Talk:Kinect

Earlier Demo

I feel like I saw this technology used at an earlier conference/expo. They used a racing game and a lightsaber game, and let anyone come up and play it. Anyone know anything about that? 8bit (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

I followed the link in reference No. 6 and it does point to a page that states the whole "natal means 'to be born' in Latin" thing, but to my knowledge, it is not like that... It's simpler: "natal" means "Christmas" in Portuguese (language spoken in Brazil, where the project incubator is from)... the latin word for "to be born" is "nascor"... I am totally sure about the portuguese/christmas part (I speak portuguese), but not so sure about the latin part, that's why I did not change the article... Could anyone confirm it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by El changuito (talk • contribs) 14:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and generalized the statement a bit so that the Latin isn't mentioned. Dancter (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Natal can mean Christmas or Birth, depending on context. You can say

• I was born in "natal" [the city]
• Natal [the city] is my natal [place of origin / native] city
• Natal [the holiday] is celebrated on December the 25th.

Though "natal" as in birth is more common in Latin, not in portuguese. But since the town's name is derived from Latin, the reference is correct. (I'm brazillian by the way, you can check my IP) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.115.132.140 (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the link is that Christmas is a birthday ? Or is that too obvious? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It will have been thought up by a bunch of people in marketing. They will have started with loads of names and narrowed it down to one after focus group testing and other stuff like that. Sorry to break the magic, but that's how it happens in big corporations these days. - X201 (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Shigeru Miyamoto on Natal

I was reading a post on Wired.com and Miyamoto's opinion about how it would be difficult for someone to create an experience that feels interactive without holding a controller. http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2009/06/shigeru-miyamoto-interview/

Is this something notable enough to be included in this article?

99.227.179.197 (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Not on its own. It wouldn't be appropriate to cover reactions before better establishing what was presented. I haven't focused on that aspect, but it'd probably be a good idea to establish an "Announcement" section including things like Steven Spielberg, de facto mascot Kudo Tsunoda, and the E3 celebrity demos. We can then fill in things like industry reactions, web interest statistics, and mainstream attention such as in The Colbert Report and Late Night with Jimmy Fallon. Dancter (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel it will soon be time to add a pre-release reception/reaction to the page. IGN recently published their in-depth "close and personnel" experience using Project Natal which could form a basis to a reception/reaction section of the article. .IGN's article can be found here--LostOverThere (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not about when the right time is. Any time would've been good, so long as the coverage was fair and informative. My opposition was to floating sensationalistic bits like Miyamoto's comments in isolation. I would rather that reactions be covered in a history, rather than as a dedicated "reception" section, which would just encourage editors to promote their own views by selectively citing pieces that align with their opinions. Dancter (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Frame rate of 30 Hertz

The sensor is described in the article of being capable of capturing motion at a frame rate of only 30 Hertz. Two links are given as citation to that claim, but i have followed both links and i cannot find any mention of that figure. Could someone please address this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.59.123.220 (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I added a quotation to clarify. A "frame rate of 30 hertz" here means the same thing as "30 frames per second." Dancter (talk) 04:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Bill Gates about release of Natal

Bill Gates in his interview to cnet.com mentioned the release date of Natal: "in a little over a year". I think this link should be added to other links for the release date info.

[1]

--StepanYanch (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The article already says "it is expected to be released in late 2010" which would be "in a little over a year". -Zomic13 (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I mean the link of Bill Gates talking to Cnet should be added to links [4],[5],[6],[7],[8]. Because these links [4]-[8] are all about Ballmer talking. And Bill Gates' quote is another semi-official source of information which is worth mentioning. --StepanYanch (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I recall about the articles, only one of those links are about statements from Ballmer. Dancter (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Release and price

It is now expected to be released in November 2010 and to cost 30-50 pounds which is equivalent to about 46 to 77 dollars. There is a date on amazon that says November 1, 2010 Ajpri (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC) I don't see this reflected on the page. I'd do it myself, but I can't see past all the brackets and wiki-coding. If anyone would be so kind. 92.39.189.2 (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It is quoted in reference footnote 4. I don't want to overstate what is still best considered a rumor, so I'd be opposed to any emphasis on November, but perhaps some mention of price range could be included in-text, using both the MCV source and quotes such as Michael Pachter prediction at IndustryGamers. Dancter (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Although, I think it was reported that Microsoft reps said something along the lines on the UK developer's tour, presumably to drum up launch titles, which now number at 14 games. It didn't look like a rumour to me, but whatever.92.39.189.2 (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Amazon has it listed at $149.99 available for pre-order. Amazon doesnt list a pre-order price unless it the confirmed MSRP or less, in this case, it shouldnt be less. Also, amazon does not raise the pre-order price, only lowers it, and I doubt they would take that big of a chance of losing money by putting out an unconfirmed price. Its not enough to say the confirmed price, but it should be enough to drop the rest of the price ranges from the article.

huh?

