Kinect is not required to be plugged into the xbox one

[Scott_Arm]

Kinect will be playable at Gamescom, or at least the game(s) will be demoed to the press, as well as the UI controls. I guess we'll see what the impressions are and how much traction it gets.

For me, it is the only thing with the potential to make next-gen interesting. It might be crap, but it doesn't have to be perfect either. There is a level of performance that will be good enough to make it beneficial. Hopefully it'll get there. Otherwise this gen is basically going to be the most unremarkable console gen.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Assuming your math is correct, which is debatable, Kinect 2 is far more capable hardware on a much more powerful box. The 360 didn't have much to spare for the Kinect workload and the old Kinect technology is less precise and accurate than the new time of flight technology.

IIRC MS's original outline for Kinect to developers was that this was intended to be used without a controller as well, which limited the appeal to developers. That stance softened with time, but I assume that it is clear this time around that Kinect is to be used to enhance input mechanisms - either with a controller or Kinect only.

 

[Scott_Arm]

IIRC MS's original outline for Kinect to developers was that this was intended to be used without a controller as well, which limited the appeal to developers. That stance softened with time, but I assume that it is clear this time around that Kinect is to be used to enhance input mechanisms - either with a controller or Kinect only.

So far it seems like they've spent more time talking about the upsides of facial/player recognition, voice control, biometric feedback and things like that, which are obviously meant for augmenting the standard experience. They've also even talked about Kinect Sports Rivals having a seated mode, so you do not have to play the full standing game. I think they've probably realized it's more likely to get traction if is not meant to be a separate style of play.

Edit: I'd also like to add that I was disappointed when Sony decided not to bundle Eye. I think Eye would have made for a great addition to the product. Gamers might not have seen the appeal of it, but I'm certain it would have been a cool attachment that they'd learn to appreciate. Sony put a huge amount of research into the thing. It's a shame it won't be at the forefront.

 

[MrFox]

Or pandering to a total absence of common sense.

There's that too. The way they are explaining the decision is basically "we are pandering to the paranoid tin foil hat crowd". They could have found a better way to say it.

My comment about common sense was this:
1. Kinect can be completely disabled in the menu.
2. It must be connected at all times, or the console stops working.

Restriction #2 is pointless considering the preexisting option #1. To me that's common sense. If you mean to say it was also a mistake for MS to offer option #1, then it's a different discussion.

 

[AzBat]

All a lot of these changes (i.e. Kinect, Online requirements, etc.) is demoting base system level expectations to disclaimers on pretty much every game box ("Requires Kinect", "Requires Internet Connection").

What's so bad about that? Personally I can go either way, but a lot of people couldn't.

There's that too. The way they are explaining the decision is basically "we are pandering to the paranoid tin foil hat crowd". They could have found a better way to say it.

My comment about common sense was this:
1. Kinect can be completely disabled in the menu.
2. It must be connected at all times, or the console stops working.

Restriction #2 is pointless considering the preexisting option #1. To me that's common sense. If you mean to say it was also a mistake for MS to offer option #1, then it's a different discussion.

Agreed. Option #1 was already being offered even before they dropped the requirement for being connected. Only difference is now your system is not a complete brick if it's not physically connected. I don't see harm in that if they intend to include the sensor in every box.

Anybody know how the Wii works without a sensor bar? I would expect similar functionality.

Tommy McClain

 

[dobwal]

What's so bad about that? Personally I can go either way, but a lot of people couldn't.

Kinect's performance is ultimately determined by the data set used to train the device. More users more data.

Kinect being used by 75 million users will improve at a faster rate than Kinect only exposed to a subset of users because of some fear that its a spy cam.

 

[3dilettante]

What's the rate we're talking about here?
What number of users will dispense with Kinect if they aren't required to install it?
How much quicker will the service be trained to an equivalent level of effectiveness on this subset?
An extra week? A month? A year?

Is the result better than when it no longer forces in a subset of the userbase that is trying to minimize using it, can't be bothered to set it up well, or is otherwise providing spurious data?

 

[zed]

Good move. If/when kinect is hacked to allow people to spy on other people them it's better for MS to have the option of saying just unplug kinect if it truly concerns you

 

[MrFox]

Anybody know how the Wii works without a sensor bar? I would expect similar functionality.

It doesn't "detect" the bar in any way, BUT... the initial menu absolutely requires the bar to start the game (just to point and click on the start icon), and then you switch to your real controller when the game is started. That was a really stupid interface. They could have let me press "A" to start the f^&*ing game, but noooooooo. Every time I want to play Super Smash Bros I have to pick up the wiimote, point and click the game icon, and then switch to my real controller.

 

[kots]

Price could be a pretty big one. If you field a console at 299 while the competitor is 399, even if it's more powerful, lots will go for the 299 "good enough" one.

This ignores other factors like imo the best in class Xbox controller..

Once they get those SOC's churning out at a good rate in a year or so (they could have early issues with ESRAM if we follow conventional, if unproven, wisdom) I think they'll have a significant BOM edge due to DDR3. But as stated, Kinect kinda ruins that.

I envision if Xbox One initial grand plan from MS somehow turns out a grand failure, they will have to market it as an inexpensive but still powerful stripped down gaming box, and I think it would do well in that role. At least they have this option unlike the Wii U, which doesn't have enough power to attract really at any price (imo imo imo imo imo, so lets not start a firestorm here).

If MS feels the pressure to lower the price , they should do it while keeping Kinect , i.e. eating the cost themselves .Eventually BOM will be reduced and they'll be ok .
They have a vision that includes Kinect and they went to extremes for it ( cutting specs budget). Whatever happens they should stick with it and support it , after all it's what makes the product different from the competition.

 

[Jwm]

please no. I hope they keep it at full market saturation (even if some tin foils disconnect it now )

I have to agree here, keep it in the bundle as it is now.

It is one thing to do a 180, and it is another to cancel your long-term business plans.

 

[Bagel seed]

There's that too. The way they are explaining the decision is basically "we are pandering to the paranoid tin foil hat crowd". They could have found a better way to say it.

Yes, I'm surprised they're even acknowledging it. Because this 180 is what that's all about, pretty much. I guess there must be some significant post E3 survey data that's pressuring them towards removing it.

 

[Bagel seed]

If MS feels the pressure to lower the price , they should do it while keeping Kinect , i.e. eating the cost themselves .Eventually BOM will be reduced and they'll be ok .

Something tells me they won't be so open to that this time around. Not that any other console maker seems to be either. 10+ years in this endeavor and worthwhile profits must be made.

 

[AzBat]

Kinect's performance is ultimately determined by the data set used to train the device. More users more data.

Kinect being used by 75 million users will improve at a faster rate than Kinect only exposed to a subset of users because of some fear that its a spy cam.

Are you of the belief that when it was required to be connected that more people would have used it? They are already stated that you could turn it off before the change. Just because it was required to be connected doesn't mean it was going to be used.

Anyway, considering that it's included with every SKU do you not think that it's likely more people may actually buy it than before the change? If yes, what percentage of the new users are likely to not use it? I doubt it's 100%. So in theory it's likely Microsoft will increase the amount users using Kinect, even if it's just a little. It the grand scheme moving the disclaimer to the box isn't going to matter much as long as every XB1 includes Kinect.

It doesn't "detect" the bar in any way, BUT... the initial menu absolutely requires the bar to start the game (just to point and click on the start icon), and then you switch to your real controller when the game is started. That was a really stupid interface. They could have let me press "A" to start the f^&*ing game, but noooooooo. Every time I want to play Super Smash Bros I have to pick up the wiimote, point and click the game icon, and then switch to my real controller.

Hmm. Interesting. That's different from what I was thinking. What about the Wii U? I assume it's similar?

Tommy McClain

 

[-tkf-]

It amazes me how stuck in routine people are and how resistant to change especially in a technology based hobby.

Uh? Did you notice how many WIIs nintendo sold mostly because they changed the input, resistance is futile when it's worth it.

