Optional, obviously.

Optional.

I don't want a stupid all purpose camera that I will never use.

The camera isn't for you to use. You are for the camera to use.

@falserelic said:

Yup.

That's like asking do you want a controller with only a d-pad or with dual analog sticks and shoulder buttons? It's a no brainer. With Kinect.

And yes it must be standardized so it shouldn't be optional else it would suffer the same fate as the original Kinect. Already Kinect is taken a lot more serious with some great integration in launch games.

It boggles my mind people don't see the benefit in being able to use 2 additional methods of input, speech and gesture, to control video games. Lack of vision in the gaming crowd is disappointing.

Kinect is the coolest thing about the Xbox One, bar none.

If it doesn't offer the kinect, then I'd honestly rather go full-on PC. Its the most compelling thing about the console.

I will buy the one that plays Dance Central without me having to pay extra.

I picked mandatory. Even if the Kinect doesn't end up being used in a lot of games, the other features it can be used for are plenty and make the system unique. Not only that but everyone who buys one will have Kinect and it means that more neat features aside from motion and voice can be used. I think the whole creating a character based on your face thing is fairly amazing. They will even have proper dimensions and stuff because it's a 3D representation of yourself. Think of playing an Argonian or Khajiit verision of yourself in TESVI lol

I'm cool with the Kinect

Whether I buy one or not, mandatory. I want there to be a tangible difference between the consoles and to see what devs get up to when they can guarantee that there's a Kinect connected to every Xbox One.

I think it's better with Kinect.

Optional, without a doubt.

I will pick one up when a price drop happens. MS said themselves that they will not make a kinectless console but crazier things have happened.

If MS makes the Kinect optional, I wouldn't buy it, because it would never be fully integrated into games, as it has not to this point. If they make it mandatory, there is the potential that it will reach some of the potential it has aspired to beyond novelty and dancing games.

I'm actually for required. Standardizing the Kinect gives the developers much more freedom when creating innovative games.

You'll never use it unless developers use its features in innovative ways within games that don't focus entirely on the Kinect, and the only way for this to happen would be if it was standardized.

Optional is definitely better for the most amount of people, but I prefer it being bundled so we can actually get developers to put it to some use.

It's tough to say right now because no one has really used it. If it turns out that it's terrible and doesn't work at all, we will all say that it should have been an option. If its great and people get some use out of it, $100 is not that big a deal for the amount of tech that thing packs.

Its understandable, but I honestly don't see alot of people willing to use it, and so far what we've seen from the kinect on the 360. Most of the games that was made for the kinect were mediocre.

I think the better questin is if Microsoft was able to price match the PS4 would anybody really be bitching about Kinect in reguards to the extra $100 or do people genuinely hate the idea of Kinect in general.

I would want to be able to take it off and put it in the closet. The price going down would just be the cherry on top.

Seeing as how I hate the average Internet gamer with a fiery passion, it's only fitting that I support a mandatory Kinect SKU. Anything to inconvenience and annoy that filthy lot is OK with me!

Just let us unplug the dumb thing

If Microsoft is going to inspire developers to use Kinect when programming their games, it has to be in every box. A model without the Kinect will just make no one develop fro it again.

@hurricaneivan29 said:

Like the Wii, right? I totally loved how the new control method revolutionized and changed how I play all of my games.

For some people Kinect is a cool idea and they want to have that new form of interaction, and that's totally fine, but it doesn't mean that innovation is the only thing holding it back from it being accessible to everyone. I don't ever want a Kinect because I don't want to stand infront of my desk (nor do I have the space really, even with the new camera), and I don't want to talk to my Xbox (nor can I really if I'm playing at night).

It doesn't matter how well it works, it's just not something I'm interested in doing, and unsurprisingly enough that applies to other people too. For it to be worthwhile to those who want it, yes, it helps that it's included. It's more likely that developers will want to include functionality for it if it's included, but who's to say that the majority of them don't go past voice control in menus? For those of us that don't currently, and likely won't ever want the Kinect, it's just something that's making the console $100+ more expensive than it needs to be, and it's fair to not want one as a result. It's simply not a device that appeals to all of the 360's current audiences, and we don't really have any reason to believe that it will change into a device that expands that scope for the Xbox One.

The Wii completely changed its controller scheme and focus. It was a total reboot from what Nintendo had done before; whereas the Kinect in the sense that I'm talking about would only be an addition for certain features, such as reading heart rate, facial expressions, vocal recognition, and minute movements.

Like I said, using its features in games that don't focus entirely on the Kinect would not require any sort of personal space and would not change the core of the gaming experience. These speculative games would still use the Xbox controller, would not require you to be standing up or use active input, but rather be using passive features as mentioned above. This is where the Kinect can innovate for core audiences holding back the progression of immersion and connection within games.

There have been key examples of these feature posted plenty of times, one of the most attractive to myself being the game reacting to heart rate and reacting to it.