Can someone translate this into English, and fix it? "As of September 2009[update], publishers actively working on games for Project Natal account for over 70 percent of third-party software sales for the current generation of video game consoles" -24.130.65.122 (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. The referenced page basically says: "Some games publishers not affiliated with Microsoft are also working on a few Kinect titles, here's a list of about a dozen big names who account for more than two thirds of the whole group. These guys released loads of games for all console platforms and some well-known franchises, so you should know who they are."

It looks like some clever marketeering in the source article to give an impression that ~70% of future games will be for Kinect, but actually means ~70% of third-party publishers who (as per usual) are currently working on multiplatform console titles will eventually put something out on Kinect. It's convenient to omit that while Kinect implies console title, console title does not always imply Kinect. :)

In my opinion that section would be much improved by ditching the marketing bumph and simply stating the facts: "Third-party publishers confirmed by Microsoft to be working on future Kinect titles include Activision Blizzard, Bethesda Softworks, CAPCOM, Disney Interactive, Electronic Arts, Konami, MTV Games, Namco Bandai, Sega, Square Enix, THQ Inc. and Ubisoft." In fact, I'll do that just now if nobody minds. Cheers! Tomfin (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Clean this crap up

Why are there so many references that reference the same line? There are multiple occurences of double, triple, even quadruple referencing on this page. That is completely unnecessary. Can someone take the time to clean this up? --Xander756 (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Smallville

This was in the previous episode of Smallville shown last weekend (aired Friday 12th Feb). The characters never mentioned it by name, but they did mention 'xbox 360' which was visible and when the camera reversed you could clearly see the sensor bar in front of the tv. I am unsure what game they were playing though. This is the first product placement I have seen of it so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.178.213 (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I went and watched it on the CW's website, and the game they are playing is the game Ricochet that is mentioned in this article. You can find a demo of it here. I have no idea whether it is worthy of including or not; I just created an account a few minutes ago to verify this claim when I saw it. ArchaicTravail (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from BassManNV, 8 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I am using a registered account and it won't let me edit it.

BassManNV (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done at this.  fetchcomms☛ 21:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

{done}} - It seems like someone was interchanging between the IPs: 204.174.206.186, 204.174.206.189, 204.174.206.190, 204.174.206.191 and 204.174.206.194, which rendered Minimac's Clone's use of rollback useless as it only rolled back 1 of the 3 vandal edits. A rangeblock on the range 204.174.206.128/25 should suffice, but the page is already semiprotected. I've gone through the history and am giving it the "clean bill of health", should be vandal free now. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 326° 33' 0" NET 21:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Pre-E3 2010 Event

March 25 what year? Does anyone know that?

Why is "Nintendo rejection" necessary?

The section Nintendo rejection seems out of place and unnecessary, as a competitor's commentary on a product doesn't seem notable as an inclusion in the article for that product. Additionally, the section claims that 3DV demoed tech for Iwata, while the "Sensor" section states that PrimeSense, not 3DV, is responsible for the tech in Natal, meaning that what was demoed was not Natal, as the unnamed source claimed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevnt (talk • contribs) 09:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Zcam

