Microsoft WILL sell Xbones without Kinect eventually

#101dnmtPosted 11/19/2013 8:33:33 AM
SteelTooth posted...
SparkItUp posted...
you can already see the lack of support by the developers for the Kinect...as you said, it's pretty much inevitable for a Kinectless model eventually


Hm, yes, I too can tell no one wants to utilize a much improved tool that hasn't been released quite yet. :P

Quite the contrary, Kinect is as much of a part of the X1 as a mouse is for a PC. Do you need it - no, you can unplug it at any time; but does it make the experience a helluva lot better? Yep!


1. Crytek tried really hard to use the Kinect with Ryse but ended up scrapping it completely. A seasoned developer like Crytek at the forefront of technology couldn't do the Kinect justice.

2. Comparing a PC mouse to Kinect is insane.
#102ILikesCheesePosted 11/19/2013 8:41:55 AM
bob15x posted...
sony will sell camera in box within 6 months i bet.

Just like they did with the PS2 and PS3, right?

Oh wait....

:D
---
Beware Microsoft's Annoying Defense Force And Nonsensical Brigade Of Yappy Salespeople!
#103ILikesCheesePosted 11/19/2013 8:45:26 AM
Microsoft will without a doubt either offer a Kinect-Free Xbox One or mark the price of the console down to $400 within a year.

HOWEVER, those (especially some on this board) who are buying Xbox One's before that happens don't want to hear that. It makes them look foolish, see? And makes them get irritable. Also, MS doesn't want to dissuade anyone from buying their $500 model anytime soon either.
---
Beware Microsoft's Annoying Defense Force And Nonsensical Brigade Of Yappy Salespeople!
#104ZheakkPosted 11/19/2013 8:45:53 AM
Sheepinator posted...

You know what the Kinect1 retailed for. It defies logic to extrapolate that number to zero for Kinect2. It also defies logic to compare an internal component of a console to a peripheral which the console can work perfectly fine without. It's far easier to cost reduce the latter for consumers by simply not including it.

Lots of people buy additional or replacement controllers. Of course the relative price is relevant. If one console sold second controllers for $1,000 and the other for $50, you don't think that would impact peoples choices of which console to buy?

As for PS3's launch price, I recall tons of complaints about the high price. It was probably a big factor in MS becoming #1 in the first few years of the 360/PS3 cycle.


I feel like this has gotten off of the point I was trying to make.

It is true the the Kinect costs money, it certainly costs money for MS to produce it, and for a consumer, it is included in something they are purchasing. I simply think it is strange that people would separate it from the console. And, if you recall, it was initially supposed to be a necessary component of the console. This probably failed partly because, as you said, it was first sold as a peripheral; and the way they set up the console (with the Kinect external to the rest), it seemed like it should be removable. Had there simply been a camera and microphone built into the console, you wouldn't see this separation of the two as distinct price points (although this would obviously not do anything for the privacy concerns).

Using an earlier example, if the same thing was done with the PS4 controller, you would see the same result. If the touch-pad could be removed, but was packaged with all controllers, with no "padless" option, even if the controller still cost the same as the competition, you would see complaints. The same goes for the XB1 and Kinect, if the bundle was $400 the issue wouldn't disappear either.
#105TheMuffinPosted 11/19/2013 8:52:25 AM
I'm honestly just waiting for this announcement to be made in the future. I want my Halo, but not at $500 with a block I'll end up putting at the back of my closet.
---
SnowFox7 ~I heard him use the term 'tarantula downpour', which would actually have been significantly worse than the rain we had that day.
#106SheepinatorPosted 11/19/2013 9:16:00 AM
Zheakk posted...
I feel like this has gotten off of the point I was trying to make.

It is true the the Kinect costs money, it certainly costs money for MS to produce it, and for a consumer, it is included in something they are purchasing. I simply think it is strange that people would separate it from the console. And, if you recall, it was initially supposed to be a necessary component of the console. This probably failed partly because, as you said, it was first sold as a peripheral; and the way they set up the console (with the Kinect external to the rest), it seemed like it should be removable. Had there simply been a camera and microphone built into the console, you wouldn't see this separation of the two as distinct price points (although this would obviously not do anything for the privacy concerns).

