http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/gaming/2014/05/13/microsoft-xbox-one-399/9034693/

Microsoft will launch a lower cost version of its Xbox One video game console next month that drops the motion and voice sensor Kinect.

A $399 Xbox One without Kinect will be available in all markets where the console is sold starting June 9, Microsoft revealed in a statement Tuesday.

Microsoft will continue to offer Xbox One models with Kinect, which adds motion- and voice-controls to the device, for $499. Console owners that buy the $399 model will be able to purchase Kinect separately if they choose to upgrade.

"It's really about giving consumers choice at retail," says Xbox chief Phil Spencer of the decision, adding while Xbox One paired with Kinect offers "the best experience," Microsoft cited consumers seeking a more affordable alternative as a reason for a $399 model.

Spencer says the introduction of a Kinect-free Xbox One does not mean Microsoft will stop supporting the sensor, first introduced on the Xbox 360 in 2010. "To be clear, as we introduce this new Xbox One console option, Kinect remains an important part of our vision," says Spencer.

Along with the less expensive console, Microsoft announced Xbox apps such as Netflix, Hulu and ESPN will be available to all Xbox One and Xbox 360 owners. Previously, access to apps required users to have an Xbox Live Gold subscription, which costs $60 a year. Microsoft will add the Games With Gold service to Xbox One next month as well. The service will provide access to free games for Xbox One users.

The change puts Xbox One on par with its primary rival, Sony's PlayStation 4, which launched last November for $399. The lower price point helped Sony jump out to a fast start in sales, topping 7 million worldwide. Meanwhile, Microsoft says more than 5 million Xbox One video game consoles were shipped to retailers.

Although PlayStation will likely maintain a sales edge globally, separating the Kinect from Xbox One should help fuel sales in the U.S. and Canada, predicts Lewis Ward, Gaming Research Director at IDC. "We project this change will lead to enough of a console sales bump that Xbox One will emerge with the largest installed base of any console in North America by the end of 2016," he says.