Of course its fair to not want it to be required, but its also fair to want it to be required because it is just common sense that developers are going to be reluctant to include attractive features that could benefit hardcore gaming without the guarantee that their game will be accessible to every console owner.

In the end, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Mandatory.

Kinect is being forced on people the same reason the Wii U gamepad is. It's a huge part of the system and selling it as a standalone product would not be very successful. The original Kinect had so little games because only a small portion of 360 owners had it, and it's a big risk to target that small group of people who may not even be interested in it. At least if it's bundled with every system developers know if they make a Kinect based game they can target the entire user base.

I do think at the very least there should be a lock option for the Kinect. Basically a setting that turns it off without having to unplug it. (Which I think you should also be able to do, but whatevs.)

As long as it's good I'm happy with it being mandatory. The original Kinect was a good idea, much better than the Move or Wii, but the hardware just couldn't handle it. This thing needs to be as good as pressing a button, or I will continue to think motion controls are a detriment to playing games.

The idea that every XOne owner needs Kinect 2 in order for devs to make games for it is a myth. Look at the huge success of Dance Central. Harmonix figured out a way to use original Kinect effectively, and they made a ton of cash from it multiple times. The reason, though, was that for that game, Kinect worked well. For almost every other attempt, it didn't. It wasn't the install base that mattered. There are millions of Kinect 1's in homes, and having less great games is actually motivational for folks to make games.

It was that the thing was janky as fuck.

If the new version is as good as it seems, then devs will come up with all kinds of cool ways to integrate it, and a larger group of gamers will want it. Forcing them to hand over $100 for an untrusted, unwanted gizmo, is only spreading ill will.

Ad that to the fact that they haven't been marketing the thing at all. Kinect 2 actually looks really impressive. Imagine if at E3 they showed a little bit of that off, instead of the whole time pushing Surface and Windows phones that also no one wants.

Wait, that's it! Force XOne buyers to shell over an extra $900 for a Surface with their XOne. If not, all that second screen stuff will never be as awesome because devs won't want to use it.

I hope you MS apologists can see how ridiculous that sounds.

with kinect. id be extremely interested what devs can come up with in the future knowing the camera is there. and it sounds like this kinect is way better than the old one so im pumped.

Optional. Definitely.

So far, Microsoft hasn't really given a good reason for someone like me, who didn't care for it before, to care now.

See I agree wholeheartedly. I absolutely hate the Kinect and all of the games for it. Not one good thing has come out of the Kinect as of now. But with that said, I do believe that not making it a requirement would only be giving up on the advancement of hardcore gaming. It's all or nothing with this.

I look at it like this, if MS included a HR sensor on the controller and made it more expensive it would be regular progression of gaming. Just the same as how stock consoles become more expensive as they progress. Consoles became more expensive when they jumped from PS2/Xbox to PS3/Xbox360. Well, MS believes that this is the new step for gaming and what gamers are asking for is a standstill, because they're afraid of change and failure.

It's one of those scenarios where no one trusts MS/New Kinect because they haven't done anything with it yet, but in order for them to do something new with it everyone has to trust them. I think this new Kinect has promise, and even I am reluctant on the Kinect, but that's why I won't be buying the Xbox. I want gaming to have a change to advance, but since I as well don't want to pay the extra cash, I'm going to hold off and see what developers do with the new features (before I make decision of PS4/XBone)

@joshwent: Dance Central was focused on the Kinect though. Developers using the Kinect as a feature within a typical game is where the risk lies. No developer is going to create a say a horror game that you play as you would any typical hardcore video game, and make it Kinect required because it has core feature that requires the Kinect.

To me it seems unnecessary

Motion products like the ps2 eyetoy, ps move, kinect, and others. Always seem to get hyped up by their company, but ends up being a major letdown. It feels like not alot of effort is put behind them, and its hard for people to trust a company, when you know your not getting your money's worth. I understand its to evolve gaming, but if people aren't going to get much use out of it then its just pointless to me.

It's a difficult choice but I think I'd prefer it as non-mandatory, I don't want to pay all that extra, but Microsoft aren't making it optional for a reason, the Kinect is integral to some of the major new functions of the console. It's all very well saying it should be able to stand on its own if it's that good, but it's kind of part of the console itself at this point.

So assuming the hypothetical that I would one day be in the market for the Xbone, I will not, will never purchase a version of it that requires the Kinect. I will not allow a device capable of recording audio and video and sending that information out on to the internet, no matter the assurances the manufacturer has made about always asking permission for anything like that to happen, in my home. Never.

Those older things failed because they were always the main focus of their games. PS move took the controller away from the hands and tried to be its own thing, kinect tried to be its own thing, eyetoy only had games JUST for itself much like the kinect. What MS promises about the new Kinect sounds good so far and its been shown to work (first kinect I could tell immediately that it had latency problems). And they were ALL optional. I'm against peripherals taking away from the main gaming scene, but I'm in favor of the main gaming using utilizing the features of these peripherals if possible.

