By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Benefits of Xbox without Kinect?

Uabit on 14 May 2014

It costs the same as ps4 now and they can make the difference offering good games, not a fucking camera with plenty of bugs (demonstrated by games that work as bad as kinect sports rivals).

What do you think? :)



Around the Network
iron_megalith on 14 May 2014

I see nothing. And there's no problem with that since it should have been that way right from the start. Xbox one wasn't that special to begin with. The higher price didn't even justify the need to get one. It's more of an overly gimmicky product that tried too hard.

Don't get me wrong by saying only xbox was the gimmicky one here. The industry is filled with it and sometimes it makes a hit(Wii). It's just that they did it wrong and it wasn't even impressive to begin. It was something people could not find the need/want.

Anyway this will be interesting. Will Sony drop a price or something if Xbox one picks up?



Goddbless on 14 May 2014
Captain_Tom said:
NightDragon83 said:
Captain_Tom said:
NightDragon83 said:
I like all the posts that continue to knock the X1 for being the same price as PS4 despite being the "weaker" of the two, as if all of a sudden not being the most powerful console of a generation is a bad thing.

See..

X360/Wii  360 lost, Wii was cheaper
PS2 Came out a year and a half sooner and was cheaper
PS1 Could play CD's and hold games bigger than 30MB!!!
SNES (if you count Neo Geo, CD-i, 3DO and Jaguar as same gen)
NES

LMAO.  Responses in bold, I ignored the crazy old ones because I don't have the time to look up the history of systems I didn't partake in.

Seriously?  360 outsold PS3 by nearly 20 million in North America, and it even managed to surpass the Wii.  Only reason it "lost" overall was because it was non-existent in one of the three major markets for consoles (Japan).

PS2 was $299 at launch and the most expensive of the generation along with the original Xbox... GC was more powerful and just $199 a year later.

PS1 was also $299 at launch compared to $199 for the more powerful N64.  And storage limitations didn't stop companies like Capcom from porting dual-CD games like RE2 onto the N64 in its entirety, cutscenes and all, and with BETTER visuals on top of that.

The point being that the most powerful console of any previous generation was never #1 in sales, regardless of price.

Very convenient that you discard the generation that [completely] torpedos your whole argument.  The PS3 was more exspensive THE ENTIRE GENERATION and yet managed to outsell the 360 while launching a year later.  It doesn't matter if the 360 lost "because" of their terrible push in Japan.  I can use the same silly argument you did btw:  "The only reason the the 360 did well at first was because the PS3 sold a lot worse in the US."  In fact the PS3 won EVERY other market so my version makes more sense.

Saying the strongest console can't win is about as dumb as saying the cheapest console always wins.

I guess you don't count the Wii as a console?



Love the product, not the company. They love your money, not you.

-TheRealMafoo

fps_d0minat0r on 14 May 2014
Captain_Tom said:
NightDragon83 said:
Captain_Tom said:
NightDragon83 said:
I like all the posts that continue to knock the X1 for being the same price as PS4 despite being the "weaker" of the two, as if all of a sudden not being the most powerful console of a generation is a bad thing.

See..

X360/Wii  360 lost, Wii was cheaper
PS2 Came out a year and a half sooner and was cheaper
PS1 Could play CD's and hold games bigger than 30MB!!!
SNES (if you count Neo Geo, CD-i, 3DO and Jaguar as same gen)
NES

LMAO.  Responses in bold, I ignored the crazy old ones because I don't have the time to look up the history of systems I didn't partake in.

Seriously?  360 outsold PS3 by nearly 20 million in North America, and it even managed to surpass the Wii.  Only reason it "lost" overall was because it was non-existent in one of the three major markets for consoles (Japan).

PS2 was $299 at launch and the most expensive of the generation along with the original Xbox... GC was more powerful and just $199 a year later.

PS1 was also $299 at launch compared to $199 for the more powerful N64.  And storage limitations didn't stop companies like Capcom from porting dual-CD games like RE2 onto the N64 in its entirety, cutscenes and all, and with BETTER visuals on top of that.

The point being that the most powerful console of any previous generation was never #1 in sales, regardless of price.

Very convenient that you discard the generation that completily torpedos your whole argument.  The PS3 was more exspensive THE ENTIRE GENERATION and yet managed to outsell the 360 while launching a year later.  It doesn't matter if the 360 lost "because" of their terrible push in Japan.  I can use the same silly argument you did btw:  "The only reason the the 360 did well at first was because the PS3 sold a lot worse in the US."  In fact the PS3 won EVERY other market so my version makes more sense.

Saying the strongest console can't win is about as dumb as saying the cheapest console always wins.