The difference this time around is that gamers all over the world tried Kinect, and apart from the party and family aka kids games, it's a dead horse on the 360, it did not deliver. Now Microsoft wants us to use it as a remote, but nobody really asked for a hand gesture remote with voice control. However i am certain that if we get Startrek like voice commands people will be more than happy and consider it very very cool. But Microsoft still needs to answer if it will work outside USA and most of all proof that it works.

aye , so many people think they are winning something with MS changing these things but all I see is another 8 years with us stuck in in 2005. Its quite scary for me but at the same time the pc is starting to take off again with the rift on the horizion so maybe it wont be that bad

Are you suggesting that pc gaming will save you? PC games are just like the Console games, they get better and better thanks to technology, not new input devices. The odd out is Rift of course which could be a revolution in PC gaming and soon added to consoles. The games however more or less stays the same.

I expect big things from the next generation games, for every generation the games how imho gotten bigger and better. We got to play games like Uncharted, Last of US, GTA4 on consoles from 2005/2006 and GTA5 is around the corner. Now we have the next gen on our doorstep with insane amounts of memory and more than enough CPU/GPU power to raise it another level.

With games you actually don't need smart input devices or display devices, it's a bit like movies, if the story is good/worth playing it will be just fine.

 

[MrFox]

Yes, I'm surprised they're even acknowledging it. Because this 180 is what that's all about, pretty much. I guess there must be some significant post E3 survey data that's pressuring them towards removing it.

A poll ! We need another poll !

I'm mostly surprised the privacy issue is the reason given by MS, it makes them look like victims of a small vocal group. (where have I seen this before... let me think...) It could already be disabled, it was a simple technicality to make it physically optional.

While I can only talk about my own circles of friends and colleagues who are xbox gamers, the reason I heard for not wanting to plug in the Kinect at all was because they simply don't care about any of the motion stuff, or don't have the space/setup required for it, or didn't like the first Kinect. Nobody around me ever brought up the privacy question (nor the DRM stuff either, that was primarily from the PS side).

It's the "mandatory" requirement that made them think the motion stuff would be shoved down their throat, and they thought it'd mean less effort/budget would be spent on their favorite genres. The good thing is that E3 have proven this to be false, there's plenty of core games coming. So I think MS should continue their message convincing the core group that Kinect is something additional, an expansion of the market, not a replacement.

 

[Bigduo209]

Uh? Did you notice how many WIIs nintendo sold mostly because they changed the input, resistance is futile when it's worth it.

Actually the Wii was a perfect sales storm because of never-seen-before motion controls, focus on family with local multiplayer, and a cheaper price than the PS3 or 360.

Selling the Kinect as only a $500 console bundle will be harder since it's the priciest of the 3 new consoles, and it's the second iteration of an existing product with already mixed reactions.

Kind of makes me wonder if MS should've made XB1's Kinect the first instead of introducing it on the 360 in it's more limited capacity.

 

[Bagel seed]

A poll ! We need another poll !

I'm mostly surprised the privacy issue is the reason given by MS, it makes them look like victims of a small vocal group. (where have I seen this before... let me think...) It could already be disabled, it was a simple technicality to make it physically optional.

While I can only talk about my own circles of friends and colleagues who are xbox gamers, the reason I heard for not wanting to plug in the Kinect at all was because they simply don't care about any of the motion stuff, or don't have the space/setup required for it, or didn't like the first Kinect. Nobody around me ever brought up the privacy question (nor the DRM stuff either, that was primarily from the PS side).

Well, they are really really listening now. Any and every negative talking point needs to be smushed! Be it from forums, YT comments, or crappy news blog sites I suppose. But I agree on your other point. If it could be disabled already, it only makes sense to not have it disable the entire console either if it's not connected.

Now it's up to devs and Xbox UX guys to come up with reasons to keep it connected. Achievements perhaps..? :smile:

 

[wco81]

Are $400 PCs going to be as good as these consoles in playing games?

Especially given that the consoles will get games PCs won't and the fact that games will be optimized for them?

We don't need to rehash the PC vs. console arguments again but this claim that dropping a glorified gimmick makes these products a weak PC is specious.

 

[Nisaaru]

I get the feeling those who think this is a good idea wouldn't buy the XBone anyway.

At any rate, I guess so long as every console comes with Kinect there's a good chance 3rd party devs would still target it.

I pre ordered a XBone yesterday after the announcement that Kinect isn't mandatory anymore. Don't get me wrong I still think the whole console is a disappointment and I only chose it over the PS4 because I know I would like the gamepad.