Possibly its just an opinion. I know I don't care for it.And is hardware most gamers don't particularly give a damn about.You have a source on that, I'm assuming.
That doesn't sound anything like an opinion. It sounds like an unsubstantiated factual claim.
"I don't like the Kinect," is an opinion.
"A majority of gamers don't like the Kinect," is an attempt at speaking on behalf of an enormous community with nothing to back it up.
And is hardware most gamers don't particularly give a damn about.You have a source on that, I'm assuming.
Oh, and you have a non-arbitrary set of criteria for determining whether someone qualifies as a "gamer" or not, right? We all know how well separating people into "real gamers" and "fake gamers" goes over.
I'll do your homework for you, though. I don't mind.
There have been 78 million Xbox 360 consoles sold. There have been 24 million Kinect sensors sold. Even based purely on sales numbers, we already know without a doubt that 30% of Xbox 360 owners give something of a damn about Kinect. These numbers ignore anyone who a) hasn't tried Kinect, b) stopped using their 360 any time in the last three years, c) can't afford a Kinect, d) wanted to wait until the tech improved, e) doesn't have the space that a Kinect requires, f) likes the tech but hasn't found any interesting games yet, and so on.
In fact, I'd say it's nearly impossible to make a claim like "Most gamers don't give a damn about Kinect," given that it's almost certain that a majority of Xbox 360 owners have at least some interest in the Kinect technology. The only way that you could reduce that number to a size that makes it look like the Kinect is unpopular with gamers is by making the label of "gamer" so restrictive that it more accurately describes an angry internet person than it describes someone who enjoys video games.
30% is a minority.
But not a huge minority.
And is hardware most gamers don't particularly give a damn about.You have a source on that, I'm assuming.
Oh, and you have a non-arbitrary set of criteria for determining whether someone qualifies as a "gamer" or not, right? We all know how well separating people into "real gamers" and "fake gamers" goes over.
In fact, I'd say it's nearly impossible to make a claim like "Most gamers don't give a damn about Kinect," given that it's almost certain that a majority of Xbox 360 owners have at least some interest in the Kinect technology. The only way that you could reduce that number to a size that makes it look like the Kinect is unpopular with gamers is by making the label of "gamer" so restrictive that it more accurately describes an angry internet person than it describes someone who enjoys video games.
I love my Kinect. And I've been gaming since Pong, so I doubt I can be excluded under any definition of gamer. :D
Previous sales would be a good one, if we could get ahold of those numbers.And is hardware most gamers don't particularly give a damn about.You have a source on that, I'm assuming.
I provided them. In that very post.
30% is a minority.And is hardware most gamers don't particularly give a damn about.You have a source on that, I'm assuming.
Oh, and you have a non-arbitrary set of criteria for determining whether someone qualifies as a "gamer" or not, right? We all know how well separating people into "real gamers" and "fake gamers" goes over.
I'll do your homework for you, though. I don't mind.
There have been 78 million Xbox 360 consoles sold. There have been 24 million Kinect sensors sold. Even based purely on sales numbers, we already know without a doubt that 30% of Xbox 360 owners give something of a damn about Kinect. These numbers ignore anyone who a) hasn't tried Kinect, b) stopped using their 360 any time in the last three years, c) can't afford a Kinect, d) wanted to wait until the tech improved, e) doesn't have the space that a Kinect requires, f) likes the tech but hasn't found any interesting games yet, and so on.
In fact, I'd say it's nearly impossible to make a claim like "Most gamers don't give a damn about Kinect," given that it's almost certain that a majority of Xbox 360 owners have at least some interest in the Kinect technology. The only way that you could reduce that number to a size that makes it look like the Kinect is unpopular with gamers is by making the label of "gamer" so restrictive that it more accurately describes an angry internet person than it describes someone who enjoys video games.
