If I were Microsoft...

[zupallinere]

What kind of game would that be though? Assume, for the sake of argument, that the Kinect 2 works nearly flawlessly within its proven abilities. Heck, I'm not even sure where the limitations are, but assume something near the top of what you have seen so far in tech demos. I am fairly stumped for gestures that I would even find useful in an augmentation fashion much less a game built around a gesture interface. Maybe a virtual touchscreen? Wouldn't voice be faster and likely more reliable? I have yet to even read about a compelling use of the camera system for a game.

One of the biggest issues for the kinect is world traversal. Without a controller or a specific gesture that doesn't tire someone out moving through a world will almost always mean on rails. Movements with a controller only need a controller that senses motion.

My first thoughts on the subject was of course Force powers in Star Wars but then unless it's on rails .... then I thought of a Wizard/Shaman sim where you speak incantations and gesture in specific ways in synchrony ( ps camera could do it as well). Add the pulse monitoring ( to mimic the magical trance ) and you would have quite a deep sim that can't be done anywhere else. Again you would be on rails or just find a neutral hand or head position to dictate direction.

Besides dance and exercise I don't know what the kinect could do specific to it at this point.

 

[zed]

You have people on this board with hands-on, daily experience saying otherwise. That's leads to a small set of interpretations and assumptions:

Thats true if it was correct but its not, there are people on these forums who say getting kinect voice to recoginze them is hit & miss.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

What kind of game would that be though?

I don't know but I sure hope Microsoft built the Kinect around at least some identified gaming control schemes rather than blindly hoping somebody will find a way to use it in a game - which is kind of how I imaged Sony conceived the SixAxis gyro controls.

 

[zupallinere]

But everything I described above can be made available as accessories, even the software. My swag is that for around a grand, a moderate sized house could be outfitted with XB1 and the requisite assortment of extenders and bridges to function as a complete automation hub. I defy you to find anything remotely close in price and potential. Outfitting a home with the end automation devices (lights, thermostat, whatever) would of course cost additional, as it already does, but keep in mind what I describe could enable a housewide voice controlled remote of existing IR and RF devices, something difficult to do currently even without voice control and even for pricier solutions.

So you go from 500 to a grand ? Well I appreciate the pushing in one direction or the other Does that $1000 dollars include installation of all of this as well or is that something that MS or somebody else would charge extra for ?

 

[Bigus Dickus]

No its not,why does the x1 need a motion controller ?

No it isn't and no it doesn't. Microsoft purposely removed the consoles dependance on the Kinect sensor.

DSoup didn't, say "otherwise could have been", he said needed to be. Of course it is speculation and opinion, but my point is that MS "needing" to drop kinect is hardly a fact, and in actuality MS believes they need kinect to succeed. And XB1 needs a motion controller because otherwise, it isn't the XB1. You make think that's semantics. If so, there is a deeper point you're missing.

To which simple business basics are you referring? Because profits on console sales aren't where the juicy profits are, it's in software. The more people that own consoles the more software you can sell.

I understand your point, but selling even a billion consoles if at a $50 each loss isn't going to work for MS. And again, you're overly simplifying the equation greatly. Removing a core functionality to drop price may increase demand in the market segment that cares nothing of that functionality, but may also decrease demand in the segment that does care. You can't ignore that just because you personally don't care.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

So you go from 500 to a grand ?

Yup. Ever looked at the price for home automation systems and components and what functionality you get? At the lower end of Crestron, you get a whopping 512MB memory and 2GB flash with anemic processor for $1800. Can it recognize speech (much less do it well in noisy environments), gestures, face recognition, communicate on line, interface and play well with non-Crestron components?

Because the home automation market is heterogeneous and non-standardized, many have already gone to a PC as the core to communicate with various systems and add functions not available in a boxed system. At a cost of the XB1 and up, can they offer what kinect can?

MS has the chance to establish themselves as the defacto central universal hub for any home automation configuration. Looking into the future, where the desire to have a home so equipped might be as ubiquitous as electric garage openers, this is a vast potential untapped market.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

DSoup didn't, say "otherwise could have been", he said needed to be.

I said no such thing. You said, and I quote, "the X1 needs kinect.". I disagree with this. The Xbox One does not need Kinect, it operates fine without Kinect and, to be clear, you can turn Kinect off or disconnect it completely.

