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?

JRPGfan on 23 March 2015

@BruB

Honestly dude, kinect isnt worth £50.
Its just NOT ment for gameing, you need buttons for games.



"The Gampad is the single most useful thing i have had on a console in years.. It has motion control ,it has normal control, it has a touch screen. I can use it in another room away from the console.Wii U is a worthwhile console to own ,great games and just FUN."

O_o ?

wtf how can two people have such differnt experiances of the same device?
I ll just say that my experiance of the gamepad hasnt been anywhere near that possitive.

1) I dont like playing on the gamepad vs normal pro wii u controller.
2) The touch screen is very rarely ever used for anything, usually not needed.
3) Playing the Wii U in another room, instead of sitting infront of your TV? Just get another TV instead, of playing on that tiny screen.

 

 

"Maybe Microsoft will add some of that fun for Kinect 2 owners as so many bought the console with it at the beginning , are they really going to let those customers down?"

Yes they probably are.  Kinect doesnt make sense for gameing.



Around the Network
BMaker11 on 23 March 2015

They wanted to repeat the success of the Wii. They thought they could do it with motion gaming guaranteed with every console, just like the Wii did, instead of it being an optional addition.

What they didn't understand was that the Wii craze (I stand by this statement whole heartedly) was a fad. "How could it be a fad if the Wii sold 100M units?" you might ask. Well, boy bands sold millions of records, but they were no less a fad. In terms of library, there's not much difference between the Wii, Gamecube, N64, and Wii U, other than the excess of shovelware on the Wii (you know, the staple Nintendo games, a big 3rd party exclusive game every here and there, etc). But the Wii managed to sell so much better. Because people thought "omg, it's like I'm actually in the game", not because of the games themselves (otherwise N64 and GCN, and now Wii U would have sold much better).

But, the thing is, people got over it (as they do with fads). It's why Wii sales fell off a cliff after 2010 and went back to regular "Nintendo numbers" (outside the Wii, Nintendo's highest selling home console was its very first attempt, the NES, at 62M. Everything went downhill afterwards). Microsoft tried to cash in on the fad too late. Nobody cared about motion gaming after just a few years. But MS tried to mandate it. So it, naturally, backfired.



Soundwave on 23 March 2015

Kinect 1 was successful so they figured Kinect 2 being an integral part of the XB1 would only make sense.

The thing is Kinect 2 is pretty cool tech.

No one wants to play mini-games in the living room any more though. Even Nintendo can't sell stuff like Mario Party and Wii Fit like they used to. The fad just died, so it was a bad bet on MS' part.



Yerm on 23 March 2015

their initial idea was to make an "entertainment platform". a device that could stream movies, play music, and play games all in the comfort of your living room. problem is, consoles have been evolving to become that, so when Microsoft focused on everything at once other than a dedicated gaming platform, it all fell apart. the Kinect 2.0 was meant to make the Xbox super convenient.



JRPGfan on 23 March 2015

"What they didn't understand was that the Wii craze (I stand by this statement whole heartedly) was a fad. "How could it be a fad if the Wii sold 100M units?" you might ask."

I dont think it was a phase. I think it has to do with kinect being all hand gesturs, which doesnt work for gameplay.

The Wii nunchunks had buttons. Playing any game without buttons is just.... well it really limits the possible gameplay possible. Which is why kinect for gameing = fail.

It has nothing to do with motion sensors being "fad" or not.



Around the Network
Dusk on 23 March 2015
oniyide said:
Dusk said:


I already said it dude. The 'power' of the system is a feature of it. Come now... That was pushed harder than any other aspect of any system this gen. 

Again, I didn't say that people like being lied to, that's why I gave an alternative as to what should have happenen. Yes, it does kill consumer trust, likely a big part of their issue with the X1, however people are also quick to forget. Especially gamers it seems, especially when there are sales lol. 

I don't understand what you are even arguing with? what the hell dude. Nearly everything I said was hypothetical. 

AGAIN. I didn't say it didn't affect them, not in the slightest. It was entirely hypothetical. I would say it likely isn't affecting them as badly now, but that's because some time has passed and many people are concerned with different things. 

I'm sorry dude, you can not say with any sort of certainty that if MS had been able to make the Kinect the 'must have' piece of tech by showing something new and something the general public hasn't seen before, or shown it in a way that seemed new and amazing they wouldn't have been able to be more successful? Again, you are talking as to what HAS happened and I'm not. I'm talking about what COULD have happened, hypotheticals... 

Actually, credit cards are designed and extremely successful by using the premise of people spending money they don't have. That's a fact. If every person that owned a credit card paid their full debt every month so that the cards would not get any interest they would not exist. Same thing with loans of any kind. This is all money people don't have that they spend. You don't need to have money to spend it as odd as that sounds. 

You are right, MS didn't give them a reason to, again... hypotheticals. I gave a hypothetical to what they could have done with the Kinect that might have made THE difference. This is entirely conjecture so it's impossible to say, but that is what this whole conversation has been about. 

You might be very right about your last point. They might have been really trying to deceive people for the short term. Honestly, with all the extra DRM stuff they have/had in place, that really might have been the intent, but if that were true we likely will never know. Despite what so many seem to think on this, systems releasing at different times doesn't seem to hinder them too much. The biggest factor seems to be marketing to go along with the system, but there does need to be follow through as well. Even great line ups don't seem to matter as much as they used to, just the marketing and hyping up the consumer for the product. MS likely didn't have anything to show for the Kinect or else we would have seen it/them already, or it/they got canned when they removed it from the bundles. So yeah, if they didn't have anything to show, they weren't ready or whatever, they likely would have been better to wait to release it for a year, but then they would also need to release with a bang. Something super attention catching. 