Which is why I provided it as a certain lower bound. I then went on to list six other factors that represent gamers interested in the Kinect who are not revealed simply by units sold, making it not only ridiculous to claim something like, "Most gamers aren't interested in Kinect," without further evidence, but quite probably outright wrong. The reality is that, when Kthulhu said "most gamers", what he was actually saying was the equivalent of "most gamers who I consider legitimate enough to matter, you filthy casuals."
|
But not a huge minority.
If a political party took 70% of the vote, it'd be considered a landslide the likes of which we've never seen.
Personally, my Kinect is just sitting around collecting dust, so any future Kinect purchase made by me would end up being an expensive paperweight (especially as the TV stuff isn't even available in the UK at launch!)
Still, at least all these 180s are turning the Xbone from a full scale assault on consumer rights into a console I might consider buying one day, though as it's a more expensive, less powerful console than it's competitor, and isn't even backwards compatible with my current vast array of Xbox 360 products, my purchase of the Xbone will be a long way off, if ever.
If a political party took 70% of the vote, it'd be considered a landslide the likes of which we've never seen.
And that's unique to politics. The country is fairly stable in its political divisions, and rarely wavers beyond 60/40 in either direction. This doesn't come anywhere close to translating to video game consoles. I'm not sure why you're using this analogy.
(As an aside, while popular vote hovers stubbornly around 50%, it is extremely common for a candidate to receive more than 70% of the electoral college vote - the one that actually elects the President. We have had 21 elections where the winner has received more than 70% of all electoral votes case.)
Besides, as I've had to explain three times now, 30% is the bare minimum and was provided not as evidence that most gamers are interested in Kinect, but rather as evidence that it is irresponsible to claim that most gamers are not interested.
Personally, my Kinect is just sitting around collecting dust, so any future Kinect purchase made by me would end up being an expensive paperweight (especially as the TV stuff isn't even available in the UK at launch!)
Still, at least all these 180s are turning the Xbone from a full scale assault on consumer rights into a console I might consider buying one day, though as it's a more expensive, less powerful console than it's competitor, and isn't even backwards compatible with my current vast array of Xbox 360 products, my purchase of the Xbone will be a long way off, if ever.
If you're not at all interested in Kinect, PS4 is probably the way to go. If you're at all interested in Kinect, however, the Xbox One is probably the more attractive choice. And I've never understood those who appear strongly opposed to the idea of Kinect. The thought process seems to be, "Ugh, I just want to sit on my couch and press buttons." Do they seriously think that holding a controller is the logical zenith of gaming? In a year when the Kinect One, Oculus Rift, Leap Motion, and Omni are all coming out? Find some friends and play Dance Central or something. It'll be good for you.
That's a problem though, I don't like games like Dance Central. =/
Just like I didn't like DDR when it was the big thing.
That's a problem though, I don't like games like Dance Central. =/
Just like I didn't like DDR when it was the big thing.
Okay, cool. That's one Kinect franchise. There are lots of others, and even more on the horizon now that it has a guaranteed install base equal to the console's install base. Someone will come up with a Kinect game that you're at least a little into, unless you are fundamentally opposed to the idea of playing games by moving around.
Microsoft is not somehow betraying the gaming community by sticking a Kinect in the box and charging $100 extra. They are making a solid decision - and, in all likelihood, a decision that will result in a lot of interesting new games being created.
|
|
If you're not at all interested in Kinect, PS4 is probably the way to go. If you're at all interested in Kinect, however, the Xbox One is probably the more attractive choice. And I've never understood those who appear strongly opposed to the idea of Kinect. The thought process seems to be, "Ugh, I just want to sit on my couch and press buttons." Do they seriously think that holding a controller is the logical zenith of gaming? In a year when the Kinect One, Oculus Rift, Leap Motion, and Omni are all coming out? Find some friends and play Dance Central or something. It'll be good for you.
I did. It was good fun for a bit, then we got bored and played some more Gears of War. Like I said, my Kinect is currently gathering dust.
I bought one at launch, along with a load of games for it. Since then we've seen nothing but shovelware or games that don't work (Steel Battalion, anyone?). There's one game that I found worthwhile, Child of Eden, and even that was better on a controller.
