Nope. Microsoft wanting 100% of Xbox One consoles to have a Kinect on hand isnt a problem. Its a great idea, actually. The userbase for Kinect games is there. We know how many Kinects are on the market. 3rd parties have more incentive to make Kinect games. While I personally wouldnt want to own one, I can totally understand why Microsoft want one in every box. Its actually a great business decision.

There is still a problem though -

That problem is the required Kinect connection.

Has anyone from Microsoft explained why it has to be plugged in yet? Do we have any confirmed source? Id like to know why the Xbox One needs this camera plugged in for it to actually work.

I'm just hazarding a guess here, but Microsoft is going to huge financial expenses to pack a Kinect in every Xone and they can't have people detaching the Kinect and putting it in a cupboard somewhere. They have to get gamers to like this and so it makes sense if it's always beside the console to encourage people to use it. Every Kinect that is not used is a really expensive brick that MS had to foot part of the bill for.

Yes I can understand bundling it with all Xbox One's, but like you say, it being as essential as the power supply is strange. What if the Kinect breaks? Do I send the whole console back to Microsoft ? Is each Kinect tied to the Xbox One it came with? Do I have to get a whole new console if Kinect breaks?

No i'm not trying to be negative, but these are real questions that i'm intrigued to know the answer to.

I would like to know why it is such a big deal to keep it plugged in. If you don't want it watching you then turn it towards the wall. You can basically turn off all of its functions in settings. People are making too big a deal about this.

Yes, it is a problem. It doesn't add much value for its high price.

If the cost to add Kinect to every console was $10 it would be pretty obviously worth it. But now that analysts estimate that Kinect 2.0 costs as much as half the cost of the Xbone console, you have to ask if the value and functions added compensate the radically higher cost.

Personally I think it's a huge mistake to invest so much in Kenict, an enormous mistake by Microsoft's part that shows how the Xbox division is completely out of touch with the market trends, and that the Xbone spells the beginning of the end for Microsoft in the gaming business.

Why does it have to be plugged in at all times?

@Carl2291
Why is it a big deal?

Just 4 days before the 180 major nelson pretended that it is almost impossible to remove the drm-crap as the xbox1 was "built around drm"
therefore expect another cheap excuse for mandatory kinect2.

no console until now needed a cam to work.Neither xbox1 need this.I don't care about the bundle but kinect shouldn't be mandatory.
And mandatory kinect is not needed and it would not make developers produce more kinect stuff(untill microsoft gives the money to do so)
20 mio kinects were sold until now and developers were never interessted in kinect integration.This will not change with kinect 2 as xbox1 may need 2 years to reach an install base of 20 mio and most of these early adopters are core gamers with zero interesst in kinect(execept the hardcore fans who will buy and love everything their favourite company is producing and the guys who have the need to talk to their console)
I think it will be like with the Wii U controller-nothing really special and most people would use the standard controller if they could without missing the tablett and most developers are not really interessted in implementing it as good as they could.

Because people dont want a camera and microphone device sitting in the living room, or even bedroom, connected at all times. It doesnt matter how many "off" functions it has, its still connected at all times. Now answer my question or I will report you for being off topic and derailing.

Why does it have to be plugged in at all times?

Kinect sold well enough for them to want it in every Xbox One package. Thats simple. The benefits of having it in every box are plain to see. Market penetration.

If enough games utilise it and the games sell well enough, then it will be worth bundling it because of software sales. Theyre so wanting the Wii expanded market with Xbox One Kinect, because the Wii expanded market had a tendancy to buy trash in the Millions and devs could make a fuckton of money.

I think that the main problem with a strategy like that is that theyre launching at a pricepoint too high for these gamers with technology that isnt "new" anymore, though that is for another thread.