Phil Spencer Admits Kinect Isn’t Useful Any More In Case of Games Like Call of Duty
“If you’re playing Halo or Call Of Duty, there’s not really a scenario that says, ‘Hey, I need a Kinect.’”
Microsoft’s Phil Spencer has finally admitted what most Xbox One fans have known since the console was first launched. The Kinect 2.0 simply isn’t that useful a piece of equipment. What is was, when it was mandatorily included in all of the latest generation console’s bundles was a piece of equipment that drove up the price and likely hurt Microsoft’s competition with the PS4. Sony was offering a console that was more powerful at launch, was $100 cheaper and offered better bundles because people weren’t saddled with something they would never use.
Eventually, Microsoft started taking the Kinect out of the package and is now offering it as a piece of equipment that only the most diehard of Kinect fans are going to purchase. Spencer recently sat down with GamesRadar and talked about the evolution of Microsoft’s console. “The teams continue to look at ways that Kinect makes the entertainment experience better. I’d say the area that hasn’t really landed – and I don’t know if it will – is, ‘Is Kinect integral to all of the core gaming scenarios on our console in terms of minute-to-minute gameplay?’ There are genres where Kinect works really well, but if you’re playing Halo or Call Of Duty, there’s not really a scenario that says, ‘Hey, I need a Kinect.’”
While Spencer is never going to say that Kinect was a terrible idea, those comments are about as close as he is going to get. Clearly, he understands that forcing the Kinect on early adopters of the Xbox One wasn’t the best idea Microsoft ever had.