The move arrives ahead of June's Electronic Entertainment Expo, the video game industry's largest showcase.



~~~~~~~~~
"This is the streets, and I am the trap." © Jay Bilas
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/archive/contributor/517
Hip Hop Handbook: http://tinyurl.com/ll4kzz

We need a flame war going on in this post.

http://soundcloud.com/djshinobishaw
http://www.rareformnyc.com
http://twitter.com/DJShinobiShaw
https://twitter.com/RareFormNYC
PSN: ShinobiShaw

"Arm Leg Leg Arm How you doin?" (c)T510

This benefits everyone.

Competition benefitting the consumer yet again.

http://soundcloud.com/djshinobishaw
http://www.rareformnyc.com
http://twitter.com/DJShinobiShaw
https://twitter.com/RareFormNYC
PSN: ShinobiShaw

"Arm Leg Leg Arm How you doin?" (c)T510

That would be dope

-30-
You know it's drama, but it sound real good.

Yo, I laughed out loud for real.
Still looking at copping a PS4 when I go next gen.
But this is definitely interesting.

https://digife.com

That said, they were selling the jawn with Kinect and Titanfall for $450 not too long ago, so $50 less with no game ($60) and no Kinect ($100ish) seems like a kind of rotten deal.

Still, long-term this is what they needed to do.

Other than Castlevania, the new games I've bought recently have been for the XBone, so I don't feel I need a packed-in game. I have no room or real use for Kinect for either system.

____________
Twitter & IG: @rulerofmyself
SC: rulerofmyself17

Yes! She's on the drugs. (c) BoHagon

i'll definitely cop.

bought my PS4 @ $400 in november... played COD, Infamous and BF4, currently playing MLBShow14. I wouldn't mind adding another console to my roster, I feel there's not enough PS4 games out there. it's probably the same on XB1 but with both consoles (and a new gaming PC) i'll be set for the next few years.

--sig--
n/a

I'll see what's good in 1-2 years.

"a little air restriction ain't hurt nobody." - BSR

Mindshare is pretty much all on Sony's side at this point. E3 should be interesting at least, and it sounds like they strictly want to focus on game announcements there so in that sense, announcing the removal of Kinect now was wise.

Seven months into this generation they already lost. Might as well pack it up and look forward to the next generation. Or better yet, maybe they should quit the XBOX entirely. Just stop making games and cede the industry to Sony.

____________________________________
Podcast Now on iTunes and Google:
http://tinyurl.com/JTTOU-iTunesSubscribe
Twitter: @nipsey @JTTOUPodcast

Last 3 things I watched:

The Changeling Season 1 (Apple+): C
OMITB Season 3 (Hulu): B-
Ahsoka Season 1 (Disney

The XBox One went from being a pretty innovative entertainment hub to being just a another rev of the XBox.

No Kinect means no voice controls, no Skype video calling, no cable integration via IR, no XBox record that...

If I'm a consumer, why would I buy this thing beyond maybe an exclusive game or two? It just doesn't stack up on a tech level to the PS4 without the Kinect.

My bet, Microsoft cedes this gen to Sony (yes it's presumably a long gen) and learns from their mistakes next go round. Shit that's what Sony did.

That require the connect

foh

who supported that Paywall nonsense. I thought there would be more outrage about that then the removal of the kinect. We knew they were going to ship kinectless xboxes but the Netflix, Hulu paywall snafu should of made more people surly here.

http://soundcloud.com/djshinobishaw
http://www.rareformnyc.com
http://twitter.com/DJShinobiShaw
https://twitter.com/RareFormNYC
PSN: ShinobiShaw

"Arm Leg Leg Arm How you doin?" (c)T510

u need online to access the apps
u need to access the apps to reach netflix
honestly don't see what's wrong with it. especially since 99% of xbox owners fork over the dough for the live anyway

but the argument was that they should have opened up video apps to free users like PSN did.

and about half of xbox owners have live.

there are like 80/90 million 360s and Ones in the wild, but only 48 million xbox live users.

-30-
You know it's drama, but it sound real good.

>there are like 80/90 million 360s and Ones in the wild, but
>only 48 million xbox live users.

99% was being extra but i figured the vast majority had it

works for "them" as opposed to this company wants all the monies and we are blindly supporting it.

http://soundcloud.com/djshinobishaw
http://www.rareformnyc.com
http://twitter.com/DJShinobiShaw
https://twitter.com/RareFormNYC
PSN: ShinobiShaw

"Arm Leg Leg Arm How you doin?" (c)T510

is that an "Xbot" is going to be someone who plays on Live all the time unlike the casual person.

who are worried about people taking Ls?

it didn't make sense to buy a PS4 or an xbox one to watch netflix, and it still doesn't.

if you want to buy an xbox 360 and not play games on it BIG WIN though

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

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

Never really understood the logic in that, honestly

<-- Dave Thomas knows what's up...
__________________________

Jay: Look here homie, any nigga can get a hit record. This here is about respect.
Game: Like Gladys Knight.
Jay: Aretha Franklin.
Game: Word, I like her too.
Jay: Nigga...

Halo 1-4 remastered for Xbox One in one set this year? I'm all over that.
http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/16/halo-the-master-chief-collection/

<--- Big Baller World Order

Titanfall looks amazing. But nah. I rather buy frivolous stuff for my daughter.

---
Stoicism and chill.
---
Stay +.
---

< Live Mixshow - Thurs 11PM/EST >
https://twitch.tv/djchiefone

----Mixtape Archives-----
https://soundcloud.com/djchiefone

and it could have paid off, but they just didn't have games for it. If they had stuck to their guns, integrating kinect/Xbox with their mobile strategy could have been huge. I'm guessing losing too much ground in the U.S. territory was too much of a risk though, considering that the PS brand is stronger internationally.

So while the price drop is great for consumers, it does limit the Xbox to "just" a console going forward though (as opposed to the central living room unit it was being touted as before).


That whole paywall thing for free apps was lame from the jump though... should have happened years ago.

yes, it's not 100% kinect install base, but unless they sell what, 8 million xb1s without kinect over the next six months, it's still well over 50% or more. the opportunity for making kinect games is still massive.

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

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

