Microsft to offer Kinect-less XBone

[TheFeniX]

To the surprise of absolutely no one, it turns out that the Kinect isn't integral to the XBone architecture.
From Wired:

Xbox One just got dis-Kinected: Microsoft said this morning that on June 9, it will begin selling a $400 version of its Xbox One console that does not include the Kinect camera peripheral.

This would seem to confirm the widely held assumption that the reason that Microsoft’s console cost $500, compared to PlayStation 4 at $400, was the inclusion of Kinect, which can read the movement of players’ bodies, identify them by their faces and accept voice commands. At $100 cheaper, PlayStation 4 is outselling Xbox One significantly: The most recent numbers indicate that Sony has sold 7 million PS4s while Microsoft has shipped 5 million Xbox One consoles to retailers but won’t say how many of those were actually purchased.

Today’s move is another in a series of massive climbdowns for Microsoft. It was also its only conceivable play.

Microsoft has spent the better part of the last year insisting that Kinect was an integral, necessary part of the Xbox One experience. “Kinect is still an essential and integrated part of the Xbox One platform,” a spokesperson said in August. “By having it as a consistent part of every Xbox One, game and entertainment creators can build experiences that assume the availability of voice, gesture and natural sensing, leading to unrivaled ease of use, premium experiences and interactivity for consumers. We also strongly believe that once you try the all-new Kinect and the game and entertainment experiences it enhances or enables, you won’t want to use your Xbox One without it.”

What strong beliefs does Microsoft have left, at this point? It also strongly believed that consumers would want to install their game discs onto Xbox One’s hard drive at the expense of being able to sell or lend those discs later. It believed they’d be okay with their whole console turning into a brick if it wasn’t constantly connected to the Internet. That went out the window as soon as Sony announced it would preserve the status quo and do neither.

Matching Sony on price and features is clearly the driving force behind today’s announcements. Microsoft also said that it would move entertainment apps like Netflix and Twitch outside of the Xbox Live Gold paywall. Until now, only users paying $60 per year for Microsoft’s premium Xbox online service could access Netflix, while practically every other hardware device imaginable allows you to use apps like it for no extra charge. One of those devices being PlayStation 4. When Xbox 360 was on top of the world Microsoft could get away with it. Not anymore.

If anything, Microsoft should count itself lucky that Sony put online multiplayer gameplay behind its own PlayStation Plus paywall for PS4, meaning that at least Microsoft doesn’t have to worry about competing with that.
Ripping Off the Band-Aid

Make no mistake; removing Kinect is not easy. Microsoft is correct that there was an inherent advantage to letting game developers “assume the availability” of Kinect’s functionality in all user cases. And the news seems to have come as a not entirely pleasant surprise to at least some developers. “While removing Kinect is the right decision, I’m bummed at the work it makes for those who counted on the Kinect as always being there,” wrote Mike Mika of Other Ocean, which is currently creating an Xbox One game called #IDARB.

John Drake of Harmonix, which is currently creating the Kinect-only game Fantasia, was more succinct: “Oh, great. Super great,” he wrote immediately following the announcement.

But as with having to back away from its initial conception of an all-digital, always-online Xbox One, Microsoft realized all too well that it was time to rip off the Band-Aid all at once, as soon as possible. It knows it doesn’t run the show anymore. Like Sega did to Nintendo Sony has launched an all-out assault on it’s rival’s Achilles’ heel. Microsoft exclusive Titanfall is an excellent game that sold well — but PlayStation 4 still outsold Xbox One during its launch month.

Price is the problem, as others have learned recently. Getting Xbox One’s price in line with PlayStation 4′s was paramount, and matching Sony in terms of online video streaming features was as well since that is also an extra cost associated with Xbox ownership. Microsoft having to suck it up again and roll back a feature to get the price down illustrates that this was really its only feasible move. (Getting rid of an unpopular peripheral has got to hurt a lot less than Sony having to ditch backward compatibility to get PlayStation 3′s price to a palatable level.)

I wouldn’t count Microsoft out just yet, as it seems to understand that it must make serious changes to succeed.

The timing is also important. Rather than announce this at E3, Microsoft has primed the pump: As would-be Xbox One owners begin to hear the news that the console will be $100 cheaper very soon, they will begin to consider actually buying one. This will lead them to pay closer attention to Xbox’s announcements at the E3 Expo, to be held in early June just as the $400 Xbox One is going on sale, to learn about what they might expect to play on their potential new console.

If Microsoft can follow this announcement up with news of must-have software, it may begin to turn this around.

What's an actual Kinect game that isn't shovelware (I'm honestly curious)? I've heard that Star Wars Kinect is about the best out there. I get it's cool having integration with games like Skyrim shouts, but having a $100 peripheral forced upon the consumer, that may not even be usable depending on the gaming situation, was not good business.

I think I stumbled upon the best time to get sucked back into PC gaming. I had a lot of fun with my 360, but the current crop of consoles are pretty big disappointments, existing solely to give me a slight annoyance that I can't be bothered to dump hundreds into a platform just to play 1 or 2 exclusives with 2010 graphics.

[atg]

I think I stumbled upon the best time to get sucked back into PC gaming. I had a lot of fun with my 360, but the current crop of consoles are pretty big disappointments, existing solely to give me a slight annoyance that I can't be bothered to dump hundreds into a platform just to play 1 or 2 exclusives with 2010 graphics.

This is the first generation of consoles where I have no interest in getting any of them.

WiiU - seems lamed by a lack of titles I'm interested in. Maybe for the upcoming SSB/Mario Kart if there is a price drop.
XBbox/PS4 - same power as my ~3yr old PC with less titles available. Have to pay subscription for multiplayer.

I've been getting much more into PC gaming the past few years - Steam, GOG and Humble Bundles giving cheap games, much greater backward compatibility (TIE Fighter FTW). Haven't tried the steam in home streaming yet but that should allow me to stream to my laptop hooked up to the lounge TV from my PC.

[InsaneTD]

What's your bet Sony drop the price of the PS4 real soon. I honestly don't see this helping them very much. It might generate more interest in what they have planned for E3, but it won't help by itself and they lying is just another reason I wouldn't get one.

[DaveJB]

Considering the timing of this, I think Microsoft know they've already lost any realistic chance of pipping Sony to the top spot in this generation, and that the best they can do is at least pip the Wii U to second place. Note how they didn't announce this at E3, but rather just before Mario Kart 8, the Last Great Hope for the Wii U, is due to be launched.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Sony killed motion-control gaming when they un-bundled their camera from the PS4 before launch. MS's move is just taking a long-dead patient off of life support. If developers knew that 100% of current-gen console gamers had motion-control devices, they would have integrated support deeply into their games. The second a major console-maker pulled that guaranteed 100% install base, however, it relegated all motion-control to a minor gimmick, because no developer wants to make a game with deep integration that can't be easily ported to the other console. It was a business-savvy move on Sony's part, but it robbed us all of innovative games that might have been made but never will.

[bilateralrope]

XBbox/PS4 - same power as my ~3yr old PC with less titles available.

The lack of power compared to PC is a big deal. Lets take Watch Dogs as an example, because of two recent articles:
May 12 article with Sony saying it will run at 1080p, 60 FPS on PS4.
The next day Ubisoft comes out and says Watch Dogs runs at 900p on PS4, 792p on Xbox One at 30 FPS on both. Because 'dynamism' is more important than graphics and "Resolution is a number, just like framerate is a number".

In case someone here is thinking that the human eye can't distinguish between 30 and 60 FPS, I've got two links that demonstrate the difference:
http://www.30vs60fps.com/
http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

[TheFeniX]

Sony killed motion-control gaming when they un-bundled their camera from the PS4 before launch. MS's move is just taking a long-dead patient off of life support. If developers knew that 100% of current-gen console gamers had motion-control devices, they would have integrated support deeply into their games. The second a major console-maker pulled that guaranteed 100% install base, however, it relegated all motion-control to a minor gimmick, because no developer wants to make a game with deep integration that can't be easily ported to the other console. It was a business-savvy move on Sony's part, but it robbed us all of innovative games that might have been made but never will.

More sideline integration to start would have been a better way to ease people into the peripheral. Something like being able to quick-select grenades with a first clench (or whatever) or give orders through hand signals, while not removing the "manual" ways to do these things. Or just yell different things. But if these are doable by just hitting a button, why would developers mess with them?

The next day Ubisoft comes out and says Watch Dogs runs at 900p on PS4, 792p on Xbox One at 30 FPS on both. Because 'dynamism' is more important than graphics and "Resolution is a number, just like framerate is a number".

This normally wouldn't annoy me so much, but the pile of marketting crap coming along with it borders on false advertisement. The Xbone and PS4 were announced as current gen computers you could afford on a budget. Executives from Sony and Microsoft were telling us all about how PC gaming is dead and this was the final nail in the coffin. Now there's this huge amount of backtracking as they fall over themselves to claim basic graphical features even modest gaming PCs can accomplish aren't important.

In case someone here is thinking that the human eye can't distinguish between 30 and 60 FPS, I've got two links that demonstrate the difference:
http://www.30vs60fps.com/
http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

Morons tend to forget: the human eye isn't a camera. I've even noticed a small difference on the few 75hz monitors I've used over the years. At the least, they cause less eye strain when working on the desktop. The only people who believe there's no difference between FPS or resolutions are marketers, developers trying to cover their asses over broken promises, and people who haven't played a game with some kind of max_fps console command (usually people who's first FPS experience was on a console).

It's like hearing audible distortion or exhaust leaks: it's not exactly rocket science, but one you know what to listen for you will always hear it whether you want to or not. 30FPS with motion blur is immediately apparent to anyone who grew up on 60fps gaming.

[InsaneTD]

The hardware might be capable of it but how many developers are actually going to use it. And in watch dogs case, it's also going to be on the older consoles, they probably decided to build it for the older consoles and port it to the newer ones.

[Vendetta]

Console developers as a whole have decided that layering on effects and shaders is more likely to impress their audience than higher resolutions or framerates.

They're probably not wrong, to be honest. If 90% of people don't give a fuck what the resolution and framerate are, but they do give a fuck about extra godrays then you put them godrays in.

[Starglider]

It was a business-savvy move on Sony's part, but it robbed us all of innovative games that might have been made but never will.

You mis-spelt 'shoveware junk and crap gimmicks tacked onto otherwise good games, consuming valuable development resource, just for the novelty factor'. *throws up hands in air* ~Did you people learn nothing from the Wii?~

On the plus side now the R&D has been done, it will be great for cheap full-body motion tracking for home VR.

[bilateralrope]

Something else I heard today:

Bundling Kinect with every Xbox One came at a price - and not just a financial one. Similar to PlayStation 4, two of the Xbox One's eight CPU cores are reserved for system functionality, but the Microsoft console's resources are further restrained by the way 10 per cent of its graphical power is allocated mostly for dealing with Kinect inputs

Time will tell how much of an improvement comes if Microsoft frees up those resources for games to use.

Console developers as a whole have decided that layering on effects and shaders is more likely to impress their audience than higher resolutions or framerates.

They're probably not wrong, to be honest. If 90% of people don't give a fuck what the resolution and framerate are, but they do give a fuck about extra godrays then you put them godrays in.

True. But I wonder if the reason people don't care is because they have seen the difference and don't care, or if it's because they have never seen it for themselves and believe the lie that the human eye can't see the difference. Because the later will change their minds if they see a 60 FPS game.

[DaveJB]

So, do the sales of this console generation (at least so far) prove that gamers really just want a cheap, powerful box to play their games on and don't give a crap about motion controls or anything similar? Or is it more a matter of Sony doing a reasonably good job with the PS4, whereas MS tried to do too much with the Xbone and made too many compromises with the hardware, and Nintendo just produced a gigantic pile of shit with the Wii U?

[Jub]

I think a lot of this is the XBone's bad PR to start and the fact that the PS4 was selling to the hardcore gamer (who'll try to get a new console early) while the XBone gave people enough pause to hang back a while. I think the sales will start to even out over the life span of these consoles.

[TheFeniX]

The hardware might be capable of it but how many developers are actually going to use it. And in watch dogs case, it's also going to be on the older consoles, they probably decided to build it for the older consoles and port it to the newer ones.

And developing for a decade old console, then just slapping on a new coat of paint for the Xbone/PS4 version is why games look like they run on 3DFX Glide. But not just that, with reduced access to RAM and other resources, the graphics aren't the only thing to suffer. There's always a trade-off and the version running on the newer hardware 99% of the time won't have added content because that makes people playing on old hardware feel ripped-off.

Console developers as a whole have decided that layering on effects and shaders is more likely to impress their audience than higher resolutions or framerates.

Many do now, but I remember Bungie doing everything the could to crank out great visuals on the 360 for Halo 3 and CoD almost always runs at 60FPS because Infinity Ward tries (or used to). Then again Halo was 30FPS, but something about it didn't make me want to puke. The wife can't play it though, which is hilarious.

I think a lot of this is the XBone's bad PR to start and the fact that the PS4 was selling to the hardcore gamer (who'll try to get a new console early) while the XBone gave people enough pause to hang back a while.

HA! More like Hard Core movie watchers....... Anyone? Anyone!?

