Support NeoGAF

[p3tran]

Consumers have shown they are fine with paying for Gold. There's no way MS drops it, especially with Sony now having a sub for online play as well.

this gen, double-paying for the ability to play online, is something that will not be completely unaccountable for a span of 5-6 years for those that usually get all systems. so maybe there will be a choice there.

furthermore, if microsoft feels that they have a very content-rich environment that will tempt the user to put money in it, they should drop the fee, and gain a competitive advantage over sony anyways.
I would be surprised if I learned that xbox gold fees >= consumer dollars/euros spend on marketplace. is it like this?

Does he realize that Microsoft makes 1.8 BILLION dollars per year on Gold subs from 360?

this number is not guaranteed for next gen though. and of course not until the console numbers pile up.
do you have any numbers about gross revenue from marketplace? (excluding gold sub cost)

 

[x-Lundz-x]

Thats the annoying part. It was obvious to me that the console would work without the Kinect, no way would they have a situation where the console wouldn't work if Kinect broke or something, thats just common sense.
No the problem i have is forcing us to buy it, they should hve 2 sku's, one with Kinect and a cheaper one without. I still live in hope thats what we will end up with by launch.

I seriously think this is something MS didn't even think about until after the reveal. It goes to show in how the console was presented and them originally saying Kinect was required. Then after all the backlash and these exact arguments from gamers like us and the press telling them, "well what happens if my Kinect breaks?" it forced them to rethink things a little.

 

[BruiserBear]

MS should drop XBLG entirely, like Paul Thurrot suggested.

1) Microsoft raised the price of XBLG a couple years ago. You only raise the price of something when it's selling well and you're confident it will continue to sell well at that higher price.

2) It's worked out so well for Microsoft their main competitor has reversed course and is now charging for an online service of their own.

Those two reasons tell us there is no chance XBLG is going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[Man-is-Obsolete]

system settings is not the same as being able to physically remove the thing if you want to.
so it does change stuff.

about kinect enhancement in games, of course you can navigate for example the menus in forza by joypad or by voice/gesture.
but if I choose in my system settings to not use the kinect,
I would be really surprised if forza would pause until I connected my kinect and enable it from system menu. (of course this is 100% dealbreaker)

now, if you are talking about kinect sports or some other game where kinect is the main point of the entire game, of course it is very reasonable that in order to play those games, you should enable kinect in the first place...

No I am saying the goal, IMO, of including a Kinect with every system is to change how users interact with not only the console, but with games. Now Kinect features can be implemented into Halo and every user has the means to use them. I think it is foolish to force such things on users, however, it is not unheard of. In the first Uncharted players had to tilt the control to balance and adjust the throw of a grenade, and in Donkey Kong Country Returns players had to shake their controller to do a roll. Both cases show that when every user has access to a feature games will then design mechanics to utilize it, if for nothing else just to justify the existence of the feature.

So yes I do think we will see traditional controller games require Kinect to play the game. Just as sure as games will use the touchpad on the PS4 and the touchscreen on the Wii U.

 

[Alx]

I seriously think this is something MS didn't even think about until after the reveal. It goes to show in how the console was presented and them originally saying Kinect was required. Then after all the backlash and these exact arguments from gamers like us and the press telling them, "well what happens if my Kinect breaks?" it forced them to rethink things a little.

I'm sure they considered it from the start, each decent industrial project does risk assessments. But they probably reached the conclusion that it was too unlikely a scenario to be a problem (when was the last time you had a webcam break down ? It shouldn't be very different with a kinect). They could just take the hit and replace it for the few cases that would occur.
The problem is not the risk of failure itself, but the concern of the consumer about it. If the user thinks there is too much of a risk, then something has to be done to appease him.

But then, I still think the main concern was about privacy issues.

 

[p3tran]

No I am saying the goal, IMO, of including a Kinect with every system is to change how users interact with not only the console, but with games. Now Kinect features can be implemented into Halo and every user has the means to use them. I think it is foolish to force such things on users, however, it is not unheard of. In the first Uncharted players had to tilt the control to balance and adjust the throw of a grenade, and in Donkey Kong Country Returns players had to shake their controller to do a roll. Both cases show that when every user has access to a feature games will then design mechanics to utilize it, if for nothing else just to justify the existence of the feature.

So yes I do think we will see traditional controller games require Kinect to play the game. Just as sure as games will use the touchpad on the PS4 and the touchscreen on the Wii U.

yes, but forcing kinect applications like your example of tilt balance on uncharted, kind of defeats that kinect is a worthwhile gaming accessory. doesn't it?

I mean, if I preferred not to have kinect on my face unless I decide use it, then having a lot of games to force me to use it, in order to provide something tacked-on and not good enough...
this would make a person like me to get rid of the system..