Hi, how should i read that ? Alex from MS said its not? , MS bought the Zcam which is a time-of-flight camera, and now its supposed to work on modulated thin air or so ? Mion (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Project Natal does not use any technology from 3DV Systems. This is well discussed in many web articles (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/e3-natal-not-derived-from-3dv). Microsoft only bought 3DV for their IP which may or may not be used in future products. Project Natal itself is based on technology made by PrimeSense which is NOT a time of flight camera. They are using a system called "LightCoding". (see http://www.slashgear.com/primesense-confirmed-as-project-natal-hardware-source-3179868/). You are also welcome to read more information in: http://www.primesense.com/ --84.110.1.155 (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Besides the media marketing buzz, primesense is only delivering the incoming sensor technology, prbl, the skeleton point and gesture software as they did for the Zcam, and you can give it different patented names as well (ranging camera, flash lidar, time-of-flight (ToF) camera, RGB-D camera or IR projected-light stereo, the basics of the technology don't change, or do you still think its modulated thin air tech ?. Mion (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do some research before continuing to comment about this subject. PrimeSense are delivering the ENTIRE 3d capturing solution, not just the incoming sensor. (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-primesense-article?page=2). Also, PrimeSense technology is not based on Time of Flight at all! You can find lots of info in their patent applications if you wish. In short, they are using a highly modified "structured light" approach, which means that a pattern is projected and when it's seen back by a regular CMOS, they are able to decode each pixel depth value by measuring the distortion of the pattern. This is completely different approach then time of flight / modulation / etc. I agree with you about the software part (skeleton mapping / gestures / ...) and that part indeed seems to be developed in-house within Microsoft, but there isn't much info about it yet so it's difficult to know... --84.110.2.241 (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont buy it, primesense is only doing a marketing boost, Structured-light 3D scanners require to much power. Anyway, it seems we have to wait until the first items hit the store (or maybe an employee forgets one in the pub). Mion (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

As I've tried to explain, they are not using classic structured light but a highly modified and efficient variation of it. You'll have to trust me on this one since I did spent some time personally with their (PrimeSense) technology. Please feel free to read their patents to gain more insight into this topic. Anyway, until it comes out this will indeed remain a mystery for the public but there are two facts that have been confirmed by multiple sources from Microsoft 1) The device is NOT based on TOF or anything similar to a TOF system (said by Alex Kipman, the project leader!). 2) None of 3DV technology made it into the device (said by Aaron Greenberg, the product manager for Project Natal). See my above links for FACTS about these topics. And until you have any *FACTS* and not personal guesses about this subject, please stop adding any references to TOF into the article. --84.110.101.117 (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Up to this point, anything about the tech other than what has been quoted by members of the team should be treated as speculation. No offense "84.110.101.117", but we have no way of knowing how reliable a source you are, so we can't "trust you on this one". That said, none of the speculation should go into the article without some heavy disclaimer-like accompaniment, along the lines of "It has been speculated that -tech- may be involved after Microsoft's purchase of -company-" and then only if it can be proven that it is speculated by some-one in the industry (without that last bit anyone would be able to add anything with a speculation disclaimer since they speculated it). Alphathon^TM (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, and I never expected you to "trust me" of course, all I wanted is that this article would stick to facts from team members and not to speculations: 1. The device is based on PrimeSense technology and they are the SOLE supplier of 3d sensing for natal, 2. The device is not a TOF camera, 3. The device doesn't contain any 3DV tech. P.S. Finally made me a proper user! no more 80.xx.xx.xx IP. --MrZapper (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Kinect compatible games

This section will be very rumor susceptible so keep it clean. I found no reference to any control scheme of MGS Rising so that was removed. 174.25.228.174 (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Required Kinect Processing Power and Skeletal Map

I just wish to point out the following I'll leave it up to the experts to decide.

The article cites Alex Kippman telling new scientest in January that Kinect would use 10-15% of the CPU. It might have been a safe answer to an unexpected question. A professional programmer from Ubisoft has been quoted as saying the current iteration of the Kinect Software platform uses 1% of the Xbox CPU's capacity. Kinect uses 'less than 1%' of 360 CPU

Also the article claims the extraction of 20 skeletal points at one point and then 48 at another. I think Kinect has a 20 point skeletal map with 48 movement references. Kinect Specs Show Two-Player Limitation? Everyone seems to be citing Kinect including Kinect: Adventures!

ZLoserKing (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Predecessor

I wouldn't exactly call Xbox Live Vision Kinect's predecessor as Xbox Live Vision couldn't be used as a controller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.119.1 (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I disagree, although an argument could be made that it is the predecessor in terms of video chat devices. I don't think that's really enough, but that's just my opinion. Alphathon^TM (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Like Alphathon said, you could call Kinect Xbox Live Vision's successor as it can be used for video chat. But also in fact, just had a look at the Visions wikipedia page and it seems there are some games that can use the camera as a controller. So I think that the term predecessor is justified. Complete Prat (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw this for sale at gamestop yesterday!

