It's not a fad, it's more like the tablet controller

In terms of gaming its a fad, voice controls will carry on improving, just not sure why people think you need a camera for that.

                It had a lot of potential for gaming, but yes, it is a frickin fad.

I think MS should have held it back and not released it on the 360, if they had done this Xbox One would have exploded onto the market and probably would have left the PS4 in the dust.

It is a pile of junk most people dont want.

Why make a thread about a product you have doubtfully even used? And why answer the question that you haven't used? That is the questions that i have in this thread.

Kinect 1 - It was simply not good. Not good for gaming and had no other use.

Kinect 2.0 - Used as a multimedia hub it is magnificent. XBO literally revolves around Kinect 2.0 and gives you a unique experience not to be had on other consoles. At any given time i can change games by saying them, turn off my console, switch to tv, record gameplay, turn netflix on, skype, turn my volume up/down, go to internet by simply saying it.

The accuracy is very well and very impressive. Everybody who has seen my XBO is highly impressed and has left wanting one, going so far as facebooking their impression after leaving.

More importantly most poeple buying an XBO has been talking good about it rather than badly.  This is where my main question comes in.  Why are you talking about something I doubt you've tried.

Is it good for games? No, and i dont ever believe it will be and i dont think their is some misconception about this. Even Microsoft studios are abandoning Kinect as the main function.  Rare Ltd even came out and said when Kinect first came out there was a lot of emphasis to use it.  Now that it is included with Xbox we are to only use it when it makes the game better.  Use it where it is good and dont where it isnt.


Can it be used in games - Yes. It can do cool things in games as long as a controller is still the primary controls.

I will say it this way.  It isnt meant as a way to revolutionize gaming anymore.  It is meant to revolutionize your living room and your experience with the console.  As i said before I dont think there is much misconception about this.

It isn't a fad, it has simply become a standard component like a remote control, in future you will see everything from TV's and DVR's implementing similar systems. It really adds very little to gaming but a lot to multimedia, voice and gesture controls and is pretty cool for things like Skype too.

The camera adds other great things for non gaming. 1080p Skype, no need to sign in as it recognises who is holding the controller. Video in video of your Game DVR. Project Spark uses the camera to allow you to do motion capture for your game characters. Kinect Sports uses the camera to map your real face into a cartoon avatar.

Other than the motion capture for Spark, which is an extremly niche use, and again still more than likley a FAD, you dont need $150 camera to do any of the other things. Face mapping in sports games has been done many times in the past on $20 cameras and ads almost nothing to the gameplay as all the other things you mentioned dont.. 

For GAMING its a fad, or even worse features that are so minor, most will not even notice there missing. 

For multimedia like picture in game DVR its a real nice thing, IGN have recomended the PS4 camera soley on that feature as well, if You tubing is what your into. Obviously a camera for skype is a great thing as well, i just think they could go with a much cheaper camera for all the features that anyone will use it for. 

When people talk about Kinect as a FAD there talking about the full body motion tracking, all its other features can be done on the cheap. 

XboxOne cost me £429.99 with Fifa 14. PS4 costs £359.99 without a game and no camera. So its not that much extra for Kinect at all. All in all what I paid for was a great priced bundle. To get a Ps4 with a camera and Fifa 14 would have cost me £479.99.