement and new games than anything. Nintendo has been slowly bleeding to death on a lack of new IP, and that's as-much to blame as anything.

    The Kinect is bringing new possibilities worth exploring, and some can be enjoyable. That doesn't change my opinion that the bundling isn't necessary (though I get their intent), but to say it's going to backfire with absolute certainty is to underestimate both the loyalty of Xbox LIVE users (who have invested a lot into accounts, by earning Achievements and making friends), as well as the potential of the device. It hasn't proven its motion-capture usefulness, but it HAS proven to be quite useful for voice-based commands (Skyrim is one example of that).
    08-29-2013 11:20 PM
  23. TonyDedrick's Avatar
    I don't think its ridiculous at all. I'm sure developers would be upset if the Kinect were scrapped completely after spending resources on the features. But no one is suggesting it be done away with. Just there be an option of a bundle without one.

    And really, how is it ultimately any different than there bring no guarantee that everyone will actually use it or that a developer is guaranteed to include features for it?

    Personally, I'm not fundamentally against the Kinect or motion based gaming (I own the Wii, Wii U, have owned the Power Pad, the Power Glove, currently own a Kinect). I just don't see the issue with providing consumers choices.

    And whose to say if the Kinect lives up yo its promise, those who bought a Kinectless console wouldn't be tempted to get one later?
    08-29-2013 11:21 PM
  24. Reflexx's Avatar
    No, you're assuming. I ask for a source, you claim to be educating, but you offer no source. So, that means you are trying to educate about something you have no proof of. You're trying to educate me on your THEORIES, not anything of factual accuracy to offer. That's my point. As I said, I'd accept your point if you could back it up, but simply saying "I know it," isn't enough.
    Sorry. I don't have a "We promise not to remove Kinect ever!" paper that I can supply to you.

    I thought I was being nice by educating you about the game industry. But meh. Oh well.

    Believe what you want to be believe. I've worked in the industry for several years. Though I will say that I'm not working in it at this exact moment, I still have many colleagues that do. But regardless, there are some things that are just common sense.

    If you want me to make a game for your console, I need to know what I will be working with. When designing controls, I need to know what percentage of customers have access to those controls. My budget and my design document will be heavily dependent on that.

    If you tell me that I have access to using body movement and voice as a method of control, and my game is expensive, I will only include it if I know that 100% of customers will be able to use it.

    If it's an add-on accessory, I will not include it. Or if budget permits, I may include small optional things. But I will not severely cut down the size of my audience to support an "accessory." The only things I want mandatory in my game are things that I KNOW every consumer has.

    So when MS gives me a spec sheet, they're telling me what every consumer has MINIMUM.

    If they have an add-on accessory, they'll tell me how many people they expect to have that. Then I might make a cheapo game just for that. But no way would I put a big budget behind it.

    But I know this is frustrating you. You don't like hearing how it works. But maybe someone else will at least find it informative.
    Vallos likes this.
    08-29-2013 11:34 PM
  25. Reflexx's Avatar
    I don't think its ridiculous at all. I'm sure developers would be upset if the Kinect were scrapped completely after spending resources on the features. But no one is suggesting it be done away with. Just there be an option of a bundle without one.
    If there was a bundle without one from the VERY BEGINNING when game development started, then it's no biggie.

    If from the beginning they said it's part of every XBOX, and then removed it LATER (when my budget already depends on it), I'd be highly upset.

    And really, how is it ultimately any different than there bring no guarantee that everyone will actually use it or that a developer is guaranteed to include features for it?
    If the consumer has it, then the developer who is making a game knows that every consumer can play their game. If the game is good and you have a Kinect, why not use it? You could unplug it after you're done.

    There were people who hated dual joysticks. But they used them because they wanted to play the games.

    And the games only made use of them because the developers knew that every single consumer had it.

    Personally, I'm not fundamentally against the Kinect or motion based gaming (I own the Wii, Wii U, have owned the Power Pad, the Power Glove, currently own a Kinect). I just don't see the issue with providing consumers choices.
    There is a choice though. The PS4.

    But in the case of Kinect, they made a decision that this input method will be available for devs to use. They can't go back now and say, "Just kidding! Sorry you planned for that!"

    And whose to say if the Kinect lives up yo its promise, those who bought a Kinectless console wouldn't be tempted to get one later?
    If there were Kinectless consoles, developers who make big budget games WILL NOT spend much on resources for Kinect support. It just won't happen. It wouldn't make any sense to do so.
    08-29-2013 11:42 PM
146 ... 3456

Similar Threads

  1. SIm Unlocked 920 replaced by Nokia with Sim locked
    By sutt359 in forum Nokia Lumia 920
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-06-2013, 04:11 AM
  2. WTS: Nokia Lumia 920 (white) with Charging Plate (black)
    By photobriangray in forum Marketplace Archive
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-04-2013, 10:07 AM
  3. Xbox Music Player for Windows Phone 8... Is it just me?
    By GloriousGlory in forum Windows Phone 8
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-07-2013, 01:57 AM
  4. Call & SMS blocking with Amber
    By WP8addict in forum Windows Phone 8
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-06-2013, 08:26 PM
  5. internet not working with my lumia 710
    By kumarsaurabhraj in forum Nokia Lumia 710
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-06-2013, 08:55 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD