Is Kinect Microsoft's Albatross

[Dari]

It's what causing them to charge more for the Xbox One because they're including it in every box. It's also forcing them to prioritize resources towards things Kinect is known for and away from games, which may be why their console is less powerful. So, this begs the question, was Kinect successful on the 360? Was it a money maker? Is the technology mature enough to be an afterthought to most users or will it be ignored after a couple of days? Why is Microsoft going all in on this accessory?

 

[Cuda1447]

I honestly think the Kinect is a gimmick and I have one. It is cool for a FEW games. VERY few. I don't want voice controls. I don't want motion controls for standard stuff, a game pad is way more precise. My wife likes using it for the dancing game. All in all though, its rarely used. My dog gets upset when I'm up jumping around in the living room, there isn't enough space and it's just not good enough.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Its an interesting question.

I bet the MS decision makers would say that Kinect is what MS needs to differentiate itself from the competition. The Wii stood out due its Wii controller, and sold like hot cakes despite weaker hardware. MS was probably hoping that, if they could build Kinect up into a big enough brand, that it could practically sell hardware for them. Hence the Xbone's reliance upon Kinect - it can hardly sell systems if it is optional.

Look at it this way - the MS and Sony consoles of the previous generations did the same thing - they could play games. The only difference was that the Sony console happened to be a Blu ray player, which did help get it into some homes. MS obviously also had a lot of success integrating Netflix etc into XBL, which is great for two things - it helps sell XBL subscriptions, and it gives consumers another reason to buy an Xbox. It is a differentiating factor in a very competitive market place.

They also looked at the Wii, and they see a system that sold itself practically off a gimmick, as some termed. So MS thinks, we need a gimmick, and we need a greater focus on non game entertainment, in order to differentiate ourselves in the marketplace and give consumers more reason to buy our console.

I think it could have worked, except for two things. The first is that they completely missed the point about the Wii being cheap to manufacture and selling for a low price. That was what made it so successful for Nintendo. The second is that they really screwed the pooch on the DRM. I'm not sure they can recover from either.

I suppose the problem is that, they are already trying to sell a console less powerful than the PS4, and unfortunately, this time around, they are far easier to compare since the hardware is more similar. Last generation, the PS3 and 360 were difficult to compare due to their vastly different architecture. This time, they are so similar it makes it very easy to identify which is the more powerful, which of course is the PS4. Now, while their hardware is less powerful than the PS4, its actually more expensive to produce partly due to Kinect. This means that, while I'm sure they would love to go after the $199 to $299 price point, they just cant afford to. So they are stuffed.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Microsoft has never really been innovative. They've always either stole or bought up everything that they have 'innovated'. All they did with the One is more or less copy everything already done in last gen saying "look what we can do".

All in all, the Kinect isn't a bad idea, it's just a bit early to be told "you have to use it or else" on a gaming console meant to be portable. Also, all the NSA spying recently has made for bad timing as well as the populous is a bit paranoid.

 

[smackababy]

The original Kinect sold 24 million units. I can't think of another console peripheral that has sold as well. That is like 1/3 of their install base. That is pretty good. I hardly think the Kinect is anything but a money maker for MS.

 

[Jaskalas]

I'd like to think that the future of Kinect would be full-body motion controlled combat / sports. Probably not easy to program for... but as the tech and SDK matures.... it could be revolutionary.

 

[smackababy]

They already have pretty decent tracking of fingers and such, from the demos. And if you check out some of the original Kinect for PC 'hacks' and stuff, it was pretty impressive from a 'wow that is cool' perspective. Now, how does that translate into games? Who knows, but with every Xbox One coming with a Kinect 2, it does give developers incentive to start experimenting.

 

[Todd33]

The original Kinect sold 24 million units. I can't think of another console peripheral that has sold as well. That is like 1/3 of their install base. That is pretty good. I hardly think the Kinect is anything but a money maker for MS.

But the hype died fast. Of those 24m, most could care less about it now. It was a flash in the pan, unfortunately MS was designing the XB1 around the time it was popular, hence the Kinect 2.0.

 

[bearxor]

My problem with Kinect and the XB1 is that it seems to have to be constantly plugged in. I have one TV in my house, a 100" projector. I have my current Kinect sitting right below it, with a 30' USB cable that I can string across the room when I want to use it, because my PJ, along with all the AV equipment is behind the viewers. So, can I run a XB1 without Kinect? Do I just put it on the AV rack in the back of the room and just make it face the wall?

Kinect is starting to seem like the make or break point for me with the XB1. I'm starting to feel like I'd much rather get a PS4 and not have to worry about where to put an optical accessory.

EDIT: Not only that, but my current setup is possible BECAUSE the Kinect is sold stand alone. The ones you buy with the systems come with a proprietary USB plug that connects directly to the system for power and the standalone comes with a power inserter that let's me use a standard USB cable as an extension. I don't think that's going to work for the One.

 

[yllus]

It needs to work about ten times better than it does today to be worthwhile. Maybe it will be. Microsoft better hope it does, because you're right - otherwise it's a higher cost per unit for no return.

 

[blurredvision]

It needs to work about ten times better than it does today to be worthwhile. Maybe it will be. Microsoft better hope it does, because you're right - otherwise it's a higher cost per unit for no return.