 

[schwabdizzle]

I really think MS is going after whoever they can with a $500 Xbox One with Kinnect then releasing a Kinnect free model with Titanfall bundled in for $399 in the Spring/Summer. You heard it here first.

 

[jim2011]

Yep. I was going to keep my 360 to put in the bedroom when I get my two new systems, but I'm sure as hell not paying just to access Netflix in there. My standalone Blu-ray player is going in there with its free apps and the 360 is going to GameStop.

Well if you get Xbox one and pay for gold, the same subscription will work on 360...

I agree that paywall should be gone though.

 

[Man-is-Obsolete]

yes, but forcing kinect applications like your example of tilt balance on uncharted, kind of defeats that kinect is a worthwhile gaming accessory. doesn't it?

I mean, if I preferred not to have kinect on my face unless I decide use it, then having a lot of games to force me to use it, in order to provide something tacked-on and not good enough...
this would make a person like me to get rid of the system..

I'm just saying don't be surprised.

 

[twobear]

1) Microsoft raised the price of XBLG a couple years ago. You only raise the price of something when it's selling well and you're confident it will continue to sell well at that higher price.

2) It's worked out so well for Microsoft their main competitor has reversed course and is now charging for an online service of their own.

Those two reasons tell us there is no chance XBLG is going anywhere anytime soon.

I think that killing XBLG would be excellent PR though.

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

MS should drop XBLG entirely, like Paul Thurrot suggested.

Lol not going to happen. XBLG is probably the most profitable part of the entire Xbox project. I wouldn't be surprised if the 360 and One consoles were created as a Trojan Horse to sell Gold.

 

[LeBoef]

i am sure all those whiners that shoutet "remove drm and kinect" will come back now.

:S

 

[RukusProvider]

Glad to hear that Kinect is still with each box and heavily focused. I don't care for another traditional box.

For my true high end "ooooh pretty graphics!" I'll just pick up a new Ati flagship card in oct that will blow away both anyway.

 

[dancrane212]

come on MS, just one more to flip.

I'm still waiting on this too. Even though I would most likely have a gold account the idea that I need to have a subscription to access another subscription service (Netflix) is maddening.

 

[RukusProvider]

I think that killing XBLG would be excellent PR though.

So would giving away free consoles. I know its really a weird concept on gaming side but companies care about profits first and foremost.

 

[p3tran]

I'm just saying don't be surprised.

I'd be surprised, but only about the factor of stupidity of said console maker.

 

[Mael]

So would giving away free consoles. I know its really a weird concept on gaming side but companies care about profits first and foremost.

Nah, MSFT never gives consoles away...

I'm sure they considered it from the start, each decent industrial project does risk assessments. But they probably reached the conclusion that it was too unlikely a scenario to be a problem (when was the last time you had a webcam break down ? It shouldn't be very different with a kinect). They could just take the hit and replace it for the few cases that would occur.
The problem is not the risk of failure itself, but the concern of the consumer about it. If the user thinks there is too much of a risk, then something has to be done to appease him.

But then, I still think the main concern was about privacy issues.

Here's one who gets it.

 

[Interfectum]

If Kinect can be turned off, then game developers can't count on Kinect anymore which renders packing Kinect in virtually pointless. They are getting ready for an announcement.

 

[m23]

If Kinect can be turned off, then game developers can't count on Kinect anymore which renders packing Kinect in virtually pointless. They are getting ready for an announcement.

What? It's still being packed in the box, devs know each Xbox One owner also owns a Kinect.

 

[harlekin]

If Kinect can be turned off, then game developers can't count on Kinect anymore which renders packing Kinect in virtually pointless. They are getting ready for an announcement.

If it rains, people get wet. It is virtually pointless to sell them umbrellas.

 

[Wubby]

Well the likelihood of me keeping my XB1 pre-order just went up a notch. The mandatory Kinect was my biggest gripe considering I'll be using it at a desk so it wouldn't work. Now it's just a matter of if I really want to spend $500 plus on the system and games.

 

[BadWolf]

Glad to see them continue to 180 on the stupid stuff.

Still going with the PS4 but happy for the ppl getting the X1.

 

[Interfectum]

What? It's still being packed in the box, devs know each Xbox One owner also owns a Kinect.

Now that it's not mandatory it's only a matter of time before it becomes an optional pack-in which means developers cannot count on it always being there. So every XB1 game will have to take into account the possibility of Kinect not being active which relegates a lot of Kinect features to fluff that can be disabled.

 

[fi3rypho3nix]

Free apps behind the paywall is my ONLY complaint at this point. My kids and wife enjoyed the Kinect 1 and I sure this one will be better. My complaints are over. I am getting one now.

Err... I would like digital games sharing in the future though.

 

[fi3rypho3nix]

Now that it's not mandatory it's only a matter of time before it becomes an optional pack-in which means developers cannot count on it always being there. So every XB1 game will have to take into account the possibility of Kinect not being active which relegates a lot of Kinect features to fluff that can be disabled.