Anyways, Hardcore isn't even possible to hammer down. If it has something to do with "latest and (not so) greatest," then every mom who jumps on-board the next candy crush game is hardcore. Many "hardcore" players aren't worth pandering to because they just won't spend money either way. CoD:MW still has a playerbare, so does UT99 with PUGs and scrims put together over IRC. Hardcore Simulation guys give no fucks about graphics or new consoles. Hardcore MMO players just like shinies. This is probably more an issue with the PS4 doing a good job in advertising and offering a clear picture of the console, unlike the clusterfuck MS has put forth because they "won" the last gen and thought the current crop of gamer was loyal, except they've specifically cultivated a group of gamers that do not care about loyalty.

[Irbis]

I think Microsoft know they've already lost any realistic chance of pipping Sony to the top spot in this generation

They lost it when they decided to sell their junk in 22 countries only.

Anyway, now that PS4 and X1 are just glorified PCs, I wish someone will make wrapper running exclusive titles they have on PC.

[DaveJB]

Well, don't forget the limited release was originally tied into the always-online DRM they originally planned to have with the Xbone. In fact, thinking back to MS's early marketing presentations, I can't help but wonder whether their original plan was to have the major developers (or at least EA) fuck Sony over in exchange for the Xbone's DRM policies, only for the backlash and consequent removal of said policies to completely short-circuit that plan.

[TheFeniX]

Well, don't forget the limited release was originally tied into the always-online DRM they originally planned to have with the Xbone. In fact, thinking back to MS's early marketing presentations, I can't help but wonder whether their original plan was to have the major developers (or at least EA) fuck Sony over in exchange for the Xbone's DRM policies, only for the backlash and consequent removal of said policies to completely short-circuit that plan.

I debated this myself when the press releases started coming but figured I was going into conspiracy mode. It seems to fit considering Sony hasn't had the most enlightened view on DRM over the years (what with rooting PCs that lacked a L-Shift key) and maybe Microsoft figured by coming out strong and focusing on what positives their DRM scheme would have, they could woo publishers and consumers to the Xbone by playing up the anti-piracy and anti-trading schemes on a level even EA couldn't dream of. I doubt the impact on piracy would be anything like they thought it would be, but the used-game market has been a bane to AAA shovelware developers like EA for years when you consider just how long they keep their games at higher price points and even resorting to double-dipping with the Online Pass system.

With the original XBone scheme in place, you probably couldn't find a used game, no matter how old, for less than $20 and anything they've dumped a million or so marketing dollars into could have it's price artificially inflated for years.

EDIT: If a mod has 30 second to spare, can someone fix the title? Every time I see this thread, I feel like a fucking moron for misspelling Microsoft.

[Vendetta]

Well, don't forget the limited release was originally tied into the always-online DRM they originally planned to have with the Xbone. In fact, thinking back to MS's early marketing presentations, I can't help but wonder whether their original plan was to have the major developers (or at least EA) fuck Sony over in exchange for the Xbone's DRM policies, only for the backlash and consequent removal of said policies to completely short-circuit that plan.

I suspect they probably really did want the bright shining discless future, but internet infrastructure can't deliver that to everyone, and the DRM discless installs were their bodged solution that allowed them to get major publishers onside with the compromise. The publishers could back off from it when the public reaction was negative and it all became Microsoft's "fault".

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I suspect they probably really did want the bright shining discless future, but internet infrastructure can't deliver that to everyone, and the DRM discless installs were their bodged solution that allowed them to get major publishers onside with the compromise. The publishers could back off from it when the public reaction was negative and it all became Microsoft's "fault".

This seems much more likely to me. The first chapter of the Xbone saga has been one of a team allowing themselves to be outmaneuvered in a PR war, not some grand conspiracy to force us all into a dystopian future. First they tried to go disc-less before the world was ready, and allowed the publishers to use them as guinea pigs in an experiment where they would reap all the rewards and MS would bear all the risks and take all of the potential flak. Then they stuck to including a Kinect with every console even after Sony killed any possibility of it being more than a gimmick by reducing the next-gen install base for motion-enabled gaming to less than 100%, which enabled Sony to under-price them. Finally, they did not seem to account for the notion that people did not want a potential recording device pointed at their living rooms 24/7, and their failure to include either a shutter or power-off feature on the Kinect and their insensitivity about the issue occurred just as Edward Snowden was making everyone paranoid about being watched, causing a perfect storm of bad PR.

The thing is, the original vision itself actually would have been pretty nice: A friendly, accessible device that plays the latest games and controls your whole entertainment setup with just your voice and the occasional wave of your hand, designed with enough elegant simplicity to delight your stumbling toddler and technophobic parents alike. A new frontier of interactive gaming that can track your voice and body, so immersive that you don't even have to leave the house to buy a new game or movie thanks to a fully Cloud-enabled service. It's a compelling vision, and I almost have sympathy for them not being able to let it go after Sony cut them off at the pass.

