Why do all game sites keep gushing over Kinect's voice commands?

[RandyT]

Obviously its the game that auto-piloting the car, not the hardware.  I don't even know how that could possibly be caused by the hardware (it somehow knows the correct movements to win the game?).  I posted the video simply because I thought it was hilarious, not as some kind of statement about the hardware.

Some of the comments attached to the video from the fanboys managed to turn it from funny into sad.  Obviously, the hardware can't know what the game is doing, but they seem to think that the game is steering for you because it is compensating for the inability of the hardware to accurately determine your intentions while playing.  If they bothered to look at what the hackers have been doing with the hardware already, they'd know it was a brain-dead conclusion.

[Mikezilla]

Who knows if that video is even accurate? Maybe that was made by some Sony/Nintendo fanboy to denounce the damn Kinect. You cant trust anything now a days. There were so many points I wanted to make on this thread, but now I cant because its too damn long. The MS people have stated on numerous occasions they are going to keep the 360 (same with sony and the ps3) out as long as they can. They are going to milk the life out of those things for as long as they can, because they know everyone has them. You know why? Nobody would buy a damn next gen console that cost more than the Xbox and PS3 did when they first came out because they would be too damn expensive. Aside from the hardcore gamers who buy it when it first comes out, everyone waited until it dropped in price. I didnt buy an Xbox until it was out for 2 years already. Why do you think the Wii sold so well? Because they were cheaper, and appealed to kids. Thats the thing now a days. Kids. Young ones. Not teenagers. Kids. Of course Nintendo doesnt market for the hardcore gamers. They proved that with the launch of the gamecube. The ---goshdarn--- thing has handle, so you can take it to your friends house and play pokemon. MS and PS3 implemented these peripherals because they know damn well they need to steal consumers from the iron grip that Nintendo has them in, and they dont have anything looming on the horizon, because if they did, they would have unveiled something by now if it was supposed to come out in 2 years like shmokes said. Saying that Nintendo is dying or will die is blasphemy. They single handedly created the home gaming market. My grandma still calls my Xbox a nintendo. Its a household name. It will never die. I know my post sounds convoluted, but damn, there is so much ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- I wanted to say and just caught this thread now 

[Cakemeister]

Personally, I think the Kinect could do great things for the home robotics crowd. If Macrosoft could produce an API for PC and a code library to do the speech recognition, vision, and depth perception stuff that it does with the 360, the possibilities are endless.

[RandyT]

Personally, I think the Kinect could do great things for the home robotics crowd. If Macrosoft could produce an API for PC and a code library to do the speech recognition, vision, and depth perception stuff that it does with the 360, the possibilities are endless.

The speed in which this thing is being embraced by the "homebrew" community tells me that you won't need to wait for MS to do it, and it won't be long.

Who knows if that video is even accurate? Maybe that was made by some Sony/Nintendo fanboy to denounce the damn Kinect. You cant trust anything now a days.

It looks real enough.  If it wasn't there's grounds for a defamation lawsuit there.

Saying that Nintendo is dying or will die is blasphemy. They single handedly created the home gaming market. My grandma still calls my Xbox a nintendo. Its a household name. It will never die.

You would have said the same about Atari in their heyday.  And they, not Nintendo, created the home gaming market.  They were usurped by Nintendo, who were the first to successfully achieve substantial market penetration after the big video game crash.  They also lost their lead to Sega for quite a while, as they did again with Sony (most moms called every videogame a "playstation" and they were doing the buying).  Nintendo is a tenacious, and some would argue very lucky, player in this market, but not infallible, and certainly not immune from market forces.  Their brands don't get better with age, but the crowd they market them to revolves regularly.  Most folks are kids for only so long, and when they are ready to move on to something else, there are as many (or more) kids entering the market to take their places.

Game sales are as large a part of what makes for successful systems as console sales.  There seem to be less titles per system out there on the Wii than for other systems, which points to lower use.  If people aren't using them, they probably won't be as likely to have the brand loyalty associated with other systems they do use regularly.  So that's not a good sign.

