If I were Microsoft...
- Thread starter Bigus Dickus
- Start date
While agree that MS making the Kinect not required to be plugged in makes it a non-starter for making a Kinect-less SKU, but as Melqart said with the "kinect is unplugged" nag screen & other UI functionality it really screams for Kinect is really required to get the best use. Personally I wished they hadn't made that change, but they were between a rock & a hard place. The public lynching they were getting pretty much guaranteed the reversal.
As for paying for something you wouldn't use, I'm sure there's all kind of components in the system they could remove that you won't use. Maybe you already have a great Bluray player, maybe you don't want or need HDMI In, Ethernet, SPDIF Out, Infrared Out, HDMI cable, headset or AA batteries for the controller. Doesn't mean they should remove them though. After a certain point you have to make sure everybody has the ability to get the best experience out of the box. I think Kinect is one of those features that it's not the same experience without it. If you're not planning on using Kinect, then there are better alternatives: 360, PS3, PS4, Wii, WiiU, iPad, etc.
At this point, I've said my peace. After awhile you keep going in circles & nobody's minds are changed. I think we're already there.
Tommy McClain
As for paying for something you wouldn't use, I'm sure there's all kind of components in the system they could remove that you won't use. Maybe you already have a great Bluray player, maybe you don't want or need HDMI In, Ethernet, SPDIF Out, Infrared Out, HDMI cable, headset or AA batteries for the controller. Doesn't mean they should remove them though. After a certain point you have to make sure everybody has the ability to get the best experience out of the box. I think Kinect is one of those features that it's not the same experience without it. If you're not planning on using Kinect, then there are better alternatives: 360, PS3, PS4, Wii, WiiU, iPad, etc.
At this point, I've said my peace. After awhile you keep going in circles & nobody's minds are changed. I think we're already there.
Tommy McClain
Bigus Dickus
Regular
Well, previously you said...
You were talking about removing kinect to reduce the cost of the console. You follow that with the above statement that a drop in price will inevitably lead to a surge in sales. I'm not implying anything, just reading, and I know of no other way to read that than you assume more people will want the cheaper kinectless system than the more expensive kinect included system.
You're really stretching there. Devs know that everyone has a kinect, whether plugged in or in a closet, and if they want to make a game requiring or featuring kinect they aren't excluding anyone. The current situation isn't remotely close to a two sku situation.
Yep, that works fine for me. What I laid out in my original post is adding functionality beyond core, but in line with the core philosophy. Not removing core functionality.
Oh, I consider kinect to be core because it has more letters than the word games.
I think your perspective is just fine btw, even though I happen to disagree. You may be correct. MS thinks otherwise. Only time will tell. I personally tend to think the marketing slant and emphasis means as much as something like OS reserves, or even hardware, in terms of what MS considers core. Anyway, this nice sidebar doesn't have a whole lot of bearing on my "if I were..." post. You could offer the expanded stuff I outlined AND a gimped sku!
Last edited by a moderator:
Bigus Dickus
Regular
I'm wondering that too!
In a previous thread, I outlined what I think may have been a superior controller + kinect interface. I suppose it could still be done as an add on peripheral, but MS may have missed the boat on this one.
In essence, I would be interested in seeing separated right and left hand controllers (perhaps able to be joined to form a more traditional controller?) so that hands/arms are "free" to make some gestures even while using the controllers as inputs. Kinect could probably be used to localize each controller fairly accurately in space and in relation to the screen if the controllers included a sort of IR mark that was easily identified by kinect.
One simple example I gave was a fps style game where your aim was determined by holding up both hands (and little mini-controllers) and aligning them to your target rifle style, kinect localizing them and calculating the line of projection of the two. Sort of a Wii style hunting game done right, and without needing a mock gun to hold the wiimote. In fact, I think of it as a combination of the best aspects of a traditional controller, kinect, and the wiimote/nunchuck system.
But if you did that now, you'd have the same "add on" problem that all such peripherals do... variable adoption rate. Would have been better to be included as standard, though I can understand that this would be quite risky given the success of the Xbox controller lineage.
I had imagined a small mini remote for each hand nestled into the palm, with anlaog stick and either dpad or buttons for each thumb, and a few trigger style buttons for the index and maybe middle fingers. Could actually have the same button layout as now, just divided.
