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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What was the whole point of Kinect 2?

oniyide said:
it was part of their whole bid to take over the living room, but they really overestimated how much people wanted to say "xbox on"

Yep. It was marketed as the ultimate way to control your living room. However not many people want to pay 499 to control their cable box with kinect. All the other apps are already build into smart tvs nowadays, some of them with voice and gesture control as well. Or you can buy a cheap roku box or equivalent to get the same effect.

At least the gamepad still works as a tablet to watch netflix on. Kinect and xbox live are redundant for tv purposes.
(Not that it isn't nice for gamers to have an all in one box, it's just not interesting for anyone not interested in $60 exclusives)



Around the Network

A better Kinect (reportedly the fastest selling electronic device ever or some shit) with 100% of the Xbox consoles sold. It could have been a good idea but they failed to convince people why they should own it. No kick ass games. Mine gets a lot of use but I can see why it could have succeeded as well as why it didn't succeed. I still love it but for its non gaming purposes.



The whole point was to spy on me while i was masturb....sleeping.



d21lewis said:
A better Kinect (reportedly the fastest selling electronic device ever or some shit) with 100% of the Xbox consoles sold. It could have been a good idea but they failed to convince people why they should own it. No kick ass games. Mine gets a lot of use but I can see why it could have succeeded as well as why it didn't succeed. I still love it but for its non gaming purposes.


What non gaming purpose does it have that a standard mic + camera wouldnt be able to do?



It didn't launch with hardly any software. Xbox(PS also)was rushed to market. Had they released when they wanted to a lot of things would be different. Good or bad.
I really like it as far as voice commands and instant sign-in. It's better than the 1st one altogether.



Around the Network

Kinect 2.0 seems to be much better than the first one, but just not quite reliable enough an input method for complex games yet

imo the impact of it was also stifled alot by MS putting out the frankly subpar Kinect 1.0 before, as it turned off many people that bought into it's vision (in turn it gave the 360 a second breath of life, but I think that came at the cost of it's successor) - there simply wasn't much credit left for the improved version which for the majority also came at a much steeper price to buy into



oniyide said:
it was part of their whole bid to take over the living room, but they really overestimated how much people wanted to say "xbox on"


Agreed.  Here's an interesting timeline:

Nov. 2010 - Kinect 1.0 is introduced and sells like crazy, becoming the fastest electronic device ever sold and going on to sell 24 million units over its lifetime.

May 2011 - With Kinect still selling like hotcakes, MS buys Skype for 8.5 billion.  It's at this time that they probably decide to  include Kinect 2.0 with every Xbox  One, hoping Skype would become a killer app for it.  Heck, it's not like they spent that 8.5b on making games for XB1.

Nov. 2013 - Xbox One debuts with Kinect 2.0 but is hampered by its $100 price point above PS4. Kinect, Skype, and games with Kinect features are not enough to save it.

June 2014 - Kinect is unbundled from XB1.



Jimbo1337 said:
Everyone was in awe when Microsoft unveiled the first Kinect while demonstrating the Milo demo. Many gamers thought that this would actually be a game, or at least, be an example of what is to come. People were fooled into buying the first Kinect, so it baffles me as to why Microsoft would make Kinect 2.0 a key component of their new generation console.

You tricked your consumer the first time and are now making it mandatory? Really? They clearly didn't think this through...


the entire initial ONE reveal was just MS saying, we dont think much of our consumers and they weill go with whatever. THey were wrong.



Lafiel said:

Kinect 2.0 seems to be much better than the first one, but just not quite reliable enough an input method for complex games yet

imo the impact of it was also stifled alot by MS putting out the frankly subpar Kinect 1.0 before, as it turned off many people that bought into it's vision (in turn it gave the 360 a second breath of life, but I think that came at the cost of it's successor) - there simply wasn't much credit left for the improved version which for the majority also came at a much steeper price to buy into


@bolded then it really isnt much better than the first. 

 

But to be fair all the motion devices last year was stifled by subpar tech, the Move was teh only only that came close to performing as advertised.



It was a bad idea because of cost. With Kinect you were automatically adding 100 to the base price and not being able to put more of the total cost into the actual hardware. They bet the house on Kinect and lost. Now they are forced to sell at a loss because their console is inferior(not by much) and would get stomped at the same price. Considering the situation I described I think the XB1 is doing pretty good. It will probably end up selling more than the N64(another console that bad decisions killed its potential)...



psn- tokila

add me, the more the merrier.