Kinect not required

#1ksir1Posted 10/9/2013 4:27:22 PM
First things first I am not trying to troll, just trying to get some opinions.

Now then, as everyone should know by now the xbox one does not require kinect to be plugged in anymore. But I dont understand 2 things.

First, why should people be required to pay for something that is optional? Wouldnt it be much better to have the kinect as an optional add-on instead of being packaged in with every xbox one console?

Secondly, now that kinect isnt mandatory, what incentive does this give developers to produce games for the kinect or to integrate kinect into the AAA titles. I assumed the whole reason that kinect was made mandatory was to try to get more developer support for motion controls but now why ahould a developer make games for it?

Thats just my 2 cents on this after seeing the gamestop ad.
#2dolablaPosted 10/9/2013 4:28:37 PM
So it shouldn't be hard for them to sell a kinectless sku? What's the hold up?
#3redorblue88Posted 10/9/2013 4:31:28 PM
Because they know that every xbox one owner also owns a Kinnect. Devs aren't going to not implement a Kinnect feature just in case some players are too lazy to plug in their Kinnect. You kind of answered your own question.

But I do agree that it shouldn't have been mandatory. And further more I would prefer it if they had scraped Kinnect all together.
#4Decimator11Posted 10/9/2013 4:32:33 PM
Because the Kinect still comes with every Xbox One, thus there is a much larger install base for it. If anyone throws it away or sells it, that's their own fault.

And because it comes with every Xbox One, that means that Kinect features can be extended to the entire userbase rather than just a small section of it.
---
http://i.imgur.com/qwW6T.jpg
#5Dannyson97Posted 10/9/2013 4:43:40 PM
They have all the Kinects already built, but they know no one will buy them, so to make the money they spent on it they have to pack it in.
---
I'm pro Nintendo, my friend is pro Sony,
my other friend is pro Microsoft.
#6unclekoolaid73Posted 10/9/2013 4:47:12 PM
MS is hoping people will still hook it up so they an watch them eat Doritos and drink Mountain Dew in their Underoos.
#7gobuffalo30Posted 10/9/2013 4:48:53 PM
MS wants to keep the kinect is because it's part of their advertising campaign. Otherwise, it's a hard selling point for businesses to give MS money without it.
#8regsantotomasPosted 10/9/2013 4:50:30 PM
While the Kinect is no longer required for basic functionality, it is still integral to the overall solution. If the Kinect was optional, I would really have very little interest in the Xbox One.

I think that people on these forums forget that the Kinect integration goes beyond gaming purposes. While that may be unappealing to those only looking for a gaming console, that is the reality. Without this device, Microsoft would be unable to cast such a wide net with an all-in-one solution.

With regards to developers supporting Kinect functionality, a standardized device is more likely to get support for things like facial recognition, audio queues, and gestures where they make sense.

And that is only for games. I think that there potentially equal or greater opportunities for media entertainment and social networking functionality.
---
the bitter truth is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. ~ Anton Ego
#9_Elite_Bushido_Posted 10/9/2013 4:53:38 PM
regsantotomas posted...
While the Kinect is no longer required for basic functionality, it is still integral to the overall solution. If the Kinect was optional, I would really have very little interest in the Xbox One.

I think that people on these forums forget that the Kinect integration goes beyond gaming purposes. While that may be unappealing to those only looking for a gaming console, that is the reality. Without this device, Microsoft would be unable to cast such a wide net with an all-in-one solution.

With regards to developers supporting Kinect functionality, a standardized device is more likely to get support for things like facial recognition, audio queues, and gestures where they make sense.

And that is only for games. I think that there potentially equal or greater opportunities for media entertainment and social networking functionality.


nah its just because the X1 has been in production and they didnt plan on having the kinect not coming with it. they would have to start up a whole new production line and design a new box and blah blah. Theres levels to this **** man
---
$ony Ponie$ and trolls- http://tinyurl.com/lalpn7d
#10BudWisenheimerPosted 10/9/2013 5:09:00 PM
ksir1 posted...
First things first I am not trying to troll, just trying to get some opinions.

Now then, as everyone should know by now the xbox one does not require kinect to be plugged in anymore. But I dont understand 2 things.

First, why should people be required to pay for something that is optional? Wouldnt it be much better to have the kinect as an optional add-on instead of being packaged in with every xbox one console?

Secondly, now that kinect isnt mandatory, what incentive does this give developers to produce games for the kinect or to integrate kinect into the AAA titles. I assumed the whole reason that kinect was made mandatory was to try to get more developer support for motion controls but now why ahould a developer make games for it?

Thats just my 2 cents on this after seeing the gamestop ad.


Not trying to troll you either. Just trying to give my response:

First: It seems clear to me that this is a "KinectBox" through and through. And the only reason they've allowed disconnecting the Kinect is in case you break it or are paranoid about being watched. And that was only after MS was being asked over and over about breaking it and being watched.

Secondly: There is much greater incentive for developers to use a feature that has a 100% attach rate (even if it's not physically attached) than a separately purchased peripheral that doesn't. Simple as that.