Even if you do exclude the wii, if 360 could beat the PS3 and it was cheaper and had better multiplatforms, doesnt that mean PS4 will beat the X1 by an even larger amount?



small44 on 14 May 2014

price cut



PS4 - over 100 millions let's say 120m
Xbox One - 70m
Wii U - 25m

Vita - 15m if it will not get Final Fantasy Kingdoms Heart and Monster Hunter 20m otherwise
3DS - 80m

Around the Network
Captain_Tom on 14 May 2014
fps_d0minat0r said:
Captain_Tom said:
NightDragon83 said:
Captain_Tom said:
NightDragon83 said:
I like all the posts that continue to knock the X1 for being the same price as PS4 despite being the "weaker" of the two, as if all of a sudden not being the most powerful console of a generation is a bad thing.

See..

X360/Wii  360 lost, Wii was cheaper
PS2 Came out a year and a half sooner and was cheaper
PS1 Could play CD's and hold games bigger than 30MB!!!
SNES (if you count Neo Geo, CD-i, 3DO and Jaguar as same gen)
NES

LMAO.  Responses in bold, I ignored the crazy old ones because I don't have the time to look up the history of systems I didn't partake in.

Seriously?  360 outsold PS3 by nearly 20 million in North America, and it even managed to surpass the Wii.  Only reason it "lost" overall was because it was non-existent in one of the three major markets for consoles (Japan).

PS2 was $299 at launch and the most expensive of the generation along with the original Xbox... GC was more powerful and just $199 a year later.

PS1 was also $299 at launch compared to $199 for the more powerful N64.  And storage limitations didn't stop companies like Capcom from porting dual-CD games like RE2 onto the N64 in its entirety, cutscenes and all, and with BETTER visuals on top of that.

The point being that the most powerful console of any previous generation was never #1 in sales, regardless of price.

Very convenient that you discard the generation that completily torpedos your whole argument.  The PS3 was more exspensive THE ENTIRE GENERATION and yet managed to outsell the 360 while launching a year later.  It doesn't matter if the 360 lost "because" of their terrible push in Japan.  I can use the same silly argument you did btw:  "The only reason the the 360 did well at first was because the PS3 sold a lot worse in the US."  In fact the PS3 won EVERY other market so my version makes more sense.

Saying the strongest console can't win is about as dumb as saying the cheapest console always wins.


Even if you do exclude the wii, if 360 could beat the PS3 and it was cheaper and had better multiplatforms, doesnt that mean PS4 will beat the X1 by an even larger amount?

That's exactly what I am saying.



Captain_Tom on 14 May 2014
LiquorandGunFun said:
one less periphial taking up space and putting off heat when it does nothing and it certainatly doesnt work reguarly with voice commands either. Its made a fool of me in front of friends several times trying to show it off, of course all it did was tell them it was NOT worth it.

Besides that I like the xbo overall.


That sucks.  I bet it worked fine when your friends weren't watching...



daredevil.shark on 14 May 2014
Viltgance said:

Ok so by now we should all know a xbox one bundle without the kinect is coming in June.  So now that Microsoft has dumped the 1 main selling feature that the ps4 didn't have, what does Microsoft really have to set it apart from the PS4???  I thought that the Kinect was the standout feature and the main reason to buy a Xbox One over the Ps4, so now what?  They are now the same price but multiplats apparently run better on PS4 so why would anyone choose MS? The only real reasons that I could see are that they either like the exclusive games(halo/gears/ryse/etc..) or they just like xbox live better then psn for some reason.


Do you know that with ps eye you can navigate ps4 just like xbox one? The main reason is sony made it optional. Microsoft made it mandatory.



mutantsushi on 15 May 2014
daredevil.shark said:


Do you know that with ps eye you can navigate ps4 just like xbox one? The main reason is sony made it optional. Microsoft made it mandatory.

Of course, but MS' target market doesn't know that, just like their target market doesn't know or care about technical differences.
Now, a PC with a GPU 1/3 less powerfull would normally be cheaper, but MS thinks they can sell XBone for the same price.
Even if you don't care/need the power, why wouldn't you expect to pay a cheaper price?  Otherwise is an insult.
MS cheaped out on DDR RAM vs GDDR, so why shouldn't the consumer get a price benefit for that?

I love how MS' "differentiators" just don't differentiate much.
PS4 also can do voice commands.  PS4 has larger install base = more people to play online with.
Ps4 camera + video sharing has been vastly more succesful than Xbone, yet MS claim that is in their favor.
MS talks up HDMI in as "future proof" when that is a retrograde feature, the future is video over IP.
MS references un-named "experts" as favoring XBone, without providing any objective basis for that,
or acknowledging that CONSUMERS have already spoken and given the lead to PS4.

The only thing really creating pull for Xbone is exclusives, but if that's the case, MS should do everybody a favor and just publish for PS4.