• 57 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by MoonwalkSA (430 posts) 1 year, 2 months ago

Poll: If Microsoft released a $500 Xbox One option without the Kinect included, which would you be more likely to buy? (247 votes)

The currently announced Xbox One model (Kinect required, $500) 40%
An equivalent $500 Xbox One model, but with no Kinect at all 21%
I don't care, I'd be willing to buy either. 10%
I would never be willing to buy an Xbox One under any circumstances. 30%

I've seen a lot of people say that their problems with the system still lie with the Kinect and its camera, rather than the now-dead DRM policies and always online requirements. Ignoring the existence of the PS4 and its price point, would you be willing to buy an equally-priced Xbone if it didn't include that hangup?

Hypothetically, let's say that Microsoft gives a press release tomorrow to announce that they're making an alternative X1 model without a Kinect. This model would be identical to the current one, with all the same features and no new features included; the one and only difference would be that the Kinect is gone. Never mind that there's nothing to make up the price difference for removing the Kinect - all I'm asking is which one you would prefer, if given the option.

If $500 at launch is too much for you either way, assume that their prices would drop equally over the life of the console.

#1 Edited by BIGJEFFREY (4984 posts) -

Sure why not

But Fantasia Music Evolved looked so good (Not a Joke)

Also D4 (Can be played with a controller but recommended Kinect)

#2 Edited by Blu3V3nom07 (4203 posts) -

I would get the one with Kinect because I want Dance Central.

#3 Edited by StarvingGamer (8157 posts) -

How much do I have to pay to get the one with exclusives that are actually interesting?

#4 Edited by Itwongo (1185 posts) -

What. Why would I buy a console with less shit for the same price? Slap some duct tape on it when I'm not evolving music.

#5 Edited by Karkarov (3080 posts) -

Uh.... so why does it still cost 500 if it doesn't have the Kinect bundled with it? Is this no Kinect version made of gold? Does it make me pancakes?

#6 Edited by ch3burashka (5046 posts) -

Wait, what? Same price for less stuff? Restructure your question, please.

#7 Edited by MoonwalkSA (430 posts) -

@itwongo: Some people are really concerned about a camera watching them, apparently. Maybe some of those same people are also really desperate to play Halo, or whatever other exclusive?

I dunno, it's meant to be a weird hypothetical. If it cost less or had more shit included, I might as well have just wrote "do you want kinect y/n"

#8 Posted by Time_Lord (714 posts) -

$400 no Kinect I would buy one but $500 I would rather put towards a Video card and play Titan fall on PC

#9 Posted by FluxWaveZ (19330 posts) -

Haha... uh, not too sure why anyone would want to buy an Xbox One for the same price but with less stuff.

#10 Posted by Hailinel (24426 posts) -

Take Kinect out of the box and leave it at the same price? What?

#11 Posted by Sergio (2080 posts) -

Huh? Pay the same price but without Kinect? If I had to ignore the existence of PS4, I'd buy whatever was available. Kinect isn't a selling point for me, but it also isn't what discourages me from buying an Xbox One.

#12 Posted by darkdragonmage99 (740 posts) -

I think you have a rather large typo in there why are both the same price ?

#13 Edited by mrfizzy (1528 posts) -

I have no issue with Kinect. Microsoft has specifically stated that you will have full control over its settings and when it is off all it is listening for is "Xbox On". Unlike many on this (and other) websites I do not believe that Kinect is some sort of mass conspiracy to watch us while we watch TV. Were they to release a cheaper Xbox One without a Kinect and the option to buy it separately I would go with that simply as I have no idea if I want it or not.

#14 Posted by Itwongo (1185 posts) -

@itwongo: Some people are really concerned about a camera watching them, apparently. Maybe some of those same people are also really desperate to play Halo, or whatever other exclusive?

I dunno, it's meant to be a weird hypothetical. If it cost less or had more shit included, I might as well have just wrote "do you want kinect y/n"

Yeah, I posted without thinking selflessly. I know others are concerned about stuff, and that stuff makes me concerned as well, to a lesser extent. I can totally see people paying extra to not have that feeling lingering over their heads.

And hey, let's face it, I probably wouldn't buy any kinect games anyway.

#16 Edited by TruthTellah (8850 posts) -

Considering you can turn it off -and- the console doesn't need to have an online connection now, I don't see why anyone would be worried about having the Kinect as part of the package. I could understand it as far as some kind of price savings, but just not having it? That's like saying you just want to buy a laptop without a built-in webcam for the same price as one with a built-in webcam. It's silly and rather absurd.

Unless the Kinect is partially made with blood diamonds, I don't see why there would be any more incentive to get a Xbox One if it didn't come with one but still cost the same.