From everything I've seen, it appears the Kinect 2 is easily ten times better than Kinect 1 in terms of technology. This is assuming they haven't been blowing smoke up our collective asses. Full body distance appears to be much less now, resolution is increased tremendously, can detect fingers and many more joints, etc.

 

[Todd33]

10x?

From the leaked specs, Kinect 2 is 23% higher res for the 3D data. Don't get your hopes up. It is mostly software smoke and mirrors.

 

[Anubis]

eh, demos of kinect 2 at the earlier MS event looked really good in terms of tech. but that does not change the fact that most dont care about it

 

[purbeast0]

anyone have any idea if the kinect has to actually be connected to the x1 in order for the x1 to even function? like if you simply don't hook it up will the x1 work? is the kinect interaction simply "shortcuts" to controller options?

also, while i'm assuming kinect is wired to the x1, has there been any clarification on that?

 

[purbeast0]

My problem with Kinect and the XB1 is that it seems to have to be constantly plugged in. I have one TV in my house, a 100" projector. I have my current Kinect sitting right below it, with a 30' USB cable that I can string across the room when I want to use it, because my PJ, along with all the AV equipment is behind the viewers. So, can I run a XB1 without Kinect? Do I just put it on the AV rack in the back of the room and just make it face the wall?

this is the exact thing i am wondering as well as i have a very similar setup.

 

[KaOTiK]

As far as adoption rate went, the Kinect was a success and sold very well. Thing is, it died off pretty quick. I don't believe the games for Kinect outside of its launch titles sold well at all and it was quickly brushed aside by many as a gimmick and something they didn't want as part of their core gaming experience.

It is hurting them and will continue to do so. They are forcing it on the consumer by making it mandatory to have it plugged in as well as passing the price on as well. Then oddly enough, you would think that when you are stuffing it down everyones throats you would really show off games and stuff that make possibly good use of it, instead MS showed nearly nothing on the Kinect front (which in reality does makes the core gamers happy) that even shows why it is being forced on to them. So it is being viewed as an extra cost you can not avoid even if you don't want it. I saw more 3rd party stuff showing things with the new Kinect then MS showed. In fact, during MS's E3 conference they showed the system making use of smartglass (or whatever it is called) in a lot of the games and didn't touch on the Kinect at all in most cases lol

 

[blurredvision]

10x?

From the leaked specs, Kinect 2 is 23% higher res for the 3D data. Don't get your hopes up. It is mostly software smoke and mirrors.

Blah, we're throwing out unverifiable numbers, don't gunk it up with percentages.

 

[kami]

It's impressive tech, but gimmicky. Not something a core gamer will want or need on a regular basis. It definitely forced them to have to charge $100 more than Sony and probably also gimp on some other hardware as well (less GPU power, no GDDR5 memory). I understand their reasoning for wanting it in every box... That way you can be sure everyone has it and publishers won't be afraid to use it.

There are some subtle uses of it I can think of that would be extremely awesome though. Think about a game like Mass Effect... Now imagine the characters you are talking to having reactions based on your facial expressions. If it was done subtly so you don't consciously know its even happening, it could be amazing. For me though, the traditional gimmick uses (standing in front of my TV and waving my arms all over the place) are a complete waste.

 

[gus6464]

The Wii might have been a gimmick for sure, but it was a cheap gimmick compared to the rest. The xbone not so much.

 

[Anubis]

anyone have any idea if the kinect has to actually be connected to the x1 in order for the x1 to even function? like if you simply don't hook it up will the x1 work? is the kinect interaction simply "shortcuts" to controller options?

also, while i'm assuming kinect is wired to the x1, has there been any clarification on that?

they said it has to be plugged in for the console to work, they said you can turn off everything so it only listns for Xbox On but it still has to be plugged in

its got a port in the back where in plugs in with a wire

 

[Imported]

I'm sure if I had a Kinect for the 360, my GF would play more games with me.. but it'd still be difficult I imagine due to living in an apartment and all.

And I'd be forced to play games I don't really like.. so probably a good thing I don't have one.

 

[purbeast0]

they said it has to be plugged in for the console to work, they said you can turn off everything so it only listns for Xbox On but it still has to be plugged in

its got a port in the back where in plugs in with a wire

damn i was not aware of that. another check in the FUCK YOU MS column.

 

[colonelciller]

NSA spy microphone + camera in your living room.

Big Brother is pleased

 

[Doppel]

The potential of motion sensing is huge. We just haven't seen it done right yet. Maybe it will be this time, maybe not.

 

[exdeath]

It's impressive tech, but gimmicky. Not something a core gamer will want or need on a regular basis. It definitely forced them to have to charge $100 more than Sony and probably also gimp on some other hardware as well (less GPU power, no GDDR5 memory). I understand their reasoning for wanting it in every box... That way you can be sure everyone has it and publishers won't be afraid to use it.

There are some subtle uses of it I can think of that would be extremely awesome though. Think about a game like Mass Effect... Now imagine the characters you are talking to having reactions based on your facial expressions. If it was done subtly so you don't consciously know its even happening, it could be amazing. For me though, the traditional gimmick uses (standing in front of my TV and waving my arms all over the place) are a complete waste.

If I want that Ill go socialize with people in real life.

I play games to play the roles of other characters in a fantasy world, not real life simulators that mirror the real world.