Of course it is speculation and opinion, but my point is that MS "needing" to drop kinect is hardly a fact, and in actuality MS believes they need kinect to succeed. And XB1 needs a motion controller because otherwise, it isn't the XB1. You make think that's semantics. If so, there is a deeper point you're missing.

I'm not asserting my opinion as fact but an Xbox One without Kinect is an Xbox One without Kinect, nothing more, nothing less. Or are people who have an Xbox One with Kinect disabled or disconnected not using Xbox Ones?

I understand your point, but selling even a billion consoles if at a $50 each loss isn't going to work for MS.

How would selling Xbox One without Kinect result in a $50 loss? Or any loss at all? How about they just deduct the cost of the hardware so Microsoft are making the same profit/loss as before but now they're selling to more people because more people can now afford it.

And again, you're overly simplifying the equation greatly. Removing a core functionality to drop price may increase demand in the market segment that cares nothing of that functionality, but may also decrease demand in the segment that does care. You can't ignore that just because you personally don't care.

Well Kinect isn't core functionality because the Xbox works fine without it. The main controller? Now that's core functionality. And by the way, nobody is suggesting removing anything across the board, what's being suggested that Microsoft offer something for those people who just want to play non-Kinect exclusive games, sacrifice Kinect-enhanced features, and perhaps even lose the HDMI input, TV and other apps, because there are people who just want to play the exclusive games without all the other stuff. Everybody else still has the $499 package.

Or, as I've maintained from my first post in this thread, Microsoft release a killer game that only Kinect makes possible. After all, wasn't the promise of better control and immersive games the key part of the pitch for the technology?

 

[Bigus Dickus]

I said no such thing.

The inclusion of Kinect will always make Xbox One more expensive than it otherwise needs to be.

I'm not asserting my opinion as fact but an Xbox One without Kinect is an Xbox One without Kinect, nothing more, nothing less.

You may think that's just semantics. If so, there is a deeper point you're missing.

How would selling Xbox One without Kinect result in a $50 loss?

It was a generalized example to show your oversimplification, a discussion better suited for the business thread than this one.

How about they just deduct the cost of the hardware so Microsoft are making the same profit/loss as before but now they're selling to more people because more people can now afford it.

And you still assume that would result in increased sales. Its an assumption, not a given.

Well Kinect isn't core functionality because the Xbox works fine without it.

You have a different definition of core. I don't buy yours. I'll stick to the one that seems to jive with MS on apparent vision.

And by the way, nobody is suggesting removing anything across the board, what's being suggested that Microsoft offer something for those people who just want to play non-Kinect exclusive games, sacrifice Kinect-enhanced features, and perhaps even lose the HDMI input, TV and other apps, because there are people who just want to play the exclusive games without all the other stuff. Everybody else still has the $499 package.

You still lose something by doing that. I don't think that point has really sunk in. Or you just refuse to accept that, which is fine. And not to be harsh, but for those people you describe, there is the PS4.

Or, as I've maintained from my first post in this thread, Microsoft release a killer game that only Kinect makes possible. After all, wasn't the promise of better control and immersive games the key part of the pitch for the technology?

Now that is something I completely agree with!! And what I've described, though not a game and perhaps not appealing to some core gamers, is I think a killer app only kinect makes possible.

 

[Melqart]

If kinect is disconnected, there is a permanent 'kinect is unplugged' message in the corner of the dashboard. It's kind of annoying. Also you have to manually log in every time you turn it on. Games will work without it but it's obvious they want you to use it.

I don't see them offering a sku without kinect. Console gaming has very thin margins and the xbox division, despite the success of the 360, has done nothing but bleed money since 2001. Everything they set out to do with XB1 was designed to change this. The DRM stuff would have locked customers in their ecosystem which could be used to leverage sales of their other devices. The kinect and TV stuff was designed to make the XB1 the go-to living room box which is why they got into this to begin with (and is a space their main competitors Apple and Google want in on too). Since they backtracked on the "anti-consumer" DRM things, the kinect is all they have left. If they drop it, then what's the point?

Maybe designing a game for it is risky. It's less risky when the device is included with every console sold. They probably had an improved kinect in mind when they began to design this thing (semi around it). MS is trying to expand the market beyond core gamers. Whether they are going about doing it right or wrong is besides the point as if whether one considers it a gimmick or an innovation. Kinect is the direction they chose. Taking risks and offering products people don't know they want is how the Wii was successful, how Apple's idevices were successful, etc. Kinect was somewhat of a success on 360, it's natural that they would continue to invest in it.