It will be widely adopted. Knowing gamers got one and can turn it on if needed is much different than an add-on scenario where it was not available without serious commitment on the consumers behalf.

 

[sangreal]

Now that it's not mandatory it's only a matter of time before it becomes an optional pack-in which means developers cannot count on it always being there. So every XB1 game will have to take into account the possibility of Kinect not being active which relegates a lot of Kinect features to fluff that can be disabled.

It's not required to use the system. Games that use it will prompt the user to connect the device. Developers can still count on every user having a kinect

 

[Ol No Bones]

Kinect will be used in clever ways and is a big part of microsofts UI. I look forward to it. It is a differentiating factor or the consoles would pretty much be the same.

 

[m23]

Now that it's not mandatory it's only a matter of time before it becomes an optional pack-in which means developers cannot count on it always being there. So every XB1 game will have to take into account the possibility of Kinect not being active which relegates a lot of Kinect features to fluff that can be disabled.

Just because it is no longer required to be plugged in at all times doesn't mean MS won't push it any less. It is still being regarded as a core component to the Xbox One by MS and it will continue to be. I don't see there being a Kinect-less box sold anytime soon.

Also, we've known since the reveal that there will always be an option to switch off Kinect if you don't want to use it, now we know its possible to be disconnected completely, so its not much of a change when it comes to developers.

 

[twobear]

So would giving away free consoles. I know its really a weird concept on gaming side but companies care about profits first and foremost.

PR leads to increased sales, though. MS are in a sticky situation; they have to offer not only a product that people want to buy (arguably, they're not really doing this yet either), Sony's enormously successful PS4 PR campaign has also put MS in a position where they cannot regain the attention of the core audience unless they can put across the impression that, like Sony, their commitment to profit actually comes second to their commitment to Great Games™.

Dropping XBLG would be fantastic for that. In one swoop, not only do they go a long way to cleaning up their own image, they also implicitly tarnish Sony's carefully constructed image by making the charging for online look like a greedy cash-grab instead of the unfortunate necessity that Sony more-or-less successfully presented it as. MS need to turn Xbone (and the Xbox brand) around in the long run, just like Sony did with the PS3, and I think dropping XBLG would be a good first step.

[edit]Of course, XBLG is worth an enormous amount of money; I know that they wont do it. At bare minimum they should move apps out from behind the paywall and set up some kind of PS+ or another service.

 

[jordan0386]

As mentioned earlier, Gold is worth almost 2 billion dollars. Its not going anywhere.

All I see is pitch forks for Gold, but justification for PSN's new charges.

 

[mrklaw]

PR leads to increased sales, though. MS are in a sticky situation; they have to offer not only a product that people want to buy (arguably, they're not really doing this yet either), Sony's enormously successful PS4 PR campaign has also put MS in a position where they cannot regain the attention of the core audience unless they can put across the impression that, like Sony, their commitment to profit actually comes second to their commitment to Great Games™.

Dropping XBLG would be fantastic for that. In one swoop, not only do they go a long way to cleaning up their own image, they also implicitly tarnish Sony's carefully constructed image by making the charging for online look like a greedy cash-grab instead of the unfortunate necessity that Sony more-or-less successfully presented it as. MS need to turn Xbone around in the long run, just like Sony did with the PS3, and I think dropping XBLG would be a good first step.

disagree. If they'd come out at E3 and done that, that's one thing. But dropping XBLG now is just another change from what they've already said they are doing. It would be a good thing, but I don't think it woudl paint Sony in any kind of light - MS are the ones that went an entire generation charging for P2P servers.

it is a little surprising they are both still charging - I would have hoped they'd have both gone free, with the aim to get many more people online and being skimmed for DLC etc.

I guess the blunt force of $60 per year per XBLG user is just too much to overcome by a few people buying DLC

As mentioned earlier, Gold is worth almost 2 billion dollars. Its not going anywhere.

All I see is pitch forks for Gold, but justification for PSN's new charges.

the pitchforks aren't for online gaming (which is what Sony is charging for), they are for paid access to netflix, paid access to the TV guide, paid access to damn skype and internet explorer

 

[m23]

No way would they drop XBL Gold. If anything, they would probably drop the paywalls for apps.

 

[So Many Bullets]

Good for them, but I got off this train a long time ago.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Microsoft.. the whole debacle with Win 8, Surface and Xbox One.



What are you doing?? BALMEMEMRMRMER!!!

 

[sangreal]

the pitchforks aren't for online gaming (which is what Sony is charging for), they are for paid access to netflix, paid access to the TV guide, paid access to damn skype and internet explorer

XBLG member spend more time using those apps than multiplayer gaming. The app paywall isn't going anywhere

 

[jordan0386]

XBLG member spend more time using those apps than multiplayer gaming. The app paywall isn't going anywhere

IMO. Most apps go useless. Its Netflix or COD, from what Ive personally seen.