Perhaps if motion controls hadn't turned out to be a complete waste of time on previous consoles, people would be a bit more eager for the new Kinect.
Eh. I see the POTENTIAL in the Kinect, the problem is that, IMO, none of it has yet been realized, and forcing the purchase (basically) just seems like a downside to me, if not a huge one.
Now, if they were releasing some good, solid, core games or games that fully realized the full body motion control potential (and Dance Central is just about the only franchise that has done this, it works pretty damn good), I could see it.
But as-is? Nah.
I did. It was good fun for a bit, then we got bored and played some more Gears of War. Like I said, my Kinect is currently gathering dust.
I bought one at launch, along with a load of games for it. Since then we've seen nothing but shovelware or games that don't work (Steel Battalion, anyone?). There's one game that I found worthwhile, Child of Eden, and even that was better on a controller.
It sounds like you've identified the problem! Lack of quality software titles developed to take advantage of Kinect!
Microsoft also noticed this. And they concluded that one of the primary reasons they were not seeing the sorts of AAA games for Kinect that they wanted to was that developers were reluctant to create games which could only be marketed to a fraction of the Xbox 360 install base when they could, instead, create games that they could market to the entire Xbox 360 install base. Microsoft has determined that a good way of addressing this issue going forward is to ensure that the Kinect One is considered part of the Xbox One, rather than merely being an optional accessory that only some Xbox owners have.
Perhaps if motion controls hadn't turned out to be a complete waste of time on previous consoles, people would be a bit more eager for the new Kinect.
Complete waste of time? Dance Central (and other dance games) are a tremendous amount of fun. WiiFit has sold over 20 million copies. The Wii as a console is designed around motion control, and has sold more than 100 million console units. It's cool if you're not big on motion control (you don't appear to be), but calling the motion control of the previous generation "a complete waste of time" is just mindbogglingly ignorant.
It also ignores the fact that the previous generation was the first to feature motion control in any significant capacity, and that the insane levels of consumer adoption we've seen for motion control tech in the last six years points to motion control being incredibly popular going forward into the next console generation. It also helps that the next generation's motion control tech will make the previous one's look like a child learning to crawl.
Eh. I see the POTENTIAL in the Kinect, the problem is that, IMO, none of it has yet been realized, and forcing the purchase (basically) just seems like a downside to me, if not a huge one.
Microsoft has determined that realizing the Kinect's potential will require AAA developer attention, and that getting AAA developers to invest significant development resources in producing Kinect titles will require that they not feel like they're hamstringing their own sales numbers just by deciding to produce a Kinect game. Thus, a Kinect in every box.
So if you want Kinect's potential to be realized, you should be totally on-board with what Microsoft is doing here.
Note: That doesn't mean you need to buy one. Just that saying you want Kinect to realize its potential while simultaneously decrying them for including one in every box doesn't seem very consistent. (Not that you're necessarily guilty of this, Rynjin.)
|
|
It sounds like you've identified the problem! Lack of quality software titles developed to take advantage of Kinect!
Microsoft also noticed this. And they concluded that one of the primary reasons they were not seeing the sorts of AAA games for Kinect that they wanted to was that developers were reluctant to create games which could only be marketed to a fraction of the Xbox 360 install base when they could, instead, create games that they could market to the entire Xbox 360 install base. Microsoft has determined that a good way of addressing this issue going forward is to ensure that the Kinect One is considered part of the Xbox One, rather than merely being an optional accessory that only some Xbox owners have.
You know, there was another console with motion controls, one that had those motion controls across the entire install base. Infact you could say the console was built around those controls.
This console was a HUGE success, with console sales that dwarfed the PS3 and Xbox 360. Yet, we didn't see the AAA games come out for it that used those motion controls, except from the guys who developed the console. The other publishers and developers flooded the market with shovelware at best, rather than develop the AAA games for that console.
Past experience with motion controls over all consoles suggests that we'll get a whole mass of shovelware, regardless of how integrated those motion controls are with the system, or how well those motion controls sell. Not AAA games. Or even decent games.
