@arqe agree, but it's better done with the press of the button or -- if you must use kinect for kinect's sake -- with the swipe of a hand

@arqe did you see project "Natal" videos? is that what Kinect 1.0 turned out to be? no. in 2 months you will see I was right

@arqe Idea itself is good, but everything looks good on the paper. You are either motion controller inexperienced or just naive to think that the implementation/execution won't suck.

It will be too little or too much sensetive, it will lag, and you will find that moving your head like that is just too uncomfortable

@BlackRanger907 actually cancer can be cured if it is discovered in early stage.

Fanboism aside, I honestly don't see game-wise useful change Kinect since 1st version. Yes, it is more precise (and hpefully less laggy) than previous, but was that the reason you couldn't play CS:GO with kinect?

I might be wrong, but unless I see shooter where crosshair is controlled with bare hands, for gaming Kinect 2 = Kinect 1.

Now new eye camera is different story - you can play party games without controllers just like kinect, but for everyday games each controller is also a very precise move controller

Kinect 2 can sense if you've been smoking pot

@nxtgen720 you are a fan boy aren't you?

@mdrieber yes, reading inprecise pulse is very valueable for games - Kinect lightyears is ahead.

@kostjal it won't run -- you also need: monitor, windows, keyboard + mouse or controller

@BlackRanger907 the terms "money spent" and "value earned" are not the same.

Someone might have spent billions of dollars on cancer research - which itself is good thing, but it has a zero value for gaming

@BlackRanger907 like devs said -- innovation for innovation's sake is stupid. You have to look where it adds value for the game.