 

[Uno Venova]

Microsoft.. the whole debacle with Win 8, Surface and Xbox One.



What are you doing?? BALMEMEMRMRMER!!!

This is at least a much quicker response than those other two debacles.

 

[The Bookerman]

why bundle it

remove and sell for less

Because some games will require the Kinect to work.

 

[Hoho for breakfast]

i am sure all those whiners that shoutet "remove drm and kinect" will come back now.

:S

I'm one of those whiners. I'll pick up an Xbox eventually now when I see something I want and have the money. Still getting a PS4 first because of specs and price.

 

[Dark Octave]

 

[conman]

Good for them, but I got off this train a long time ago.

Pretty much my thinking.

The 360 was a disaster in its own right in terms of hardware reliability, ad-heavy UI, XBL Gold, and nonsensical MS points. The only reason for its success was MS's seemingly bottomless pocketbook and evilly brilliant XBL subscription service. Took me four years before I finally bought one (and promptly lost it thanks to RRoD). I sold my 360 a few months ago with no regrets. And then this disastrous build up to the Xbone launch...

Even if all these 180s are "good things," all it shows me is that MS still can't tell its head readers from its rear ports. No thanks.

 

[RedSwirl]

Did they actually "reverse" this or was the Kinect never absolutely mandatory and they're only just now telling us?

 

[MrPeazy]

Yeah, I made my choice. I already posted that once, in a different thread.
My personal (!) view:
MS pissed my off to no end and they showed us what they think about the gaming business in general, what direction they want to go and what they're planning in the future.
They did some 180's now, but I'm sure in the future, they will be back on track with their first plan.
Why they did their 180's? Because they media began to kick their ass. Before that,
they couldn't give more of a crap about us gamers.

Just because they did some 180's, doesn't mean I forgot what they tried to do a few months ago.
I see absolutely NO reason, to prefer the XBone over the PS4. For like.... anyone.
The only reason could be "I'm a Halo/Forza fan" or "my buddy is an Xbox-only guy, so I have to buy a Xbox too, so I can play with him online".
As a former Xbox360 gamer I'm SO turned off by MS, that I can't understand why some people think "welp.... everything is ok now... I guess". (I'm excluding the *insertsystem* fanboys in general).
/rant

I pre-ordered the XBone as soon as it was available. I was never interested in the PS4 for any reason. I owned both PS3 and 360 this generation and, outside of Uncharted, did not find any of their 1st party games compelling. I just enjoy MS's 1st party games more. That, and only that, is the reason why I am going with the XBone. The games matter to me more than anything else. More than any of the policies, current and past ones.

 

[conman]

Did they actually "reverse" this or was the Kinect never absolutely mandatory and they're only just now telling us?

Like everything else about the launch announcement, MS will just blame it on "poor messaging." In the days following the original announcement, no one at MS seemed to have a consistent line on much of anything. Some had said, yes, it would be mandatory; others were less clear. The takeaway by the press and by gamers was that, yes, it would be mandatory.

But as I said, MS will just chalk it up to a miscommunication rather than a reversal.

 

[Raist]

for all the shit MS is getting they are keeping us in the loop and actually taking the time to interact with us. Releasing videos about improvements and features I don't see the competition doing anything comparable.

That's because the competition only releases info once in a clear and straightforward way and doesn't have 5 people saying 5 different things and changing their shit every other day. They don't need people working overtime on gaming forums.

 

[m23]

That's because the competition only releases info once in a clear and straightforward way and doesn't have 5 people saying 5 different things and changing their shit every other day. They don't need people working overtime on gaming forums.

That's kind of disrespectful to people like Albert Penello coming in here and interacting with us.

 

[sangreal]

Did they actually "reverse" this or was the Kinect never absolutely mandatory and they're only just now telling us?

Albert Penello says right in the OP that it is a change

 

[Ryan Gosling]

great news! one step closer for a kinectless SKU.

 

[Man-is-Obsolete]

Albert Penello says right in the OP that it is a change

I wish I could find the statement, but I am positive they said right after the reveal you could turn the Kinect off. Not sure about unplugging it though. I think their original intent was have the Kinect act as a way to ID the user, therefore, it would need to be connected at all times, but maybe now they made it so you can select a profile with a controller since they have done away with the family sharing thing.

 

[Alx]

I wish I could find the statement, but I am positive they said right after the reveal you could turn the Kinect off. Not sure about unplugging it though.

Well I think that's the main difference. From Albert Penello's declarations, we can deduce that there was a change, meaning that in the original plan you had to keep kinect plugged in even when it was disabled.
That was bothering people for privacy and aesthetic reasons, so they removed that requirement.