Xbox One Kinect-less SKU Announced! ($399) [Update: No sub needed for apps]

[Vitalius]

Now M$ and sony need to remove the subscription requirement for Multiplayer and i might consider buying

No. 

M$ should, but Sony can keep it imo. 

If you are going to say things like this, you should probably know what you are talking about. I say that because I sincerely believe that anyone who complains about this doesn't realize how awesome PS+ is. 

Here is the list of games I've gotten free from PS+

 

I would be a PS+ member even if I could play online for free because of that epic list right there. And that was written 2 months ago, so I have a few more games that aren't on it. 

You also get cloud backup for your saves, automatic game patch downloads during your off-time, further discounts on games on the PS store, and early access to demos and trials. 

So I got all that for $50 a year. How is that not awesome? At this point, they are effectively paying me in features and games to be a PS+ member, because I know I couldn't have gotten all that for $50. 

I admit it would suck balls if it was just online multiplayer access, but they packaged that with all this other epic stuff. I find that perfectly fine.

Edit: Great, I just got Soul Sacrifice for PS Vita. Now I have to buy a Vita. Who knew having too many free (effectively) games would be a bad thing?

I believe Sony is taking Valve's take on Game distribution. I find PS+ to be similar to Steam's periodic sales where you get tons of great and not-so-great games for dirt cheap. 

 

[ivhyn]

Where was the logic behind all that then.

Sure, they hoped Xbox One would sell better, but how should it if there are no games to make proper use of the camera (I'm not talking Kinect Sports or that bad fighting game).

After all it was the best solution to ditch this extra alltogether, although it's still quite expensive considering it's slower and much bigger than the PS4.

[Sharp_3yE]

This pretty much seals the deal for me and I'm definitely selling my X1.  I was reconsidering selling it but I am now.  The kinect was a major reason why I bought the X1.

I don't understand. First why were you thinking about selling it? Secondly, this is what people wanted and now they are doing it this is a negative thing for you?

[Askew]

Lmfao

[minimalist]

I don't understand. First why were you thinking about selling it? Secondly, this is what people wanted and now they are doing it this is a negative thing for you?

 

Because I'm building a PC and plan on doing all of my gaming on there.  It's a negative thing for me because they will focus less on the Kinect, which I use a ton for media functions.  That was the big difference between the X1 and the PS4.  If the X1 came out without a Kinect from the start, I would have bought a PS4.  What the Kinect brought to the table made me overlook the slight performance decrease with the X1.  The Kinect will now be pushed aside.  I think this was a big mistake.  

[Vitalius]

Because I'm building a PC and plan on doing all of my gaming on there.  It's a negative thing for me because they will focus less on the Kinect, which I use a ton for media functions.  That was the big difference between the X1 and the PS4.  If the X1 came out without a Kinect from the start, I would have bought a PS4.  What the Kinect brought to the table made me overlook the slight performance decrease with the X1.  The Kinect will now be pushed aside.  I think this was a big mistake.  

...

I personally think they did this because the Kinect isn't all they thought it would become. This is a symptom, not a cause imo.

You chose the wrong horse I suppose. 

[Exotath]

Yay free games.

[Misanthrope]

Now M$ and sony need to remove the subscription requirement for Multiplayer and i might consider buying

 

Kudos for also mentioning Sony which was indeed quite the dick move and one of the reasons I don't own a PS4.

[minimalist]

...

I personally think they did this because the Kinect isn't all they thought it would become. This is a symptom, not a cause imo.

You chose the wrong horse I suppose. 

 

Well, you'd be very wrong.  They did it because people cried about it making the system cost too much.  That's it.  Everyone I know who has an X1 loves the kinect.  That's the one thing that swayed them into buying one.  That and their friends.

 

I don't think I chose the wrong horse.  The right horse was PC, and I always building one. 

[Misanthrope]

No. 

M$ should, but Sony can keep it imo. 

If you are going to say things like this, you should probably know what you are talking about. I say that because I sincerely believe that anyone who complains about this doesn't realize how awesome PS+ is. 