[Mikezilla]

You would have said the same about Atari in their heyday.  And they, not Nintendo, created the home gaming market.  They were usurped by Nintendo, who were the first to successfully
achieve substantial market penetration after the big video game crash.  They also lost their lead to Sega for quite a while, as they did again with Sony (most moms called every videogame a "playstation" and they were doing the buying).  Nintendo is a tenacious, and some would argue very lucky, player in this market, but not infallible, and certainly not immune from market forces.  Their brands don't get better with age, but the crowd they market them to revolves regularly.  Most folks are kids for only so long, and when they are ready to move onto something else, there are as many (or more) kids entering the market to take their places.

Game sales are as large a part of what makes for successful systems as console sales.  There seem to be less titles per system out there on the Wii than for other systems, which points to lower use.  If people aren't using them, they probably won't be as likely to have the brand loyalty associated with other systems they do use regularly.  So that's not a good sign.

I knew someone was going to mention Atari. What I meant when I said "created the home gaming market" was that they lasted through it. I said that wrong and I apologize. I agree with you when they lost their lead during the PS1 days, but Nintendo already had a loyal fanbase to support them through that. Its not like they fizzled out like sega, making terrible systems(by terrible I mean from a commercial standpoint). They stayed relevent. Granted, I dont play my Wii as much as I want to, but, being 28, I bought the Wii for the old titles that you mentioned before, the metroids, DK's, Marios etc. Im not saying infallible, but look how many more sales there are with the Wii vs 360 or PS3. It just seems like there is more appeal on a broader market because everyone can use a Wii. My gf's mom (who isnt the smartest woman) can pick up a wii and start playing a game. She wouldnt know what to do if I sat her in front of an Xbox.

If people aren't using them, they probably won't be as likely to have the brand loyalty associated with other systems they do use regularly.  So that's not a good sign.

I agree with you on that, but take me for example. I have bought (or asked for) every nintendo system except Virtual Boy since the orginal nintendo came out. Ill always buy a Nintendo because their games are fun. The console itself is cheaper. And it fills that niche market. Sony and MS are pretty much the damn same, and with the exception of a few titles, they have the same games.

Im with you on the orignal idea of this thread though, I think the Kinect is a cool item that has a lot of potential for the market. I wouldnt buy one myself, but if I was a husband trying to get my wife to justify buying an Xbox, Im sure the kinect would be a good way to swing her in the right direction because "the whole family can play".

Of course if I was married we would have one anyway cause Im not a sucker, but you get my point. I think the product has a chance to evolve, but right now, I think its just a ploy to steal customers from Nintendo, cause like you said, they arent playing their Wii's as much. MS wants to capitalize on that.

[RandyT]

Im not saying infallible, but look how many more sales there are with the Wii vs 360 or PS3. It just seems like there is more appeal on a broader market because everyone can use a Wii. My gf's mom (who isnt the smartest woman) can pick up a wii and start playing a game. She wouldnt know what to do if I sat her in front of an Xbox.

There is still a learning curve for any of the "good" games.  Regardless, much of the Wii's success is due to a great advertising campaign and a manipulative distribution model.  I think people really liked the idea of an accessible system which let them play videogames with their kids, just like folks buy RV's because they like the idea of camping.  But reality soon sets in, and practicality rears it's ugly head.  It's a great marketing hook, but it's a hand that has been played.  I'm not sure the Kinect can even rely on that one happening again.

I think the product has a chance to evolve, but right now, I think its just a ploy to steal customers from Nintendo, cause like you said, they arent playing their Wii's as much. MS wants to capitalize on that.

I think an awful lot of folks who have Wii's, also have an Xbox, or PS3.  Many of those Wii owners aren't part of the normal market, and it's unlikely that they will be jumping to the Xbox if they didn't end up using their Wii much.  It's more about extending the life of the current generation by giving the system more options for new types of games.  In this case, games that weren't possible before.  The fact that it will more than likely take a chunk out of Nintendo's hide is probably just a icing on the cake for them.