At the gamestop in the cape cod mall. I thought it wasn't out yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.72.87 (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not AFAIK (not due until November). Probably just boxes to encourage pre-orders - there's no way they'd be shipping them to retailers 3 months early, not in bulk anyway (maybe as individual display/trial models). Alphathon^TM (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It needs a reception section

nuff said --Arathun (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Something tells me Microsoft is keeping this page clean. Serendi^podous 09:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's more a case of there being no reviews for it yet. Until there are, it's kinda hard for there to be a reception section. The closest that's out there (AFAIK) is first impressions from E3 and such, which aren't really concrete enough to base a section around, although they could be used to lead it. Anyway if MS were "keeping this page clean", whoever was doing it for them would simply be reverted for NNPOV unless they were very clever about how they did it. However, removing a reception section is kinda obvious unless there is some other major issue with it such as it in itself being NNPOV (in which case its removal would probably be appropriate). Alphathon™ (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Should something be included about recent news on how Kinect is racist since it apparently thinks all black people look alike? all white people look alike, they all are white. they do have that one thing in common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.255.145.117 (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Bounty offered for open-source Kinect driver

• Bounty offered for open-source Kinect driver —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.154.43 (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft's Kinect Already Hacked - http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2372268,00.asp -Abhishikt 07:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talk • contribs)

I added a brief section about the open-source driver under "Software". David Skoll (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hacking hardware to work with unauthorised systems is illegal and must not be supported. Use the hardware on only the systems it was licensed for and get a life.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.144.66 (talk • contribs)

Please do not remove other editors posts unless they are vandalism. Also, my understanding of both US and UK law (don't know about elsewhere) is that hacking/modifying your own hardware (which wasn't done) or creating custom drivers for it (which was) is not illegal unless what you are doing breaks some sort of encryption. Even then in the US it would be considered fair use (see: U.S. Declares iPhone Jailbreaking Legal, Over Apple’s Objections). Regardless of that though, just because something is illegal does not mean it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. As long as any mention of it is neutral, it is simply presenting a fact. Alphathon™ (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur. I, for one, am still trying to get my head around the concept of installing Linux on anything with a microprocessor and some on-board storage, let alone attempting to write software that uses the Kinect sensor on something other than an Xbox 360. But, as long as third-party sources are writing about this, it should be in the article. Truth be told, Microsoft should be pleased ... isn't imitation the sincerest form of flattery? Haven't heard of anyone trying to run PlayStation Move on Linux yet, have we?Correction: Yes we have. --McDoobAU93 15:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

System requirements

it is stated that all 360's can use Kinect, while it also states you need 190 MB of space. does Kinect work with a Core 360? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.255.145.117 (talk) 07:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I would imagine it just needs a memory unit/HDD/formatted USB drive attached, like with system updates. In terms of hardware the Core and original Pro are identical (the only actual difference is the DVD-drawer cover, which is cosmetic). Alphathon™ (talk) 10:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines

I am quite surprised that an article like this, featuring and heavily advertising a Microsoft product, is not rejected by Wikipedia auditors. Other articles featuring specific products are deleted because the violate the rules. I am not against neither Microssoft in general or this product, just wondering...

Er... PlayStation Move, Wii MotionPlus? 212.225.103.150 (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a notable device, the article is written neutrally (i.e., it doesn't promote Kinect as being better than either Move or Wii) and is well-cited with numerous reliable and verifiable third-party sources. If you do see something that is not really neutral, by all means change it. --McDoobAU93 00:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Penny Arcade

I think this is relevant, for reasons discussed on user talk pages between users. Mostly because Penny Arcade is a video game reporting site now (an opinion column basically), and I view their opinions as significant due to the tendency for vendors to ship them pre-relase or post-release copies of games for free specifically to get them reviewed on the Penny Arcade blog. This tells me they're a marketing vector, which says their opinion matters.

That said, I've had little luck figuring a way to filter in their discussions of Kinect. The Wikipedia article basically says "Kinect is good and it has an endless stream of positive reviews and it's solid gold and nobody can find fault with it." Tycho's comments are often fairly balanced, pointing out flaws and citing the huge amount of criticism over Kinect; but also suggesting that there may not be an issue, that criticism may come from a small but noisy group that's historically bad at this, and even occasionally saying he simply doesn't know what to make of perceived problems. Take the following quote, for example:

When my son hold his arms a certain way, and for some reason the Kinect thinks that he has mutated horribly and now his elbows have disintegrated and his arms are projecting backward from his shoulder blades, I shake my head. I call bullshit on that: not only is it not tracking him appropriately, it's chosen to interpret the data in a way that is frankly impossible for any human body. You know what my son does in this situation?

