DDR is the only relevant genre.

what was the last one they made?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=4772832552099

DDR has been bastardized by the motion gaming craze, 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_Dance_Revolution_%282013_video_game%29

People still play it at competitive level in Japan.

thats great for Japan they've always loved it, but it seems like everywhere else its a none factor. Im not trying to be facietous i actually always liked that series. It just seems far less relevant than it used to be outside of Japan anyway

Kinect was an innovation - last generation, several years back. It soon prove to be less useful than most people expected after seeing the initial staged "Milo" demo. In the end, it faced the same fate as the Wii Remote: People were enthusiastic in the beginning, but lost interest very soon,

...and Microsoft would indeed be wise to replace the 100$ production cost Kinect with a 1$ production cost microphone on the Kinect-less model, thus enabling buyers of the new cheap model to still enjoy the voice recognition features that most people always clearly liked most about Kinect.

That should make you wonder why people in "science, aviation and medicine" managed to come up with all those great ideas for distance sensing cameras since Kinect was introduced several years ago, but video game developers mostly miserably failed to come up interesting ideas, even though they were the first to get their hands on the Kinect and are by nature more aware of the existance of the technology than people in other fields.

I tell you why, and it's the same reason that I've said from the very start: Because the technology really is very interesting and useful in many areas of science/technology, but unfortunately, video games isn't one of them. The distance sensing camera is really great for a a few very specific areas in video games that video game developers instantly thought of (especially dance and fitness games), but rather useless in most other areas.

Really? Wow, you must be much older than I though. What date are you referring to exactly? 1946 when the trackball was invented? 1962/63 when the first devices nowadays considered computer mice were invented? The "mother of all demos" in 1968? Or the first commerical computer mouse, also in 1968?

Now seriously: I actually do agree that it's not a good decision by Microsoft, but for a slightly different reason:

Kinect really was the one unique, stand-out feature that Xbox One had. Remove Kinect, and you have a console that costs exactly the same as PS4, but is considered to have weaker hardware, even if the difference may actually be rather small. Why would someone who isn't a fanboy or interested in a specific Xbox One exclusive title pick the Xbone? I see little reason...

To me, it would feel like choosing between 100$ in cash and a 100$ voucher from my favourite shop. The two would be almost exactly similar useful to me, but I would still pick the 100$, because my mind would tell me that the money still has a tiiiiny advantage over the other alternative.

If MS truly had faith in the Kinect, they would sell it for 399 with the Kinect included, then consumers would have no excuse plus it would obliterate the ps4s 450$ bundle with the eye.

The fact that the Kinect bundle is still 499 means that even at price parity, the XB1 is still more expensive then the Four.

You know when the mouse came out, it wasn't packaged with every pre-build PC right away. It was the consumers who decided that this device was innovative and it was the strong sales of mouse's which eventually lead them to be bundled with pre-built PC's.

Microsoft was trying to force a product onto people by bundling it before there was a strong demand for it. Sure a lot of people who enjoy Kinect really enjoy it, but at the same time a lot of people don't like the idea at all.

Sony was smart by making the PS Eye an add on, and it's selling quite well. Nintendo too were really smart with the Wii by allowing you to use Gamecube controllers on nearly every Wii game (thus not forcing you into motion gaming)

The simple truth was that Kinect was not a desired product. Unlike the mouse, not everyone see's it as beneficial, a lot of people prefer the controller (like myself). Heck it doesn't even work in small rooms, or rooms with tall coffee tables, so do those people really need one? Plus lets not forget the spying controversy.

---

Competition is what makes better products. IGN made this articles:

http://ca.ign.com/articles/2014/05/13/using-sonys-playbook-microsoft-will-attempt-xbox-ones-turnaround

It talks about how Xerox invented the OS, Mac copied it and made it better and Microsoft followed suite and made it even better. Xerox wasn't competetive and now they are history. Microsoft needed to remove Kinect, otherwise it would have lost its competetive edge.

Most people don't want Kinect, we're going to see XB1 sales jump because of this and then we're going to see Sony do something else to keep their competetive edge.

---

This is how innovation works. Nintendo started motion gaming with the Wii, but Sony and XB are taking over now because they know what consumers want.

Not really. It's not like Kinect was really useful of gaming or anything! In fact, the Kinect is the reason why turds like Sonic Free Riders even exist!

I only owned a PS3 for last gen and a PS4 for this gen and I'm not really interested in it.