Skip to main content

Forums / Community / General Discussion

Xbox One will NOT require a Kinect

OP RhysWX

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2
Quote:
The only issue I've had any problems with is the focal distance to the sensors, and the amount of floor space required to really use it adequately. It does require a fair amount of space, and the depth of field can be a bit shallow.
Microsoft needs to give the kinect more advanced settings to let you adjust the field.
Quote:
Besides that, the technology is quite astounding. My company (and many others) have integrated the Kinect as a vision/navigation system for autonomous robotics. Much to our chagrin, it worked a lot better than we expected. In fact, integrating it into am iRobot roomba was a lot easier than we expected.
Agreed, I don't know if anyone else here has tried it, but I've been using a Kinect like device called Leap Motion, same idea, but it focuses on your fingers and hands, granted it's still new, and like all new tech, it takes some time and revisions to work right. But it works, and I've played a few of the games that are free, and tried some of the software that is compatible with my computer, and is free, and let me tell you, the controls are fast, even set to default which aren't precise nor fast, they're still very quick and precise for being a kinect like motion controller.

Raptor, you keep on going on in your last post about how it seems like a bad idea to sell a device that doesn't jive with the fan base. Also you're saying it like Microsoft get's a cut from every single Xbox based game sold. Yes Microsoft get's money from Halo, but do you know how they get more money!? By selling things to expand their fan/consumer base, which means more Xbox sells. Microsoft doesn't get a cut of every single game copy sold, unless it's on their direct to drive service, other than that, they're making no many off of games like COD. But still, Microsoft making the choice to create and sell the kinect, isn't a bad idea, but picking up something like a VR headset, is more of a bad idea than the kinect being required. How does a VR headset appel to Hard Core gamers? Hmm? Who's to say they even want to wear this big clunky thing on their heads when they have a good TV in front of them?

Now, I will say this, the idea of creating a device/feature that gives the Xbox the ability to see who's actually holding a controller, and automatically adding players when they pick up the controller instead of having to restart the mission, and messing with menus, I don't know about you, but THAT is a feature that most hard core players will love, the ability to be playing a game, and let a friend jump in without having to miss a beat.

A lot of people are iffy on the kinect as a whole. Mostly because the current kinect is full of problems and bugs, but like I said before, that's the downside of new tech, at first it SUCKS. You know the difference between the first cameras and todays 10 Mega pixel Digital SLR cameras!? The first cameras sucked, you could only take one or two photos before having to reload the camera, and you had to develop the film/photo in chemicals that was harmful, for blurry grainy black and white photos. Now days, I can take my 8 mega pixel digital SLR out into my back yard, and take a photo of a hummingbird flying to a tree, and get a crystal clear image of said bird frozen in time, I can even take a time lapse of said bird flapping it's wings. The Kinect is no different from the very first cameras, the first few version/generations it's going to suck, and people are going to hate it, cause it sucks. But later on, it's going to get better, the coding for it is going to improve in strides, someday a Kinect like Device will be able to account for every single joint in your body and your eye movement. But for now, it's going to suck.
Quote:
I don't know how I feel about this, it feels like Microsoft was trying to do something new with the Kinect, like Nintendo went from Gamecube to Wii and and added motion control, now it really just feels like we have the Xbox 360.5 :/
Well, I'm pretty sure you, me, and a hell of a lot of other people wouldn't be happy that their $500 dollar console is bricked and useless because some damn motion sensor broke. Its good to know it can still function without the Kinect.
To all the advocates for Kinect . . I ask you this . .

Do you see/want a future for gaming were there is no controller that you hold in your hand's ?

I personally think for anything (Not just games) that requires/need's/is more controllable with mechanical/physical input controller's, keyboard's, etc . .
is and for a very long time (if not forever), will be the best and most user friendly method of controlling something.

I don't think a camera will ever replace a physical controller that a person can hold in their hand's and get tactile (The feeling of the buttons and controller) and force feedback (Rumble).

A camera by it's very nature can not provide tactile and force feedback.

I think Microsoft made a very smart move by not requiring Kinect, this way everybody has a Kinect still, so developers can develop and implement Kinect without having to worry about people not having Kinect . .