Potential is meaningless if it's not taken up. Promises are not games. Till I see actual decent games come out for the Kinect, it's nothing more than a brick that I'm paying £80 for.
Which is why I provided it as a certain lower bound. I then went on to list six other factors that represent gamers interested in the Kinect who are not revealed simply by units sold, making it not only ridiculous to claim something like, "Most gamers aren't interested in Kinect," without further evidence, but quite probably outright wrong. The reality is that, when Kthulhu said "most gamers", what he was actually saying was the equivalent of "most gamers who I consider legitimate enough...30% is a minority.And is hardware most gamers don't particularly give a damn about.You have a source on that, I'm assuming.
Oh, and you have a non-arbitrary set of criteria for determining whether someone qualifies as a "gamer" or not, right? We all know how well separating people into "real gamers" and "fake gamers" goes over.
I'll do your homework for you, though. I don't mind.
There have been 78 million Xbox 360 consoles sold. There have been 24 million Kinect sensors sold. Even based purely on sales numbers, we already know without a doubt that 30% of Xbox 360 owners give something of a damn about Kinect. These numbers ignore anyone who a) hasn't tried Kinect, b) stopped using their 360 any time in the last three years, c) can't afford a Kinect, d) wanted to wait until the tech improved, e) doesn't have the space that a Kinect requires, f) likes the tech but hasn't found any interesting games yet, and so on.
In fact, I'd say it's nearly impossible to make a claim like "Most gamers don't give a damn about Kinect," given that it's almost certain that a majority of Xbox 360 owners have at least some interest in the Kinect technology. The only way that you could reduce that number to a size that makes it look like the Kinect is unpopular with gamers is by making the label of "gamer" so restrictive that it more accurately describes an angry internet person than it describes someone who enjoys video games.
But a majority of gamer's don't care about it. 70% of Xbox owners don't care enough to buy one.
You mentioned that the figure doesn't count the number of people who stopped using the Xbox. What about the number of people who stopped using their Kinect? Anecdotally I know people who have basically put it back in the box. There are refurbished kinects for sale, so we know owners do stop using them (unknown whether with the Xbox or independently).
Refuting a majority claim with "30% over here... and some guesses of how that number could be bigger but I can't prove it" is not an actual refutation.
30% is a minority. 70% is a majority.
But a majority of gamer's don't care about it. 70% of Xbox owners don't care enough to buy one.
No, a majority of gamers have not purchased one. That doesn't mean they are not interested in the technology or its potential. Again (and it's getting a little disheartening that I have had to repeat this four times now), the 30% figure was not provided as a refutation or as proof that most gamers care about Kinect, but rather as evidence that more than enough doubt exists about how much Kinect appeals to consumers that claiming that most gamers are not interested in Kinect is irresponsible.
The fact is that when you release an optional, $100 peripheral for your game console, and 30% of your customers decide to buy it, that's a good sign that you have an insanely popular technology on your hands.
You mentioned that the figure doesn't count the number of people who stopped using the Xbox. What about the number of people who stopped using their Kinect? Anecdotally I know people who have basically put it back in the box.
Even if they put them back in the box, that still points to them being interested in the technology. It's likely that they stopped using it due to a lack of compelling games, or due to the limitations of the generation-1 technology, but Microsoft is aiming to address both of those concerns with the upcoming generation.
Also, some of that 30% is misleading.
I have a Kinect. I played Gunstringer with it, used the voice control in ME3, and... well... That's about it. Nothing else that's come down the pipe has any interest.
That's fine - clearly the technology holds some interest to you. And, clearly, if a game incorporates Kinect in a compelling way, you will probably use it.
I doubt I'm alone here. In fact I know I'm not because others in this thread have said the same.
I know the plural of anecdote is not data, but it does indicate there's a flaw in your assumptions that 30% of 360 owners also owning a Kinect means that 30% of 360 owners care about Kinect.
I don't think it does. 30% of 360 owners were interested enough in the tech to spend extra money on it.
