Heres the google definition of a peripheral in relation to computers

"(of a device) able to be attached to and used with a computer, though not an integral part of it."

If i unplug Kinect does the Xbox One still work with games being playable, if the answers is "YES" its a periperal.

The keywork in the definition is "Integral" meaning cant work without it.

if that were actually true.. than why did you bother responding to this thread?
...not to mention the fact that immediately after stating that, you said the following,
"In fact we are really happy that MS decided to force it on their fans and making them upset"

gotcha!!

I responded because I don't like to be accused of untrue things. That's why I even stated that I would never bash Kinect because I think it's great how it disincentivizes people to buy the box. We never said bad things about the Kinect, we just laughed at people who had to buy it with the box even though they don't want it. The people most unhappy with Kinect are the ones that actually consider buying an X1, not PS4 fans.

Also I would appreciate for you to engage my other arguments.

"the Xbox One, as is, can do things the PS4 simply can't."

That's true. Unfortunately for the Xbox One, there are a lot of people who have little interest in those particular things.

All innovations are not born equal. Kinect is nowhere near the innovation of the smartphone. Different is not always better or substantial enough on its own to be enticing.

You can't play any console game without some type of controller input... so by your own acceptance of the definition above, the Kinect is NOT a peripheral as you can't play certain games without it.
Now, you don't have to buy any games that require it and end up leaving it sitting on a shelf somewhere, but that's no different than a second controller you never use.
Neither one can be considered peripherals as they're both integral to operating the console at some point.
I have an Xbox 360 remote which I sometimes use to operate the system, without ever touching the controller that came with the Xbox when I purchased it. Does that make my original controller a peripheral?
Of course not.

See, you're one of the type I mentioned in the OP. A gamer that can't wrap his head around the fact that the Kinect is not a peripheral. You simply choose to see it that way because is suits your argument.
It's not a peripheral. I'll say it again:
it's an alternative controller for the system, included in every box.
The system was designed to use standard controller input AND motion input, so it's obviously an integral part of the system, whether you choose to see it that way or not.

thanks for the objective reply. this site could use more people like yourself.

Your arguing about semantics that don't matter. The fact is, a lot of people would prefer an XBO for 100$ less without a Kinect and they wouldn't lose too much functionality.

if I were to make a thread every time someone said something that I kinda disagreed with, I probably would be banned by now. This thread makes no argument that anyone should care about (who cares if it is a controller or a peripheral, tell me why I should want it) and serves no purpose other than complaining that some people made fun of your favorite console.

Tell me, how does Kinect justify its price in a way that it should be required for the system?

No i proved what i meant by definition of the word peripheral, your just rambling to prove something that isnt true. 

Just because its possible to argue that both the pad and the kinect are controllers, does not mean that both are integral to the device.

By your logic Lightguns, steering wheels, eyetoys are also not peripherals just because they can control the computer. 

But because something CAN it does not mean its INTEGRAL, therefore if its not integral it is a PERIPHERAL.

Microsoft spent all that money developing and refining the Kinnect and yet gamers have very little incentive to love it. We will see if Kinnect Sports Rivals changes my mind. Right now kinnect is a disincentive, and part of the reason I chose a PS4. The price being another reason.

I need games to convince me to buy an Xbox One. Voice commands and cable integration are not worth the extra $100 to me. Plus, going all digital would be a nightmare for me. I have data caps to consider and I like meeting fellow gamers as my local store.

Many believe that all digital is the future, but I don't buy it. I think both options will coexist. Music CDs are still sold despite iTunes and Pandora. Plus, console makers need brick and mortar stores to sell the consoles. Forced digital only will alienate a lot of gamers, myself included.

Sure the XBO may be innovative, too bad all the innovation is in the wrong direction. Kinect was nothing more than a fad that made a quick buck and died out. 4 years after launch and it never delivered on any of it's innovative promises. Funny how people forget that, Kinect has been around for quite a while now and it's accomplished absolutely nothing. Clearly all the excellent Kinect games like The Fighter Within has completely revolutionized the medium and taught us new ways to play.

Stop TELLING me that the Kinect is some massive innovation just because it's different, I want Microsoft to SHOW me the innovation. Where all the revolutionary Kinect games? The Kinect is a peripheral used to navigate the XBO's OS, because apparently using a controller is too difficult.