[Opinion] The Kinect 2.0: What's the point?

Georges

Apprentice
Jan 8, 2012
189
3
0
23
Lebanon
#1
I'm sure many of you people discussed the mandatory Kinect 2.0 that comes with every Xbox One and how useful it might be. But I'm seriously confused about its' purpose as an gaming peripheric in general.

Why did Sony create the PSEye, or MS create the Kinect. The answer is: the Wii. They jumped on the motion gaming bandwagon hoping for sales without exactly checking for their main demographic. In gaming there are "niches", but it was foolish thinking that people will buy your shit each time you dump one. If they couldn't make enough quality games for it then they shouldn't have bothered.

Motion gaming started at Nintendo but didn't catch anywhere; that's because Nintendo knows what people like and target the "casual gamers" (they are probably the silent majority). They targeted them with fun, easy to use games that appeal to the whole family and is perfect for socialization. But Sony and Microsoft appeal to people who would rather spend their time on a couch and press their controller buttons, they don't like having to move their asses to do this or that (I know I'm generalizing but that's pretty much how most of us are).

Although I have drifted from my main target: the purpose of motion gaming in a console that is not Nintendo's. I'm sure that these are necessary for Dance/Fitness games (like Zumba, or Dance Central). But I don't see it as an essential accessory for everyday gaming. It just feels pretty awkward to play a move supported game like that. I've seen a review vid of Sonic Free Riders and I was NOT impressed, It made me feel that the game fell flat, because of the clunky controls: kinetic technology isn't advanced enough to warrant a seamless integrated game experience for fast paced titles.

It seems like the Xbox One is trying to be everything at once: A set top box, an NSA agent, A web browser, and yet forgets about the only things that matters: a game console. They are trying to juggle too many balls at the same time, and they'll eventually all fall down. But the Kinect's inclusion makes no sense to me, what does it do? Is adding $100 to the price tag just for that worth taking a dip with the sharks? I'm sure it does plenty of useful stuff like voice controls, but let's not forget it's a console after all. It is used to play games and have a good time. If you want a TV set top box, get a Roku. If you want a console that's about games, get a PS4. If you want something casual for you and your children/siblings, get a used wii for $100 and their games for $5 each.

I don't mind it really. But I DO mind that it's an Eavesdropping device, I DO mind that they shove it down our arses, I DO mind that it does nothing really useful or innovative, but that it's just there as an accessory that costs $100 a pop, that price difference pretty much nailed the coffin and sealed the deal for many.
 

Sir_Scud

Super Elite
Dec 30, 2007
2,185
41
0
#2
I really think the price difference is what really sets the issue, amidst all the other things I don't agree with at the moment. I don't really care for motion gaming and doubt I'll be wooed any time soon. I guess in a year or two we will truly know if gamers want kinect, and if gamers truly care about what it can do as a gaming peripheral. Good read, it's been added.
 

MATRIX 2

Forum Sage
Jul 29, 2005
8,554
109
63
D.C.
#3
[QUOTE="Georges, post: 6113397]I'm sure many of you people discussed the mandatory Kinect 2.0 that comes with every Xbox One and how useful it might be. But I'm seriously confused about its' purpose as an gaming peripheric in general.

Why did Sony create the PSEye, or MS create the Kinect. The answer is: the Wii. They jumped on the motion gaming bandwagon hoping for sales without exactly checking for their main demographic. In gaming there are "niches", but it was foolish thinking that people will buy your shit each time you dump one. If they couldn't make enough quality games for it then they shouldn't have bothered.

Motion gaming started at Nintendo but didn't catch anywhere; that's because Nintendo knows what people like and target the "casual gamers" (they are probably the silent majority). They targeted them with fun, easy to use games that appeal to the whole family and is perfect for socialization. But Sony and Microsoft appeal to people who would rather spend their time on a couch and press their controller buttons, they don't like having to move their asses to do this or that (I know I'm generalizing but that's pretty much how most of us are).

Although I have drifted from my main target: the purpose of motion gaming in a console that is not Nintendo's. I'm sure that these are necessary for Dance/Fitness games (like Zumba, or Dance Central). But I don't see it as an essential accessory for everyday gaming. It just feels pretty awkward to play a move supported game like that. I've seen a review vid of Sonic Free Riders and I was NOT impressed, It made me feel that the game fell flat, because of the clunky controls: kinetic technology isn't advanced enough to warrant a seamless integrated game experience for fast paced titles.

It seems like the Xbox One is trying to be everything at once: A set top box, an NSA agent, A web browser, and yet forgets about the only things that matters: a game console. They are trying to juggle too many balls at the same time, and they'll eventually all fall down. But the Kinect's inclusion makes no sense to me, what does it do? Is adding $100 to the price tag just for that worth taking a dip with the sharks? I'm sure it does plenty of useful stuff like voice controls, but let's not forget it's a console after all. It is used to play games and have a good time. If you want a TV set top box, get a Roku. If you want a console that's about games, get a PS4. If you want something casual for you and your children/siblings, get a used wii for $100 and their games for $5 each.

I don't mind it really. But I DO mind that it's an Eavesdropping device, I DO mind that they shove it down our arses, I DO mind that it does nothing really useful or innovative, but that it's just there as an accessory that costs $100 a pop, that price difference pretty much nailed the coffin and sealed the deal for many.[/QUOTE]

http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/11/4420610/xbox-one-kinect-trades-gimmicks-for-true-interactivity