Rumors Xbox one with out kinect

[Reflexx]

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

 

[Keith Wallace]

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).

 

[TonyDedrick]

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?

 

[Reflexx]

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.

 

[Reflexx]

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.

 

[spaulagain]

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.

No, its common sense. Developers are given the specs that they should develop to, then they build their games around those specs. If part of the specs are pulled a few months before release, that's going to screw over a lot of developers.

He shouldn't have to find proof of anything because its obvious.

 

[spaulagain]

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).

You're kidding right? Motion gaming and Kinect gaming aren't the same? That's what the Kinect is all about. If you think its only about voice control, then you must have the wrong device.

I've used Wii and Kinect plenty of times to find them equally accurate in gaming. If you had issues with Kinect, it was probably the game. Kinect Adventures is ok, Wipe Out is horrible, but Dance Central is awesome. I find it amazingly accurate, especially for first Gen device.
You are so convinced of Kinect's uselessness that you won't even entertain the fact that Kinect 2 is drastically better. You need your "proof." Guess what, that's what any new device encounters before launch. No one knows exactly how well it works until they've actually tried it! But here you write it off like a gimmick.

When you were a virgin, did you have any proof that sex would be awesome? No, however there where plenty of people that told you it was awesome. But was there any proof? Did someone give you a document signed by everyone in the world that said sex is awesome?

 

[spaulagain]

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.



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.



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!"



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.

It's amazing how much sense you make and how well you explain it, and yet some people can't get over it still.

 

[Keith Wallace]

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?

That's part of what I have suggested. I would be willing to spend the extra $50 by buying them separately (which doing so with the initial Kinect release would have meant), if it meant I was able to wait for some decent evaluations of its capabilities. Of course, waiting to see if games used the tech well would also be something I'd watch for, but the simple fact that the first Kinect was an overrated mess, in my opinion, makes me leery on using the thing, or even buying it.

Again, if we knew that the Kinect worked well and had nearly-unanimous support from developers, this would be a different story. Instead, we are getting something whose predecessor was slow and inconsistent, and we're still seeing MANY major titles launch without Kinect functionality altogether. Heck, we're not even seeing many games touted as having meaningful features via the Kinect AT ALL in the launch window. Other than Kinect Sports: Rivals, which game(s) have shown us a strong commitment to the device? Which are from major third-party companies like Activision, EA, Ubisoft, or Epic? Are there any?

 

[camptime]

When you were a virgin, did you have any proof that sex would be awesome? No, however there where plenty of people that told you it was awesome. But was there any proof? Did someone give you a document signed by everyone in the world that said sex is awesome?

Thank you had me in stitches. ������
I am looking forward to seeing just how good K2 will be, I am sure my son will drag me into a game or 2 and expect a to have few sweaty afternoons of fun.

 

[spaulagain]

That's part of what I have suggested. I would be willing to spend the extra $50 by buying them separately (which doing so with the initial Kinect release would have meant), if it meant I was able to wait for some decent evaluations of its capabilities. Of course, waiting to see if games used the tech well would also be something I'd watch for, but the simple fact that the first Kinect was an overrated mess, in my opinion, makes me leery on using the thing, or even buying it.

Again, if we knew that the Kinect worked well and had nearly-unanimous support from developers, this would be a different story. Instead, we are getting something whose predecessor was slow and inconsistent, and we're still seeing MANY major titles launch without Kinect functionality altogether. Heck, we're not even seeing many games touted as having meaningful features via the Kinect AT ALL in the launch window. Other than Kinect Sports: Rivals, which game(s) have shown us a strong commitment to the device? Which are from major third-party companies like Activision, EA, Ubisoft, or Epic? Are there any?

The only way to get everyone on board over time is to package it. If you continue to have it as an accessory, full adoption will take much longer for reasons already noted above.

Especially with a device (Xbox) that only launches new every 5-8 years, it becomes much harder to accelerate new tech. And what about Skype or other new features? They can't push that as a great feature if they can't rely on a decent user base having the required devices.

If it bothers you soooo much, wait a couple months or buy a PS4. MS has decided to push technology forward even if that means alienating some stubborn traditionalist.

Personally I think when I factor in the ecosystem and the abilities of X1 regardless of Kinect, the X1 is worth the extra $100.

 

[Keith Wallace]

When you were a virgin, did you have any proof that sex would be awesome? No, however there where plenty of people that told you it was awesome. But was there any proof? Did someone give you a document signed by everyone in the world that said sex is awesome?

For the record, I've had you on Ignore for a while now, and don't read your messages. I just saw someone else quote this, and figured I'd respond, for your sake:

1. I don't draw facts from opinions. One person's opinion of sex is not necessarily my own. I don't hold it as a measuring tape of success. I also do not view it as a product to purchase (regardless of prostitution), and hearing someone tell me how it was would not convince me that it was what was claimed.
2. No, there is no proof that all sex is "awesome" (whatever that ACTUALLY means), or any of it. It's a case-by-case personal opinion. If someone tried to present the enjoyment of sex as a fact, and I was foolish enough to hold that opinion in high regard, I would ask for some level of assurance, yes.
3. If YOU choose to take some alleged know-it-all at his word and accept it as fact, that is your choice. This person has given me no reason to accept his theory as fact, plain and simple. The input lag and level of support of the Kinect are not subjective, they are objective facts. Unlike sex, where your results may vary by partner and personal interest in the matter, the Kinect's level of input lag (beyond slight production variances) will be a measurable fact based on testing. It can be measured and counted, while there is no universal level of sexual enjoyment.

Your analogy is poor, because you are trying to say that opinions are the same as facts, as Winning Guy was. This is why I refuse to discuss things with either of you anymore.

 

[Reflexx]

To note; I'm not saying opinions are facts. I know the difference very well.

My statements, which Keith obviously didn't bother reading, are about the business reasons that Kinect cannot be removed in a future bundle.

I made no assurances that it would be "awesome." I didn't say you'd like it. I said that it is an input method that is guaranteed as part of the minimum spec. And after those have been given to developers, and budgets planned, it won't be undone.

That's how business works.

As a consumer, you want an option without Kinect because you don't know if you'll like it. Fair enough to want that.

However, you should recognize tgat it can't be done on the XBOX ONE because of business reasons. The concept is very simple. Attempting to ignore those business reasons is perplexing. You can want want want. But if it makes no sense to actually do then what's the point?

 

[martinmc78]

Here's a theoretical scenario that no one has touched on yet which could well pave the way for a Kinect-less SKU

What happens if during the first 2 months after launch the data gathered by MS from the Kinect shows that 50% of owners turned it on for first use then disconnected it and never used it again. Maybe 50% is I bit much - lets call it 30%

Would it be more profitable for MS to release an SKU without Kinect to hit over a quarter of the market that aren't using the device? The developers push on with their games as if nothing has changed and assume that every xbox has a Kinect - the games are then released with a requires Kinect warning as games do now. Its then up to the consumer to make the decision to buy the game they want as well as a Kinect.

Nothing changes with game development and ultimately MS sell more consoles at a cheaper price along with making further money when that killer Kinect enabled IP comes along that makes the minority without Kinect go an buy one.

Either way its a win/win for MS

 

[Reflexx]

Here's a theoretical scenario that no one has touched on yet which could well pave the way for a Kinect-less SKU

What happens if during the first 2 months after launch the data gathered by MS from the Kinect shows that 50% of owners turned it on for first use then disconnected it and never used it again. Maybe 50% is I bit much - lets call it 30%

Would it be more profitable for MS to release an SKU without Kinect to hit over a quarter of the market that aren't using the device? The developers push on with their games as if nothing has changed and assume that every xbox has a Kinect - the games are then released with a requires Kinect warning as games do now. Its then up to the consumer to make the decision to buy the game they want as well as a Kinect.

Nothing changes with game development and ultimately MS sell more consoles at a cheaper price along with making further money when that killer Kinect enabled IP comes along that makes the minority without Kinect go an buy one.

Either way its a win/win for MS

It's a lose for developers who started making their games expecting every user to have Kinect.

No big budget (or even medium budget) title is going to deeply integrate Kinect without assurances that it will be owned by all XB1 users.

Look at it this way. What if there was an extra button put on the controller? Let's say one between the 4 colored ones. You make an FPS game that uses that button for using your night vision. You have a lot of levels that switch from light to dark areas.

So, for whatever reason, MS decides to start shipping controllers without that button. The mechanics of your game depend on that button being there. The development costs of your game require that you have the ability to market to ALL current XB1 owners without them having to go out and purchase an accessory to play your game. What is your relationship with MS after that? How about when the project is cancelled?

 

[martinmc78]

It's a lose for developers who started making their games expecting every user to have Kinect.

No big budget (or even medium budget) title is going to deeply integrate Kinect without assurances that it will be owned by all XB1 users.

Look at it this way. What if there was an extra button put on the controller? Let's say one between the 4 colored ones. You make an FPS game that uses that button for using your night vision. You have a lot of levels that switch from light to dark areas.

So, for whatever reason, MS decides to start shipping controllers without that button. The mechanics of your game depend on that button being there. The development costs of your game require that you have the ability to market to ALL current XB1 owners without them having to go out and purchase an accessory to play your game. What is your relationship with MS after that? How about when the project is cancelled?

That's the same argument you have been making to Keith. And you ignored the point I made about devs continuing as if everyone had a Kinect. You are also making the assumption that the game being made by the devs with Kinect controls will be sold to 100% of xbox one owners which is never the case anyway Whats the marketing % aim for game ownership 70%? 80%? Publishing houses never expect 100% sales.