[RandyT]

[citation needed] times about a thousand in this thread. 

These forums would be an awful quiet place if they were truly "needed". 

[RandyT]

True.  But after you said this, I couldn't really take anything else you said seriously:

If it wasn't there's grounds for a defamation lawsuit there.

 

And why do you think that there's not?  If it's fabricated with the intent to harm the sales of the product, then that's a pretty stupid thing to do, and it's actionable. 

[Mikezilla]

 

Im kinda with PBJ on that one Randy. I kinda scoffed when you said that. Its not a big deal though, just thought it was kinda funny. Like something someones mom would have said. 

[RandyT]

Im kinda with PBJ on that one Randy. I kinda scoffed when you said that. Its not a big deal though, just thought it was kinda funny. Like something someones mom would have said.  

Unfortunately, that's a how a lot of folks end up with empty bank accounts and a "funny" look on their faces  I only stated it as some support for the authenticity of the clip.  You'd have to be pretty reckless (and none too bright) to do something as harmful as that to a corporation with a legal department the size of Rhode Island.

[RandyT]

We all know you can 'cheat' on the wii by flicking your wrist.  Would filming that be defamation?  

No, because it's true, just like the Kinect clip most likely is.  If it were presented as a "spoof" or "satire", or the assertion is so ridiculous that any reasonable person wouldn't think it was true, then it's a different situation.  But if it were a manufactured lie to intentionally cause harm to the reputation of the company, there's a good chance the person would have a problem on their hands, especially given that the clip has gone "viral".

The fact that you asked that question rhetorically shows that you really don't understand as much as you think you do about this subject.  But I'm sure shmokes will chime in soon enough.....

[shmokes]

I'm no IP lawyer and it's been a long time since I had an IP class.  But I think the guy is in no danger of a suit.  Defamation is hard to prove.  And since this is a matter of public concern, they'd not only have to prove the typical elements of defamation, but also all the elements of negligence on the part of the guy who made the video.  On top of all that, awards in defamation suits are typically small, so fighting the suit would cost a bunch of money that would probably not be recouped.  The lawsuit itself would also bring a bunch of publicity and suddenly this defamatory video would gain a far bigger audience.  And then, once MS lost the lawsuit, as they very well may, a lot of people would likely conclude that the video must be real, rather than that MS was just not able to prove one of the necessary elements (like that their reputation was substantially injured, or that the guy breached a duty). 

But academically . . . the guy would be probably be guilty of defamation if he faked the video to hurt sales of their product.  And they very likely would win a lawsuit against him*.



*IANAL (yet)

[ark_ader]

yep.

[RandyT]

Holy ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---, man, if you think that Kinect video is fake, you clearly haven't played it.


I did some dumb beach volleyball thing.  That was the most unresponsive have-nothing-to-do-with-what-I'm-doing mess I've played since Wii Sports Tennis.  Just give a lurch and amazingly that character does what it should. 

 

I think everyone is thinking the opposite, actually.

And yeah, some titles are based heavily on the timing of what the instructions tell you the game is looking for.  I.e. feet leaving the ground, arm swing, etc.  So as long as you leave the ground and throw out an arm, the game is going to do what you would expect it to.  In reality, it's not terribly different than what happens when you push a stick in a direction and hit a button with a similar kind of game which uses a normal controller.

[Mikezilla]

I like the PS3 move commercial better. I know this is completely irrelevant but Im kinda over this thread now. 

[shmokes]

In reality, it's not terribly different than what happens when you push a stick in a direction and hit a button with a similar kind of game which uses a normal controller.

Then what's the point?

[Mikezilla]

The point is to combat the Wii. Thats all I can think of. Hopefully to market to the Xbox and PS3 owners little brothers/sisters/girlfriends.

[RandyT]

Then what's the point?