#17 Posted by devilzrule27 (1239 posts) -

If they released a version without the kinect that would make the kinect an optional part of the system. With that, if the are the same price, I'd get the one with the kinect and only use it when and if I wanted to. Why pay the same to get less even if you may never use the more?

#18 Posted by Colourful_Hippie (4339 posts) -

@hailinel said:

Take Kinect out of the box and leave it at the same price? What?

#19 Edited by TruthTellah (8850 posts) -

@devilzrule27 said:

If they released a version without the kinect that would make the kinect an optional part of the system. With that, if the are the same price, I'd get the one with the kinect and only use it when and if I wanted to. Why pay the same to get less even if you may never use the more?

Yeah, I think the real question here is "Do you really f***ing hate even the -idea- of having a Kinect anywhere near you?"

#20 Posted by mandude (2669 posts) -

I spend a good deal of my time naked, so if the price is the same either way, I think I'd rather not have the Kinect.

#21 Edited by Turtlebird95 (2365 posts) -

I see what you're saying, but nah. I think the new Kinect is cool.

#22 Posted by dgtlmeatloaf (19 posts) -

Yeah I have been looking forward to the future of minority report commands DO NOT RUIN MY FUTURE!!!!

#23 Posted by Wuddel (2092 posts) -

Certainly not. When you strip away the Kinect it comes down to raw computing power, with the PS4 at least slightly faster (if not 50% as some claim, which I doubt). At this point MS has to undercut sony in some way. 350 and free gold and we can talk.

#24 Posted by Karmum (11519 posts) -

I'm not buying an Xbox One at $500, with or without a Kinect. It's just insulting to even consider a standalone Xbox One at $500.

#25 Posted by tourgen (4478 posts) -

@wuddel: The PS4 has +33% more CPU cores useable by games, +30% GPU shader compute cores, and about 5x the memory bandwidth of the Xbox. Disregarding clock speeds, yeah, te PS4 is unquestionably a deal at $400.

50% more powerful is kind of a bullshit claim though. It depends on the game and the relative quality of the compilers on each system.

#26 Posted by Brendan (7778 posts) -

I'm using a phone with a camera pointed right at me, right now, so the mere idea of a Kinect in my house does not scare me into not wanting it all other things being equal.

#27 Posted by Veiasma (194 posts) -

The better kinect is the point of the whole system, in my opinion.

#28 Posted by Wuddel (2092 posts) -

@brendan: to be fair a phone camera is usually pointed at your face, which is sort of public anyway, the dark inside of your pocket or the ceiling - also it is not very wide field. not much to see there

#29 Edited by SomeJerk (3219 posts) -

No, but have you seen Titanfall?!

#30 Posted by Blastroid (257 posts) -

Not sure why everyone does not like the Kinect. They already said you could use a controller instead of the Kinect it just needs to be plugged in and detected. Just face it towards the wall or put your dirty socks over it and move on.

#31 Posted by Carryboy (648 posts) -

Didnt care about the drm plus the idea of not having to swap discs sounded good, only thing thats been putting me off is the kinect requirement.

#32 Posted by Wuddel (2092 posts) -
#33 Edited by Jayzilla (2560 posts) -

I am glad they made the announcement that the Kinect doesn't always have to be on, or 24 hour connection checks and the used game thing is different, but the $100 difference in price is more than enough for me to stick with PS4 this gen. The price difference last gen. was why I went with the 360, why wouldn't I do the same here? Also, I may not buy either and just go Oculus Rift, wait to see if either will support the O.R., and then make a decision based off of that. Because of the architecture of both consoles being very PC based, there is almost no point in owning one. Console exclusives don't mean as much to me as they used to and Steam has been very good to me.

#34 Posted by natetodamax (19193 posts) -

Taking Kinect out and leaving it at the same price is illogical. Reduce it by $100 and you have my attention.

#35 Edited by BRich (432 posts) -

22% of the Giantbomb community is unequivocally batshit insane. See above poll.

#36 Posted by spraynardtatum (2834 posts) -

The Kinect is a scary piece of hardware and I'm not going to take the word of Microsoft over having security control over my own device. I don't believe that is the full story. I need to see the terms and services for the Kinect 2.0, what things you can turn off, what is on by default, how much access advertisers have to my metadata when all the settings are off and when they're on as well, could Microsoft be forced to give any meta data away to the government that is collected on the device, where is my meta data stored, do I have control over it, will they implement that advertisement patent they filed in 2011, what kind of regulations are in place that prevent intrusions on privacy, and so on.

To just put that thing in your house without knowing this kind of information is not smart. Also, like Jeff mentioned on the podcast after the Bone reveal, functionality needs to be checked by the people after every system update and change to the Xbox Ones infrastructure. I still won't buy a Bone until they release every bit of information they can about that device. I have a feeling that regulations need to be put in place that aren't yet.

