Someone help me understand Microsoft's logic

#1HiddenRoarPosted 9/12/2013 10:12:09 PM
>No plans on selling a Kinect-less model because if every Xbox One owner has one, developers can innovate games
>Kinect is optional

So why would developers spend more money to develop something for an accessory that most gamers are keeping in the box/tossing in the closet?



Then you have them backpedaling on always online which leaves the Cloud in the same position as the Kinect.
#2adonfrazPosted 9/12/2013 10:28:48 PM
Microsoft invested 100 million in the X1 controller. Can you imagine how much R&D costs they spent on the Kinect 2.0?

They're basically forcing people to buy it to make up for the cost of designing it.
---
XBL GT: Loyal Catalyst
PSN ID: Loyal_Catalyst 3DS FC: (Loyal) 0533-4535-6191
#3pblimp360Posted 9/12/2013 10:29:36 PM
Question: How do you know how many will be using the Kinect versus those that wont?

I'd say with it coming inside the box it gives customers more incentive to at least use what they paid for, but I realize some wont.

All MS can do is try to push this hardware they've invested in as best they can, and try to get developers more invested in creating games people want to play, and honestly, if you can get over the illogical hate the thing get's, it's incredibly innovative. It's just not overly appealing to the "hardcore" crowd.

The first one sold relatively well, so it would make sense that they'd try to make another one for the masses.

I never got a chance to get the first one, but I know my family will love this thing, and the ability to use voice command, gestures in navigating, playback and many other things like Skype and such interests me.

I just think MS needs to do a much better job of incorporating great uses for the thing in gaming, because I can't fully fault people who have no interest in waving their hands around or talking to the thing.

My first thought, which Project Spark makes certain uses for is in face and body capture. If games were made with the ability to allow us to facial map our own faces (or photos of people) onto created characters in games that would be spectacular to me.
---
Death isn't the exit of existence. It's the entrance into eternity. R.I.P Zora Nelson 3/6/13 Forever loved
#4THE_PS1_PATRIOTPosted 9/12/2013 10:30:29 PM
I don't think there is any logic in forcing you to buy something that you don't even need.

No longer needed to use Xbone yet you gotta buy it anyway.
---
PLAYSTATION PATRIOT
#5A_Someone_ElsePosted 9/12/2013 11:47:22 PM(edited)
I don't think Kinect is there to please customers.

I also believe they will NEVER release a bundle without Kinect.

I believe Kinect's advertising capabilities are the core of the X1.


As aggressively as they're fighting to persuade haters, I think they obviously know that a majority don't like or want Kinect. I think they're slimily pushing it on customers anyway because it earns huge ad revenue. Ads are a huge income source for the Xbox brand.

It's basically an advertising tool that can watch your reaction to ads, and bombard you with the type of ads your body responds to. They have patented technology for it to watch your eye movements and heart rate during ads, and even reward you if you watch enough ads. These kinds of technologies are used in "Targeted Advertisements".

As a standard business practice, they can also sell this biometric data to advertisers if the EULA allows it. It just does gimmicky "voice/motion controls" as a distraction to get into homes, and a big portion of gamers apparently don't even find those fun. When you're not flailing around in front of a game, it can watch you and collect advertisement-related data to earn them big cash. A spot on Xbox Live advertising is also apparently incredibly expensive. I imagine advertisers will pay even more for targeted ads. Gamers must be quite a captive audience, with all that time (and deep absorption) in front of the screen.

An "always on" console would have connected ALL users to their ad service, which I think was the REAL reason for the initial stubborn policies. Now, you can unplug the Kinect, and you can probably opt out of the info-sharing, but they still force PURCHASE of Kinect. I think that's CRUCIAL, and suggests targeted advertising is the heart of the console. Lots of gamers probably won't even be aware of these advertisement tools, let alone bother to find the data-sharing and opt out. Once you buy something, you likely want to use EVERY part to "get your money's worth". Therefore, the design encourages ignorant casuals to unknowingly pose for advertisement data.

Because of these things, I don't think they'll ever make an X1 bundle without Kinect. I think the targeted advertising IS the console. I think the way Xbox ads have grown more aggressive over time is a solid indication of this. I think this is just a new level of audacity in exploiting advertisements. (and charging YOU for the ad equipment, so they don't even have to subsidize it.)

It has already been shown that a large part of Xbox revenue is built around ads and Live, both of which the Xbox brand introduced to gaming. It's also obvious that they've aggressively and steadily expanded advertisement over time, as if it were always more about a persuasive advertisement machine than a console.

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/xbox-one-designed-with-advertising-in-mind.html/?a=viewall

http://www.neowin.net/news/microsofts-xbox-nuads-engage-a-lot-of-people

http://zeenews.india.com/news/science/xbox-one-to-have-eye-tracking-tech-to-check-if-users-watch-ads_853932.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/30/xbox-one-watching-ads-microsoft

http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/ads-up-games-down-the-ugly-profitable-truth-about-xbox-live-advertising
#6pblimp360Posted 9/12/2013 11:00:03 PM
^ Man...You are gonna fuel those conspiracy theorists topics again.
---
Death isn't the exit of existence. It's the entrance into eternity. R.I.P Zora Nelson 3/6/13 Forever loved
#7Spetsnaz420Posted 9/12/2013 11:10:26 PM
pblimp360 posted...
^ Man...You are gonna fuel those conspiracy theorists topics again.


Its no different than you painting the "MS has to include kinect to be innovative" argument. If this is a great product that innovates gaming people should want to buy it...not be forced to buy it. MS is basically telling us that they know better than us.
---
I don't conform to social convention
#8HaloDad020508Posted 9/12/2013 11:19:23 PM
The way I look at it is, if you dont wanna use your kinect dont. I dont plan on using it but if my kids wanna use it I will let them. The bottom line is as good as the PS4 looks the X1 will still have better games like Titanfall. Im fine with the price tag who knows maybe kinect might be better over time.
---
Playing Diablo 3, Darksiders 2, Black Ops 2.
#9ManInGorillaSutPosted 9/12/2013 11:22:55 PM
HiddenRoar posted...
>No plans on selling a Kinect-less model because if every Xbox One owner has one, developers can innovate games
>Kinect is optional

So why would developers spend more money to develop something for an accessory that most gamers are keeping in the box/tossing in the closet?



Then you have them backpedaling on always online which leaves the Cloud in the same position as the Kinect.


The rumor is they spent so much R&D on Kinect 2.0 that it costs as much to make as the console itself. So basically they're trying to recoup that.
---
Give me Banana!
PSN ID; EL_BOMBASTICO
#10pblimp360Posted 9/12/2013 11:29:49 PM(edited)
Spetsnaz420 posted...
Its no different than you painting the "MS has to include kinect to be innovative" argument. If this is a great product that innovates gaming people should want to buy it...not be forced to buy it. MS is basically telling us that they know better than us.


Well no, it's actually no where near what I said. I said the device was innovative not that they have to include it to be innovative.

But MS needs to better create for it and push developers to use it more effectively to give customers incentive.
---
Death isn't the exit of existence. It's the entrance into eternity. R.I.P Zora Nelson 3/6/13 Forever loved