and optional peripherals though. History has shown us this time and time again. Developers are more willing to risk new IP's for a stable platform but when that's not there, the supply drops. Just look at the recent Rare layoffs and their "studio methodology" shift. Even when the kinect was a mandatory peripheral, there was a weak library. Once the dance "craze" wears itself out, what's next? Adding voice commands to established franchises isn't enough of a draw to propel sales for an expensive peripheral. And being able to control your living room through voice is great, but for the average consumer (who's never experienced it) is it really worth the extra bill if there are no compelling games for it?

To me, the biggest mistake Microsoft made with it is that not enough of a push was made for compelling Kinect games at launch. I haven't been paying attention to Kinect titles but are there any compelling titles in the pipeline? I mean, I'm not denying that there's still a massive userbase with kinect but going forward if a developer knows that (sooner or later) there will be more users without Kinect than with it, why should they devote resources to develop for the minority?

then really what's the difference.

we'll have to see the sales to know, but it will have higher penetration than (for example) xbox live gold / playstation plus subscriptions, at least through the end of 2015, and no one seems to be balking at making multiplayer games.

so why not kinect.

if you have a good game, it's worth getting out there. if all you have is a tacked on feature, please don't do it at all.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

>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

>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.

Great to see MS jumping in with both feet on the price and exclusivity wars; this only means good things for the hardcore gamers.

But with no console bundling and a >$100 solo price point means no one is gonna buy the Kinect, except for the odd gimmicky dancing game.

History has not been kind to standalone peripherals.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2014/08/12/i-want-to-win-this-generation-says-xbox-boss-phil-spencer.aspx

With regard to the standalone Kinect, Spencer says timing is a matter of inventory and working with retail partners. The device (which isn't included in any of the three bundles announced this morning) is still on track for a solo retail appearance. Those planning to purchase a standalone Kinect should expect to spend slightly more than $100, though.

"We need to get the prices ," Spencer said "I want consumers to make decisions when they're fully informed. The price difference will be more than between the console (bundles)."

The Kinect unbundling was one major part of Spencer's work to turnaround the Xbox brand after a rough 2013. The company is behind in worldwide sales, with our last known shipped number at 5 million as of March 31 (and a total of 1.1 million Xbox One and Xbox 360 units the next quarter) against Sony's newly announced 10 million PlayStation 4s sold.

"At some level, it is a competition, and I've said before I want to win," Spencer tells us. "At the same time, I want to build a great platform for gamers. If somebody else does that to, and they do really well? Hats off to them, but I can have success in our own space if we're selling a lot of consoles and people are buying games."

>History has not been kind to standalone peripherals.

waiiiiittttttt

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

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

Does that mean developers are making games for it today?

it's not the same situation.

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

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

even with mandatory bundling.

So now that it's not bundled... and costs over $100 solo... that's supposed to entice developers how?

Most important takeaway? No games being developed for it.

http://www.polygon.com/e3/2016/6/13/11927140/xbox-one-s-console-kinect-adapter

Xbox One S console has no Kinect port, requires USB adapter

If you already own an Xbox One Kinect and you're thinking of upgrading to the redesigned Xbox One S console, you should know that the upcoming system is the first Xbox One model to ship without a Kinect port.

"In order to make the Xbox One S as compact as possible and make all of these updates, we removed the dedicated Kinect port from the back," said Matt Lapsen, general manager of marketing for Xbox devices, in a post on the Xbox Wire.

It will still be possible to use a Kinect with the white console, although you'll need an adapter in order to plug the Kinect into one of the Xbox One S unit's two USB 3.0 ports. The accessory in question, the Kinect Adapter for Windows, regularly costs $49.99. Microsoft will be offering the adapter for free, but only to Xbox One S buyers who already own an Xbox One and an Xbox One Kinect.

Eligible customers will be able to order the free adapter on this page once the offer goes live. For now, Microsoft is recommending that interested parties ensure that the serial numbers for their current Xbox One and Kinect sensor are registered with the company's device support site.

When Microsoft launched the Xbox One in November 2013, every console came with a Kinect in the box, and the company presented the device as an essential peripheral. Over time, Microsoft gradually moved away from its emphasis on the Kinect. Last October, the company told Polygon that a "vast majority" of Xbox One Kinect owners still use the peripheral, but there are no Kinect games currently in development for the console.

At launch, the Kinect was a major piece of Microsoft's push for cable TV functionality. The peripheral features a built-in IR blaster, which allows the Xbox One to control other home theater equipment. An IR blaster is integrated into the front of the Xbox One S, and the back of the unit still features HDMI-in and HDMI-out ports, so the console can still control other devices even if a Kinect isn't plugged in. (The system also includes a port on the back for external IR blasters.)

I remember one time there were privacy concerns

)))--####---###--(((

bunda
<-.-> ^_^ \^0^/
get busy living, or get busy dying.

I know the One Kinect was far better than the 360 Kinect in terms of space required to function properly but it still wanted more space than most apartment dwellers could afford let alone people in homes with children.


And then for most people it just never worked accurately, particularly voice command stuff, and there was never any kind of "killer app" like Wii Sports that made it feel necessary to the console.