He laughs.

Not only are its very real problems not problems, he thinks it's funny. I can't really chart the importance of something like that on a graph. I don't know that[sic] it means.

Kinect versus Move is a media-driven false choice. The Microsoft Kinect is a demonstrably, profoundly bad Playstation Move. There's simply no comparing the two devices, at least, no way to compare them that makes the Kinect look good. For example, Child of Eden would be about a thousand times better with Move, a fact I hope is eventually absorbed by its publisher. Tumble, one of the simplest games available for the Move, is founded on an absolute control of x/y/z movement that might not even be possible on the Kinect. But that's a matter quite apart from the Kinect being without merit, and at this juncture, it's merit has to do with a philosophy that posits it as a core method of interaction as opposed to a peripheral. Brenna and I have been watching an educational program in the evenings, and I noticed with some surprise that I'd never once considered using a remote. This is very, very strange territory. I think the entire Kinect Guide needs to be burned to the ground and rebuilt, that's true. This is no Damascus Conversion, everything I said on Friday remains. But there is something very strange happening in my house, and again - I don't quite get it.

The above basically says two things:

• Kinect has problems that in practice don't actually bother anyone but him
• Kinect has better advertising, but isn't better than Playstation Move

It doesn't exactly say Kinect is "good" or "bad." The tone of the Wikipedia article seems to be an overall rave review over Kinect-- a bunch of technical data and then a "Reception" section that effectively says "everyone thinks this thing is fucking awesome, buy one today!" To be honest, Wikipedia was the first I'd heard of Kinect not being garbage; while the positive reviews should stay noted, the suggestion of no significant contention over the merits of the Kinect seems heavily biased to me.

As of yet, I've not figured out how to roll the overall tone of Slahdot comments, random references from Web comics like CAD, and commentary from media sources like Penny Arcade into the article skillfully.

--John Moser (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

How do you translate "The Microsoft Kinect is a demonstrably, profoundly bad Playstation Move" into "It doesn't exactly say Kinect is 'good' or 'bad'"? For what it's worth, the Reception section isn't exactly glowing with praise, and it covers the issues the article you cite mentions (imperfect body tracking at times, probability of needing a Move-like wand, etc.). Are you sure you're looking at the latest version of the article? --McDoobAU93 16:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Key product development figures

Hi there, I am the Chief of Staff of the Interactive Entertainment Business at Microsoft. I noticed that there are some members of the executive team that were critical in the creation of Kinect that are not on the Wikipedia page. Not sure if someone wants to add this, but wanted to provide this background, as it could help provide some good context for this page.

Todd Holmdahl, Corporate Vice President, IEB Hardware: Led the incubation efforts around Project Natal and how to turn it into a consumer product. Long time hardware engineering leader for the Xbox division, including Xbox, Xbox 360, the new Xbox 360 and Kinect. Was also an early Kinect champion and initial project sponsor.

Ilan Spillinger, Vice President, Xbox Console Management: Led IP development and hardware engineering for Kinect and the new Xbox 360. Built out the HW and sensor IP including integration for the internal components.

Marc Whitten, Corporate Vice President, LIVE SW & Services: Executive sponsor for the Kinect program overall, ensuring integration and excellence across all business groups. As the head of LIVE SW and Services, his team drove all core console software, non-gaming and LIVE functionality like ESPN, Video chat, and speech.

Brian Tobey, Corporate Vice President, IEB Mfg & Supply Chain: Leads the manufacturing and supply chain efforts for all Xbox hardware and 1st party software. Partnered with engineering to design, test, and manufacture both Kinect and the new Xbox 360 and partnered with retail teams to deliver products to market.

Don Mattrick, President, Interactive Entertainment Business: Lead executive sponsor of the program, unveiled Kinect under the code-name of “Project Natal” at E3 2009 on stage with Steven Spielberg. Don’s leadership was key in the sponsorship and development of both the new Xbox 360 and Kinect. Don drove the team to think differently, choose a more innovative path and has been instrumental in turning the Xbox business around.