And consumers/players have a Kinect, and have the option to use it if they want to.
Quote:
Do you see/want a future for gaming were there is no controller that you hold in your hand's ?
Yes and no. There are games out there right now, that it's funner to play with motion controls instead of controllers. Controllers have issues, they have wires, they break, they have batteries, they get wear and tear, they have limited amount of controls to them. But there are games that the controllers are better for gaming.

I have a feeling that you have no imagination for when it comes to the possibilities with games and motion controls. Motion controls open up a world of opportunities and possibilities for motion controls.

Quote:
I personally think for anything (Not just games) that requires/need's/is more controllable with mechanical/physical input controller's, keyboard's, etc . .
is and for a very long time (if not forever), will be the best and most user friendly method of controlling something.
Yes, this is true, but at the same time, it's also false. A long time PC player who is use to Keyboard/mouse controls going Xbox/PS, have issues sometimes getting use to controls, and vis versa. But motion controls, those are simple, as simple as physical controls sometimes. It's just a matter of Opinion, and having a open mind.

Quote:
I don't think a camera will ever replace a physical controller that a person can hold in their hand's and get tactile (The feeling of the buttons and controller) and force feedback (Rumble).

A camera by it's very nature can not provide tactile and force feedback.
Yes, a camera can not provide tactile force feedback. BUT! Not all games, and not all gamers use force feedback, so how is that a good argument for not using motion controls? Why are you fighting the idea of motion controls?
Is it because most of the games motion controls requires you to stand up and move around? Isn't this part of the idea around motion controls!? For players to get up and get more active!?

Quote:
I think Microsoft made a very smart move by not requiring Kinect, this way everybody has a Kinect still, so developers can develop and implement Kinect without having to worry about people not having Kinect . .

And consumers/players have a Kinect, and have the option to use it if they want to.
Yes the move Microsoft with not requiring the kinect is a very smart one for many reasons, one of which you're demonstrating, people still hate the idea of the motion controls, and the kinect is like someone showing up to their door and telling them to change their ways. Another is that the camera always being on, people could hack the Xbox, and stick a virus on it to active the camera and watch people and use it to spy on people.

But people who want the kinect because they like it and have an open mind to the idea of motion controls, they can still use it. Personally I strongly hope that Microsoft never listens to people like you Raptor, and keep on working and improving the Kinect. Yes I understand the kinect scares you, and you don't understand it, but the kinect itself is a great device, and has many different applications other than just gaming.

Now my question to you is this:
Have you tried playing motion controls!? Have you played games designed around motion controls!? Have you played games that used Touch screens!?
Quote:
Quote:
Do you see/want a future for gaming were there is no controller that you hold in your hand's ?
Yes and no. There are games out there right now, that it's funner to play with motion controls instead of controllers. Controllers have issues, they have wires, they break, they have batteries, they get wear and tear, they have limited amount of controls to them. But there are games that the controllers are better for gaming.

I have a feeling that you have no imagination for when it comes to the possibilities with games and motion controls. Motion controls open up a world of opportunities and possibilities for motion controls.

Quote:
I personally think for anything (Not just games) that requires/need's/is more controllable with mechanical/physical input controller's, keyboard's, etc . .
is and for a very long time (if not forever), will be the best and most user friendly method of controlling something.
Yes, this is true, but at the same time, it's also false. A long time PC player who is use to Keyboard/mouse controls going Xbox/PS, have issues sometimes getting use to controls, and vis versa. But motion controls, those are simple, as simple as physical controls sometimes. It's just a matter of Opinion, and having a open mind.

Quote:
I don't think a camera will ever replace a physical controller that a person can hold in their hand's and get tactile (The feeling of the buttons and controller) and force feedback (Rumble).

A camera by it's very nature can not provide tactile and force feedback.
Yes, a camera can not provide tactile force feedback. BUT! Not all games, and not all gamers use force feedback, so how is that a good argument for not using motion controls? Why are you fighting the idea of motion controls?
Is it because most of the games motion controls requires you to stand up and move around? Isn't this part of the idea around motion controls!? For players to get up and get more active!?

Quote:
I think Microsoft made a very smart move by not requiring Kinect, this way everybody has a Kinect still, so developers can develop and implement Kinect without having to worry about people not having Kinect . .

