As I've been saying for quite a while and I don't know why most don't understand it. Microsoft is a very dishonest company. They knew that the hype for the Kinect was over so they wanted to profit off of the hardware by force bundling it. They've been bullshitting everyone about the Kinect two since jump street. They lied that it was essential to the Xbox One, then they admitted last year ( a sneaking feeling everyone  who has half a brain knew) that the fact that it is it not essential to the hardware. It is a peripheral device, it is NOT all in one or else it would've already been in the device to begin with they somehow would've needed the integration to somehow make the console work. My theory from the very beginning has been that Microsoft did not believe in the current climate that Kinect could sell on its own so they forced us to consume it, plain and simple. Sony knows the Eyetoy will profit over time if they give people a reason to buy it. This is their third Eyetoy and have been essentially approaching the sales of the device the same way for a decade now.

PS4 can do things the xbox one cant with Vita, Move Controls, TouchPad, accelerometres but there all either cheap or optional, i.e. no risk, Kinect is a big risk and so far is just inflating the price tag for no good reason. 

If they can bring the games then great but they need to do it soon, before theyve lost too much market share. And whatever happens they need to cut $100 even if it means taking a loss, consoles wont shift at that price. 

@STAGE the design of the UI greatly benefits with teh use of kinect. Its easy to navigate with the controller ,, but yo ucan tell that its meant to be navigated using Kinect. i mean look at the ps4,, if it wasn't for MS PR blunder,, the ps4 woul dhave been shipped withe ps eye. Evidence can be seen with controller light can comes out from teh controller. It wsa meant to sync it with teh ps eye and hence why Sony won't add a patch to disbaled it and hence why tehy ditched it and took off taht 100 price tag ot make it a cheaper console to xbox one. SO saying ms is a dishonest company is denial at best as sony would never admit that they orignally planned ot release ps eye alongise their consoel much liek what MS did. Sony has lied ot its consumer as much as MS lol. both in fact are very dishonest . sayign one is better teh other is total BS lol. Back to the topic : Kinect cna be useful to xbox one ,, it jsut need ot eb done properly. Ms just has to realise that you cannot replace the controller but use kinect as additional acessory to the controller . That alone cna make teh game more immersive and better.

The reasons I won't buy an Xbox One, Kinect 2.0 is near the bottom. The console is made for their two big markets of the U.S. and U.K. Due to the CRTC here in Canada, many of the features you see in those countries will never be brought here. XO has to be seen solely as a gaming console here and when the PS4 is cheaper, more powerful and aren't anti-consumer then it's a pretty easy decision who to go with.

Kinect is a fad. People don't need to pay $500+ to rabble-rouse to YouTube audiences, much less play games where you jump around and wave your hands.

By the way, any website that has Arthur Gies as a "journalist" is a joke. I'm sure he's proud of his huge following of teenage boys he accrued during the 360 glory days. I'm sure many now see him and the Polygon staff as desperate men begging for jobs in Redmond so they can get Yusuf Mehdi's autograph.

This is exactly what needs to happen. Take the loss with the pack in bundle. Shave $50 off immediately and hold out. Keep releasing games and it will be fine. At least 3M sold at $500 a pop is great in 3months time.

I honestly believe that the people who developed the UI weren't gamers at all.

Bought an xbox one but would have like better a kinect less sku that would have been cheaper. Bought it for exclusive only as my multi plat will for sure be ps4. (And sometime pc)

Kinect could be nice but voice command (when they work, which doesnt seems to for me, might be sitting to far away from it which make it totally useless to me) are cute at first but they get old quick. That thing should have really been an accessory and not mandatory to buy.

That thing doesnt appeal to hc gamers that for sure, more to Just Dance oriented type of gamers.

What a silly article. True, they do need more Kinect games, but that will come with time.

It reminds me of the people that were against building subways in New York City or against making The Grand Canyon a National Park. People with limited imaginations and uninteresting lives shouldn't waste their time telling others why something great will not work. They are always there though.

Kinect seems to be more like the segway. Cool at first but most people don't care for it anymore.
The tech is too late, people rather browse on their tablets than use Kinect to browse on the tv.

They can change my mind when the revolutionaty Kinect games come rolling in.

I was considering starting a thread, but I guess asking the question here is as good a place as any.

What would the Xb one look like if Kinect was an optional peripheral like the PS Eye?

We know that 8GB DDR3 RAM was locked in to the design early, and there's no way removing Kinect would have had MS plugging in GDDR5 at the early design stage, they wanted 8GB RAM at a good price and at the time only DDR3 fit the bill. Or was it locked in? If MS was less focussed on Kinect and perhaps then less focussed on multi-media functionality might they have done initial designs with 4GB GDDR5 like Sony did? Hard to speculate on that I guess so I'm going to stick to the assumption that MS was going 8GB DDR3 regardless of the Kinect situation.

But in terms of the rest of the box, it's specs and price point what would MS have done differently to the box we have today? Could it have substantially improved the specs, and launched at $399, and been at a slight profit? By most accounts Kinect is