Microsoft Discussion Thread

[ElectroYoshi]

Microsoft are just being selfish at this point. A price cut really is their only hope to keep this thing from going up in flames.

[Sebastian Lawe]

Microsoft are just being selfish at this point. A price cut really is their only hope to keep this thing from going up in flames.

I just read up on the subject myself. The Xbox One is still shipping with the kinect sensor. However, it is no longer mandatory to have the sensor plugged in at all times.

[ThatOneFox]

I just read up on the subject myself. The Xbox One is still shipping with the kinect sensor. However, it is no longer mandatory to have the sensor plugged in at all times.

Damn, beat me to it.

[ElectroYoshi]

I just read up on the subject myself. The Xbox One is still shipping with the kinect sensor. However, it is no longer mandatory to have the sensor plugged in at all times.

Well yeah, but why can't they just keep selling it separately?

[Sebastian Lawe]

Well yeah, but why can't they just keep selling it separately?

Microsofts idea, is that if all Xbox consoles have it, game companies can assume its available with all Xbox consoles, and find ways to integrate the kinect to make for some interesting gameplay.

Imagine how Wii gaming would be, if Nintendo shipped with gamecube controllers, rather than Wii remotes. Both controllers are possible input devices to a Wii console, but Nintendo enforced their Wii remotes.

I think the real issue, is that we have yet to see the kinect successfully integrated into a hardcore gaming experience (which is why Microsoft is enforcing the kinect this time around). Once we see it happen, we won't live without the kinect (thats Microsoft's hope).

[Lysander789]

Why are people bashing the removal of the mandatory system use of Kinect? Isn't this removal a good thing? Now, you don't have to worry about Kinect spying on you while doing other stuff. Kinect is no longer forced into the experience for basic things like turning on and accessing the system to play.

While I do like Kinect, including it with the console itself instead of it's own little box is annoying. Think about this for a moment: Including Kinect with every console is an advantage to the developer; it is guaranteed that every system with Kinect can increase sales of Kinect games. Developers won't have to fear about spending millions of dollars for Motion-Controlled games for a peripheral that has a fraction (Kinect; 24 million units) of the overall sales' units of the 360 (78.2 Million units). Remember, Kinect is not a failure by any means, but 24 Million units is not as large as 78 Million units.

Just to be clear, I'm in no way a financial expert; however, you can't argue with those numbers.

[ThatOneFox]

[ElectroYoshi]

Imagine how Wii gaming would be, if Nintendo shipped with gamecube controllers, rather than Wii remotes. Both controllers are possible input devices to a Wii console, but Nintendo enforced their Wii remotes.

Yes, but unlike Kinect, the Wii Remote is actually important to getting the full experience out of the console, that's why Nintendo enforced it. Not only that, but GameCube controllers are only possible input devices to a Wii console because number one, the Wii can run GameCube games, and number two, some (a countable number, and therefore not most) Wii games allow you to play with a GameCube controller. Kinect is not indispensable when it comes to enjoying the console. It's more comparable to the Wii Balance Board in the sense that some games use it, but most don't, which is why it isn't sold with the console.

[Sebastian Lawe]

Yes, but unlike Kinect, the Wii Remote is actually important to getting the full experience out of the console, that's why Nintendo enforced it.

The Wii remote is only important to getting the full experience out of the Wii console, because it is was deemed the only way to use any Wii content from the console. The Wii could have favored the Gamecube controller, and enforced the Gamecube controller, and designed just about every game around the Gamecube controller, making the Wii remote almost obsolete. In which case, we would say that the Gamecube controller would be important to getting the full experience out of said console. However, look at how many epic games we got with the Wii remote.

With the Xbox 360, Kinect was an after thought, just as the balance board and Wii Motion plus were for the Wii (Skyward Sword was EPIC!!!).

The Xbox One is built around the Kinect this time around. I think it would be pretty dang cool, to play a game like COD, and possibly say what user I would like my RC-XD to kill. Or, give computer players who are following me in a campaign, tactical instructions. Or, maybe I had to quickly grab something during an online match, and now somebody is about to kill me before I can get back to my controller, I could kill the person by making a knifing motion with my hand.