We all know what has happened historically with the systems and how the series of events have unfolded. Everything beyond that are hypotheticals. 

Since when is power a feature? Its just part of the system. All HW makers talk about it because it is one of the most important aspects of a gaming machine. Even then Sony itself wasnt really pushing it that hard. Simply giving facts on HW isnt really pushing anything.

fair enough. We'll have to agree to disagee as I think your alternative could have only worked if the entry point was lower. 500 is a lot to ask for something that might turn out good.

And i agree they are much better now, they changed things quickly and are better off for it IMHO.

I understand its hypothetical and I didnt mean to say that they would not have been more successful if they hadnt actually showed off something cool with Kinect. Of course they would have, how much more so? Who knows, we can do maybes all day but arent you interested in WHY they didnt? I know i am.

I agree 100% that systems releasing different times doesnt have that big of effect. BUT one has to wonder if MS feels the same way, this is a company that released faulty HW early just to beat Sony by a year so im inclined to think they dont see it the way we do. It is all theories and hypthesis but we only have the info we know about and what these companies have done in the past.


Since always. Power has always been a feature of a system. The ability to boast about the most power is very much what Sony did this gen. Other than that, they basically pulled a Sega lol. Sony does what MS don't. Giving facts about hardware are exactly that, features. A feature is an attribute or noteworthy aspect. 

Well will certainly have to agree to disagree on the price aspect. 

The question about how much more so is a great question. One that can't really be answered. 

Pleasure chatting. 



Gotta figure out how to set these up lol.

Dusk on 23 March 2015
JRPGfan said:

@BruB

Honestly dude, kinect isnt worth £50.
Its just NOT ment for gameing, you need buttons for games.



"The Gampad is the single most useful thing i have had on a console in years.. It has motion control ,it has normal control, it has a touch screen. I can use it in another room away from the console.Wii U is a worthwhile console to own ,great games and just FUN."

O_o ?

wtf how can two people have such differnt experiances of the same device?
I ll just say that my experiance of the gamepad hasnt been anywhere near that possitive.

1) I dont like playing on the gamepad vs normal pro wii u controller.
2) The touch screen is very rarely ever used for anything, usually not needed.
3) Playing the Wii U in another room, instead of sitting infront of your TV? Just get another TV instead, of playing on that tiny screen.

 

 

"Maybe Microsoft will add some of that fun for Kinect 2 owners as so many bought the console with it at the beginning , are they really going to let those customers down?"

Yes they probably are.  Kinect doesnt make sense for gameing.


Buying a separate TV doesn't help. You would need to move the entire console to each separate room that has the TV to use each one. 

How much experience do you have with the gamepad?



Gotta figure out how to set these up lol.

Materia-Blade on 23 March 2015
binary solo said:
Materia-Blade said:

Whi is talking about sony and move? that's merely an acessory that was no success. the wii implemented that funcionality perfectly, it's shooters play better than non motion shooters.

Well perhaps if you thought about things in a less one-eyed fashion you would understand why Move's inability to gain traction more or less meant controller-based motion controls specifically (and motion controls in general), esp wrt shooters, was a one generation wonder. Consider for a moment what the effect would have been if Move achieved 20-30 million sales AND it became a popular UI with CoD and battlefield? Wiimote was implemented with CoD on Wii, but CoD on Wii was an irrelevance from Activision's perspective. Hopefully Sony wouldn't have packed in Move with every PS4 (that would have been a mistake), but it is for sure motion controls would have make a substantial transition to the 8th gen, BECAUSE the biggest games within the biggest 7th gen genre would have carried motion controls forward among gamers who are typically early adopters of in a new generation.

Wiimote and Move are the only motion control UIs that have a core gamer functionality, because of their high precision tracking of movement, and of course buttons and feedback. Kinect was only ever going to be for party/casual/fitness games. Because PS3 and 360 ended up outselling Wii on a yearly basis for the final years of the 7th gen, for motion controls to make a successful transition to the 8th generation it needed one of the HD twins to successfully transition motion controls as well as for Nitnendo to do so. That Move was pretty much a market failure, albeit with excellent implementation in several games both as the sole UI and as an optional UI, meant the 2 motion control transitions most likely to succeed were Wiimote and Kinect. But because they are both very different approaches to motion control there was no cross platform standardisation that 3rd parties could easily implement. Had the successful motion controls been Wiimote and Move then it is much easier for 3rd parties to implement controls across platforms because even though the technologial approaches are different the core mecahnics of Wiimote and Move are more or less the same.

If VR is successful it will bring motion control back to the fore. If people want genuine immersion in VR then for many types of games they will want to use a UI that is something other than the tradtional controller. And again, as the console market leader, PS4 is important to the potential success of VR. 

"Well perhaps if you thought about things in a less one-eyed fashion you would understand why Move's inability to gain traction more or less meant controller-based motion controls specifically (and motion controls in general), esp wrt shooters, was a one generation wonder. Consider for a moment what the effect would have been if Move achieved 20-30 million sales AND it became a popular UI with CoD and battlefield? Wiimote was implemented with CoD on Wii, but CoD on Wii was an irrelevance from Activision's perspective."

You are both ignoring that move's failure means nothing, as it was an acessory, and that motion controls for shooters doesn't mean one game. The point remains that motion gaming hasn't died, it's here to stay forever.



SjOne on 23 March 2015

Because why would Microsoft drop a successor to the fastest selling electronic entertainment device



Nighthawk117 on 23 March 2015
SjOne said:
Because why would Microsoft drop a successor to the fastest selling electronic entertainment device


Only if they realized that the 24 million units sold were all purchased by fanboys who bought it on blind loyalty, and it was destined to fail once the novelty wore off, which it did, sometime in 2011/2012.