Considering the fact that you don't even have to use the Kinect I don't see the problem. It's not like someone is holding a gun to your head telling you to use the Kinect. 

You do still have to pay for it though, even if you aren't going to use it. Some people are upset about that, which is fine. But it's a far stretch to cry that it goes against consumer choice.

Lets consider also the fact that you have to pay for it.

That's the problem.

And well... Kinect 2 isn't cheap at all.

A Xbox One without Kinect is a matter of time, mark my words.

Demand and it got to the point where cameras don't really add to the cost of the phone anymore so it doesn't make sense NOT to add it

The 360's muilti-disc games, as well as MS switching to Blu-ray, disagrees with you.

Nintendo doesn't use Blu Ray.  

Blu Ray was anti-consumer last gen if kinect is this gen.  It was an extra added that was NOT needed.  PS3 could have still worked with a dvd drive instead of blu ray.  The Blu Ray drive was an un-NEEDed expense.  It was not NEEDED.  No arguing over if it was a good thing or wanted, the fact was it was not NEEDED to play games.  A cheaper alternative would have worked (dvd drive) or any drive, hell Nintendo hasn't ever even had a dvd drive.  Not sure what you call them, but they have never been able to play dvd's or blu rays or any type of movie format.

So is adding something not NEEDED anti-consumer?

OR

is what you guys seem to be arguing "Whatever I don't like is anti-consumer"  You liked blu ray and thus thinks its a bonus gift, you don't like kinect and thus think its anti-consumer.  So OPINION it is.   But difference is, some games REQUIRE kinect to play.  No games require blu ray to play.

how about forcing the consumers to pay to play online when it was previously free on the predecessor? You aren't exactly upholding that consumer choice philosophy

How many times do I need to repeat myself before people like you get the picture?

1. no one said kinect was anti consumer

2. If blu-ray was not needed last gen then niether was 512mb of RAM last gen and 4gb of RAM this gen... but that argument is 100% asinine and no one would make it. Ps3 would not have worked without a disc drive. Everyone would agree with that. Making it a blu-ray play is the equivalent of adding 4gb of RAM. It's a natural progression and expected upgrade to a following console. Just like I expect i-phone 6 to have something new

Ding ding ding!

What's sadder is even with the luxury of complete hindsight on the generation, they still defend Bluray in this matter.

I think this is the main point of the argument.  Blu-ray was a step up in something that was NECESSARY for the console to even operate.  Kinect is a peripheral that is 100% UNECESSARY to play games, yet you have to buy just to get the system (at least this year).  Blu-ray has proved itself necessary, as games continue to get larger and larger.  And if Sony didn't bite the bullet this gen (the PS3 actually cost $800+ to make, but launched at the same price as the One is launching at, $499), then we would be seeing those upfront costs/losses added to this gen.  This would mean Sony would have to charge more for the PS4 or take a larger loss.  And MS would have most likely stayed with DVDs, again, causing almost all of their games to require 2 or more DVDs.

Like I said earlier, though, I fully expect most of these posters to bactrack when MS releases a Kinectless SKU.  You will no longer hear about how "everyone has the same console experience" or that "the One is built around Kinect."  Instead you will hear them praise MS for "lowering the price" and "it's a great business decision" and "they are giving consumer's a choice."