We've been immersed in games through story, visuals, and interaction. However, what about non conventional interaction with a game? What if a character asked you a question, and you actually had to reply back, with your own voice. What if a character in game, told you to stop making faces at him because you're sticking your tongue out. What if characters acted different around you based on your detected mood via heart rate, facial expression, and body language? What if screaming made people move out of the way? Could that not make a person feel even more immersed in a game?

There are ton of things that the Kinect sensor could add to a controller based game, but no developer will waste their time adding Kinect features, if its not a guarantee people will have access to use said features.

[ThatOneFox]

Yes, but it STILL costs $100 more than the PS4, and with a shaky launch, that might just be a console killer.

[Sebastian Lawe]

Yes, but it STILL costs $100 more than the PS4, and with a shaky launch, that might just be a console killer.

There is no doubt, that the PS4 will win the selling competition at launch. The thing is however, we have no idea how both consoles actually perform in front of our eyes. Also to note, Microsoft suffers from being honest with the consumer, and telling people everything they plan on doing (which does not work in marketing). Sony on the other hand, has told us practically nothing. We know the PS4's console specs, and that's about it.

[ElectroYoshi]

The Xbox One is built around the Kinect this time around. I think it would be pretty dang cool, to play a game like COD, and possibly say what user I would like my RC-XD to kill. Or, give computer players who are following me in a campaign, tactical instructions. Or, maybe I had to quickly grab something during an online match, and now somebody is about to kill me before I can get back to my controller, I could kill the person by making a knifing motion with my hand.

We've been immersed in games through story, visuals, and interaction. However, what about non conventional interaction with a game? What if a character asked you a question, and you actually had to reply back, with your own voice. What if a character in game, told you to stop making faces at him because you're sticking your tongue out. What if characters acted different around you based on your detected mood via heart rate, facial expression, and body language? What if screaming made people move out of the way? Could that not make a person feel even more immersed in a game?

To be honest, I don't think that really matters because Xbox One Kinect isn't bringing anything new to the table. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Null. Nil. It's exactly like 360 Kinect. I mean, a lot of people complain about the Wii U GamePad, but at least it's actually different from the touch screen on a 3DS or a Wii remote.

[ThatOneFox]

To be honest, if I were to buy a console this generation, it would in fact be the Wii-U. It has all the games I really want on it and for the graphically intensive stuff, I have my PC.

[Sebastian Lawe]

To be honest, I don't think that really matters because Xbox One Kinect isn't bringing anything new to the table. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Null. Nil. It's exactly like 360 Kinect. I mean, a lot of people complain about the Wii U GamePad, but at least it's actually different from the touch screen on a 3DS or a Wii remote.

The fact that the the Xbox 360 also had Kinect means absolutely nothing. The fact is, even though the Xbox 360 also has a Kinect, companies only invest in something if its in a product from the beginning. Nobody really invested into Kinect development for Xbox 360 because there was absolutely no guarantee everybody would be able to use said features the Kinect could bring, and development money wasn't wasted on it. This time, with the Xbox One, there is a forced guarantee, and I can't wait to see what developers will pull out of its existence, now that all Xbox One users will actually have access to it. Heck, it wouldn't be far fetched to think that Kinect based features on multi platform games would also take advantage of the Playstation eye for PS4 users, due to influence via Xbox One. I'll say this, I'm not worried about what console will succeed. I'm worried about what console will have the potential to add to what I play. I would like to potentially talk to other NPCs and give tactical instructions with my own voice, flip off a game character with my own hand, make stupid faces and have a game character call me an idiot, have a female character get mad at me if I stare at her for longer than 30 seconds. Just subtle things like that, would make a game feel more real. If my actual body could affect a controller based game, It would be awesome. If I'm starting to rage at a game, and the Kinect sensor can detect that, things in game could become slightly easier until I calm down. A game could have a perks based on mood and personality concept, where if the physical player is detected as mad, they would deal more damage in combat, but also make more noise when moving. A person who is calm, would be able to sneak around, but would also have moderately powered attacks. And, a person who is detected as happy would be able to move faster, and deal more damage. Tons of possibilities, that nobody bothered creating for the Xbox 360's kinect sensor, because its not worth putting money into something that few people own.

As for the Wii U touch screen controller, it may of been a nice new idea, but it doesn't really provide much as far as I've seen via store demos. Its also an idea that both Xbox One and PS4 have included in their next gen consoles. The is PS4 allowing the Vita to be used as a potential controller and screen, and the Xbox One turns your every day smartphone into both a controller and screen.

[ElectroYoshi]

The fact that the the Xbox 360 also had Kinect means absolutely nothing. The fact is, even though the Xbox 360 also has a Kinect, companies only invest in something if its in a product from the beginning. Nobody really invested into Kinect development for Xbox 360 because there was absolutely no guarantee everybody would be able to use said features the Kinect could bring, and development money wasn't wasted on it. This time, with the Xbox One, there is a forced guarantee, and I can't wait to see what developers will pull out of its existence, now that all Xbox One users will actually have access to it. Heck, it wouldn't be far fetched to think that Kinect based features on multi platform games would also take advantage of the Playstation eye for PS4 users, due to influence via Xbox One. I'll say this, I'm not worried about what console will succeed. I'm worried about what console will have the potential to add to what I play. I would like to potentially talk to other NPCs and give tactical instructions with my own voice, flip off a game character with my own hand, make stupid faces and have a game character call me an idiot, have a female character get mad at me if I stare at her for longer than 30 seconds. Just subtle things like that, would make a game feel more real. If my actual body could affect a controller based game, It would be awesome. If I'm starting to rage at a game, and the Kinect sensor can detect that, things in game could become slightly easier until I calm down. A game could have a perks based on mood and personality concept, where if the physical player is detected as mad, they would deal more damage in combat, but also make more noise when moving. A person who is calm, would be able to sneak around, but would also have moderately powered attacks. And, a person who is detected as happy would be able to move faster, and deal more damage. Tons of possibilities, that nobody bothered creating for the Xbox 360's kinect sensor, because its not worth putting money into something that few people own.

The fact that people will be forced to pay $100 for it along with the Xbox One itself is the reason I oppose it, so the fact that it would make a game feel more real doesn't solve the problem. Unless it will result in a price drop for the console, that will not solve the real issue. And while I do support the idea of game peripherals that make the experience feel more real, I strongly oppose the idea of bundling it with the actual console and then making people pay more for it.

The thing is, eighth generation games are gonna be 60 bucks a pop as it is now. Kinect is supposed to enhance the experience, but it costs 100 bucks. They are forcing you to pay $100 more for something that will not even be mandatory. Add that to the $60 Xbox One games actually cost, and you get $160. That's more than a fifth of the console's price and almost triple the price of the games. The group of people who are willing to fork over this much money for the sake of enhancing the experience just isn't very big.

[ThatOneFox]

And this is why I stick with PC.

[Sebastian Lawe]

The fact that people will be forced to pay $100 for it along with the Xbox One itself is the reason I oppose it, so the fact that it would make a game feel more real doesn't solve the problem. Unless it will result in a price drop for the console, that will not solve the real issue. And while I do support the idea of game peripherals that make the experience feel more real, I strongly oppose the idea of bundling it with the actual console and then making people pay more for it.

The thing is, eighth generation games are gonna be 60 bucks a pop as it is now. Kinect is supposed to enhance the experience, but it costs 100 bucks. They are forcing you to pay $100 more for something that will not even be mandatory. Add that to the $60 Xbox One games actually cost, and you get $160. That's more than a fifth of the console's price and almost triple the price of the games. The group of people who are willing to fork over this much money for the sake of enhancing the experience just isn't very big.

Don't all consoles plus included accessories cost more than games? As well, with the 7th generation, the PS3 was a hundred dollars more at launch, and nobody complained (there wasn't even anything to blame the higher price on).

I feel as though we can agree to disagree about the Xbox Ones price, and whether or not a Kinect should or shouldn't be included. We will both remain at different points of view.

And this is why I stick with PC.

If only my PC was meant for gaming.

[ThatOneFox]

#UpgradingTo3ScreensSoon

[Sebastian Lawe]

Did you guys know that Bill Gates is being pressured from investors to resign from chairman of the board? If he does that, he can never re-instate himself as CEO of Microsoft.

[ElectroYoshi]

Did you guys know that Bill Gates is being pressured from investors to resign from chairman of the board?

WHAT THE--!?

Ok, two questions: Number one, why do they want him to resign, and number two, seriously, WHY THE HELL DO THEY WANT HIM TO RESIGN!!!???