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

[Michael-5]

Goatseye said:

Michael-5 said:

 

A handful of games needs the extra space, a lot of games work noticably better with it. As opposed to Kinect where NONE of the games need the peripheral, and a handful of games will "benefit" from it.

MS did not correctly calculate the benefit of Blu-Ray, that's one big reason PS3 caught up and surpassed 360 in sales.

As for Kinect being universally disliked, I think the casual dislike it more then the core. XBO sold less units then PS4 at launch, a domestic American product got outsold by a foreign Japanese product. This never happens in the USA, unless the American product is significantly worse.

Hey, if family's really need an interactive system, then can get a PS4 and a $100 Wii or just buy a WiiU for $300, it's a much much better family system.

Why would anybody settle for less? Xbox One promises more in content than a system with solely a graphic card update and the other is defunct.

PS3 caught up to Xbox 360 not because of Blu-Ray. It got cheaper in international market, where Xbox doesn't have a name yet.

There are BR-players for $40 nowadays.

PS4 is(might be) selling better(?) than Xbox1 not because of quality, but because of cheaper price and a better aura with customers after E3.

You think casuals dislike Kinect more but I doubt it from what I've seen so far.

Why would anyone settle for less? That's exactly my arguement for PS3. From day 1 Sony has specific standard for PS3 game, one being a large disk medium to play HD cinematics, and have HD in games (most 360 games play sub 720p and are upscaled, where most PS3 games are natively 720p).

To remove Blu-Ray would significantly downgrade the graphical power of the PS3. In your Ferrari example, you'd be downgrading the engine.

However for XBO you're forcing a package deal. Not only is the main demograph for XBO owners not families, but 18-32 year old men, but Kinect does not improve the functionality of games out. So what you're doing is forcing people to buy a family package, then the main audience isn't families

To remove Kinect would not affect gameplay, only change the User Interface. In your Ferrari example, you'd not be buying matching baby seats and a GPS screen, features not everyone wants.

As for settling for less, if the demograph is families, WiiU is a better system. Cheaper =/= inferior. What the XBO is, is a middle ground, half for the core male audience, half for families, but it's a no compromise deal. You have to buy the system in the exact way MS uses it, even if you don't want to use it this way.

----

Think about it this way. Sony can't sell a PS3 without a Blu-Ray drive because all PS3 games are on Blu-Ray disks, and this would make the system unplayable. Sacrifices would have to be made to make it workd. MS could sell an XBO without Kinect, and all it would do is resrict you from gameplay options in a hadful of games that don't release. With or without Kinect, you can still navigate the UI, still play Call of Duty, and still do a lot of things. So by forcing people to buy a console with Kinect, MS is forcing us to buy a product which isn't required to play the vast majority of XBO games, and they are forcing us to buy a feature many of us don't want. No sacrifices need to be made with XBO.

As for Kinect being unfavorable, if Kinect were truely a feature gamers wanted, then XBO would be outselling PS4. Being cheaper has nothing to do with your arguement because if price were the biggest reason why PS4 is outselling XBO, then that justifies a cheaper Kinect free model. If price is the biggest factor, then the gamers want a cheaper XBO, which means that you agree with me that gamers don't want Kinect. Clearly casual gamers don't care for Kinect, otherwise they would pay the prenium and XBO would be outselling PS4, but it's not.