Rumors Xbox one with out kinect

Reflexx

New member
Dec 30, 2010
4,484
4
0
Visit site
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.
 

Keith Wallace

New member
Nov 8, 2012
3,179
0
0
Visit site
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).
 

spaulagain

New member
Apr 27, 2012
1,356
0
0
Visit site
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/microsoft-refuses-to-sell-xbox-one-without-kinect
 

Reflexx

New member
Dec 30, 2010
4,484
4
0
Visit site
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.
 

Keith Wallace

New member
Nov 8, 2012
3,179
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

spaulagain

New member
Apr 27, 2012
1,356
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

JonnieLasVegas

New member
Jan 19, 2012
178
0
0
Visit site
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!
 

JoeDizzle33

New member
Aug 8, 2012
77
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

_Emi_

New member
Apr 18, 2012
403
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

JonnieLasVegas

New member
Jan 19, 2012
178
0
0
Visit site
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 ****** 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.
 

JonnieLasVegas

New member
Jan 19, 2012
178
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

Reflexx

New member
Dec 30, 2010
4,484
4
0
Visit site
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.
 

Reflexx

New member
Dec 30, 2010
4,484
4
0
Visit site
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.
 

Keith Wallace

New member
Nov 8, 2012
3,179
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

Reflexx

New member
Dec 30, 2010
4,484
4
0
Visit site
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.
 

peterfares

New member
Oct 15, 2011
85
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

spaulagain

New member
Apr 27, 2012
1,356
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

spaulagain

New member
Apr 27, 2012
1,356
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

Keith Wallace

New member
Nov 8, 2012
3,179
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
322,906
Messages
2,242,872
Members
428,004
Latest member
hetb