By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kyuu said:
I didn't read the whole article but it's up to Microsoft how they want to market their product like. If Kinect were to succeed, development to motion gaming would've flourished. Microsoft was attempting to change the way how we play video games. In a fashion close too Wii. Whether or not Kinect is a peripheral is decided through success or failure.

Now that they're clearly failing, they got to get rid of it asap. Microsoft contradicted its own vision by not releasing or even announcing any high profile Kinect game to convince people that "it works"

That, Kinect's high costs, and their confusing and inconsistent planning resulted from the backlash, caused the ultimate end to their vision.

Nah, they were attempting to change the way we interact with tv. Gaming was never a priority for Kinect 2.0

However $500 plus $60 a year is too much for the casual consumer to go all googly eyed over an all in one entertainment box. Plus they're set in their ways and not as ready as early adopters to change everything in 1 go, nor does it replace your existing cable box.

For the video enthusiasts it doesn's offer enough. One HDMI in port is useless when you use an amp to switch between sources, plus the reviews of the HDMI in performance are not all that favorable with added lag and image 'enhancements'

So what you have is a $500 UI to Skype, browse the internet and access digital video content for $60 a year, and play games on the side.