Why do people not want to use Kinect 2.0 when it comes with the system?
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
muffinmasher posted...I think the Kinect is neat.
I've never understood this argument. Presuming I have a smart phone and a webcam (neither of which I actually own), why would I want to INCREASE the amount of potential surveillance? Just because I might use some devices that have that capacity doesn't mean I would want to be inundated by it.
It's like opening my windows when it's temperate out to get air flowing into the house. Just because someone hasn't broken into my house so far (using that vulnerability) doesn't mean I should open the front door as well and increase my chances of it happening.
That said, Kinect is no longer mandatory, so it's a moot point. It's only as "invasive" as you want it to be. As long as it's back in the consumer's hands, I couldn't care less.
I must have looked a fool playing with a backwards DS, teary eyed solving a Sudoku puzzle -Lordx718
don't see a issue at all i bet most the people here including me paid 650 after taxes for ps3 on launch so why complain about a 500 dollar console
Conceptually I dislike the idea of Kinect, Move, Wii, and any kind of overly extreme movement controllers. Controllers should focus more on trying to limit the need of movement, not increasing it.
On top of that with the inclusion of an actual controller I can't find practical usages of the Kinect, it will always be second fiddle to a dedicated controller.
If Kinect was the only controller I would have more faith in its ability to be used for new and innovative reasons but in its current state even while being bundled with the console I don't see much range for improvement.
So yeah it'll be cool once or twice to get to yell at my units to move there over there, but as far as voice controls go actually interpreting the wide variety of commands I could give and actually having practical and super responsive motion controls is unlikely.
In fact every cool idea I have for the Kinect has nothing to do with the motion controls.
Like imagine a horror game that changes the location of environment pieces when you look of screen, or changes the intensity of the game based off your heart beat. I think that's a cool idea but it doesn't involve kinect for actual motion.
It is admittedly an impressive piece of technology.
I want nothing to do with it because I have no interest in any of its features and I will not use it for gameplay. Controllers are just fine and I don't need to talk to my game console.
Minecraft is a game that you can really dig into.
GTA IV: Sidewalk Driving | RDR: Cougars & Dynamite | GTA V: Jet Fighter Deer Hunting
I'll use it but not for games. So it's basically useless to me, but since it's coming with every One may as well use it for something.
Because it's F****** useless to most hardcore gamers. Microsoft is just making us pay an extra hundred for the d*** thing, that we will never touch.
People don't realize the $100 extra is for something you'll be using for the next 7-10 years.
I'd rather pay $100 more to be able to navigate the menus using motion and voice control. Using apps like Skype to video chat to friends during a game. And all the other crazy stuff Kinect 2.0 is capable of doing. It's worth it down the line. Everyone should give Kinect 2.0 a chance.
Reflex-Arc posted...My Xbox One will reside at my computer desk. There is nowhere for me to put Kinect and no room to use it if I did. It will remain in the box.
Excuse me? I have no particular preference of console manufacturer. I intend on owning all three this generation just as I have in the past. Your insinuation that my opinion on the matter is due to corporate fandom is not only baseless, but also just ridiculous.
I agree that there is nothing surprising in the features of Kinect 2. It's simply more of the same inane things its predecessor offered, albeit more refined, if the tech demo videos are to be believed. I love how you went on to read into my post as a I was glamorizing the peripheral in some way.
I also realize that Kinect doesn't need a large footprint for voice and face recognition. However, I have no use for these features. Beyond that, when I say I have no space at my desk for Kinect, I really mean just that. There is no reason to go through the hassle of creating space to fit a gadget I have no interest in.
...but thanks for your reply, even if it was dumb overall.
Case | Mother Board | CPU (OC'd!) | Video Card x 2 | RAM | PSU | SSD | HDD | Some Fans | Monitor | Mouse | Keyboard
Good motion controls are as worthless as bad motion controls if you don't like motion controls.
THIS THIS THIS!!!
My Chicken says, "Cluck!"
DesperateMonkey posted...Reflex-Arc posted...My Xbox One will reside at my computer desk. There is nowhere for me to put Kinect and no room to use it if I did. It will remain in the box.
GT: ZiiX360 PSN: BoxFighter85
PC: i7 930@4Ghz | EX58 UD5 | GTX 460 SLI | 8GB DDR3 | 500GB Spinpoint | Vertex 2 180 SSD | Cooler Master HAF X | VG236H
SoulClank posted...Because it's F****** useless to most hardcore gamers. Microsoft is just making us pay an extra hundred for the d*** thing, that we will never touch.
Thats great and all that you want to use it for those but some of us don't want to use it to navigate menus, some don't care about skype and as you put it the other crazy stuff.
I would give it a chance if i had an option to give it a chance when i want to, however MS wants to force it on me so im not going to buy the system at all. Piss of MS!
Juan is........NUMBER 1!
Add user to Ignore List after reporting