BigSean8, I understand your reasons for not wanting the new Kinect, you've made that evidently clear. However, you're not doing yourself any favors with the way you're arguing (all of the insults, accusations, etc.). Everyone so far is right - your quote from John Carmack is an opinion & as such shouldn't be taken as a fact. Try enhancing your side of the argument with facts, supporting evidence, research, studies, & legitimate sources (which Mr. Carmack is not).
Regardless of your stance, in the end, the Xbox One with the Kinect is still a product which nobody is forcing you to buy & you still have the option not to buy it. If you don't like it as much as it seems you do, then go ahead & save your money for something else that you do like - speak to MS through your wallet. If enough people agree with you, they will do the same.
There are many reasons why the Kinect is required; you already know 1 - the developers will be more likely to innovate with it. This is a fact, which has already been proven by the likes of Capcom & Dead Rising 3. Other companies are also innovating with the other functions of the Xbox One as well - Forza Motorsport 5 uses the cloud for its Drivatar AI; Batllefield 4 uses Smartglass functionality for additional screens, Commander Mode, & Battlelog; etc. This further goes to prove that if given the technology, developers will take advantage of it in many new & exciting ways.
Another reason it's required to be plugged in is because it detects the IR of the new enhanced controllers that you'll be using - without the new Kinect, you wouldn't be able to use the controllers as effectively. This helps enable the system to identify when a specific controller switches hands, so it can auto-switch the ID on that controller from player 1 to player 2, for example. This way, you won't have to sign out, hand your friend the controller, sign back in in another controller, & have them sign in on the original controller - it's all streamlined. This is a key facet of the new console that none of us have yet had the pleasure of experiencing yet. You should be excited for what this brings to the table, not upset.
I'd also like to remind you that the Kinect was originally supposed to be built inside the console, but it was discovered this could limit placement of where you could position it since you can't easily set the Xbox One console on top of a flat-screen TV or other similar areas, for example. So, they separated it from the console itself so you could do just that which actually helps create more options for the consumer. It's still just as required as it has ever been - picture wearing your heart on your sleeve. It may be on the outside, but you're still going to need it. You only believe it's supposed to be optional because you're basing your opinion on the previous Kinect, which is an entirely different device. You wouldn't compare a 50's television to a 4K television would you? The comparison is entirely unfair & in favor of the superior product.
History has shown that people want more; cell-phones, tablets, computers, TVs, etc. are all doing more than their original intended purpose & have become more popular now than ever as a result. MS is simply attempting to do the same with the Xbox One by incorporating the Kinect. Does that mean you're forced to use it? No, it does not - MS has already kindly given you the ability to disable all or part of the Kinect, again giving you more options (or less, depending on how you look at it). The point is, you do have choice. No matter how you look at it, there is a choice.
Another thing MS has stated is that the new Kinect is almost as expensive as the Xbox One. Do you know what this means? It means that you're getting a discount by having it bundled, just like many other bundled products. Let's assume for a moment that the Kinect wasn't required just as you want it to be - the new Kinect, if sold separately would be prohibitively expensive, likely around $350 by itself. If you take the Kinect bundled pricing into account, the Xbox One would likely cost the same as the Playstation 4 in order to remain competitive & make a profit ($400), so if the Kinect is almost as expensive as the console, it stands to reason that $350 will be the logical price. Do the math: 400 + 350 = $750; $250 more than you'd be paying as is. Which do you think is the better deal? In addition, like the current Kinect, if it was made optional, we already know that only a portion of the market would buy it & therefore the developers wouldn't feel as financially secure to develop for it, thereby stifling innovation - that is a proven fact.
I would also like to argue that by not including it, you're actually giving yourself less options in how you can interact with your games, your media, & the new console itself. Sure the controller is nice, but it's not exactly practical to take my controller down the hall or into the bathroom with me. With the new Kinect & its improved noise-cancelling functionality, which again works better because it's integrated into the console, I can pause the movie I'm watching using my voice without ever having to pick up the controller. Since it's integrated, it can differentiate my voice from the voices of the characters on the TV that are audible through my speakers - this is something the current Kinect can't do effectively. I can then tell it to start playing as I come back from the bathroom from down the hall before I ever even enter the room with its new wide-angled camera or before I ever sit back down or ever grab the controller, so all I have to do is sit down & continue watching. Again this streamlines the process of using the Xbox One. This console is made as 1 giant easy-button; you should at least appreciate that.
I think I've given my fair share when it comes to a wall of text - I certainly hope you take the time to read it out of respect for me. In any case, I'll leave you with a video of the Xbox One's Kinect demonstration that will help give you a pretty good idea of why having & including the new Kinect is a good idea: