Microsoft Finally Selling Xbox One Without Kinect

DroidJason1 writes: "Microsoft has unbundled the Kinect from the Xbox One. The unbundled system's price now matches the PlayStation 4. Microsoft is touting 'your feedback' as the reason for this move. Any Xbox One functionality that relies on voice, video, gestures, etc, will not work without a Kinect, and users will be able to purchase a standalone Kinect later this year."

Comments

LOL

[sexconker]

The 180s never cease.

Re:LOL

[NotDrWho]

With the Xbox One, MS has been backpedaling faster than Lance Armstrong approaching a drug-test checkpoint. Suddenly all those bad ideas that were so "essential" are turning into what they were all along: just fucking bad ideas.

Correction / FTFY

[brunes69]

s/Your feedback/A massive lack of sales

Re:Correction / FTFY

[rsborg]

s/Your feedback/A massive lack of sales

In Capitalist USA, where dollars = votes, this is the best form of feedback.

Too little, too late

[gstoddart]

Starting from when they said there would be an always-on internet requirement (and then there wasn't), and then the whole "no selling of used games policy" (and then there wasn't), Microsoft has more or less annoyed. confused and alienated their potential user base.

Sure, some people will buy it no matter what.

But, for some of us, give us a gaming platform which doesn't need an internet connection, isn't providing an always on internet connected camera, and doesn't handcuff us to how you think we want to use it.

I don't want a gaming platform for Netflix, Hulu, Bing, Dong, Boing, or anything else. I'd also like to be able to play motion controlled games without an internet connection, because I'm not playing on-line games. Ever.

And, if you can't provide that to me, I don't want your product.

At this point, I see more value in buying a spare XBox 360 than even considering the XBone.

Re:Too little, too late

[Anubis IV]

You should learn how to read. There was never a "no selling of used games policy"

People in glass houses shouldn't call the kettle black. When Microsoft first spelled out how the One would work, they made it pretty clear (well, as clear as Microsoft legalese can be) that gamers couldn't sell their games to just anyone. Rather, gamers would only be able to sell their games to participating retailers, and even then, only if the game's publisher had opted-in to allowing resales for copies of that game (and then the publisher could optionally tack a fee onto the transaction too, thus decreasing how much money you get to take home).

Similarly, you couldn't sell it to friends or online folks. The only option would be to give it away to them, and, once again, you could only do so if the publisher had opted-in to allowing game trades between individuals. Oh, and an additional restriction was that each game could only ever be given away one time, and even then, only to people who had been on your friends list for at least 30 days. They also outright prohibited renting of games or loaning of physical copies of games to friends.

Given all of those ridiculous terms and conditions, I can see how you might have been confused and failed to realize that the One had those policies in place when it was first announced. Even so, since you read the actual articles, I'd have hoped for better.

As for the always-on requirement, sure, you can play the pedant by pointing out it only needed to phone home once a day rather than constantly, but that's pointless, since it does nothing to address why the requirement was such a source of contention. The reason it was annoying was because it immediately eliminated a number of valid and legitimate use cases in which gamers wouldn't have a regular connection to the Internet. In the armed forces? Too bad. Internet down for a few days? Too bad. Just moved? Too bad. Traveling? Too bad. Out at sea? Too bad. Vacationing in your summer cabin? Too bad. Don't want to connect devices that have no practical need to be online? Too bad. Don't think a company has any business tracking what you're doing with offline, disc-based, single-player games? Too bad.

And the OP was being kind, since he skipped over all of the indie developer controversies that were around early on after the One's announcement, such as requiring that they work with a major publisher. I also noticed that you didn't address his issues with the always-on camera and that they've since flip-flopped on that requirement as well.

The fact that Microsoft managed to make Sony look good, despite the fact that Sony was in the doghouse with virtually every gamer after all of the PSN stuff a few years back, just goes to show you how badly they messed up with the One's launch.

Disclaimer: I own all three consoles of the last gen, and none of the current gen consoles.

Re:Microsoft misses the point.

[MozeeToby]

The very same announcement also announced that a Gold membership will no longer be required for streaming services.