Here is the list of games I've gotten free from PS+

 

I would be a PS+ member even if I could play online for free because of that epic list right there. And that was written 2 months ago, so I have a few more games that aren't on it. 

You also get cloud backup for your saves, automatic game patch downloads during your off-time, further discounts on games on the PS store, and early access to demos and trials. 

So I got all that for $50 a year. How is that not awesome? At this point, they are effectively paying me in features and games to be a PS+ member, because I know I couldn't have gotten all that for $50. 

I admit it would suck balls if it was just online multiplayer access, but they packaged that with all this other epic stuff. I find that perfectly fine.

Edit: Great, I just got Soul Sacrifice for PS Vita. Now I have to buy a Vita. Who knew having too many free (effectively) games would be a bad thing?

I believe Sony is taking Valve's take on Game distribution. I find PS+ to be similar to Steam's periodic sales where you get tons of great and not-so-great games for dirt cheap. 

 

 

Re: Steam, henceforth invalidating your argument. I get all that functionality for free and I still get lots of free games via free to play or outright gifts from Valve with many titles like L4D2 going completely free and I don't have to pay jack shit. Sure I don't get as many high quality free titles as with PSN, I will give you that. But given the fact that I also rarely pay more than 30 bucks for my games thanks to steam game and the fact that even a 3 year old PC system can still compete and often outdo a PS4, you've got no case. 

Basically those free games? They're akin to fucking bribes to me: they're there right now to make it seem like it's a good idea to pay 50 bucks for functionality that should be free. Once you're used to that I guarantee that the level of quality of those free games will deteriorate quickly and you'll be stuck with a brand new "Pay us monthly because fuck you, that's why" policy across all consoles. 

[Misanthrope]

Everyone I know who has an X1 loves the kinect.  

 

Pardon, we didn't realize you knew many Microsoft employees.

[minimalist]

Pardon, we didn't realize you knew many Microsoft employees.

 

And we have a circle jerk.

[deathjester]

Are they also fixing their crappy VRAM and their joke of a video card that cost 89 bucks 2 years ago as far as TFLOP performance? So now for 400 bucks I can a super slow Dell off craig's list and a 7770 GPU? Oh joy,

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7528/the-xbox-one-mini-review-hardware-analysis/2

 

Just abandon this turd MS. Steam OS is coming, devs can go low level now on OpenGL. Indie devs think you are the worst thing to ever happen to PC gaming. If you would have spent the same amount of money on PC gaming, or giving us low level API's instead of selling this stupid machine, you wouldn't have up and coming devs hating you. MS had a big part in us getting garbage ports with an API, that they refused to spend money on, going back to Halo. PC gamer came with a disc that showed awesome pc footage, and the "exclusive" (to hell with exclusives) was bought by MS, neutered and we get a crap port later. The kicker? They wanted us to buy Vista just to play it LOL. 

 

http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/05/10/john-gibson-interview/

 

I hope Xbox One is the biggest failure in the history of consoles. I hope Intellivision is remembered more fondly. MS? Better make it up to PC gamers or die off as a gaming OS for all I care. 

[CatCloud]

I´m already aware of all that but what your missing is i said "required to play online" and only that I said nothing regarding the rest or that Ps+ itself should go away.

Ps+ is nice and worth the money unlike Xbox Live.

 

[Vitalius]

Well, you'd be very wrong.  They did it because people cried about it making the system cost too much.  That's it.  Everyone I know who has an X1 loves the kinect.  That's the one thing that swayed them into buying one.  That and their friends.

 

I don't think I chose the wrong horse.  The right horse was PC, and I always building one. 

I disagree that I'm very wrong because of your anecdotes. 

Obviously I was talking about between the PS4 and XB1.

Then there's this.

 

Re: Steam, henceforth invalidating your argument. I get all that functionality for free and I still get lots of free games via free to play or outright gifts from Valve with many titles like L4D2 going completely free and I don't have to pay jack shit. Sure I don't get as many high quality free titles as with PSN, I will give you that. But given the fact that I also rarely pay more than 30 bucks for my games thanks to steam game and the fact that even a 3 year old PC system can still compete and often outdo a PS4, you've got no case. 

