Quantcast
Microsoftís Phil Spencer Admits the Kinect Isnít Really That Useful For Core Games

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Microsoftís Phil Spencer Admits the Kinect Isnít Really That Useful For Core Games

Maybe it's just me but I never looked at Kinect to make the same controller games i play better. I was looking for unique games that leverage the technology to provide something new. So Kinect not being an essential device for your typical core game was never something MS or the buying public ever debated about. The problem with the device is that MS could not pave the way with unique games that made the device a must have.



Around the Network

The Xbox One won April in the USA, so now there is an urgency to keep the positive momentum going.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Kinect was made for one reason: get some of that dat dere Wii audience. For about 2 years, it somewhat succeeded in that: Kinect Sports, Kinectimals, and Dance Central (among others) were hits. But the fad didn't last long and motion control in general all but died in 2012.

I have no clue why MS even focused on it for the Xbox One. It was too expensive to appeal to non-gamers ($500!?!) and didn't have that many games either (Rivals was even delayed as a launch title).



McDonaldsGuy said:

I have no clue why MS even focused on it for the Xbox One. It was too expensive to appeal to non-gamers ($500!?!) and didn't have that many games either (Rivals was even delayed as a launch title).


To be fair i love it as a media device.  Telling xbox to turn on or go to a specific app without touching the controller is great use of it.  I would have bought it regardless, but I agree they shouldnt have focused on games.  Just like the WiiMote i believe that motion controls hurt the ruputation of Xbox as it did Nintendo in the long run.



JayWood2010 said:
McDonaldsGuy said:

I have no clue why MS even focused on it for the Xbox One. It was too expensive to appeal to non-gamers ($500!?!) and didn't have that many games either (Rivals was even delayed as a launch title).


To be fair i love it as a media device.  Telling xbox to turn on or go to a specific app without touching the controller is great use of it.  I would have bought it regardless, but I agree they shouldnt have focused on games.  Just like the WiiMote i believe that motion controls hurt the ruputation of Xbox as it did Nintendo in the long run.

they should have just built in a microphone on the XBO instead of adding this costly motion sensor camera...



Around the Network
JayWood2010 said:
McDonaldsGuy said:

I have no clue why MS even focused on it for the Xbox One. It was too expensive to appeal to non-gamers ($500!?!) and didn't have that many games either (Rivals was even delayed as a launch title).


To be fair i love it as a media device.  Telling xbox to turn on or go to a specific app without touching the controller is great use of it.  I would have bought it regardless, but I agree they shouldnt have focused on games.  Just like the WiiMote i believe that motion controls hurt the ruputation of Xbox as it did Nintendo in the long run.

WTF did I just read.



LurkerJ said:
JayWood2010 said:

WTF did I just read.


I believe that Motion Controls hurt the reputation of Nintendo and Xbox.  A large portion of the gamers that Motion Controls appealed to were casuals that abandoned the market for mobile games.  On the oppoite spectrum motion controls turned off hardcore gamers that are still here



jlmurph2 said:
DonFerrari said:
But it sure brought Money on x360 and you wanted to milk more customer with "it's integral to x1 experience". If it wasn't for the backlash you would still do it.


That statement can be applied to basically anything that is 180'd. Backlash lets you know people don't like it.


I agree, and thanks MS done the 180. But doing it exempt him from saying it was a failure, the action is enough as a statement.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

I for one never needed Kinect to be for core games. What I think really held it back with the X1 was that there was very little major software titles for the X1 Kinect. There should have been a full fledged Dance Central 3 at launch, there should have been a full fledged Kinect Adventures 2 at launch or very near launch. At the beginning X1 Kinect was mostly about voice commands and the X1. That hurt it with not only the core (But someone would never ever say good things about Kinect) but with the casuals as well.



Its libraries that sell systems not a single game.

JayWood2010 said:
LurkerJ said:

WTF did I just read.


I believe that Motion Controls hurt the reputation of Nintendo and Xbox.  A large portion of the gamers that Motion Controls appealed to were casuals that abandoned the market for mobile games.  On the oppoite spectrum motion controls turned off hardcore gamers that are still here

Nintendo efforts to push motion controls are incomparable. The hardcore gamers are a bunch of idiots if they are actually turned off by the Wii.

MS tried to continue to ride the fading motion craze wave with no real efforts, and demanded the consumers to buy their expensive camera and justified the price by some sloppy voice commands that are nothing new & technologically way behind what is available in cheap unlocked 100 euros smartphones.  

As I said, incomparable.

 

User was moderated for flaming

~tads 12