The challenge for kinect.

#11MrSpaM111Posted 10/24/2013 8:57:44 AM
The moment MS release a Kinectless XBO bundle, the Kinect 2.0 is finished. They know this, and is the exact reason they are insisting on bundling it with the console. The moment people have the option of not having to buy it with the console, it'll lose developer support, and become a ornament nobody uses just like the last one.
---
"Exactly correct TC..."
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/691088-xbox-one/66274628
#12regsantotomasPosted 10/24/2013 9:34:16 AM
Props for a good discussion so far.

First of all, Kinect has to deliver the functionality this time around along with convenience. On paper, it seems like Microsoft recognized its initial shortcomings: room size limitations, recognition in various lighting conditions, accuracy, etc...

Whether it actually addresses these issues in practical terms remains to be seen. I don't think a handful of initial games are going to be indicative of that either way.

Kinect is important to the whole ecosystem because of what the Xbox One wants to be. It wants to be the smartphone for your living room and Kinect is an integral part of that puzzle. Standardizing video chat, search using voice commands, IPTV solutions, etc are a step in that direction.

Kinect is viewed as an unnecessary peripheral for Xbox One for those only seeking a gaming console. Completely understandable.

However, it is important to realize that this product is not just catered to the traditional core gamer as we have always understood it. Clearly, there are alternative products for those that find that concept unappealing.

I think that a healthy dose of skepticism is called for but I am also excited about the prospects of what the Xbox One as a whole (including Kinect) is attempting. Could it fall flat on its face? Sure.

All I know is that my family and more than a few friends are excited to at least give it a try.
---
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
#13Cowboy082288(Topic Creator)Posted 10/24/2013 1:03:28 PM
regsantotomas posted...
Props for a good discussion so far.

First of all, Kinect has to deliver the functionality this time around along with convenience. On paper, it seems like Microsoft recognized its initial shortcomings: room size limitations, recognition in various lighting conditions, accuracy, etc...

Whether it actually addresses these issues in practical terms remains to be seen. I don't think a handful of initial games are going to be indicative of that either way.

Kinect is important to the whole ecosystem because of what the Xbox One wants to be. It wants to be the smartphone for your living room and Kinect is an integral part of that puzzle. Standardizing video chat, search using voice commands, IPTV solutions, etc are a step in that direction.

Kinect is viewed as an unnecessary peripheral for Xbox One for those only seeking a gaming console. Completely understandable.

However, it is important to realize that this product is not just catered to the traditional core gamer as we have always understood it. Clearly, there are alternative products for those that find that concept unappealing.

I think that a healthy dose of skepticism is called for but I am also excited about the prospects of what the Xbox One as a whole (including Kinect) is attempting. Could it fall flat on its face? Sure.

All I know is that my family and more than a few friends are excited to at least give it a try.


I think there is a lot of truth to that. Though I also think sony is getting a bit undersold on this. I don't think sony sees their PS4 as a 'hardcore' only gaming system. PS1 was also a cd player, ps2 cd/dvd player, PS3 had a web browser on it and latter supported various apps. Both these companies I believe want their consoles to be the all in one entertainment device in the living room. Their growing support of indie devs shows that they want to support everything from the most casual of games to the most hardcore stuff like the Elder Scrolls online game.

Nintendo though seems to be on a much different route. I'm really baffled by it. Seems like they made the Wii U just for people that really want to play the next zelda, mario, smash bro game.

Anyways, I think MS really needs to nail down this whole intuitive easy to use promise they made for the kinect 2.0. I never used the first kinect but I did use a PS eye for the PS3.... and that thing sucked. The motion control was anything but simple and intuitive. It was more like clumsy and frustrating.

Steve Jobs once said: "Yeah sure your phones are computers now, computers are showing up in many different form factors but who cares? People don't care whats inside it, people care about what it does for them, and how good it is at doing those things."

So I would say to MS "Yeah that camera seems like it's got some nice tech inside it.... but who cares. If it can't deliver on the intuitive interface promise, then it's just an expensive paper weight."
---
PSN/XBL/Steam - cowboyoni
#14regsantotomasPosted 10/24/2013 1:20:20 PM
Cowboy082288 posted...


I think there is a lot of truth to that. Though I also think sony is getting a bit undersold on this. I don't think sony sees their PS4 as a 'hardcore' only gaming system. PS1 was also a cd player, ps2 cd/dvd player, PS3 had a web browser on it and latter supported various apps. Both these companies I believe want their consoles to be the all in one entertainment device in the living room. Their growing support of indie devs shows that they want to support everything from the most casual of games to the most hardcore stuff like the Elder Scrolls online game.

Nintendo though seems to be on a much different route. I'm really baffled by it. Seems like they made the Wii U just for people that really want to play the next zelda, mario, smash bro game.

Anyways, I think MS really needs to nail down this whole intuitive easy to use promise they made for the kinect 2.0. I never used the first kinect but I did use a PS eye for the PS3.... and that thing sucked. The motion control was anything but simple and intuitive. It was more like clumsy and frustrating.

Steve Jobs once said: "Yeah sure your phones are computers now, computers are showing up in many different form factors but who cares? People don't care whats inside it, people care about what it does for them, and how good it is at doing those things."

So I would say to MS "Yeah that camera seems like it's got some nice tech inside it.... but who cares. If it can't deliver on the intuitive interface promise, then it's just an expensive paper weight."


Don't get me wrong, I think PS4 and to a lesser extent, even the Wii U offers solutions that could matter outside of the usual gaming scope. Where I think a lot of Japanese hardware manufacturers struggle IMO is with the user experience in the platforms they create that usually fall short relatively speaking to the quality of their hardware.

It is evident that Sony is banking on PS4 leaning far more heavily on the core gaming market. And that may not be the wrong strategy.

I agree that Kinect 1.0, while independently a very interesting technology, was shoehorned into the Xbox 360 at the end of its life cycle hindered by technological limitations.

Whether Kinect 2.0 will overcome these and will truly have an integrated experience remains to be seen.

At the end of the day, I think customer want solutions and experiences that delight them. I agree with you that it's far less about the technology for them than what they get out of it. Casting a wider net as Microsoft is doing is a calculated risk; we shall see in the years to come if it pays off.
---
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