>Comparing a now-optional peripheral with Live is apples and
>oranges. We *know* multiplayer drives sales; why else would
>companies try to shoehorn multiplayer modes into single player
>games? Bioshock and Mass Effect, I'm looking at you.

there's no reason why kinect can't drive sales. it did on the 360.
>
>Live is also an all-encompassing service that provides a
>multitude of entertainment services outside of multiplayer...
>whereas the Kinect has limited functionality outside of highly
>niche games and voice commands. On top of that, Live is
>basically mandatory to enjoy a game like Call of Duty, whereas
>Kinect's functionality will (likely) never be.

Live wasn't about anything other than multiplayer until 2008, and now it's mostly about multiplayer again. If you can sell a game that's basically useless without Live without worry about the size of the audience, you can sell a game that relies on kinect, which has a much larger portion of the audience.

>
>For the record, I'm not saying the Kinect is "dead" by any
>means.


I'm just saying that MS thought a lot harder about its
>functionality than its gaming applications.

not sure if you said what you wanted to say here, but I disagree.


http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at