Online
#37 Posted by chilibean_3 (1635 posts) -

I like the Kinect.

#38 Posted by Rafaelfc (1333 posts) -

I'd pay a premium to NOT have kinect just to send a message to microsoft.

#39 Edited by GaspoweR (2961 posts) -

I don't think most if not all the guys who voted for that 2nd option were thinking that they were voting on a version without any extras at all and probably only read that part of having nothing to make up the removal of the Kinect sensor after already voting since the poll was before the paragraphs the author typed down. I didn't read that paragraph beforehand unfortunately so I was one of them (I chose the third option). :/

Of course I wouldn't buy that console sans the Kinect sensor if there really is nothing else bundled with it, like a game and an extra controller. If the OP only mentioned that there is something bundled with it to replace the sensor then I would be fine with that option.

#40 Edited by Jeust (10559 posts) -

None. I would only consider it if it was 400$. I was going to pay the same price for less stuff?! Fuck that!

#41 Edited by CommanderGermanShepard (303 posts) -

Kinect Sports was pretty fun, lost a bit of weight playing the goal keeper game and that double fine game was awesome to leave on a partys. If it is more precise and takes less room sounds good. Voice commands could be alright as well. I would probably get a Kinectless version if it was $400, but why would I give away a cool bit of tech for free when still paying the same price, pretty stupid poll to be honest.

#42 Posted by Krakn3Dfx (2489 posts) -

If I bought the one with the Kinect, would I have the option to unplug it from the XBO and the XBO would still work?

Then I would get the one with the Kinect, since extra thing in box.

#43 Edited by BRich (432 posts) -

@krakn3dfx: No you would not. Poll is determining if people seriously think the kinect is watching them play Call of Duty. And if they do, if that valuable information is worth paying to protect. Rather than say, throwing a shirt over it or, you know, turning the thing off.

#44 Posted by SpaceRunaway (861 posts) -

I'M NOT PUTTING MY LAUNDRY ON MY KINECT BECAUSE I AM AN ADULT

Oh, excuse me. I don't know where that came from.

If there was just an option to have the Kinect off, that would be fine. Fantasia looks really cool, and that's actually one of the things that makes me wish I was getting an Xbox in the more immediate future (rather than thinking about it way down the line). Do you really want to always have to explain to company why there's an upside down shoebox on your entertainment center? Do we even know yet how it reacts when it can't see anything?

In the first place, the Xbox is something at only appeals to me in a few specific cases. Sure I could just make it face the wall, but that's already asking a lot considering it's something I'm not totally sold on and I don't really need.

#45 Posted by GaspoweR (2961 posts) -

@spraynardtatum: The fears about privacy in regards to the Kinect sensor could more or less be applicable to camera's that are pre-installed in our phones, tablets and laptop's for example. If we're just gonna base our purchasing decision because of that concern, we might as well sell or tape over the camera's or turn off the the devices that already have cameras installed.

#46 Posted by OldManLight (839 posts) -

@rafaelfc said:

I'd pay a premium to NOT have kinect just to send a message to microsoft.

they're sure to get that message.

#47 Posted by spraynardtatum (2834 posts) -

@gaspower said:

@spraynardtatum: The fears about privacy in regards to the Kinect sensor could more or less be applicable to camera's that are pre-installed in our phones, tablets and laptop's for example. If we're just gonna base our purchasing decision because of that concern, we might as well sell or tape over the camera's or turn off the the devices that already have cameras installed.

You're right. The Kinect is probably no different than a pre-installed laptop camera, although the addition of emotion detection and eye tracking leads to some pretty twisted marketing strategies in my opinion. The only thing that changed was the landscape around the technology. The past couple months have shown the gaping holes in privacy policies between consumer and corporation and government and unfortunately the Kinect 2.0 is caught right in the middle of it.

I don't think the Kinect is going to be watching me all the time, but that doesn't change the fact that I now feel like I need to scrutinize the terms and agreements more than I used to in the past. Hopefully they define a new gold standard that allows full functionality of voice control and camera support without the gathering and selling of meta data to advertisers and to a lesser extent the government. I just need to see their plans laid out. Just because it's more common place these days doesn't mean your not putting an internet connect HD camera and microphone in the center of your living room. Technology is moving fast and laws and regulations don't seem to be keeping up. It's a cause for concern on any device I think and the fact that it will be evolving as the generation moves forward should be worrisome.

Online
#48 Edited by Hunkulese (2702 posts) -

@mandude said:

I spend a good deal of my time naked, so if the price is the same either way, I think I'd rather not have the Kinect.

If you're a nudist do you really care if someone is watching?

#49 Posted by Grimmie92 (148 posts) -
#50 Posted by Krakn3Dfx (2489 posts) -