And consumers/players have a Kinect, and have the option to use it if they want to.
Yes the move Microsoft with not requiring the kinect is a very smart one for many reasons, one of which you're demonstrating, people still hate the idea of the motion controls, and the kinect is like someone showing up to their door and telling them to change their ways. Another is that the camera always being on, people could hack the Xbox, and stick a virus on it to active the camera and watch people and use it to spy on people.

But people who want the kinect because they like it and have an open mind to the idea of motion controls, they can still use it. Personally I strongly hope that Microsoft never listens to people like you Raptor, and keep on working and improving the Kinect. Yes I understand the kinect scares you, and you don't understand it, but the kinect itself is a great device, and has many different applications other than just gaming.

Now my question to you is this:
Have you tried playing motion controls!? Have you played games designed around motion controls!? Have you played games that used Touch screens!?


I'm never going to buy a Kinect, it's 360 version is to expensive and not worth it I think . . The only way I'll have a Kinect is when I get my Xbox One Day One Edition.

I have a open mind to new thing's . .

I'm not against the idea of motion controls at all, I think I've said so in the past, I have a Wii, I love the Super Mario Galaxy games, and I like the idea for Skyward Sword a lot, they are a small sample of a lot of games Nintendo has implemented motion controls really well I think.

I'm also planning on getting a Wii U at some point in the future.

I have no problem with people who want Kinect, I have a problem with Microsoft making Kinect features required, but they fixed that, so I guess my only problem with Microsoft is if they shoe horn Kinect into games that don't need it or shouldn't have it . .

Dance games and singing games are the only genre I can think of that should possibly have Kinect as there main controller, any of genre I think should only have Kinect as a optional enhancement, not required.

Project Spark is very interesting to me, I hope it won't have required Kinect, because 95% of my gaming is at night time, when other people in my house are sleeping, being able to fully use a controller for Project Spark would allow me to play it a lot more, because I don't need to make any noise to us my controller.
Yep, got that message loud and clear.
I like that Microsoft have allowed people to remove Kinect. Your console would be bricked if your Kinect sensor ever broke, or you needed to send it in to get repaired. It also eases the "Microsoft spying" and "spybox" crap people have been spewing all over the internet.

I think Kinect should and will remain bundled with the Xbox One. Kinect 1.0 was very impressive, and judging by the amounts of improvements to Kinect 2.0, it'll be a lot better throughout the console. Obviously Microsoft believe in this piece of hardware, or they wouldn't bundle it with every Xbox One, which could harm Xbox One's reputation and sales.. None of us have even tried it yet, so having an all-negative mindset toward it is stupid at this point.

What people fail to understand is that Kinect isn't exclusively for motion gaming. When most people think of Kinect, they think of people dancing around on the floor. But this is not just what Kinect 2.0 on Xbox One is about. Kinect can be used for performing many system tasks, and will be used for more system tasks in the future. Kinect can be used for apps and future apps in new and interesting ways.

Kinect can be used for Skype, and I think Skype on Xbox One is pretty impressive. Kinect can be used for navigation throughout the UI. It makes navigating the UI easier, and plus Kinect 2.0 can see fully in the dark for when you're watching movies, and the like. It can be used for voice commands. I'm really impressed by this one. I think saying "Xbox, snap Skype" is far easier and would take way less time than using a controller. It simply cannot be done as simply. Kinect can also be used in awesome and super convenient ways such as scanning codes, knowing the player and signing in to all their preferences on that controller, switching screens, etc. It just makes the experience simple and convenient and I have a feeling Kinect will keep being updated in the future to add really cool features like this. Little things that Kinect does automatically will make it seem like a chore on other consoles.

Just thought I'd post my opinion on Kinect 2.0...
While this is great news, it still sucks because they are not going to sell a console seperately and make it cheaper :(
I will always want some games that need a controller like my Xbox (but with 2 more bumper buttons), but I will always want this too (2009!!)
Quote:
Quote:
I don't know how I feel about this, it feels like Microsoft was trying to do something new with the Kinect, like Nintendo went from Gamecube to Wii and and added motion control, now it really just feels like we have the Xbox 360.5 :/
Well, I'm pretty sure you, me, and a hell of a lot of other people wouldn't be happy that their $500 dollar console is bricked and useless because some damn motion sensor broke. Its good to know it can still function without the Kinect.
Devil's Advocate: One can say the same thing about the HDD, RAM, or processor.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2