Ben Kilgore, General Manager, Xbox Platform: Led core software and engineering teams behind making the product and experiences work. Instrumental in leading the successful software engineering transition from incubation effort to consumer facing product. AaronSGreenberg (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as you work for the company that produces the device that is the subject of the article, this could be perceived as a conflict of interest. Wikipedia strives to present its articles with a neutral point-of-view, and direct input from Microsoft would compromise that. That said, I don't think there'd be any harm in including this information if you could point editors to some verifiable, independent and reliable sources identifying these people and their contributions. I certainly do not want to downplay their support (in the interest of full disclosure, I have a Kinect sensor and enjoy it immensely), but at the same time there are standards to be upheld. --McDoobAU93 02:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Reception section, Tech Daily and positivity

With regard to a number of recent edits to the reception section, please discuss the issue here before re-inserting either the opening statement (that it has received mainly positive reviews and the summary of a Daily Tech review compilation… thing).

With regard to the first bit ("Kinect received mostly positive reviews") the anon. IPs that keep removing it are claiming it is non-neutral; this is certainly not the case. "Mostly positive" does not indicate (as has been said) that there are negative reviews. Instead, it implies that the majority of reviews are positive. This may sound like the same thing, but it is not as it assumes that something is either positive or negative, and cannot be neutral (which is what I would personally call anything that gets 4, 5 or 6 out of 10). The only thing possibly wrong with it is wording, as it could maybe be misinterpreted to mean the above, so perhaps should be re-inserted as "Kinect received generally positive reviews" or something similar, or even left out all together.

The Daily Tech addition however is simply not appropriate. When dealing with things like reviews, only sites which cover the whole spectrum of the media, such as Metacritic, are appropriate to draw a conclusion such as "it has received lukewarm reviews" as it is possible for the third party (in this case Daily Tech) to data dredge etc to show one side or another, even if not consciously or intentionally (unfortunately, humans are pretty bad for letting biases interfere with their judgements). For similar reasons it may be inappropriate to have the first, general, statement as well.

Alphathon™ (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thats simply wrong. You don't decide who is an acceptable source for a article as it goes against the principle of Wikipedia neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.110.163 (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not quite that simple; it doesn't matter whether a source is reliable, it isn't necessarily suitable to be used as a citation for a particular topic. For example, Eurogamer is considered a reliable source and is of course usable for info on video games, their developers etc, but would certainly not be suitable source to talk about, say, astrophysics or literature. This is an extreme example of course, but it's more the principle I'm trying to convey. Certainly, Daily Tech would be a fine source for a review, just not for review analysis. There may even be some useful insights to be gained from the Tech Daily article, but using it to show the range of reviews is not really appropriate. Apart from anything else, their analysis seems to be solely based on Engadget, Gizmodo and Ars Technica and so does not does not cover the views of the mainstream media or other sites/reviewers.

Also, why do we need that analysis anyway; we can show (and already have for that matter) the Engadget, Gizmodo and Ars Technica reviews. All the Daily Tech article does is add a middle-man that for the most part simply re-states what the other three said.

P.S. Please do not put comments within other users posts. I don't know whether it was intentional or not, just try not to do it again please.

Alphathon™ (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said and do think that a summary of the reviews should at some point be added back into the reception section. To me, "mostly positive" or "generally positive" means just what it says: that most reviews were positive while a few were more neutral or even negative. This appears to sum up Kinect reviews perfectly. There does not appear to be any outright negative review of the device; the lowest rating I have found was 6/10, with the majority averaging about 8/10.

I doubt the unregistered IPs will make it to this Talk section, but maybe a few other editors could give their input. Chris TC01 (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"Mostly positive" or "generally positive" is reasonable, in my opinion. An average reader would interpret that statement as saying "most people think it's good, but not everyone does." The rest of the paragraph's contents back that up, with most each review mentioning they like it, but noting individual issues. So again, it makes for a good main idea sentence (trying to think back to grammar school grammar). It seems like the anons that are making the changes are either Microsoft haters or Sony fanboys. --McDoobAU93 03:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The term "Mostly Positive" is wrong ("generally positive" is far better), all reveiws are positive about its potential, but there are common negative issues; specifically the space issues, the lack of a decent games line up at launch/the unknown in regard to how mainstream games will handle Kinect. I think it would be best to avoid a summary of the reviews as it comes across as "weasel words". At this point it would be better to stick to the reviews themselves and let the reader decide. Its far too new to come to a complete conclusion about Kinect (as the reviews effectively say). The Wii Wiki entry is a case in point, it says the reviews of the Wii have 'changed over time'. If the Daily Tech summary of the reviews is unacceptable due to perceived biased, why are Wiki authors summarising the reviews? The guidelines state that opinion of well know, estabilished news sources are fine for a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.110.163 (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

