1. You seem to think Nintendo's camera was just as capable as the Kinect. But its not, it was just a webcam. And MS didn't just license the hardware, they own it.

2. Perhaps the 2 active players is true. Which is fine, most Eyetoy games for example only support one player. And you would need a lot of space for the camera to see 4 people without bumping into each other. I'm confused by the stitting thing. I mean the Kinect can track full motion like dropping to your knees and lying on the floor. But it can't be used at all sitting down? Seems odd.

3. The balance board and vitality sensor are incredibly limited with type of software they can be used in. Unless they crowbar it in. The Kinect has far more potential. That's all I'm saying.

4. Well Nintendo will be fine without Kinect technology. But they could have also made it something big. I think it was a missed opportunity.

This part... "Confuse the market redundant input methods, thin out development resources with multiple products to support, clutter retail space and screw with marketing." Isn't that exactly what Nintendo did? I mean the nunchuck, Wiimotion, Balance Board, and now the vitality sensor? You also need to buy more than one of each for multiplayer. The Kinect is cheaper than buying all of that. And its gonna get more software support than most of those devices.

Not necessarily. You point out some very poorly reviewed games... What about if we look at new core games (This gen) with good reviews?

Bayonetta.
Red Dead (Okay, not really new... But already massively outsold the little known last gen game).
BlazBlue.
UFC Undisputed.
Assassin's Creed. 
BioShock.
Batman: AA.
Dead Space.
Heavy Rain.
Gears of War.
Mass Effect.

That's off of the top of my head, and without going into 1st party Sony efforts. Which would add a LOT to the list.

Now if we do the same for the Wii...? Well, I can't even think of any really. Can you?

If a publisher/developer makes a good quality game on the HD consoles, it generally has great sales. If it is reviewed poorly... It rarely gets good sales. Even some games that ARE reviewed poorly can do slightly well. Haze being proof of this.

greenmedic88 said: It looks like one is labeled "Intellivision" and the other is labeled "Intellivision II" which suggests that the difference was more than just cosmetic. Maybe they were the same, but not much point in checking since Intellivision didn't "invent" the redesigned/refreshed console. The Magnavox Odyssey from the early 70s pre-dates the Intellivision and it had its share of hardware revisions as well.

It was in fact called the Intellivision II, but it was just a redesign; remember the very notion of a next generation console didn't really come into being till the Genesis, so Matel didn't see adding a II to the end as having the same implications you are reading into it.

And while I kind of expected that some first gen system did this years before Matel, I didn't feel inclined to look it up.

(If you are wondering why I even posted it in the first place if I thought that it probably wasn't the first, I think it was just the nostalgia of being an Intellivision fanboy and having a chance to stick it to Atari. Intellivision, and later Colecovision, were to Atari as GC and XB were to PS2;  and just as GC and XB fanboys hated PS2 getting credit where it didn't deserve it, so too did Intellivision fans.)

Wii 1.5 no. But maybe a cheaper redesign à la SNES Jr could do it: a Wii Jr (with several colors). This with a buyers choice collection.

Finally, it would be more a Wii 1.1 than a Wii 1.5 with HDMI and HD output as the analysis are wishing for

Revisionist history.  Core games did great on Wii at the start, from RE4 to DQ Swords to Red Steel to COD3 to Metal Slug Anthology to Trauma Center to Ghost Squad... all tiers of games and franchises, and everything was basically meeting to exceeding expectations.  Nevermind Nintendo's own core games (Zelda, Mario, Metroid, etc), which are among the best selling in the industry.  Even now, Wii actually has quite a few low tier success stories, like Muramasa or Tasunoko Vs Capcom, it's hardly like MH3's alone in being the one 3rd party Wii game to do as well as hoped.  MH3's the only original AAA 3rd party core game though, so it's one of the few core titles that will sell like a AAA 3rd party game.  Again, Wii can't sell what it doesn't have...