Video games in and of themselves are unnecessary. A lot is unnecessary. But what does that mean, do we stop where we're at and go no further?

It is not that the Kinect is included that bothers me. It is that it has to be plugged in. That shit is giant and looks hideous under the TV. I prefer to be able to plug it in when I want to use it and put it away when I'm not. The price is fine.

Optional, opted out of the original Kinect and have no desire for the new one either. It's honestly part of the deal breaker at this time

Well no.

I would love to see gaming to keep evolving. I'm just saying I hate how a company makes a product, but it never really reaches its full potential, and they expect people to get excited about it when there's nothing to be excited about.

I feel like if a product isn't going to get much support, then whats the point in having it out.

so like a laptop with a webcam built in?

Well, look... it's complicated. They can't remove the camera now because it's called the Xbox One and it would undermine the whole idea behind the branding if they started offering a 'full' Kinect version and a cheaper Kinectless version. For better or worse, the Kinect is an integral part of the 'One' product.

On the other hand, the Kinect is forcing them to be priced uncompetitively against the PS4, which is no good either. They've backed themselves into a corner and there's no elegant way out of it. Probably the least shitty option in the long run is to just subsidise a price cut and match Sony before it's too late.

The benefits of everybody having Kinect are irrelevant if they can't actually sell the consoles in the first place due to the uncompetitive price point. It's possible that making it an optional extra for a competitively priced console could lead to a higher Kinect install base than bundling it with an uncompetively priced console. But like I said, that ship has sailed. All they can do now is subsidise or get used to playing catch up for the next 5-10 years.

Or a cell phone...

Agreed. Like I said though, there's nothing to be excited about because we have to wait and see how it plays out. Right now though gamers should be hopeful, not spiteful. MS is taking the hard steps to advance gaming this time, where as last time the Kinect wasn't able to be used in any way concerning hardcore gamers.

Kinect and Kinect 2.0 are two different beasts and gamers need to stop looking at them as the same (at least until MS screws it up), and although there will still be games that utilize Kinect as the controller and cater to casual families, there will also (hopefully) be games that will utilize it as an accessory and cater to hardcore gamers.

If you're don't trust MS, and I see no reason too for now, then wait it out until you see what you need to see in order to make your decision. There is no need to buy launch.

Optional, because less monies. Pretty much my only reason.

Giving someone an option is always, alway, always better and I couldn't care less how well Kinect is integrated into games....so...optional of course

How many people calling for the mandatory Kinect actually own a 360 Kinect? There's a whole hell of a lot of shortcomings the new iteration needs to fix to convince me that it'll actually be worthwhile on the One.

Optional, without question

The Kinect Looks Ginormous, given the chance i'd take a optional one. But it seems MS wants as much Kinect as they can. So i guess i'll be getting the kinect. I had a Kinect 1 and it was crap, but this one just looks Supped up as hell. As for the SPYING stuff if i ever feel uncomfortable i'll put it in a box.

Optional.

Show me cool mechanics which I can't do with a controller or games that makes me want to have a Kinect. So far there is pretty much nothing makes its 100$ price justified.

Even though I wasn't really a fan of the first-gen Kinect I have to admit that this new Kinect is one of the reasons why the Xbox One is more exciting to me than the PS4. Having a mandatory voice/video sensor in the box is something new and none of us really knows what it will mean for games and entertainment going forward. I will grant that it will probably be underused and not a part of most gaming experiences, but the possibilities are definitely out there. And I get how the Kinect can be used as a marketing tool for family households.

I owned 45 of them. And sold them all on Ebay. Never even tempted to plug it to my 360. Does that count?

But that's only because I understand the concept of an accessory and it was obvious that as incredible as the tech was, it wasn't going to be used for anything more than Dance Central and Kinect Sports. If you bought it and expected something different, then maybe you haven't been reading up on video game history when it comes to accessories. Accessories that split user bases never get support.

I have been waiting since the original unveil though for Kinect 2 and pretty much counted on it being standard because this is an entirely different story and a game changer.

Kinect 1's usage is no indication of the controller's future.

My stance on it is that it's so vital and important that I'm 99.9% positive Kinect will be a standard videogame controlling device as integral as the analog stick our shoulder button and anyone is crazy to think otherwise. If 5 years from now, a game comes out without Kinect support, people will go apeshit.

A laptop does not require the webcam be turned on or even be connected at all to the rest of the computer. A PC operating system is also not quite analogous to console OS setup.

In regards to the fellow who asked about cell phones, same thing with that. The camera does not have to be active in order for the phone to function.

As I understood MS' E3 press release, Kinect must be on in order for the console to function at all. I assume that includes the camera and sensor and microphone.