Unplugging it doesn't matter. Not coming in the box matters. I was responding to this part of OP's message: "BEFORE OMG REMOVE KINECT SELL FOR $400"

Honestly as someone who isn't getting an Xbox (for other reasons) and didn't particularly like the kinect, I agree with you. Like it or not, the kinect is sort of the only brand identity the xbox has going for it right now. They need to have a 100% kinect adoption rate or it's just going to be sidelined like the PS…

Wait, is this different from before? They've clarified since E3 that the device could be "off". Actually, it might have still been listening to "Xbox On". So maybe that's the different part. They don't seem to mention allowing the kinect to be disconnected though, which was always the main restriction (IMO).

So how do people feel about 1440p gaming? Is it worth it?

I'm still young and childless, so obviously I'm sure my feelings will change when I have kids of my own. But all of us have things about our childhood that we wished had been handled differently. This was one of them for me.

The iPad/iPhone analogy doesn't really make sense. Apple extensively marketed the "App Store" which naturally people understand that certain apps cost money. It's called a "store" after all. Just because they show a device running a non-free app in an ad does not mean that they are advertising that they iPad can…

I don't have a problem with Microsoft charging for these features, they can do whatever they want on their platform. But I do think that their marketing is deceptive. Don't advertise these features as coming with a $500 device, when really they come with a $500 device and a Gold subscription that costs $60/year (but…

Not completely dependent, no, but clearly both companies feel like the licensing fees for games are no longer enough. It's just that one company (IMO) is handling it a bit better than the other.

Graphics have always been such a lazy thing to pursue in my opinion. Advancements in physics or AI or world size are always so much more exciting to me. They allow me to do more rather than just see more. I mean, if all you're doing is making a corridor shooter, at least take the time to make the enemies somewhat…

I like when game development sets out with a goal. "We want to explore what's possible with X feature". So they build a game entirely around exploring those possibilities. Then later they build another game that explores feature Y. These features could be combat, exploration, AI, narrative, etc.

These videos have to be my favorite thing about Kotaku right now.

I don't own either system. I just don't see any reason for Sony to have problems with a Bioshock game on Vita. That leads me to believe that Take Two is the one who isn't sure.

I never heard it was "announced". I always just heard it as "Hey we'd love to bring Bioshock to this platform! Hopefully it can happen!"

I don't think the hesitation would be on Sony's side. More AAA games on Vita the better. But Take Two might not be convinced the Vita is worth their time. It's the Wii U problem. No good games = no market; no market = no good games.

As a current iPhone owner (soon going back to Android) I'd agree with the rich and dumb stereotype. There are certainly a lot of people I know that would fit into it. I just think that a lot of people buy "budget" android phones and then only ever see the device as something cheap, whereas iPhones are viewed as luxury…

I think it's piracy and the stigma that android owners don't buy apps. That may not be true (and isn't in my case), but I don't know anyone else on android that spends very much on apps. Most of my friends balk at even a $0.99 app. Which I find is just sad.

Or you could wire a counting clock to the "brew" button. That'd be neat.

Ooooo. Gotcha. I'll just move along then.

Finding them cheaper isn't really relevant. This is just the stated MSRP. Not whatever sales Amazon might have on them (which won't be likely when they're new).

A release date would be great.