Basically those free games? They're akin to fucking bribes to me: they're there right now to make it seem like it's a good idea to pay 50 bucks for functionality that should be free. Once you're used to that I guarantee that the level of quality of those free games will deteriorate quickly and you'll be stuck with a brand new "Pay us monthly because fuck you, that's why" policy across all consoles. 

I was only gauging whether it was worth $50, which it more than certainly is, from a console perspective, and even a PC perspective as I consider this to compete with Steam Sales. 

Should it be free? Yes. Is it ok that it's not since I definitely get well over $100 worth of stuff for $50? For me, yes. I believe it is. I don't even have to buy games anymore unless I really want them since I have a catalog built up.

I don't believe my argument is invalidated at all.

 

I´m already aware of all that but what your missing is i said "required to play online" and only that I said nothing regarding the rest or that Ps+ itself should go away.

And basically what I said was, since you didn't read it, PS+ makes up for any implied wrong of it being required to play online by a landslide. 

If it didn't, I'd agree with you, but it does.

[Misanthrope]

I was only gauging whether it was worth $50, which it more than certainly is, from a console perspective, and even a PC perspective as I consider this to compete with Steam Sales. 

Should it be free? Yes. Is it ok that it's not since I definitely get well over $100 worth of stuff for $50? For me, yes. I believe it is. I don't even have to buy games anymore unless I really want them since I have a catalog built up.

I don't believe my argument is invalidated at all.

 

You might not believe it to be, but it is: This is akin to what Linus mentions often when people say that you shouldn't compare AMD vs Intel processors or ATI vs Nvidia cards. You absolutely should compare Sony PS+ to Steam since the fact that this is on a console it's no fucking excuse: nobody was charging for online play before Microsoft, we've basically have been on a world where this is common place for a few months so stop pretending that this was inevitable and bound to happen when it didn't needed to happen at all. This is just Sony being called out for being fucking greedy and forcing consumer loyalty with a monthly fee.

[minimalist]

I disagree that I'm very wrong because of your anecdotes. 

Obviously I was talking about between the PS4 and XB1.

Then there's this.

 

That's fair, I mean, I disagreed with you because of yours as well.  So I guess we're at a stalemate.  

[CatCloud]

-//-

 

Nothing wrong with what you said but your focusing too much on the extra stuff and the price even though ...well at lest i said nothing about them.

I.just.dont.want.to.pay.to.play.Mutliplayer....thats it..only that...nothing more..."sigh"

50 a year is not bad tbh, but ......"sigh" i just want to play online ....give me a 10$ a year choice for ONLY the multiplier and im ok....

[Vitalius]

Nothing wrong with what you said but your focusing too much on the extra stuff and the price even though ...well at lest i said nothing about them.

I.just.dont.want.to.pay.to.play.Mutliplayer....thats it..only that...nothing more..."sigh"

50 a year is not bad tbh, but ......"sigh" i just want to play online ....give me a 10$ a year choice for ONLY the multiplier and im ok....

 

That I can understand. If you just don't want the games they offer, then ok, it's stupid and they should probably just let you play online, but I'm just saying, it's more than worth it to buy a year long subscription to PS+. That should make the thing of "You need PS+ to play online" a non-issue. 

If it helps you feel better, think of it as paying for the games and you get online for free. Then you aren't paying for it.

You might not believe it to be, but it is: This is akin to what Linus mentions often when people say that you shouldn't compare AMD vs Intel processors or ATI vs Nvidia cards. You absolutely should compare Sony PS+ to Steam since the fact that this is on a console it's no fucking excuse: nobody was charging for online play before Microsoft, we've basically have been on a world where this is common place for a few months so stop pretending that this was inevitable and bound to happen when it didn't needed to happen at all. This is just Sony being called out for being fucking greedy and forcing consumer loyalty with a monthly fee.