Would be tough to package battery, rumble, and wireless antenna for each into a small package, but may be possible.
OK, so give me the divided controllers, expanded speech recognition capability, more complete IR codes/macros, a suite of peripherals to expand universal remote abilities and interface with existing home automation devices, and a full featured software package to tie it all together... and I'll be happy!
I'm wondering that too!
In a previous thread, I outlined what I think may have been a superior controller + kinect interface. I suppose it could still be done as an add on peripheral, but MS may have missed the boat on this one.
In essence, I would be interested in seeing separated right and left hand controllers (perhaps able to be joined to form a more traditional controller?) so that hands/arms are "free" to make some gestures even while using the controllers as inputs. Kinect could probably be used to localize each controller fairly accurately in space and in relation to the screen if the controllers included a sort of IR mark that was easily identified by kinect.
One simple example I gave was a fps style game where your aim was determined by holding up both hands (and little mini-controllers) and aligning them to your target rifle style, kinect localizing them and calculating the line of projection of the two. Sort of a Wii style hunting game done right, and without needing a mock gun to hold the wiimote. In fact, I think of it as a combination of the best aspects of a traditional controller, kinect, and the wiimote/nunchuck system.
But if you did that now, you'd have the same "add on" problem that all such peripherals do... variable adoption rate. Would have been better to be included as standard, though I can understand that this would be quite risky given the success of the Xbox controller lineage.
I had imagined a small mini remote for each hand nestled into the palm, with anlaog stick and either dpad or buttons for each thumb, and a few trigger style buttons for the index and maybe middle fingers. Could actually have the same button layout as now, just divided.
Would be tough to package battery, rumble, and wireless antenna for each into a small package, but may be possible.
OK, so give me the divided controllers, expanded speech recognition capability, more complete IR codes/macros, a suite of peripherals to expand universal remote abilities and interface with existing home automation devices, and a full featured software package to tie it all together... and I'll be happy!
Just ask Sony, they've already got the blue prints from back when the PS3 was just R&D!!
The reason people buy a MS console is largely due to online ecosystem, timed exclusivity and Halo. Kinect could be an attempt to give the platform a more personalized identity and if so that is a good thing bc online and timed exclusives are things that other competitors could improve which would leave MS quite vulnerable. IMO focusing on Kinect and investing in new IPs is the smart thing to do, it keeps them from being another commodity.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
To be clear, I don't want Kinect. I don't want a cheaper console with Kinect included because I'd still be paying for a lump of hardware that, without any killer games, would stay in the box. I want Kinect removed from the package saving x amount of dollars and the console to be sold for the cheapest price possible. You follow?
As for no demand, do I not exist? What about this guy? He doesn't seem to fit your image of a vitriolic fanboy. What about the other people? Just google variations of "I don't want kinect" or "I want a xbox one without kinect". There's a surprising amount of lucid, rational folks out there who don't want it and don't want to have to pay for it but do want to play Dead Rising 3 and future exclusives.
I thought that these messages only appear in the UI and not in games? Maybe somebody can confirm. But if you're buying a box for games then the UI is what you do between games. And they can change this in a software update. The way Xbox One works today isn't locked into stone for forever more.
I'm positing a game-centric device and removing everything else. But taking your point in principle, I have a TV with four HDMI inputs and only use three of them but I'm cool with this. Why? Primarily because it's cost relative to the overall device itself insignificant. I can't believe the same is true with Kinect 2, it's not a cheat device.
For you. You're ignoring that other people think different. I get you love Kinect, I get you think it adds value to the system for you. But I have no use for this stuff. I have nothing to plug into the HDMI in port and I've not found voice control to be the great saviour from the IR remote control that others have. For me this is superfluous hardware that I don't want to pay for. You're argument appears to be: I like it, so everybody else should like it or just accept it and pay for it. This is the internet, my friend. I get to bitch ;-)
No, this is a misconception that both you and blackjedi seem stuck on. I can afford an Xbox One at the current price. I'm 42, have been working since I left college and I bought my first flat in 1996. When I was younger I had more time than money, now it's swapped round but I'm also a lot more discerning with money than I used to be. I don't want a cheaper Xbox One with Kinect anymore than I want to buy a car with a mandatory trailer part of the deal.
It's part of getting older and cranky and wanting to get your own way!