[Vendetta]

It also didn't help that the hoped for integration of "traditional" and kinect driven gaming just never happened.

Steel Batallion was a high profile embarrassing failure, and everything else was just "here is a normal game with a couple of gimmicky kinect features" that didn't really give any kind of value add to the gameplay experience (because they were bolted on to a game which had to release on the PS3 without them).

Kinect was good for the thing it was good for, which was dancing games and a couple of party games, but didn't give a value add to ordinary games, so bundling it in the box for an extra $100 was a hard sell for everyone who didn't want to play that type of game regularly.

[TheFeniX]

This seems much more likely to me. The first chapter of the Xbone saga has been one of a team allowing themselves to be outmaneuvered in a PR war, not some grand conspiracy to force us all into a dystopian future. First they tried to go disc-less before the world was ready, and allowed the publishers to use them as guinea pigs in an experiment where they would reap all the rewards and MS would bear all the risks and take all of the potential flak.

I'd normally agree with you if not for the fact Microsoft was setting up a system where they and the publisher were deciding who was getting a cut (and how much of a cut) from used game sales, completely leaving the used-game sellers out of the loop. It's bad enough that Publishers were going to get another piece of the pie when they already got full-price, but this would be as dumb as the dealership I originally bought my truck at demanding a cut of my proceeds when selling it used.

It also didn't help that the hoped for integration of "traditional" and kinect driven gaming just never happened.

You have to have phenomenal first-party support to show third-party developers the money they can make. Or you float the financial burden of companies like Rare and Retro to make those games. I think this whole thing really comes from Sony and Microsoft drooling over all the money the Wii made and the entirely new market it opened up. But they didn't understand that innovation doesn't sell games, just like your Steel Battalion example: FROM Software is what I would put in charge of games designed to make you smash a controller, not games where there's no controller to smash.

At some point, you have to show everyone else why your idea is good and will make money. Microsoft needed something like a Gears or Halo game with required (and well done) Kinect integration to force the issue: show developers what happens when you do it right and that you're willing to take a gamble like Nintendo did. But something tells me, MS would never cut their purchasing base down by requiring a Kinect for those monster-sellers. Microsoft has done nothing to show how Kinect technology can make gaming more immersive. Sure, they've TALKED a lot about it. But talk is cheap, even if the Kinect isn't.

[Vendetta]

At some point, you have to show everyone else why your idea is good and will make money.

I'm not so sure even that works. I mean there were no real examples of Wii games that really integrated motion controls in a non-gimmincky way into a traditional game, first or third party. The big tranditional first party games like Mario and Zelda didn't add much beyond "makes your arm tired, could be achieved with a button". And the third party ecosystem on the Wii died out hard and fast.

Even something like Metroid Prime Corruption, which I think is probably the best example of a traditional game with motion controls, a lot of it was just "extend the time it takes to open a door because you have to do a motion control thing you didn't previously, isn't any sort of challenge, and is quickly irritating". The only bit that was really satisfying to do with motion control was yanking the shields off of space pirates.

[bilateralrope]

First they tried to go disc-less before the world was ready,

PC gaming had been disc-less for years before Microsoft attempted it with the Xbone. Second hand sales simply don't exist on the PC, while Microsoft was planning a system to offer them.

Microsoft might have been able to push the DRM stuff through with better marketing of it. But instead of decent marketing, we got soundbites like Don Mattrick (head of the Xbox division at the time) saying:

We have a product for people who aren't able to get some form of connectivity; it's called Xbox 360

I don't think it's a coincidence that he left Microsoft around the same time that Microsoft changed direction on the DRM.

[DaveJB]

I don't think it would really have mattered how Microsoft marketed the whole DRM thing, to be honest. Just the fact that Sony (and, for that matter, Nintendo) didn't have such a system on their console meant that Microsoft had to persuade people to buy a console that was more expensive than either of its competitors, less powerful than one of them, had usage restrictions that neither of the competitors had, and came with an accessory that a lot of people didn't see the value in.

I suppose they might have gotten away with that had Sony screwed up the PS4 as badly as they did the PS3 and Vita, but unfortunately for Microsoft, Sony were firing on all cylinders this time around.

[bilateralrope]

How much do you typically get back when you trade in a game ?

How does the total cost of a game you trade in (purchase price minus trade in) compare with the discounts on Steam ?
Discounts that would likely be repeated on the Xbone because publishers know how profitable they are. Meaning Microsoft might have been able to argue that the Xbone was cheaper over the long term.

Though they couldn't do anything about the arguments over being less powerful or the Kinect.