 

[AzBat]

If kinect is disconnected, there is a permanent 'kinect is unplugged' message in the corner of the dashboard. It's kind of annoying. Also you have to manually log in every time you turn it on. Games will work without it but it's obvious they want you to use it.

I don't see them offering a sku without kinect. Console gaming has very thin margins and the xbox division, despite the success of the 360, has done nothing but bleed money since 2001. Everything they set out to do with XB1 was designed to change this. The DRM stuff would have locked customers in their ecosystem which could be used to leverage sales of their other devices. The kinect and TV stuff was designed to make the XB1 the go-to living room box which is why they got into this to begin with (and is a space their main competitors Apple and Google want in on too). Since they backtracked on the "anti-consumer" DRM things, the kinect is all they have left. If they drop it, then what's the point?

Maybe designing a game for it is risky. It's less risky when the device is included with every console sold. They probably had an improved kinect in mind when they began to design this thing (semi around it). MS is trying to expand the market beyond core gamers. Whether they are going about doing it right or wrong is besides the point as if whether one considers it a gimmick or an innovation. Kinect is the direction they chose. Taking risks and offering products people don't know they want is how the Wii was successful, how Apple's idevices were successful, etc. Kinect was somewhat of a success on 360, it's natural that they would continue to invest in it.

Nice post. Bolded parts that I think gets the point. Microsoft stay your course & keep trying to innovate. Less backtracking & you'll do fine. If I wanted a cheaper Kinect-less system I would buy a PS4. Like the 360 when it gets to a price I can afford, I will buy it: Kinect and all.

Tommy McClain

 

[dagamer]

I think Microsoft only presents the illusion you can use the Xbox One without Kinect when it's pretty silly to think they'd ever sell a system without it. It becomes exponentially harder to do simple tasks like switching between apps (particularly those that haven't been launched in a while), snapping apps to the side, or using Game DVR functions. And the nag notification makes it clear they want it plugged in.

I think they are making the bet, whether it be right or wrong, that they'd rather have someone buy a PS4 than buy an Xbox One and not use Kinect. Because honestly, without Kinect , you really should just get a PS4.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It was a generalized example to show your oversimplification, a discussion better suited for the business thread than this one.

That's cool. Will you respond to my questions there?

And you still assume that would result in increased sales. Its an assumption, not a given.

Well it's not merely an assumption, there is clearly a demand for the same system without Kinect. I want this, I know people who want this, I've read a lot of posts from others who want this. The only unknown is the demand.

You have a different definition of core. I don't buy yours. I'll stick to the one that seems to jive with MS on apparent vision.

But I don't want a "vision" I want a box that plays games. But 'core' seems fairly well defined. If the system works without Kinect, it's not a core part of the system. If the systems doesn't work without the controlled, that is a core part of the system.

You still lose something by doing that. I don't think that point has really sunk in. Or you just refuse to accept that, which is fine.

Why don't your articulate it then, because right now it seems predicated on some kind of belief or faith. What am I losing? The ability to talk and gesture at the console. Fine, I'll live with that. What else am I losing?, because I'd be happy to lose Kinect, HDMI in, TV and apps.

And not to be harsh, but for those people you describe, there is the PS4.

And I own a PS4 but I would like to play Dead Rising 3 and some future exclusives, none of which are predicated on anything I've just outlined and which I'm happy to lose.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Thats true if it was correct but its not, there are people on these forums who say getting kinect voice to recoginze them is hit & miss.

That wasn't my impression reading user comments, so I created a poll to research. Response is very strong in some areas, and a bit weaker in others, but the usability is definitely very high - clearly better than the <60% you extrapolate from a YT video of a demonstration.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Well it's not merely an assumption, there is clearly a demand for the same system without Kinect. I want this, I know people who want this, I've read a lot of posts from others who want this.

There is also a demand from others for a system only if it includes kinect. You assume one demand is greater than the other. I see no evidence anywhere to support that, thus it remains an assumption.

But I don't want a "vision" I want a box that plays games. But 'core' seems fairly well defined. If the system works without Kinect, it's not a core part of the system. If the systems doesn't work without the controlled, that is a core part of the system.