Having and installing/using are quite different. My PS4 camera is nestled under the bottom of my TV stand. Kinect wouldn't fit because it's fairly large so I'd need to rejig things. Pull the whole thing forward, so I can push the TV on top back to make space. That'd dislodge the router, its PSU and the cable bundles that are currently nesting there. I live in Europe, our homes are typically smaller than those in the US. Large spacious rooms with big entertainment centres with lots of space aren't the norm. If you want a pic of my setup, I'll happily post it and you'll see the problem. Is the problem insurmountable? No. Would I do install Kinect unless there was a bloody good reason to do so? No.
Let's just agree to disagree on this one.
The only real way to gauge demand for a Kinect'less XB1 (which is the version I would get) would be to release it. I bet that an XB1 for $100 less would be a much better sales prospect than it is currently.
I was a lot more negative about Kinect being included in all Bones made and the $500 price. I was thinking this version of Kinect would be marginally better than Kinect 1. When I finally got a chance to use it I must say it's freaking awesome. I think it can be a big boon for MS going into the future if they refine it more and expand the functionality. No sense of not having it in there if this is where MS wants to go in the future. When the other people are ready to connect the Kinects that came with their Bones they will do so and many of them will find it to their liking.
There's no sense in MS releasing a Kinectless version of the Bone at the moment since they're selling through their shipments. In 6 months to a year from now if sales are slower or they want to one up Sony in the pricing department maybe they could release a Kinectless Bone. Do we know the BOM for the camera portion of Kinect in the XB1? It wouldn't make sense to remove or alter the machine itself since those who went w/o Kinect may want to pick one up in the future. So what are the true cost savings for MS and how well does that translate into a lower price for the consumer? If it's something like $50 then completely pointless to release a Kinectless version.
But I do think MS should stick to their guns and keep the Bone as it is, Kinect and all. It works well enough for me right now. What I suspect will happen in the future is somebody releases a game for the Bone that utilizes Kinect in a compelling way thus sparking interest for others to include it. It may happen with one game that takes us all by surprise or it could end up being a gradual integration of Kinect in games and three years from now we will look back and see the progress. Or Kinect might end up being a complete dud for games and not really enhancing gameplay. Still, the features it allows for control over the interface is good enough for me right now.
There's no sense in MS releasing a Kinectless version of the Bone at the moment since they're selling through their shipments. In 6 months to a year from now if sales are slower or they want to one up Sony in the pricing department maybe they could release a Kinectless Bone. Do we know the BOM for the camera portion of Kinect in the XB1? It wouldn't make sense to remove or alter the machine itself since those who went w/o Kinect may want to pick one up in the future. So what are the true cost savings for MS and how well does that translate into a lower price for the consumer? If it's something like $50 then completely pointless to release a Kinectless version.
But I do think MS should stick to their guns and keep the Bone as it is, Kinect and all. It works well enough for me right now. What I suspect will happen in the future is somebody releases a game for the Bone that utilizes Kinect in a compelling way thus sparking interest for others to include it. It may happen with one game that takes us all by surprise or it could end up being a gradual integration of Kinect in games and three years from now we will look back and see the progress. Or Kinect might end up being a complete dud for games and not really enhancing gameplay. Still, the features it allows for control over the interface is good enough for me right now.
PS4 would still be apparently more powerful though. So still not a level playing field although closer.
One of the best tests would be if MS had the Kinect SKU for 499 and a Kinect-less SKU for 399. Which would sell more? I have little doubt the latter.
Which really should make MS question Kinect I suppose. But the question is still complex.
I suppose even if consumer demand is lower for the +$100+Kinect proposition, there may be an argument it's better for the long term, I suppose consumers not knowing what's good for them is possible. But that's a high burden of proof.
There's also the fact Kinect need not actually cost $100. If in the future MS knows it can get Kinect costs down to where it is effectively a freebie with the system, it could again be a sales positive.
Eh, as I see it, XBO appears less powerful. So what advantage do you gain from that? You gain a cheaper price (DDR3). Currently, MS has the disadvantage of less power, but are not using the advantage that comes with that, due to Kinect+greed.
Yet still, XBO seems to be doing fine. Apparently not as well as PS4, but very much holding it's own. Which I think is mostly due to a more polished experience all around and a large amount of people that defacto stay with xbox brand regardless due to online.
Similar threads
