Including Kinect was 'the right call,' says Microsoft exec
Despite the decision to untether the device from the console, Xbox chief marketing and strategy officer Yusuf Mehdi still says including Kinect in the Xbox One was a good decision.
Despite the decision to ultimately remove the Kinect from a retail version of Xbox One, chief marketing and strategy officer Yusuf Mehdi still thinks bundling it was "the right call." In comments recently, Mehdi argued that the usage stats back up their idea that most people who have a Kinect use it.
“I think it was the right call to bundle with Kinect,” he told Forbes (via IGN). “In the beginning of a new console generation, you’re trying to set the bar for a new experience, and I think we did that with Xbox One. The proof is really in the usage. 80 per cent of people are using Kinect which is remarkable compared to the last generation. We’re doing 120 voice commands on average a month with over a billion commands issued. People who wanted the experience came and bought it. We were sold out all through the holidays. I think it was the right call, and now is a good time to offer more choice for people who haven’t been able to get that experience.”
He also reiterated that Kinect is part of a step towards the future, to offer functionality that will be commonplace soon enough.
“The way I look at it is that you should take a five year vision. I think in five years, we will laugh at any computing device you can’t walk up to and talk to. Voice is going to be there for all devices. We’re a pioneer with Kinect in the living room."
Presumably, that assumption that voice will be ubiquitous is convincing Microsoft that the standalone Kinect will eventually be a hit. For the time being, we doubt many users will miss it all that much, and its absence may even be a benefit for gamers.
-
Steve Watts posted a new article, Including Kinect was 'the right call,' says Microsoft exec.
Despite the decision to untether the device from the console, Xbox chief marketing and strategy officer Yusuf Mehdi still says including Kinect in the Xbox One was a good decision.-
-
-
-
-
-
The key difference is Steam is one marketplace out of literally dozens. While some games are only available on Steam, it is not the only game in town. PC is not a closed down system, so if you don't like Steam you can go to GoG or Amazon or GMG or wherever else you want. That same competition is also what makes Steam sales happen (i.e. one of the main things that makes Steam so popular). Steam sales are driven purely by competition.
Microsoft's plan would have incorporated all of the negative aspects of Steam (no resale, limited sharing) with none of the benefits. It would have directly destroyed the second-hand games market for the console - one of the biggest sources of lower-priced console games - then followed that up by giving Microsoft a near monopoly on first-sale games as well. There is no way that would have led to anything but game prices staying higher for longer, as if they didn't for long enough already. Higher prices plus less rights to your own games plus less ability to get games equals a very consumer unfriendly business plan.
Oh, and don't kid yourself about the few cool features that the early XBO system was supposed to have: enabling those features didn't require making that awful DRM mandatory. Mandatory for those shared games, sure, but not for EVERY game. There's no reason why Microsoft couldn't have allowed for standard on-disc sales, but then also sold digital copies which give you access to sharing/etc. at the cost of using that DRM scheme. That would have been fair, and even would have been a selling point. Of course, that would have meant competing instead of having a deathgrip on the supply of games, which is why they took their ball and went home.-
But for one, you could have resold them. Not indefinitely, as the plan was first explained to us, but you could have resold your games. Second, the entire plan was Microsoft responding to the wishes of their corporate customers. Uh huh, EA, Konami, Capcom, Eidos, everybody was pretty much asking for a way to recapture second hand sales or at least have a hand in them. Regardless of consumer opinion about this, their desires have not changed. Look out for this topic again in the future, you haven't seen the last of it, and you likely won't see it only on Microsoft's platform either.
-
-
-
From the original FAQ: http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/license
Trade-in and resell your disc-based games: Today, some gamers choose to sell their old disc-based games back for cash and credit. We designed Xbox One so game publishers can enable you to trade in your games at participating retailers. Microsoft does not charge a platform fee to retailers, publishers, or consumers for enabling transfer of these games.
Give your games to friends: Xbox One is designed so game publishers can enable you to give your disc-based games to your friends. There are no fees charged as part of these transfers. There are two requirements: you can only give them to people who have been on your friends list for at least 30 days and each game can only be given once.-
-
Yes, but that does not change the fact that it is as I said: they were catering to publisher's desires. Don't think that Microsoft just sat up at night and said "I think I need to make a brand new publishing and licensing model just to make my new console work." They were responding to a want, just not the consumer want. And the FAQ reads pretty straightforward to me about it.
-
-
And yet these companies provide the entertainment that you want. Again I say, look for this "issue" to crop up again. Quite likely, with another platform, possibly with a cabal of publishers. If it comes along again, and it will, it would be best to tackle it in a way that we still have more rights or freedoms. From what I can tell, from what the FAQ linked says, Microsoft was at least trying to do that for us. Will anybody else when they try to organize this? Will Sony? The PS4 absolutely has the ability.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Because the motivation behind the scheme was never to compete by offering a better product. The motivation was to destroy the competition entirely. Their business analysts must have decided that not being able to have a stranglehold on the games market would have meant the plan would be unprofitable. Sadly, that tells you about how well it would have been implemented.
It's a shame: I do think the digital marketplace with sharing and blahblahblah on XBO as an option, not mandatory, would have had merit. There are reasons why Steam is popular, and while Steam Sales are part of it they aren't the only reason. Offering that convenience on the console without removing the tried-and-true "just buy it on disc" method would have been great. But, again, they took their ball and went home.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Seriously? I didn't say I had to play the game that looks the best, and I even think it's debatable how much better the PS4 looks than the Xbox One games at this point. There was a few that, while the PS4 had less jaggies for things way off in the distance, the stuff up close to the camera looked blurrier and less sharp.
Does the Xbox One play games that look good? Yes.
Does the PS4 play games that look good? Yes. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The PS3 was collecting usage stats too.
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ps3-top-netflix-device-worldwide/1100-6401015/
-
-
-
-
-
If that's all they're doing, that would be fine. They can also detect when you're in the living room, when you watch TV and what you watch, plus they can technically spy on you entirely if they wanted to. It's not necessarily what they're doing now, it's the potential that worries me. And even if it's not MS that does 'bad' things with it, MS isn't exactly well known for their software's security...
-
-
-
-
It's a valid argument, bundling it at launch is a strong statement that did increase adoption of the Kinect. Unbundling it now doesn't reverse that. I disagree with him though, bundling it cost them tremendously in their ability to match the PS4 on price, which is a disadvantage they couldn't afford given their other mistakes.
-
-
-