And I didn't 'cherry pick', I simply used a few recent examples of notable bombs, which seem to be getting more and more common on the HD twins.  And btw, Raven and Bizarre are both wholly owned subsidiaries of Activision, they literally are Activision.  I did enjoy the mealy mouthed sales excuses though... you sound like a Wii defender.  Which sort of belies the point, there's nothing really inherently unique about Wii's situation or ability to sell what games.  At this point yes, it's market was shaped by what it got, but what it got wasn't really reflective of it's potential or even what it was actually selling upfront...

Heavy Rain isn't even a 'core' game, and according to it's producer it's not a game at all, plus it's a spiritual sequel.  And since when are Batman or UFC new IPs, both are licensed titles and UFC in particular sold off both the strength of it's license and developer pedigree (Yukes, of WWE fame).  UFC also tanked this year comparably, despite glowing reviews.

Bayonetta shipped over a million, but badly underperformed in western markets.  The PS3 version even undersold Madworld according to NPD, and it was off the few EU charts (and no top tens iirc) it appeared on within a week.

Dead Space also underperformed upfront, though it eventually crawled to respectable figures off word of mouth in the bargain bins.  Actually, it followed a very Wii like sales curve; low but consistent sales over a long stretch.

The only really applicable games here are Bioshock (again, a spiritual sequel that sold mainly off developer pedigree, and really only on 360, it bombed on PS3), BlazBlue (ditto to being a spiritual sequel that sold because of who made it), Mass Effect (ditto again), Gears of War (though it was MS funded, and hugely promoted) and Assassin's Creed (likely the best example, though it's promotional budget was also staggering compared to basically every core Wii game).  A better example imo would be something like Borderlands, which wasn't pushed like a AAA game, wasn't hugely hyped up by the press, wasn't from an all-star studio, wasn't a spiritual sequel to anything, it was just the right game at the right time and did really damn well.  Or Demon's Souls (in America), which was very much a cult hit that crossed over into some mainstream success.  Both were lower tier hits too (Borderlands more on 360 though), something 360 and PS3 aren't exactly known for usually.

Also, Blur and Singularity didn't get terrible reviews. Neither have plenty of other HD underperformers this year, like Alan Wake, POP (which also bombed on Wii/handhelds), Tiger 2011 (again, bombed everywhere) or Split/Second... trying to draw a line between quality and sales has always been a tough sell.  It's a factor certainly, but not the definitive one.

Wii will get AAA core games soon: Call of Duty Black Ops, Golden 007...

It was a cheap redesign, quite inferior to the original, but my points were actually different from being first to make a Slim, one, quite irrelevant, that the original was better looking than the Slim, the other, joking, that it's possible that Mattel invented decennia before XB360 Short the "Slim that's actually smaller but not really slimmer"   

To be honest, I wouldn't call either AAA.  Black Ops Wii is the B version of the B team game (even though COD is still huge and WOW did amazing, I think the negative press from Infinity Ward is going to start seeping in HD side even), and Goldeneye is essentially a game that's banking on nostalgia.  

Epic Mickey is probably the only real one on the horizon, besides Dragon Quest X (and who knows when that'll turn up).

You know the big reason why Kinect and Move will fail? Because there are executives who think just that.

It surprises me you can think that when evidence dictates that they want quality games. Most third party games on the Wii fail. Nintendo, though, succeeds. This is because Nintendo actually takes those customers seriously. Third parties saw them as an easy cash in which is why they failed. Microsoft obviously only sees them in terms of marketing demographics. You can see this in their press conferense.

These customers demand quality product, but they demand different things than the mainstream market. "Crappy product for crappy customers," is what the executives think. These customers are not crappy and the Wii Remote is not a crappy product. It is different. But it is this product that will whipe out many businesses from the industry.

Kinect is the end of the XBox brand. There will be such back lash from everyone that Microsoft would not be able to put out consoles.