So you did find your way over here. Why don't you register? Your IP changes every day, it makes it difficult to figure out who we're dealing with. The cons you mention certainly appear in the reviews, but the conclusion of most reviews is still a positive one, as the ratings clearly show. Chris TC01 (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the point that is being made is that "mainly positive" implies "most of the reviews were positive ones while some were not" while "generally positive" is more along the lines of "the reviews it got showed it mostly in a positive light". In other words "mainly positive" is about the number of reviews that were positive, while "generally positive" is about the overall outcome. That pretty much the reason I suggested it as an alternative.

I don't think that an overview would constitute weasel words, but it certainly might be considered original research. It too suffers from possible issues of data dredging (as mentioned in the original post) so it may be safer to just leave it out as well and let the reader make up their own mind based on the reviews. As far as I can tell there is nothing in the Wikipedia Video Games project style guidelines about reception sections that says there should be one, so it's probably better to just leave it out.

Alphathon™ (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Tagline

Could someone figure out MS's official tagline for this product and add it to the article? I think it's something like "you are the controller", but I'd like to know for sure. Thanks, – b_jonas 09:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Improving the article quality (B-class)

Could somebody explain what needs to be done for this article to become B-class or higher? A to-do list or something would be helpful. Chris TC01 (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There are lists of criteria inside the headings at the top of the talk page - just hit the "show" button and follow the link to the criteria. Beyond that there's not much that I can really say. In order to make a to-do list someone would have to read through the article pretty thoroughly with the criteria in mind, and at that point they might as well do the work them self (as long as there's no major bits that need research, which I don't think there are - most of the obvious issues seem to be wording, layout, flow etc.) Alphathon™ (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have gone over the entire article and made a number of changes/fixes. Some things I noticed that need work:

1) Launch (paragraph 1). The promotion campaign is described as being "planned". This should be updated with what actually happened.

2) Software (paragraph 2). Is the described case design for Kinect games accurate or has it changed since this was written?

3) Software (paragraph 3). The list of confirmed developers is from 2009. It should probably be updated and also mention upcoming titles. Chris TC01 (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Not 8 million sold to consumers, but sold to distribution channel

8 million sold to the channel, not to end users.

http://twitter.com/#!/dinabass/status/22866169258049537

Fritz Spitznogle (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it from "sold" to "shipped". Alphathon™ (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Kinect and the Red Ring of Death

Resolved

 – The sentence has been removed per WP:UNDUE.

An anon IP added a cited article suggesting that Kinect may be to blame for causing new instances of the Red ring of death in consoles in the United Kingdom, complete with its own section heading. Another anon removed it, but was reverted by another user (this one registered). I took a look at the article, and I've left it in, but removed the subhead and incorporated it into the "Sales and reception" section. This would seem to belong in a "Controversy" section, but as yet there really hasn't been that much controversy surrounding the device. Also, considering the current installed base of Kinect sensors, this seems like a very small number of failures, meaning any mention might be giving this undue weight. For all anyone knows, these could be standard RROD failures totally unrelated to Kinect. Any thoughts? --McDoobAU93 02:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it seems to give undue weight. -Abhishikt 06:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Certainly seems like undue weight to me. Quite apart from that though, it seems to be based almost entirely on anecdotal evidence, and I basically take the stance that MS did - "Any new instances of the three flashing red lights error are merely coincidental". Most likely these people are just getting red-rings and thinking "I haven't had this Kinect for very long, it must be connected to the red-ring" when in actual fact people are incredibly bad at judging probability (so are is-judging how likely it is to be related). It could also be seen as a form of correlation-causation fallacy from their point of view. It's not like these are new consoles either (the Xbox 360 S doesn't red ring and one of them isn't even inside the 3-year extended warranty). Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 11:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything all of you said. If there were any correlation, we certainly would have heard about it from numerous sources by now.Chris TC01 (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

lead paragraphs

Following sentense probably doesn't belong to lead para, as this doesn't sound significant enough. And Microsoft has already annonced Kinect SDK for PC. It can probably to go history.

