Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kinect For Windows Releasing On February 1

Posted by Soulskill on from the press-any-key-or-flail-spastically-to-continue dept.

clinko writes "Microsoft has announced that the new Kinect for Windows hardware and accompanying software will be available on February 1st, 2012 in 12 countries, at a suggested retail price of US $249 ($149 for edu). Microsoft has chosen a hardware-only business model for Kinect for Windows; they will not be charging for the SDK or the runtime. These will be available free to developers and end-users respectively."

19 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. Why So expensive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can get a Xbox 360 with a Kinect for $200. So, why should I pay more for just the hardware? Wasn't the hardware just on sale for Christmas for like $99?

    1. Re:Why So expensive? by Wattos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the Xbox M$ gets a cut from every game sold (even if it was produced by a third party studio). On the PC, not so much.

      This means, that M$ can afford to sell the hardware at a lower price point, and then getting the money back in game sales. On the PC, this business model does not work, therefore the hardware price increases.

    2. Re:Why So expensive? by wvmarle · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sensible.

      But: OP says he can get xbox+Kinect at $199, or even as low as $99.

      Summary states just Kinect $249.

      So even if you're just after the kinekt it's cheaper to buy the combo, and you can put the xbox itself on ebay afterwards.

      Unless the hardware is radically different (the software to use it would be available for free) and presumably better it just doesn't make sense.

    3. Re:Why So expensive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      An honest, insightful, well-stated point, from someone who insists on calling Microsoft "M$"...

      Quick, someone check the pigs for wings!

    4. Re:Why So expensive? by Zocalo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, that still makes sense. Microsoft would still get some revenue back from the games sold for the subsidised Xbox from the combo that was sold on eBay without the Kinnect, so still (presumably) ends up with a net profit.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    5. Re:Why So expensive? by Eirenarch · · Score: 5, Informative

      The final version of the SDK will only work with Kinect for Windows hardware (meanwhile the Beta version license will be extended by 3 years and will continue to work with normal Kinect). Kinect for Windows will feature Near Mode as well.

      If you want officially supported SDK you need Kinect for Windows. That's the deal.

    6. Re:Why So expensive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, obviously it would make sense for a business to sell you something unnecessarily expensively.

      I think the point is that it doesn't make sense for the consumer. The xbox kinect can be used with a regular computer, so why get a "windows kinect" for more when you could get the cheaper one and use it with your pc computer?

      Is this better hardware, perhaps with higher resolution? Or is there some hurdle put in the hardware and API for windows-kinect to prohibit us from using the cheaper xbox one with future windows kinect games?

      Not that I care much, since I don't use windows, but if the hardware is better (and can be read on linux), I might prefer the more expensive one for playing around with.

    7. Re:Why So expensive? by Haxagon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, it is different. This SKU is able to focus on near objects, unlike the old one that was designed for living rooms.

    8. Re:Why So expensive? by Bobtree · · Score: 4, Informative

      The PC version of Kinect is also a new version of the hardware, and it can be used accurately at 1/2 meter range. See: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/kinectforwindows/archive/2011/11/22/kinect-for-windows-building-the-future.aspx

    9. Re:Why So expensive? by tlhIngan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Is this better hardware, perhaps with higher resolution? Or is there some hurdle put in the hardware and API for windows-kinect to prohibit us from using the cheaper xbox one with future windows kinect games?

      Both.

      The retail SDK will not support Xbox kinect, while the beta SDK will.

      Second, the PC version features a "near mode" that allows for PC use without needing the living room space. So instead of hving to interact with Kinect from 6-10' away, you can be as close as a couple of feet (it degrades gently though, so the absolute minimum is just under a foot and a third).

      Finally, the Xbox Kinect runs the IR camera at QVGA resolution. This is because the Xbox's USB 2 host is not fast enough (theoretical performance is 30MB/sec, and they're only getting about half that). So the sensor resolution is compromised because the USB bus is too slow on the Xbox. (They're supposed to be working hard to fix it and to get closer to the theoretical max).

      PCs don't have this issue, except for cheaper lower end ones. This means Windows Kinect can run both cameras at VGA resolution enabling far better depth mapping. Heck, it may be possible to adjust based on PC performance (some PCs have crappy USB ports that cause USB errors and USB downshifts to 1.1 because of it). This would be interesting as Kinect may be one of the first USB peripherals with high isochronous bandwidth demands that most PCs would rarely encounter.

  2. Re:Now how does this change the hardware? by Kwirl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Or you could, you know, read the article. The directly address why the windows version costs $100 more than the Xbox version, and after reading the entire article, I think it is both justified and reasonable. While I have little expectation that you are going to read this reply, given that I use words, like the article, I am going to summarize the important parts with regards to your statement.