~~~~~~~~~
"This is the streets, and I am the trap." � Jay Bilas
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/archive/contributor/517
Hip Hop Handbook: http://tinyurl.com/ll4kzz

- The auto pack-in meant it was $100 more expensive at launch, so it immediately lost ground to the PS4

- Promised more features and less accurate than advertised (anyone remember it was supposed to monitor heart rates?)

- No games. This was the deal killer, I think. Some games let you talk to it, but other than dancing and party games it was gimmicky voice applications that gave you alternate menu navigation options



That said, it still had tons of potential as the center of the living room. If they had been able to leverage its supposed connectivity with mobile devices that could have been interesting (imagine second screen applications like the Nintendo DS or the Wii U). That was the best strategy to keep the Kinect relevant, because full body gaming was never going to catch on with mainstream gamers (at least with the uninspired games MS pushed for it).

Phil Spencer realized this and smartly pivoted towards those gamers, leading to the promising position that Xbox is in now.

Ultimately Kinect looks like it's just going to be the tail-end casualty of the motion craze started by Nintendo that MS wanted to one-up. I thought it had real potential for non-gaming applications but the games never came along with it.

Turning on the TV with voice controls is magical. Changing channels too.

These were like the only two things that made Kinect worthwhile.

I don't watch live TV, aside from basketball games, so the Kinect's lack of DVR support really limited the functionality.

On top of that, it was finnicky and constantly doing weird shit (signing in people who weren't there, making the hand cursor pop up for no damn reason).

One day I came home and the box was off, unresponsive, and making jet engine sounds. That's when I disKinected. I got the Xbox working again, and it hasn't had any issues like that without the Kinect.

Plus, it was just creepy having that thing always watching.

-30-
You know it's drama, but it sound real good.

but the XB1 kinect has been mostly worse than the 360 kinect at gesture recognition, the voice commands haven't really gotten better

and they launched without a fucking dance central game...then released one only on digital and gave it a half-assed push.



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

... would Dance Central really have legitimized the Kinect?

as it is, it had zero major impact games that depended on it (D4 should've gone on games with gold immediately instead of way later) instead of at least one.

when dance central came out, a vast number of the women I knew suddenly bought xbox 360s, pretty much for one game.

I dunno if they could've recreated that, but they didn't give it a good try.


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

MS pushed the functionality more than they did the games and it bit them in the ass.

But while I do think it would have bolstered sales, I also wonder if there could have been a "dance game exhaustion", similar to what happened to the Rock Band/Guitar Hero games or Wii games in general. After the initial craze, the interest just dies down.