Is X1 forcing Kinect on us any different than PS3 forcing Bluray on us?

[Mr Puggsly]

Figgycal said:

One difference I see is that the Xbox One doesn't need the Kinect. About Blu-ray, though it was, like I said the logical upgrade to DVD. You can say that the PS3 didn't need it, but clearly we've moved on to a point where both consoles now use it and it's the leading physical format. Even Nintendo, who created the motion control movement, abondoned the idea of motion gaming. We haven't moved on to the point where people prefer using motions over using the controller (and we never will)- until then, it's not the same situation.

There really isn't a reason why Kinect should be forced on us other than the fact that Microsoft wanted to appeal to a casual audience. It's not part of the console, it's a peripheral that is bundled in. The Xbox One already comes with a controller in the box - paying an extra 100 dollars for an unnecessary motion controller when it isn't an integral part of the system is not cool.

 

Moving to a format that holds a lot more storage makes sense, but making a gaming machine significantly more expensive so you can watch movies was a bad idea. 7th gen gaming didn't need to move to Bluray, DVD was fine as the 360 demonstrated.

Nintendo moving away from motion gaming on the Wii U proved to be a terrible idea. That's my thoughts on that.

I agree, forcing Kinect in every box is unnecessary. So was forcing Bluray in PS3 just so Sony could collect some royalties. Both feel like blunders to me. But MS can atleast remove the Kinect.