How the Microsoft Kinect should have been marketed

Microsoft spent, as far as I know, over a hundred million dollars in merely advertising the Kinect when they were developing it, and succeeded in creating a massive amount of hype around it. It was being pushed and showcased constantly at E3 and other events, celebrities endorsed it, big famous game development companies and publishers endorsed it, and such a huge hype formed around it that its publication became an outright massive party event at many stores in America, with huge countdown clocks (very reminiscent of New Year countdown clocks) and massive crowds cheering and celebrating outside.

Unlike many people might think, the Kinect (both versions) actually sold surprisingly many units: Microsoft reports having sold about 30 million units of the original Kinect (for the Xbox 360) alone. This is actually more than some famous consoles sold during their lifetimes (such as the original Xbox, and the Nintendo GameCube.) In fact, at the time of its publication it broke the Guinness World Record for the fastest-selling consumer electronic device (by selling 8 million units in its first 60 days.)

(This doesn't mean that Microsoft got a huge profit from it, though. It is my understanding that they were selling the device at a loss, like is so common with these things, hoping that they would recuperate the losses with game sales.) 

However, regardless of the enormous sales numbers, the device turned out to be quite a flop in the end.

Its main problem is that it greatly overpromised but underdelivered. It promised to completely revolutionize gaming and to be this absolutely marvelous form of control, with eventually a massive library of games that are extremely immersive and fun to play.

Yet, the device was significantly less accurate than shown and promised in the pre-release demos (which promised, for example, that it could track the movement of individual fingers, which it absolutely could not), it was annoying to use, it only made most controls clunkier and needlessly difficult, and the vast majority of games were significantly simpler and more boring than normal games.

While about a hundred Kinect-only games were ever published, both game developers and the users quickly lost interest. It just didn't live up to any of the hype and promises, and it was a slog to use and to develop for. People quickly moved back to the regular controller (even though according to the Kinect marketing that controller is a "barrier" and limits how you can play games. Oh, the irony.)

Microsoft tried really, really hard to keep the device alive by bundling an updated better version of it with the Xbox One. It didn't help. An abysmal 21 games were ever developed for it, and that's it. While Microsoft tried to keep it alive for a few years, finally they relented and first made it optional and then just dropped support completely. It was declared a complete failure.

One of the major problems (besides the technical limitations such as low tracking resolution) that I see in the marketing is that Microsoft approached it completely wrong: They based their marketing 100% on the idea of the Kinect replacing the regular game controller. In other words, Kinect games would be controlled with the Kinect and nothing else, that's it. Microsoft not only envisioned the Kinect to be better than the regular controller (an idea that turned out to be massively naive), but also that it would be the exclusive control system for its games.

Indeed, from what I have seen 100% of their marketing was based on that complete replacement notion. As it turns out, that didn't pan out at all.

I believe that Microsoft should have approached the Kinect marketing and development in a different way: Rather than being a complete replacement of the normal controller, it could work to enhance its functionality. In other words, while there could still be games that used the Kinect only (such as dancing games), the main use case would be to use the Kinect in addition to and at the same time as the normal controller. In other words, the Kinect would add head and hand gestures to the repertoire of controls.

The most obvious such enhancement, something that would truly add to the gaming experience, would be head tracking: For example in a flight simulator you control the plane with the controller as normal, but you can look around by turning your head. This kind of head tracking systems are available for PC. The Kinect could have brought it to the console.

Imagine such a demo in one of those E3 conferences or wherever: The person on stage is controlling an airplane or spaceship while seated using a controller, and then turns his head a bit to different sides to have the in-game view likewise turn (just like head-trackers work on PC).

Also hand gestures could be added to the repertoire of controls. For example the player could reach with his hand and turn a lever, or press some buttons, while still controlling the vehicle with the controller. Imagine that kind of demo: The demonstrator is driving a car with the controller, looking around by turning his head, and then he moves his right hand to the side, makes a motion forward, and in the game the gear lever shifts forward to select the next gear.

Now that would have been immersive. I would imagine that the spectators would have been excited about the prospect.

(I'm not saying that the Kinect would have become a success if it had been developed and marketed like this, but I think that it would have at least had better chances.)