So you are saying that in the following games if they replaced motion controls with button presses and moving with an analog stick they would do just as well.

Wii Sports
Wii Play
Wii Fit
Wii Sports Resort

I think you are totally wrong if you believe that.  I think 3 out of 4 sell because because moms are fascinated with the family staying active( the other one is simply because it is basically free with the purchase of a controller ).  This past Saturday we had friends over and my wife brought up Dance Central for Kinect.  It was the 1st time in the 23 years I have known her that she has ever brought up a video game topic.  It wasnt because we were playing games it was just out of the blue.  We then pulled down a few videos on Xbox Live and a Kinect was sold.

*hangs head in shame*

Actually the way I see it, Kinect is actually GETTING the point that the Wii was supposed to but failed at.  The Wii was supposed to get people up and moving, yet every motion game on the Wii can still basically be played sitting down (other than WiiFit and maybe a few others).  With Kinect games the focus is complete body tracking in 3D to actually get everyone up and moving!

Line from Jimmy Fallon: "This will make kids in America skinny again!"

That right there will sell tons of Kinects

I think you should rename the title "Why I am missing the point about Kinect" far more useful.

Only two of those titles you listed are launch titles.  Neither of which offer deep gameplay.  They are nice, fun, pickup and play experiences though.

Some good points, but with Kinect for me the main issue is simply does it do enough to achieve transference of demand from the Wii?

Right now the Wii is very well established, has a strong library and remains the most popular console (even allowing for its YOY drops).  At this point I'm not taking the surge in US to be anything other than temporary and driven by people buying up clearance older models plus a lot of existing owners getting the shiny new model, but will of course look to the next 4 weeks or so to confirm if I'm right to do so.

Kinect is rumoured to be fairly expensive ($149) and is very much an add-on vs the Wii always being a complete package from launch, and by comparison at this point Kinect has a fairly limited if fun looking library of titles set for launch.

It does have a great hook for the common media - "look, no controller!" - but it remains a bit unknown to what extent that will have real draw and gain good word of mouth (something that was crucial to the Wii's success).

Comparing the two, I'm just not sure Kinect has enough there to transfer a lot of demand away from the Wii (which I believe would need to happen for it to be truly successful) and to the 360/Kinect combo.

I expect it to actually sell well to existing 360 owners even if just for something to have for parties/fun, and for sure it'll gain some new converts initially if for nothing more than novelty value, but unless MS are aiming low with an eye to next gen then it needs to unseat a simpler, more known console with a far more mature library of titles that already has the most marketshare - and that still feels like a tall order to me.

Note - I could more or less reprise this for the PS3 although Move does have a few advantages over Kinect (and some disadvantages) which would change some aspects of this arguement.

Does it need transference of demand from the Wii? Or if there is some transference does it need to be significant? Even if 5% of potential Wii owners switch the effective difference is 10% relatively between the sales of the two consoles.

I don't know the price, I don't think anyone knows for sure what it is. All thats been confirmed is that the prices given are placeholders by impatient retailers.

I think one signficant difference the camera interface makes is that Kinect is the only interface which can give a full demonstration in store because the Kinect console itself can be locked away easily whilst still being used. With consoles and wireless controllers people can simply walk away with the controllers. This is significant if they can get a Kinect console in every store this Christmas they can drive a lot of demand simply by letting people use it. Nintendo and Sony cannot offer that same instore hands on experience.

How would you define success for Kinect(in specific terms) ?

How about it signifigantly closes the gap between monthly Wii and 360 sales in NA and Europe.  Japan has other issues so getting to closer to 10,000 per week on average during non-holiday sales period.  I doubt MS expects Kinect to erase the lead the Wii has.  That is an unrealistic expectation, but make it so that the lead really doesnt grow much anymore would be a huge win.

I think the OP's point is that Wii's big games are like Tetris. Simple, accessible, but complex, challenging and different each play through.

The OP isn't downplaying motion control's impact on the Wii. If you guys think he is, it's precisely because you had the misconception that Microsoft had, that motion control WAS EVERYTHING. That is the point of the OP. Motion controls helped the Wii a lot, and it helps make the games more like Tetris, intuitive and simple (it's very intuitive to swing a controller like a racket, than press a button and remember to do that, in conjunction with other moves and buttons, all with a controller you never used before).

However, while the motion controls helped, without the gameplay that was designed with effort and rigor, it would have been meaningless.

Nintendo's designers wanted to create a game that was accessible, simple, complex, challenging, and unique, and used their resources to achieve that.

Microsoft wanted to create a motion control game, and used resources to simply create that, without anything else in mind.

I don't really care about motion controls, but you guys are so fucking thick headed, and making me feel more depressed about the world =/

I think it's pretty simple what he's saying.

Now, I'm going to play Bad Company 2 with my good ole Dualshock.