I simply disagree with your definition of core... and of "works" as well it seems. The XB1 works without being online too. Maybe they should sell a version with no internet connectivity. For that matter, it works with no speakers connected. Maybe they should sell a version with no audio output and remove SHAPE and all associated "unneeded" hardware. I'd go as far as to say that without kinect plugged in, the XB1 is broken.

Why don't your articulate it then, because right now it seems predicated on some kind of belief or faith. What am I losing? The ability to talk and gesture at the console. Fine, I'll live with that. What else am I losing?, because I'd be happy to lose Kinect, HDMI in, TV and apps.

I probably worded that poorly, but I wasn't referring to what you personally would lose without kinect. That's pretty obvious and doesn't need articulating. I meant that MS loses something important by selling a gimped version... a 100% install base. That's a big loss to consider, even if your balance of demand assumption proved correct.

 

[zupallinere]

There is also a demand from others for a system only if it includes kinect. You assume one demand is greater than the other. I see no evidence anywhere to support that, thus it remains an assumption.

Well I think it was "unknown demand" not more demand.

I agree that MS is probably better off for know not to waste a bunch of resources on a kinect-less version but based on support for the kinect itself it seems to me that MS is hedging it's bets. MS is spending a bunch on exclusive games but these titles aren't moving the needle much on the kinect side of things. The TV component is used to sell the system as much as the kinect so should we say that the TV component is CORE as well ?

It is rumored that MS will still sell a gameless version of the XB1 to go up against roku etc. would the kinect go along with that ? If not could one say that the TV component is even more CORE since MS is rumored to spending time/money on a TV only version.

ADDED: Is Kinect functionality mandated for ALL XB1 games ? If not then it's a fair statement to wonder how strong MS's conviction is on the Kinect no ??

 

[AzBat]

Well it's not merely an assumption, there is clearly a demand for the same system without Kinect. I want this, I know people who want this, I've read a lot of posts from others who want this. The only unknown is the demand.

I don't think you can make that direct assumption. There's more different between the 2 than just Kinect. There's also a $100 difference & a bunch of technical & physical differences. So there are a variety of reasons why there is a higher demand for PS4 vs XB1. If MS released the XB1 with Kinect at $400, then you would have a more leveled playing field. So if the PS4 still outsold the XB1 at $400 like it's doing now then you could say that people still want a Kinect-less system.

Tommy McClain

 

[Deleted member 11852]

There is also a demand from others for a system only if it includes kinect. You assume one demand is greater than the other. I see no evidence anywhere to support that, thus it remains an assumption.

I've never said, suggested or assumed any such thing. You need to stop implying I've said/assumed something I haven't otherwise no sensible discussion can take place and I do find this an interesting discussion.

Now taking your point about some people only wanting a Xbox One with Kinect. That's absolutely fine. But some people don't and giving people the option appeases everybody. Some people will buy an Xbox One and never hook up Kinect to it and I'm pretty sure Microsoft have a method to measure the number of folks who do this. In such cases people are buying hardware they won't use and for everybody who does there is probably at least one more person who won't spend on hardware they never use (like me), or cant afford too.

How does it benefit Microsoft, or the platform, if I buy a Xbox One, then never hook up Kinect?

I simply disagree with your definition of core... and of "works" as well it seems. The XB1 works without being online too. Maybe they should sell a version with no internet connectivity. For that matter, it works with no speakers connected. Maybe they should sell a version with no audio output and remove SHAPE and all associated "unneeded" hardware. I'd go as far as to say that without kinect plugged in, the XB1 is broken.

How about you give your definition of 'core', I'm using the English definition which in my dictionary is:

core. adjective: key, fundamental, elemental, principal, primary, main, chief, crucial, vital, essential.​

For the Xbox one's primary purpose, which is gaming, the Kinect sensor doesn't seem to meet the definition. And for the sake of argument, I consider gaming to be the primary purpose of Xbox One because the gaming OS reserves most of the hardware resources.

I meant that MS loses something important by selling a gimped version... a 100% install base. That's a big loss to consider, even if your balance of demand assumption proved correct.

Microsoft lost that 100% install base the moment they made Kinect optional. They can claim every Xbox One customer has the capability to play all games, including Kinect, but they will know that lot of people will never plug it in. Developers also know this, so while the platform is in a better position than the Xbox 360 and its Kinect sensor, it's not and will never be a 100% install base.