    The Kinect for Xbox was subsidized by Live subscriptions and game sales, with the PC version they are going to focus on the hardware and allow people to innovate with their hardware for free. Instead of paying for licenses to develop or for support, etc - you pay the entire cost at purchase, and you will get support for the product without expense.

    While you can complain and gripe about the extra hundred dollars, I would implore you to maybe stop and think about what you are getting for the price. Why don't we ask around and see how much other companies are charging for a single device that includes video and audio functionality as well as speech to text translation and motion capture. At $250 this device is a steal. Yeah, times are tough, money isn't raining from the skies, but with all the iMorons blowing through apple products like a new york heroin addict in the hills of Afghanistan, well, skip an update on your phone one month.

    I believe that the Kinect is going to do more to revolutionize computer interaction, gaming and functionality more than any invention since the second button on a mouse. They could price this at 500 dollars and I'd put down money that every retailer would blow through their inventory. At 250 dollars, not only will they put one on every computer inside of 2 and a half years, but they are laying down a foundation for young engineers, scientists, hackers and hobbyists to create a community with vast potential.

    While this site often condemns the 'greed' of corporations such as MS, Sony, Google, etc - I think this is a case where I feel proud to have put my money towards innovation.

  3. Interesting, but useless by KazW · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Kinect has a user base of 18 million units world wide, let's assume only half of those are USB units, that's 9 million units. Instead of Microsoft allowing home users to use their XBox Kinect with Windows Metro apps, home users will be forced to buy a new Kinect to use it with Windows apps (commercial apps anyways, they can use apps made with the beta SDK).

    With this move Microsoft has reduced the PC user base of Kinect to 0, eliminating a huge audience for developers. The reason given was that the XBox Kinect was subsidized by game sales, but if using that defence, why not just subsidize this Kinect through the new app store Windows 8 will have? This would let home users use their existing Kinect and keep Microsoft's bottom line doing well in the long term. This is just a very dumb move overall.

    Foreword to pro-M$ trolls, I did RTFA and I know about the "near" feature of this new Kinect, but it still doesn't justify this move.

    --
    Geeks don't grock information, they grep it.
  4. Kinect "Gesture" idea by KazW · · Score: 4, Funny

    If a user shakes their fist rock-paper-scissors style at their screen, it opens the browser to their favourite porn site in private mode.

    --
    Geeks don't grock information, they grep it.
  5. Re:Now how does this change the hardware? by Xest · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's probably not worth your time. The people complaining will be the PC gaming zealots that hate this device because it originated from the console.

    The same people who will gladly blow the best part of $1000 on the latest and greatest graphics card at release.

    As you say, what you get for your money, particularly relative to the cost of many other PC gaming components, this is a steal regardless.

    Really, this was one of the most impressive things about Kinect from the outset, not that the technology itself was pretty impressive, but that Microsoft had managed to do such impressive tech cheaply, when previously such technology would've cost over 4x as much to put together yourself.

  6. Re:What's it for? by gmhowell · · Score: 4, Funny

    Waving my arms in the air? I just don't care...

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  7. Re:For what purpose? by RogueyWon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My experience of the Kinect? It's a very clever piece of hardware and very attractively priced - even in its PC incarnation. There's no end of things that can be done with it. I do suspect that this is what replaces the TV remote control. The only thing we know for sure that it's rubbish at is controlling video games.

    Outside of exercise software (where it's good, once you accept its limitations) it makes for a horrible game controller. Despite the craze for alternative control schemes during the current console generation, I don't think anything will be displacing the twinstick controller and the mouse/keyboard combination as the dominant game input methods any time soon.

  8. Re:Why for Windows? by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's nothing stopping you using it on any other OS, however there is no SDK for those platforms, and therefore no expectation of compatibility. Hence, "Kinect for Windows".

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  9. Re:For what purpose? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Realtime true 3D video (moving PoV to any point in space) is the absolute best use I've seen for Kinect. For those who've not seen it, clicky

    Screw Stereographic effects; I want to pan and see that Na'vi's ass! *Ahem*

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  10. Re:Now how does this change the hardware? by delinear · · Score: 3, Insightful

    FYI: the Kinect costs are estimated around $20. Subsidizing? Not really. Gorging? Yes.

    Do you have a source for that? The teardowns I read suggested lowest cost estimates were $50~ish just for the components, that's not including software (i.e. any licensing costs), hardware assembly, packaging, shipping, the retailer's cut, etc. It would surprise me if MS were losing money on Kinect sales but I don't think they're pocketing vast sums either.