Exactly, marketing is the real reason for pushing Kinect and making it mandatory for the console to function. It will allow MS to recieve higher advertising revenues for targeted ads. It's a tool for smart advertising.
yeh, but if developers implement it too much than they risk making the game an Xbox exclusive. If PS4 ends up selling more, due to price, than no developer would implement Kinect beyond a tacked on afterthought.
Also, when MS realizes that developers are not going to implement Kinect in real meaningfull ways becuase that would make the game an Xbox exclusive. No way developers are going to design games with Kinect in mind making it a console exclusive when PS4 ends up selling more consoles due to a cheaper price.
Does anyone really think developers are going to spend time integrating Kinect 2.0 in a meaningfull way? Even with 100% Kinect install base it would only appeal to those that already like Kinect...ie those that bought a Kinect 1.0? Kinect functionality wouldn't be a selling point for those that don't want Kinect in the first place. Who believes third party multiplatform developers are going to go out of their way to program Kinect functionality in games just for the One? If they d...
Options? Like half the Xbox fan base that wants the option to have a Kinect-less Xbox One?
No, Kinect may not provide extra ads, but what it will do is allow for targeted advertising based on data mining. Better targeted ads that hit the demographic advertisers want will allow MS to charge a premium for ads on Xbox. It's a gold mine for them.
A neet feature indeed, but something that should be a selling point for Kinect to make people want to buy it seperately.
I seriously doubt most 360 owners are going to buy a One in the first year. Besides the logistical immpossibility of it, MS is losing a lot of its fan base, this 360 owner and 12 year Xbox fan included. Any shortcomings PSN has on the PS3 you can be sure Sony will fix with the PS4.
I'm affraid we aren't the ones that don't get it. The core market didn't buy Kinects because the core market isn't interested in Kinects. You'll get 100% Kinect saturation buy including one with every console but so what, the core gamers that wouldn't buy a Kinect seperately aren't going to suddenly start buying Kinect games. Including one in every box doen't translate into interest for those that don't want it.
If Kinect is great fo...
Ryse is tainted from its association with Kinect, having been remade into a quick time game. As a side note, this doesn't instill confidence that Kinect 2.0 is going to be anything more than Kinect 1.0. The fact that this game's mandatory Kinect was removed when it could have highlighted any potential of Kinect 2.0 should show Kinect itself is flawed for core games. After all, if Kinect is so great and its included with every One as a selling point, than why make it secondary in a ...
Many developers will probobly work with Kinect in some form since its included, but at the same time make the Kinect features optional. If they don't then they risk making the game appeal to only those that like Kinect, which is a small percentage of gamers. I would gamble that many other developers won't bother with Kinect because the cost of including its functionality in development won't be offset by any increase interest in the game having Kinect functionality.
A better question is how many former Xbox fans are passing on the One. I'd be curious to know how much of the Xbox fan base MS is losing.
Including it in every console and requiring it to be hooked up only benefits those that like Kinect and want to use it. MS must assume the rest of us will convert and become lovers in their Kinect fetish. If Kinect 2.0 turns out to be great than people would buy it seperately and enjoy the optional Kinect features. MS themselves say you can turn off Kinect and not use it (pause in MS speak).
Developers may count on a 100% adaption rate but how does this matter if the Kin...
Even if developers utilize Kinect features it doesn't matter if not everyone uses the Kinect features. The danger lies in developers requiring Kinect functionality because every console will have a Kinect, turning off those that have no interest in using it.
Then stay online and buy digital.
Thanks for the economics lesson, but no need to explain how $100 less is better.
"but let's be honest. what game would sell more even if kinect worked 100% accurate 1:1 with 0 latency?"
Based on your rhetorical question, than why even make Kinect mandatory? If Kinect functionality in games is going to be optional and isn't a selling point for those of us that don't want Kinect than why force it. MS is making everyone that buys the console support the minority that want Kinect. People that want Kinect would buy it seperartly. The ...
@mkotechno: lay your hand down on a table in a relaxed state and your thumb, if normal, will be facing up and not off to a 90 degree angle from your hand. Xbox controller allows your left thumb to be placed at the analog stick; which is used primarily over the d-pad since 3d gaming became the norm; in a more natural relaxed position. If Sony's thumbstick is placed in a more natural position than why didn't they put the d-pad there on the original PS1 controller?
T...
Does MS think more people will learn to like Kinect buy including it with every console? If I bought the One, I would have a Kinect and developers could count on that, but that doesn't mean I would still use the Kinect features or buy Kinect games. So what does it matter if I have a Kinect? Games with Kinect features are only a selling point to people that would buy a Kinect seperatley. It's an accessary and should be treated as such. MS will get 100% adaption rate for Kinect by ...
When all the advertisements just seem to be speaking to you, knowing who you are and what you like, then you will see and know the true value of mandatory Kinect