Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If for no other reason the kinect is baffling because of its influence on the price. If that thing wasn't required they could be cost competitive with Sony, but instead they demand everyone, including those of us not interested, pay for and use a peripheral.

Actually curious what the logic was in the design meetings XD. I have a feeling a lot of face palm worth quotes could be pulled

 LordofHats wrote:

That's a question for the game publishers. They most likely want some form of online drm. The 24 hour thing is for our convenience (as far as i understood); without it you would have to connect every time you want to play and not just once every 24h. I doubt the other gaming platforms have less drm.

You should really reread this. 'Our convenience' is served by inconveniencing us how?

Also consoles had less DRM. Until now. And again, so what if other platforms have it? The PC community has done little more than complain about DRM for years because it sucks.

That comment started with the wrong assumption of prevalent online drm on consoles. Apparently that isn't true yet but it seems they (MS and partnering publishers) want to push that concept. So, if every game demands an online check during start-up a once every 24 hour check seems more convenient, regardless of how we might feel about drm and online checks.

 LordofHats wrote:
If for no other reason the kinect is baffling because of its influence on the price. If that thing wasn't required they could be cost competitive with Sony, but instead they demand everyone, including those of us not interested, pay for and use a peripheral.

Actually curious what the logic was in the design meetings XD. I have a feeling a lot of face palm worth quotes could be pulled

I'm assuming that it's to do with the fact they want Kinect to become this huge thing gaming wise, but lots of games didn't bother with it on the 360 after its launch as there seemed to be no sign they where a dominant item out there in the market.

By putting it in the box from the get go, they are hoping more developers make use of it as we 'all' have it.

Still don't think it'll make them any more popular, and Microsoft should have taken a loss and sold the console at the same price as the PS4 if they want it that badly.

I think a drastically improved kinect with developers actually pushing things for it might have a better impact.

Don't forget the crazy amount of those things they sold. Obviously people like them, albeit perhaps not those of us here (core gamers mostly). I like mine... occasionally.

The voice commands in ME3 worked pretty well! But then you have something like Steel Battalion that was an absolute cluster-feth.

 Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
If for no other reason the kinect is baffling because of its influence on the price. If that thing wasn't required they could be cost competitive with Sony, but instead they demand everyone, including those of us not interested, pay for and use a peripheral.

Actually curious what the logic was in the design meetings XD. I have a feeling a lot of face palm worth quotes could be pulled

I'm assuming that it's to do with the fact they want Kinect to become this huge thing gaming wise, but lots of games didn't bother with it on the 360 after its launch as there seemed to be no sign they where a dominant item out there in the market.

I think it's less "they want Kinect to become this huge thing gaming wise" and more "they want to move towards Kinect and similar peripherals" for more things that see everyday use.
Look at what we saw with the Kinect "hacks". You had them being used at hospitals by doctors for manipulating x-rays and other information, all kinds of things that nobody would have thought of.

One of the interviews had a Microsoft guy talking about how their 'vision' is to make it so that Tony Stark's hands free interface is a reality. I wish I could find it again.

By putting it in the box from the get go, they are hoping more developers make use of it as we 'all' have it.

Not necessarily. They're trying to get people to make use of it more than now. By making it so that you HAVE to use the Kinect, it means that people who had no reason to buy one before have one.

Still don't think it'll make them any more popular, and Microsoft should have taken a loss and sold the console at the same price as the PS4 if they want it that badly.

In which case Sony would have just adjusted their price again and undersold them.

 daedalus-templarius wrote:
I think a drastically improved kinect with developers actually pushing things for it might have a better impact.

Don't forget the crazy amount of those things they sold. Obviously people like them, albeit perhaps not those of us here (core gamers mostly). I like mine... occasionally.

The voice commands in ME3 worked pretty well! But then you have something like Steel Batthttp://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/quote/720/5744675.pagealion that was an absolute cluster-feth.

Which is a shame, because I was so looking forward to Steel Battallion.
But as I said before - roughly 1 in 12 of all Xbox 360 games require kinect to play, and 1 in 10 of all 360 games can use kinect (including the kinect only titles), so it's hardly that small a pool to choose from.

There was an article on Cracked recently that brought up a point about why making the Kinect mandatory is a bad idea. It assumes that you have just tons of free space available to use it. I live in a crappy college apartment, I don't have the room to use the Kinect even if I wanted to. I'm willing to bet that plenty of other people don't have the space in their gaming area for it either. They're making unreasonable assumptions about their customers and deliberately shrinking their audience.

Edit: here's the article I was referencing: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-every-game-company-gets-wrong-about-gamers/

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
There was an article on Cracked recently that brought up a point about why making the Kinect mandatory is a bad idea. It assumes that you have just tons of free space available to use it. I live in a crappy college apartment, I don't have the room to use the Kinect even if I wanted to. I'm willing to bet that plenty of other people don't have the space in their gaming area for it either. They're making unreasonable assumptions about their customers and deliberately shrinking their audience.

Edit: here's the article I was referencing: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-every-game-company-gets-wrong-about-gamers/

The new one actually works MUCH better in small spaces than the old one. The demos showing what it sees are pretty wild; definitely not nearly as limited as the USB1.0 ancient hardware kinect for the 360.

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/PS4-Grabs-95-Consumer-Votes-Amazon-Ends-Poll-Early-56766.html

That 95% of people prefer the PS4 is almost unbelievable. I question how impartial the poll is, but it does look fairly reasonable and has 40,000 votes.