I doubt Microsoft will ever openly publish the Kinect 2 install base, but they will probably come under pressure from developers to share it.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I don't think you can make that direct assumption.

Well it's not an assumption. If you've visited any big gaming site you'l see people who want an Xbox One but don't want Kinect.

There's more different between the 2 than just Kinect. There's also a $100 difference & a bunch of technical & physical differences. So there are a variety of reasons why there is a higher demand for PS4 vs XB1. If MS released the XB1 with Kinect at $400, then you would have a more leveled playing field. So if the PS4 still outsold the XB1 at $400 like it's doing now then you could say that people still want a Kinect-less system.

The PS4 really isn't relevant. I know there are people who consider the PS4 pretty much the same as an Xbox One without Kinect but it's obviously not. That's to ignore the hardware, controller, and rich ecosystem differences between the two platforms.

 

[AzBat]

Well it's not an assumption. If you've visited any big gaming site you'l see people who want an Xbox One but don't want Kinect.

But oh it is. People who post on those sites are complaining. They are the only ones you're really going to hear from. Why would you hear from those demanding Kinect be included since it already is?

The PS4 really isn't relevant. I know there are people who consider the PS4 pretty much the same as an Xbox One without Kinect but it's obviously not. That's to ignore the hardware, controller, and rich ecosystem differences between the two platforms.

It is relevant to a degree since supposedly a lot of 360 owners moved to it due to not wanting to pay extra for Kinect. What do you think would happen if it was priced the same as the PS4 & still include Kinect? Do you think it would sell more or less than it did at $500? Would it sell more or less than PS4 at $400? The only reason you're even talking about a Kinect-less system is to bring down the cost of the system. But what if they brought down the cost of the system & still included it? Would you still ask for a Kinect-less system?

Tommy McClain

 

[Deleted member 11852]

But oh it is. People who post on those sites are complaining. They are the only ones you're really going to hear from. Why would you hear from those demanding Kinect be included since it already is?

I wouldn't expect to hear from people demanding Kinect be included because it is, but I don't see the relevance? Why does the existence of people wanting Kinect in the box invalidate the view of people who don't?

It is relevant to a degree since supposedly a lot of 360 owners moved to it due to not wanting to pay extra for Kinect.

On 360 only the people who wanted Kinect paid for it, with Xbox One everybody pays regardless of whether they want it or not. It's not free because it's in the box. Don't misunderstand me, I get that to drive third party developer support of a peripheral like Kinect, it needs as wide adoption as possible and the widest adoption you can get is to include it with every system, but as I said to BD above, the moment Microsoft decided that Kinect was 100% optional meant there was always going to be a segment of Xbox One owners who never plug it in. Or it breaks and they can't be arsed to fix it. Or will get around to mounting on the wall under the TV "soon".

What do you think would happen if it was priced the same as the PS4 & still include Kinect? Do you think it would sell more or less than it did at $500? Would it sell more or less than PS4 at $400?

Not during launch because they are supply limited but when this is no longer the case then yes. Basic economic means that more people can afford a $400 console than a $500 console. Whether it represents VFM at $400 is another matter. If the console is $400 but could be $329 without Kinect, that's still not a good proposition to some people like me. Ignore the PS4, pretend it doesn't exist.

The only reason you're even talking about a Kinect-less system is to bring down the cost of the system. But what if they brought down the cost of the system & still included it? Would you still ask for a Kinect-less system?

If Microsoft are including Kinect, then you're paying for it. Sure, we don't know the exact cost of Kinect 2 but it's probably in the ballpark of the retail cost of a full priced game of my choosing. To be clear, my point of contention is paying for something I won't use. I wouldn't buy a TV with a builtin DVD player it for the same reason, it's redundant hardware that I don't need or want.

Do you know why I have a PS4 camera? Because it was cheaper to buy the UK Killzone bundle (PS4, two DualShock 4 controllers, Killzone and Camera) than it was to buy a PS4, a second controller and Killzone separately - which I was going to do anyway.

Why did Sony do this bundle? My theory is the intention was to include the camera in every box, but this changed before E3 and I'm thinking they may already have produced a load of these cameras and just bundled some of them into packages to get rid of them.