>there's no reason why kinect can't drive sales. it did on the
>360.

For niche games. There is no history for Kinect-association driving major sales for AAA games. It could happen, sure, but we haven't seen it yet.

>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.

Except Microsoft announced that they're also bringing Games for Gold over to the X1 too. That's huge.

And downplaying the "mostly about multiplayer" element is a severe undersell. Multiplayer drives billion dollar sales. Nothing Kinect associated is sniffing anywhere near that.

Again, apples and oranges. Multiplayer is basically mandatory to enjoy all the multiplayer-focused blockbuster games (and they're likely blockbusters *because* of a multiplayer focus). Kinect is not mandatory for anything other than gimmicky dance and sports games. People are far more willing to drop major cash to game online than they are to dance in front of their TV. AAA's vs niche gaming. Until Microsoft can find that must-have game that's Kinect-only, the only gaming demographic the peripheral will appeal to is the Wii crowd.

>>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.

Fair enough, but I stand by what I said.