I agree that the PS4 getting 95% is unbelievable and I say that as a vocal critic of what the xbone is forcing on us. I think a more telling statistic I saw (but can't find the link at the moment) is that the PS4 preorders are about 50% higher among US retailers than the xbone. Considering North America has always been the victorious stomping ground of the xbox 360 whereas the PS4 has generally sold better pretty much on every other continent, that is a bit more telling but still realistic gauge of consumer response.

Did Microsoft ever say why they made Kinect a forced purchase? It just doesn't strike me as a good idea...quite the contrary. It appears to be very stupid. They got lots of bad press out of it, they cannot compete with the PS4 (that's another thing: it's now cheaper AND more powerful!) and they further alienate potential new customers.

Those Preorder numbers and that Amazon poll are NUTS

 Sigvatr wrote:
Did Microsoft ever say why they made Kinect a forced purchase? It just doesn't strike me as a good idea...quite the contrary. It appears to be very stupid. They got lots of bad press out of it, they cannot compete with the PS4 (that's another thing: it's now cheaper AND more powerful!) and they further alienate potential new customers.

It appeals to non-core gamers, which appears to be a market segment they are vigorously pursuing.

I think its debatable that it appeals to non-core gamers. It appeals to kinect fans which are present in core gamers and non-core gamers. Microsoft I feel has horribly misread their consumer data on several fronts with the XBone.

Yeah but non-core gamers will think twice about dropping $500 on a glorified TV remote.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah but non-core gamers will think twice about dropping $500 on a glorified TV remote.

It's got a webcam too.

Honestly I'm of the Yahtzee school of thought when it comes to motion controls. They're horrible. Stop making them.

 warboss wrote:
It's got a webcam too.

Ah! Yes. That too.

I withdraw my complaint.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Honestly I'm of the Yahtzee school of thought when it comes to motion controls. They're horrible. Stop making them.

Agreed 100%. The Wii was cool for a hot minute, but when the Move and the Kinect came out, I was completely done with it. Similar to the resurgance of 3D movies - cool at first, but now just another way for Devs to make money.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Did Microsoft ever say why they made Kinect a forced purchase? It just doesn't strike me as a good idea...quite the contrary. It appears to be very stupid. They got lots of bad press out of it, they cannot compete with the PS4 (that's another thing: it's now cheaper AND more powerful!) and they further alienate potential new customers.

I believe I heard in an interview it was way to get third party developers interested in it. The reason we don't have any good kinect games is because almost no core gamers have one. By including it with the console they guarantee that everyone has one which in turn will encourage developers to make better games for it.

That, and it also functions as a great way to watch your consumers masturbate.

I don't masturbate in front of my TV so no biggy there. Besides, if someone really want's to see that he's free to do so. xD

mega_bassist wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Honestly I'm of the Yahtzee school of thought when it comes to motion controls. They're horrible. Stop making them.

Agreed 100%. The Wii was cool for a hot minute, but when the Move and the Kinect came out, I was completely done with it. Similar to the resurgance of 3D movies - cool at first, but now just another way for Devs to make money.

Funny, cos as fun as the Kinect is (and as much as we enjoy it), we got the Wii after we got the Kinect, and we've been getting tons of use out of it.

Mostly Light Gun games, and Budokai ( ) but some others too

I use my Wii for Project M these days. That's about it. And since most of my friends are out of town for now, not even that.

That said, it had a few good games during its lifetime.

Seems most of my immediate gaming circle are more concerned about their gamer score carrying over, than any issues they might have with what Microsoft is doing.


edit - also, launch day achievement.. I needs it!

 daedalus-templarius wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Did Microsoft ever say why they made Kinect a forced purchase? It just doesn't strike me as a good idea...quite the contrary. It appears to be very stupid. They got lots of bad press out of it, they cannot compete with the PS4 (that's another thing: it's now cheaper AND more powerful!) and they further alienate potential new customers.

It appeals to non-core gamers, which appears to be a market segment they are vigorously pursuing.

Unfortunately many of their other policies with the console don't. The 500 dollar price tag is going to be especially daunting to a non-core gamer. So is the limitation on sharing or easily obtaining cheaper used games. It's sending a bit of a mixed message.

 Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:
Seems most of my immediate gaming circle are more concerned about their gamer score carrying over, than any issues they might have with what Microsoft is doing.


edit - also, launch day achievement.. I needs it!

It's been what? 8 years now? And I still don't even know what a gamerscore means.

Granted, I don't own a 360, but I still don't even know what the PS3 equivalent does or why it matters.

That's the point. It doesn't matter. It's nothing more then an e-peen measuring tool.

That is also the reason I completed Vanquish on God-Hard mode and making my fingers bleed.

Aye.. I have gone back to games I would have long since tossed in the bin, in an attempt to earn one more achievement, for more of those points. To continue to stand above my two brothers gamerscores.

It literally makes no sense, but more than once, I have sat looking down my game list not for which game I'd like to play, but which one I can earn an unlock from.

 Soladrin wrote:
That's the point. It doesn't matter. It's nothing more then an e-peen measuring tool.

That is also the reason I completed Vanquish on God-Hard mode and making my fingers bleed.

I thought you're supposed to do that for the pure sadistic pleasure.

All along, I guess I was doing that wrong, then.