'In December 2010, it emerged that Microsoft was bringing Kinect technology to Windows PCs, when Korean game developer GamePrix announced that its PC MMORPG Divine Souls would be one of the first games to use the console hardware as a controller. [18]'

-Abhishikt 21:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think this sentence should be replaced by Microsoft's actual announcement of PC support. Chris TC01 (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

See also section

The See Also section in this article has a lot of entries, including links that have appeared elsewhere in the article. I think we should significantly shorten, if not remove, the See Also section by working all relevant links into the prose, then removing the link from See Also. If we really need to keep (parts of) the See Also section, we should add descriptions explaining their relevance. According to WP:ALSO, good articles may not need the section. Let's get rid of it, shall we? Chris TC01 (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the 'See Also' section. -Abhishikt 00:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Kinect uses laser - is it safe?

The kinect uses ir laser and it shine directly into eyes. Is it safe for eyes? Should users wear an IR protecting glass? According to the forum post it is a Laser Class 1 product(ref anandtech), and "Direct exposure on the eye by a beam of laser light should always be avoided". `a5b (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's IR (infra red), the same type of rays used in any remote control. And yes it is totally safe. If you read your reference carefully it says "Kinect indeed uses an IR laser, but it’s completely eye safe at class-1." -Abhishikt 00:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Kinect IR camera - is it 320x200 or 640x480?

Looking at some document cited (for example this http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Microsoft-Kinect-Teardown/4066/2) it is the worst one. Before my modify it was 640x480. Please remark me if it is a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.175.12.9 (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Both IR and RGB cameras supports 640x480, but currently Xbox uses RGB camera in 320x240 mode, while IR camera at 640x480. -Abhishikt 18:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Misrefrence of 10 million units sold

The reference at the very end of the Reception and sales section links simply to http://www.engadget.com, and not the proper article, which I have listed below. The proper article is Reference #107, not #1

Reference #107: http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/09/microsoft-sells-10-million-kinects-10-million-kinect-games/

I am not confident making this change- just wanted to point it out so someone could fix it.

-Woody —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.164.72.111 (talk) 04:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for the heads up. Seems like someone tried to change an existing GameSpot link to the Engadget one but messed up the URL, along with forgetting to change the publisher and title info. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 11:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Average number shipped

Isn't the figure of 133,333 a bit over-zealous? Surely they didn't ship *exactly* 8000000 units, so just dividing by 60 gives a silly number of 'precise' places? Smaug123 (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It does seem a little too precise for such a figure, but that's what Guinness said, so that's what we have to work with. If we changed it, we'd be misrepresenting the record. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 18:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It does seems weird. There's no need to give the whole detail if it's likely to be overprecision, even if it's in the original sources. Diego (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems fair enough to me. As long as we include the "it sold 8 million units in 60 days, making it the fastest seller" bit, we should be OK (that is both accurate and backed up by the sources). Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 20:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it seems you've already done it. Never mind. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 20:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Being bold, and all that :-) 21:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki

Page is protected, please someone with privileges add Polish interwiki pl:Kinect. Thank you. Stanko (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Originally an internal Rare Project? Says who?

The article on development states that the Kinect software was originally an internal Rare project. I like Rare but I've never heard of anyone suggesting that the motion capture SDK was the product of anyone except for Microsoft_Research. Unless a citation can be provided I think that should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.179.234 (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, neither cited source in that sentence mentions Rare, so I'd have no problem removing it. --McDoobAU93 18:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

using the kinect to write custom apps like a diet app

is there a developer reference to use the kinect camera to develop new apps like noting that people eat n front of media I thought kinect could detect food at the viewing room then urge people to move the food or skip snacking as a wellness weight reduction application. This "sense food, tell people to move it out of the area" dieting effect could run at the background even when people were using a different application, viewing media, or other activity. Perhaps it is even possible to use the kinect to change the aspect ratio of other uses of the media center as "um, yeah maybe I feel like doing that" stimulus if people have food at the viewing area. This diet software would basically just remind people they are voluntarily avoiding casual mindless food consumption while near a media display area

The idea is public domain from Treon Verdery the physiological benefits of slimness are numerous it may appeal to millions of people as well. The wikipedia content is the suggestion of developer resources at the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.224.196.40 (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)