Look at it this way MS realise 2 months down the line that not everyone is using Kinect so release a Kinect-less console. People buy it in the hundreds of thousands. The next iteration of Halo which has been in development for a while already comes with a Requires Kinect warning. Not everyone with an xbox one will buy halo but there will be a large % of those Kinect-less users that would go and buy a Kinect just to play on Halo.

Its just the same as selling a game with a specialised peripheral controller. If you look back at sales of something like steel battalion on the original xbox - that thing sold like hotcakes and it was ?140 with a 100 button specialised controller. People without the Kinect would get one if there favourite IP mandated its use.

 

[Reflexx]

That's the same argument you have been making to Keith. And you ignored the point I made about devs continuing as if everyone had a Kinect. You are also making the assumption that the game being made by the devs with Kinect controls will be sold to 100% of xbox one owners which is never the case anyway Whats the marketing % aim for game ownership 70%? 80%? Publishing houses never expect 100% sales.

I didn't ignore anything. But I'm not sure you understand how a business sells product.

Of course it won't be sold to 100% of owners. But the developer wants to know that as many people as possible might buy his game. He wants as large a pool as possible of potential customers.

Look at it this way MS realise 2 months down the line that not everyone is using Kinect so release a Kinect-less console. People buy it in the hundreds of thousands. The next iteration of Halo which has been in development for a while already comes with a Requires Kinect warning. Not everyone with an xbox one will buy halo but there will be a large % of those Kinect-less users that would go and buy a Kinect just to play on Halo.

But not every game has Halo's reputation. Halo is so exceptional that people will buy systems just to play it.

Most games aren't like that. They have to compete in the existing market.

GameX will cost $60. That's already a lot of money. The developer of GameX knows that it's going to be easier to sell more units at $60 each than at $210 because a consumer would have to buy an additional accessory.

Wouldn't you agree?

Its just the same as selling a game with a specialised peripheral controller. If you look back at sales of something like steel battalion on the original xbox - that thing sold like hotcakes and it was ?140 with a 100 button specialised controller. People without the Kinect would get one if there favourite IP mandated its use.

No. It didn't sell like hotcakes. It sold in very limited quantities. And the developer was the one who made the actual controller, and was able to make up some of their cost by pricing the controller itself high.

If you spend $15 million making a game, dont you think that you want the WIDEST market possible to be able to buy your game at $60?

 

[martinmc78]

Fair points all - I was just putting forward a theoretical situation.

Even MS doesn't know how widely accepted the Kinect will be - it will bomb for a % of consumers - whether that % is enough to sway MS to change stance is unknown.

They are ruling out a Kinect-less SKU now but things can change.

Personally I can't wait for it. Its possibilities astound me.

 

[MobileVortex]

Obviously Microsoft is going to say that a kinect-less SKU is not on the horizon because they want people to buy the console now. If they even said "were thinking about it" there would be a group of people who will wait for more details. Will there ever be a kinect-less SKU? I suspect yes, but not within the first year or year and a half of the console being out. I wouldnt be surprised if they even had a number on it. Were not going to release a kinect-less SKU until we have at least 2 million x1's out there.

 

[spaulagain]

For the record, I've had you on Ignore for a while now, and don't read your messages. I just saw someone else quote this, and figured I'd respond, for your sake:

1. I don't draw facts from opinions. One person's opinion of sex is not necessarily my own. I don't hold it as a measuring tape of success. I also do not view it as a product to purchase (regardless of prostitution), and hearing someone tell me how it was would not convince me that it was what was claimed.
2. No, there is no proof that all sex is "awesome" (whatever that ACTUALLY means), or any of it. It's a case-by-case personal opinion. If someone tried to present the enjoyment of sex as a fact, and I was foolish enough to hold that opinion in high regard, I would ask for some level of assurance, yes.
3. If YOU choose to take some alleged know-it-all at his word and accept it as fact, that is your choice. This person has given me no reason to accept his theory as fact, plain and simple. The input lag and level of support of the Kinect are not subjective, they are objective facts. Unlike sex, where your results may vary by partner and personal interest in the matter, the Kinect's level of input lag (beyond slight production variances) will be a measurable fact based on testing. It can be measured and counted, while there is no universal level of sexual enjoyment.

Your analogy is poor, because you are trying to say that opinions are the same as facts, as Winning Guy was. This is why I refuse to discuss things with either of you anymore.

Lol, I know you have me on ignore because you sent me that silly little message a while back which was cute.
That analogy was a joke, but obviously you lack the common sense to even recognize that. What Winning Guy is saying is not an opinion, it's common sense. Anybody with just a basic understanding of businesses and/or gaming can recognize the points he's describing.

But its not like you are going to see this post anyways. Since my posts are so bothersome to you, you had to block them.