The point is to combat the Wii. Thats all I can think of. Hopefully to market to the Xbox and PS3 owners little brothers/sisters/girlfriends.

That is certainly part of it.  But probably not the largest part.  Not all games play it that loose with the control scheme.  Try just doing anything in front of the camera while Dance Central is running and that will be proven to you pretty quickly.  In fact, that particular game is so critical, I have yet to figure out how to do a few of the moves to the satisfaction of the software.

The other "points" are pretty obvious.  It will get you off of your sofa and you can play it without a controller.  Either you find value in those things or you don't.

[shmokes]

 you can play it without a controller. 

But it's hard to think of that as a legitimate point.  Like . . . you could play basketball without a ball, but it wouldn't be very fun.  The point, after all, should be fun, right?  Nobody wants to just play without a gamepad.  They might be interested in a better control scheme than a gamepad.  But if the new control scheme isn't better it seems silly to say, "Look . . . you can play without a gamepad!"  Like, it might make more sense to say, "Oh . . . that sucks . . . there's no gamepad."  And which of those things you say depends largely on whether it is fun.

[RandyT]

But it's hard to think of that as a legitimate point.  Like . . . you could play basketball without a ball, but it wouldn't be very fun.  The point, after all, should be fun, right?  Nobody wants to just play without a gamepad.  They might be interested in a better control scheme than a gamepad.  But if the new control scheme isn't better it seems silly to say, "Look . . . you can play without a gamepad!"  Like, it might make more sense to say, "Oh . . . that sucks . . . there's no gamepad."  And which of those things you say depends largely on whether it is fun.

The other "points" are pretty obvious.  It will get you off of your sofa and you can play it without a controller.  Either you find value in those things or you don't.

Honestly, if you don't understand the benefit of getting your kids (or yourself) off the couch while playing a game, or actually jumping, instead of pressing a button, to indicate to the game that you want to jump, then I'm not sure why you find any interest in the device at all.  It's obviously not meant for you, so feel free to continue to lie on your back and flick your Wii controller to your hearts content.  

[shmokes]

Honestly, if you don't understand the benefit of getting your kids (or yourself) off the couch while playing a game, or actually jumping, instead of pressing a button, to indicate to the game that you want to jump, then I'm not sure why you find any interest in the device at all. 

Maybe you should discourage your kids from reading too.  Or maybe you could rig up a projector that projects the pages on the wall but moves the image around the room so the kids don't stay sedentary while reading. 

There's benefit in it to the extent that it makes you actually want to get up off the couch and jump around.  If it's not fun, you won't do it.  For example, when was the last time you turned on your Wii*?


* That's a rhetorical question. 

[versapak]

 you can play it without a controller. 

But it's hard to think of that as a legitimate point.  Like . . . you could play basketball without a ball, but it wouldn't be very fun.  The point, after all, should be fun, right?  Nobody wants to just play without a gamepad.  They might be interested in a better control scheme than a gamepad.  But if the new control scheme isn't better it seems silly to say, "Look . . . you can play without a gamepad!"  Like, it might make more sense to say, "Oh . . . that sucks . . . there's no gamepad."  And which of those things you say depends largely on whether it is fun.

It isn't just about playing without a controller. It is about playing with you as the controller.

There is a difference.

It is hard to explain Kinect, but it isn't like all the masses that are trying it and having a great time are somehow wrong and confused. It really is unique and fun.

It won't replace my controller, and I doubt we'll see any true "hardcore" games for it, but it is something new. I could care less if I can play Gears of War or Call of Duty with it. I am perfectly fine playing those how I have been, but I am always open to new and creative gaming options. I love the music games and their various instruments. I love playing Ping Pong and Bocce Ball with PS Move. I am having a lot of fun dancing around with Kinect.

If new ways to game scare you, or just don't interest you, then so be it.

[RandyT]

Maybe you should discourage your kids from reading too.  Or maybe you could rig up a projector that projects the pages on the wall but moves the image around the room so the kids don't stay sedentary while reading. 

Heh.  If you could make it so they had to move to a different room to get to that next page of a Harry Potter novel, that might be a good idea.  Still, kids used to go outside and actually play the sports they now sit on their butts playing.  I know I did....when I wasn't playing Zaxxon on my ColecoVision    But, I don't recall a time when reading was done differently and where the difference had such a profoundly negative effect on their health. 

There's benefit in it to the extent that it makes you actually want to get up off the couch and jump around.  If it's not fun, you won't do it.

But it is fun.  The assumption you keep making that it's not is just wrong, based on the positive reports from actual owners.

For example, when was the last time you turned on your Wii*?

Since it got disc-less Netflix, every night.  I even bowled a couple of games a few days ago, since it was on already. 

[BurgerKingDiamond]

 you can play it without a controller. 

But it's hard to think of that as a legitimate point.  Like . . . you could play basketball without a ball, but it wouldn't be very fun.  The point, after all, should be fun, right?  Nobody wants to just play without a gamepad.  They might be interested in a better control scheme than a gamepad.  But if the new control scheme isn't better it seems silly to say, "Look . . . you can play without a gamepad!"  Like, it might make more sense to say, "Oh . . . that sucks . . . there's no gamepad."  And which of those things you say depends largely on whether it is fun.

Well said. This thread isn't really going anywhere, but want to say 1 more thing. The Wii isn't totally worthless. RE4 was AWESOME, and any gun game could theoretically benefit from WII style (including MOVE) controls. Also, I think that killzone 3 with MOVE in 3D could be cool... I would at least like to try.

[shmokes]

Since it got disc-less Netflix, every night.  I even bowled a couple of games a few days ago, since it was on already.  

LOL . . . look up the meaning of rhetorical question, Randy.  You know what my point was.  The fact that your Wii has primarily become a glorified Netflix player illustrates it perfectly.

edit: spelling

[shmokes]

It won't replace my controller, and I doubt we'll see any true "hardcore" games for it, but it is something new. . . .

If new ways to game scare you, or just don't interest you, then so be it.

You are not entirely understanding my position.  This thing MS has made is definitely new.  And it has lots of potential in future products.  This product just won't be particularly successful commercially, and for that reason it also won't be particularly successful critically, both as a result of the commercial failure (because publishers won't invest the resources necessary for blockbuster titles), and because it is so hampered in terms of creating deep experiences.  I have no doubt that I could have a blast playing the thing.  I've had a blast playing my Wii on many many many occasions.  But like the Wii, the novelty will wear off soon (probably sooner than the Wii, since at least the Wii is outfitted with a perfectly capable gamepad).

I'm not saying that the Kinect can't be fun.  I'm saying that its technical limitations combined with a high price and bad market timing (five years into 360's product cycle, splitting the market, etc.) mean it will never gain widespread adoption and thus will never gain widespread developer/publisher support and thus will never gain a library of good titles.  I'm sure Microsoft knows this.  They're looking to the next system.  Kinect owners are nothing more than beta (alpha?) testers for the next, probably pretty awesome, product.

[RandyT]

LOL . . . look up the meaning of rhetorical question, Randy.  You know what my point was.  The fact that your Wii has primarily become a glorified Netflix player illustrates it perfectly.

I know what it means quite well.  It's just that your "rhetorical question" actually had an answer which belied your intent in asking it that way.  I still had some fun with my favorite title on the machine, even though I do use it much more for Netflix.   It goes to show that a good game is a good game, no matter what the system, and if the unique control method helps make it that, then there is value there.

[DJ_Izumi]

They've sold 2.5million Kinects thus far.  How about you guys let this arguement be settled the old fashioned way; Let the market decide if it lives or dies.

If it's bad, it'll flounder after it runs out of early adopters to buy it.  If it's good, then sales and software support will continue.  So let's just wait and find out.

[shmokes]

It's just that your "rhetorical question" actually had an answer which belied your intent in asking it that way.  

Actually it didn't.  I expressly pointed out that it was rhetorical because I know that you can't help yourself.  And, of course, you couldn't.  When you first bought your Wii you played Wii sports like crazy and had a ball.  Then you found yourself playing less and less and being more and more disappointed and pretty soon your Wii was gathering dust like just about all the others.  You just have to argue with everything I say even when you don't disagree.  Which is, of course, why I included the asterisk, for all the good it did.  C'est la vie.

[shmokes]

How about you guys let this arguement be settled the old fashioned way; Let the market decide if it lives or dies.

Cos we like arguing.   

If it's good, then sales and software support will continue. 

I think this is probably not true.  Not all good things succeed . . . ahem . . . Dreamcast . . .

[RandyT]

Actually it didn't.  I expressly pointed out that it was rhetorical because I know that you can't help yourself.  And, of course, you couldn't.  When you first bought your Wii you played Wii sports like crazy and had a ball.  Then you found yourself playing less and less and being more and more disappointed and pretty soon your Wii was gathering dust like just about all the others.  You just have to argue with everything I say even when you don't disagree.  Which is, of course, why I included the asterisk, for all the good it did.  C'est la vie.

You truly overestimate your telepathic abilities.  None of what you just stated is even close.  I played Wii Sports about twice, and I don't think I could say that I ever "had a ball" with it.  It seemed I was always looking for a title to justify the space being taken up by the machine, and spent a fair amount of money looking for it.  As I have already stated, AMF PinBusters Bowling was the title that finally did that for me.  And I still play it on occasion, so the machine has value to me.  More so, now that Netflix has a home on it, but that might not even last if I get a Netflix capable BD player for the living room which will let me get HD (lacking on the Wii).

I only argue with you because you have a hard time dealing with the idea that your version of things isn't everyone's, as you have just painfully demonstrated.  But I guess I'm still arguing because I agree  

[shmokes]

It's a difference without a difference.  I said:

If it's not fun, you won't do it.  For example, when was the last time you turned on your Wii*?

That's all.  And, as you've just said yourself, that jives perfectly with your own experience.  There was no need for you to argue.  But I knew you would, hence the asterisk. 

[RandyT]

It's a difference without a difference.  I said:

If it's not fun, you won't do it.  For example, when was the last time you turned on your Wii*?

That's all.  And, as you've just said yourself, that jives perfectly with your own experience.  There was no need for you to argue.  But I knew you would, hence the asterisk.  

You crack me up .  I'm not arguing with your premise, flawed as it is in the context you are presenting it, rather the example you provided.  I "turned on" the Wii to play a game the last time I wanted to play the game that, so far, hasn't been done better on any other system.

So here's what you seem to keep missing; even if there's only one fun experience that can only be done with the Kinect (and there already is), then it's enough justification for a lot of people to not only pick one up, but hang onto it.  In reality there are already a few that I really enjoyed playing, and look forward to revisiting.  Surely, more will follow.

So yes, if it's not fun, people won't use it.  But it is fun, and there are gaming experiences that (currently) only it can provide.  That, and 2.5 million users in 2 weeks, means a lot more than naysaying from folks who haven't really spent any time with one.  But even I still think it needs one button.  

[NickG]

one button...so I was wondering the other day - can kinect be used in conjuction with additional (tactile) controls, and are any games announced/available which are examples?

[Malenko]

I think this is probably not true.  Not all good things succeed . . . ahem . . . Dreamcast . . .

This is the most acurate thing said during this entire thread.

[SlayerAlex]

Seems to me like you either like it or you dont. If you dont, then it probly wasnt meant for you anyway.

Heres my story i thought i would share:

 My family got a PS Move. We play some golf game on it. I was intrigued by the technology and wondered how it worked. From what i could tell the back swing started the POWER meter, and the foward swing ended the power meter. All other controlls were done by button presses. Wanted to change clubs? press buttons. Wanted to change directions? Press buttons. The only point of moving the Motion controller was to start and stop a power meter, something that could have easily been done with buttons as well. You could tape the trigger buttong down, and litterly play the game by just swinging the controller back and forth. The motion controller was pointless

I tried to show this to my family, but they were too busy having fun! They were bending their knees and wiggling their butts trying to get into a real golfing stance, looking at each other and laughing it up...They were doing this despite knowing full well that it had NO impact on the gameplay whatsoever.

In the end i let them have their fun. Its just not for me lol

[shmokes]

I "turned on" the Wii to play a game the last time I wanted to play the game that, so far, hasn't been done better on any other system.

Randy, I pulled this from Wikipedia for you:

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question posed for its persuasive effect without the expectation of a reply

I never cared when was the actual last time that you turned on your Wii.  Do you seriously not understand this or are you playing dumb?  I'm pretty sure you're pretending, but you are just so insistent that one has to wonder.  For crying out loud, I told you beforehand that it was a rhetorical question.  Surely even you understand this.

[shmokes]

That, and 2.5 million users in 2 weeks

The Dreamcast had the most successful launch of any system in history.  A (relative) handful of people standing in line to spend $150 on an item that they have never used do not make for a successful system.  Given enough marketing those people will buy anything, lol.  Let's see how the January and February sales numbers look.  By summer, Kinect sales will have dried up almost completely.

[RandyT]

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question posed for its persuasive effect without the expectation of a reply

I never cared when was the actual last time that you turned on your Wii.  Do you seriously not understand this or are you playing dumb?  I'm pretty sure you're pretending, but you are just so insistent that one has to wonder.  For crying out loud, I told you beforehand that it was a rhetorical question.  Surely even you understand this.

Just because you said it was rhetorical, doesn't mean I cannot respond to it as something other.  In doing so, I have questioned it's persuasiveness, regardless of your expectation of a reply.

I.e. you provided a bad example, because there are fun games on the Wii, if one looks hard enough, and I provided an example.  But getting burned by "shovelware" more than a few times prevents a lot of folks from finding them, and that, more than anything else, can make an otherwise decent system go unused.  I simply disagree with the "rhetorical question" you offered as support for the validity your statement.

The Dreamcast had the most successful launch of any system in history.  A (relative) handful of people standing in line to spend $150 on an item that they have never used do not make for a successful system.  Given enough marketing those people will buy anything, lol.  Let's see how the January and February sales numbers look.  By summer, Kinect sales will have dried up almost completely.

I made the same prediction about the Wii......I still feel that my conclusion to the Wii scenario is accurate (lots of people taken in by the marketing, but few who actually favor the system over the other options, due to the hardware limitations of the console), but I was way off in my estimation of how many people would "jump on the bus".  These things tend to have a snowball effect.  The more numbers, the more developers start to join in.  The more developers, the higher the likelihood of "killer apps" (or at least an increased perception of broad support).  The more "killer apps", the more Kinect sales.  Rinse, repeat.

And in this case, the Kinect is a peripheral, not a console system dedicated to the control scheme which forces the consumer to live with it's shortcomings in order to experience it.  So there is a lower "purchase justification bar".  Do you really think that people balked at buying those plastic guitars because they worried about whether any other publishers would be making games which used it?*

*That was a rhetorical question, but you can treat it any way you wish....that's just how I roll  

[shmokes]

Just because you said it was rhetorical, doesn't mean I cannot respond to it as something other.  

But if you respond by simply answering the question it just makes you prat.  The only way you questioned my questions persuasiveness is if it was trying to persuade people that you personally have not recently turned on your Wii.  Obviously the point was that people in general (but including you) do not play their Wiis much.  You knew that was my point.  You don't disagree with it.  You are just being a prat.

And if the Wii was so much fun you'd play it more.  Period.  I know there are good games on the Wii.  And yet . . . here we are, rarely playing our Wiis.  It's not rocket science.  You don't play the Wii because it tends to suck.  That's not to say nothing is good on it.  It's just not good enough to keep bringing you back.