Words man. They can be confusing.

When I say "I consider this to compete with Steam Sales.", I mean "I consider this to be just as good of a deal as Steam Sales." not "I consider this to compete in the same market as Steam." 

I compare them only in their money-game-quality ratio. They're both markets that sell games. Steam Sales specifically sell lots of games for cheap prices and is usually one of the many things that makes PC way better than Console in terms of money value choices. Since games are so cheap, it off-sets the often pricier PC components. 

I don't know what you are talking about. I'm not pretending anything. I'm simply saying that although Sony did this (and yes, I consider it to be stupid to have to pay for online play), they at least made it palpable (read: acceptable) in some form or another. I get all these awesome games, and I get to play online? I could effectively say I'm paying for the games and the online is free.

Obviously that's not the case for people who simply don't want the games, but who doesn't want cheap games? If I did the math, it'd probably come out to $1 or less per game. Some are crappy indie titles admittedly, but even ignoring those, it's like $5 per game. And the price per game just keeps going down as months roll by.

I agree that they are indeed forcing consumer loyalty. I don't see how they are being greedy in the sense that they give away more than $50 a year in games, but whatever. I can see it in forcing customer loyalty, but at the same time, I actually don't see how they make money on this program unless people are dumb enough to stay in it when the games stop coming. They may even be losing money on it. If I were paid to be their customer, I'd be cool with that (I effectively am). 

I'm sorry. I can't be mad at a company for basically giving me tons of content for dirt cheap prices and much of that content (not all) is pretty good and I wanted anyway. 

Others aren't like that, I get it, but hey, not everyone likes the same games.

If they ever stop giving good games, I'll fully agree with you, but they haven't, so I don't.

[CatCloud]

@Vitalius one problem is ones you stop paying for Ps+ the free games are not playable....and a fair number of those games are Single player so..

[Misanthrope]

I agree that they are indeed forcing consumer loyalty. I don't see how they are being greedy in the sense that they give away more than $50 a year in games, but whatever. 

 

Here's a hint: redistributing digital only games doesn't actually costs a damn thing. And this is usually for games that are not really new or big and can benefit for both the publicity and the extra DLC sales those "give away" could give em (i.e. Borderlands 2 was/is free on it but they'll make it back with the tons of nonsense DLC crap) I'm sure Sony has to pay something to the devs of this games but I'm pretty damn sure it's nowhere near full retail price, I'd be surprised if they actually have to pay em more than 10 to 15 bucks per download (which mind you: even if it's free the hdd space on the consoles is so limited not many PS+ users will actually download it) 

[SaleemVFX]

I want to see a Kinect 2 for Windows >.< ... but Xbox one without Kinect will be shit... in my view because i does love those features #consoles #PC hehehe

[Giddyguy]

at this point they should have not done it. It just looks like a desperation move. And by taking the Kinect out, it makes the console completely inferior to the PS4.

I wouldn't support this move if i cared about consoles.

[Misanthrope]

I want to see a Kinect 2 for Windows >.< ... but Xbox one without Kinect will be shit... in my view because i does love those features #consoles #PC hehehe

 

To all of you that suggest this for PC think about it for a second: How do you use your PC? Most still on a desktop with a chair, how is motion controls going to improve your experience sitting on a desk where you can knock off crap? Do you realize that you have to be pretty fucking far away for the thing to work and that it just craps out with subtle movements anyway?

 

It was built for a couch and even then most people I've seen demo the thing struggle with commands at least every so often. Only the voice commands could be of any use and really, not only can you already get something similar but it's pretty stupid to me anyway "Computer! Activate new chrome tab!....No I said A-C-T-I aww fuck it *clicks*"

[DeViLzzz]

Uh at first I thought this was news but then realize it actually is bad for us.  MS knew it was going to have to do something to increase sales and instead of reducing the price of their console with Kinect 2.0 down to $399 they just removed it cuz well people demanded it.  Nice going guys.  We could have maybe had Kinect 2.0 for free and you blew it.