Especially since the decent hardware skus include the thing whether you want it or not.
That's not even close to true. There have always been bundles that include Kinect (ever since the thing came out) and bundles that don't. The most popular Kinect bundles are 4gb consoles, while the most popular non-Kinect bundles are 250gb consoles. The most popular console sales are for the barebones 4gb version.
No one was forced to buy the Kinect to get the bundle they wanted.
The fact is that when you release an optional, $100 peripheral for your game console, and 30% of your customers decide to buy it, that's a good sign that you have an insanely popular technology on your hands.
You could suppose it shows most aren't interested if its just 100$ piece of equipment. It certainly doesn't value people who can't afford It but really want it(+), nor people who lost interest or feel its meh after purchase(-). If 30% of your consumers bought it certainly wouldn't think twice about adding it again, but a forced hand isn't always the best kind.
Are we arguing over whether 30% is most or not?
|
Fact: 70% of XBox 360 owners didn't bother with the Kinect. (Source: Scott Betts)
Fact: There are gamers who don't own an XBox 360. (Source: Me. I own a PC, a PS3, a WiiU, a PSP, and a 3DS. I do NOT own a 360.)
Conclusion: The number of gamers who don't own a Kinect exceeds 70%. 70%+ is larger than 50%. Therefore most gamers don't own a Kinect.
Math don't lie.
Also, that 30% is only including gamers that actually have a 360.
There's no other measure that we have. And we can't use yours, because even if Kinect ownership ended up at 100% of 360 owners you would still be able to use that standard to claim that Kinect isn't appealing to most gamers (a claim that would look really silly if everyone who owned a 360 went out and bought one), since most gamers don't own a 360.
Are we arguing over whether 30% is most or not?
No, we're not. No one should be confused about this, since I've explicitly said that's not what we're doing five times now.
Reading comprehension has really taken a hit in this thread.
Conclusion: The number of gamers who don't own a Kinect exceeds 70%. 70%+ is larger than 50%. Therefore most gamers don't own a Kinect.
And if what you had claimed was "Most gamers don't own a Kinect," you'd be right! No one would be arguing with you! Things would be happy!
But you didn't claim that. You claimed, instead, that most gamers are not interested in Kinect. That's something very different. And, as I've explained, that's not something that you can state with any degree of certainty. I personally think that, on the contrary, Kinect technology is appealing to most gamers, given the right game experience to use it with. This is just a suspicion on my part, though, since I don't have any evidence (like a representative survey of the wider gaming community) to back me up.
Math don't lie.
But people do, and often have no qualms about using math to deceive people who aren't paying attention to what has been said.
|
I personally would rather they leave the kinect off of the new Xbox to lower the cost. Sure you could add it to a package or something but I would rather pay less for my first New Xbox so I don't feel so bad when the Red Circle of Doom comes and breaks my new system after a year and Microsoft leaves me hanging. If it wasn't for a very limited amount of games that I like on Microsoft's system I wouldn't even give a crap about the Xboxes, old or new.
Reading comprehension has really taken a hit in this thread.Nah, just lack of interest in reading every detail.
Ironic, in a discussion about lack of interest.
Ok, I'll rephrase my statement. Most gamers don't give enough of a damn about the Kinect to bother with purchasing one.
Works for me.
But it's clearly hit enough of the right notes for Microsoft to feel confident that consumers will find value in it being included with the Xbox One.
But I think that claiming it is an "insanely popular technology" is just... not really supported by the evidence or by the industry.
I can't think of another $100, optional gaming peripheral that saw 30% or greater adoption by the end of a given generation that wasn't swiftly incorporated into the next generation's hardware. To give you a rough idea, twice as many people own Kinect as they do Halo 3, the closest thing Microsoft has to a killer app for the 360 - and it costs twice as much.
But it's clearly hit enough of the right notes for Microsoft to feel confident that consumers will find value in it being included with the Xbox One.
Alternatively, they're forcing you to buy it to up the price and profits. That's might be what hits people in the wrong way.