Using an earlier example, if the same thing was done with the PS4 controller, you would see the same result. If the touch-pad could be removed, but was packaged with all controllers, with no "padless" option, even if the controller still cost the same as the competition, you would see complaints. The same goes for the XB1 and Kinect, if the bundle was $400 the issue wouldn't disappear either.

I guess I see what you mean, but the reality is people do see the Kinect and console as separate items due to Kinect1 on 360 and because it's a physically separate item separated by a cable you choose to plug in. So it doesn't seem realistic to pretend it's equivalent to something that feels more integrated, whether that be higher spec RAM, more CPU cores, whatever. AFAIK you can't easily remove the PS4 controller touchpad yourself, but since the PS4 controller costs the same as the XB1 controller, no big deal. If it were $10 or $20 more expensive, people might well say, "Hey I don't want that stupid touchpad, and based on controller pricing between MS and Sony in previous cycles it sure looks like I'm being charged extra for it!" When it costs the same, you figure Sony must be eating the cost, so whatever.

If PS4 and XB1 were the same price this would be less of an issue. Sony changed everything when they announced that price. If both consoles cost the same people would be more likely to treat Kinect as a "free" positive, instead of feeling like they're being forced to buy a bundle at inflated (relative to PS4) price, the same way 360 bundles with Kinect cost more than 360 without (obviously).
---
My mad face and my happy face are the same.
#107TheGam3925(Topic Creator)Posted 11/19/2013 9:06:10 PM
dnmt posted...
SteelTooth posted...
SparkItUp posted...
you can already see the lack of support by the developers for the Kinect...as you said, it's pretty much inevitable for a Kinectless model eventually


Hm, yes, I too can tell no one wants to utilize a much improved tool that hasn't been released quite yet. :P

Quite the contrary, Kinect is as much of a part of the X1 as a mouse is for a PC. Do you need it - no, you can unplug it at any time; but does it make the experience a helluva lot better? Yep!


1. Crytek tried really hard to use the Kinect with Ryse but ended up scrapping it completely. A seasoned developer like Crytek at the forefront of technology couldn't do the Kinect justice.

2. Comparing a PC mouse to Kinect is insane.


This. It's like saying the Xbone interface is terrible to navigate with the Xbone controller. It worked with the 360 but it's somehow impossible now on Xbone. Good job MS.
---
360 - The Game 925
PSN - TheGame925
#108PraetorXynPosted 11/19/2013 9:22:04 PM
ExempliGratia posted...
TheGam3925 posted...
Kinect is not required for the console to function.

Xbone with Kinect only and no controller = Terrible experience
Xbone with a controller minus Kinect = Much better experience


That's you're opinion though. Microsoft believes with Kinect you will get a better experience. Kinect will not be removed from the console.


They believed that the DRM was part of the console, and that it wasn't a switch you could just turn off, too.

When the preoders spoke, they listened. IF the One is getting creamed in sales by around March, Microsoft will fold like a cheap suit.
---
Console war in a nutshell:
http://imgur.com/xA6GJZ9
#109PraetorXynPosted 11/19/2013 9:22:50 PM
0TiamaT0 posted...
The Kinect is just a way for Microsoft to attract the casual/doucebag hipster market. Which is great and all, except in doing so, they alienated all of the people that put them where they are in the gaming market.

Halo put them where they are, otherwise the original Xbox would have been DOA. It wasn't some half-assed motion control game who's idea they ripped off from Nintendo.

Watching Nintendo force motion controls on all it's Wii games is why I don't have any interest in a One. I had zero interest in a PS4 - but now it's really the only option for people who want a normal gaming experience. What a waste...


No it isn't. The other option doesn't require you to pay for your internet twice either.
---
Console war in a nutshell:
http://imgur.com/xA6GJZ9
#110SabramPosted 11/19/2013 9:29:52 PM
ExempliGratia posted...
TheGam3925 posted...
Kinect is not required for the console to function.

Xbone with Kinect only and no controller = Terrible experience
Xbone with a controller minus Kinect = Much better experience


That's you're opinion though. Microsoft believes with Kinect you will get a better experience. Kinect will not be removed from the console.


Exactly, Microsoft executives think they know what gamers want, without having been gamers, or having ever talked to a gamer. They have PR guys do that, like Larry Hyrb, who they then choose to ignore.

Clearly MS is going to be the best company for gamers.
---
Official Switch Lightsword & Bowshieldgun of the MH3U Board.
Gamertag: Sabram PSN: Sabram