I really enjoy Wiimote/Move control for FPS games. If there were two games on the shelf and I had to decide on only one, then I would choose the one with Move support if there were no other way to choose.

This year is SO stacked already, I think devs are going to have to be very, very competitive.

Move needs its OWN unique experiences.  I think that's what he's saying here.  This is a controller experience and is being designed for a controller.

If he made the same statement about Kinect (which he won't because Kinect support isn't being roundly promoted like Move support), I'd expect most to stand by that for the same reasoning.

I cannot begin to express my disappointment after hearing this.

First, what I do agree with:

“I’d never want to throw in Move support just because it’s going to make some first party happy or because some marketing department wants it on the box...”

I also agree that gimmicky Move controls that could just as easily be represented with button presses such as waggling left or right and such is not necessary and feels decidedly tacked on.

What I don't agree with is his assumption that Move would not enhance the experience of playing Infinite.  While I haven't used Move in an FPS yet, I've certainly used the Wii remote and nunchuck to play Metroid Prime Trilogy.  In my opinion this kind of control scheme in a first-person game improves the maneuverability alone exponentially, not to mention the aiming accuracy.  It is unquestionably the closest thing to keyboard and mouse on a console and most importantly gives you a complete immersive 3D feel with the control.  Even when I was just running around lost in Prime 2, I was having so much fun because of the amazingly liberating controls.

Any first-person game, be it Bioshock, Metroid Prime, Halo or COD, control is vastly improved with this control method because resting your arm comfortably on an armrest with your steadied wrist movement able to cover the entire screen with a pointer is far superior to swinging a stick around with your thumb to move your point of view.  And for anyone who doesn't agree, there's the dual-analogue option for them.  So why not include it?

Of course I'm still uber excited about this game; Bioshock's my favorite game this gen, but dammit, I was so looking forward to this control option being present.

Lame reasoning. 

Developers make two types of controller maping for many games, one with keyboard mouse and another with Joypad. Maybe they are a bit lazy to do some extra work.

Bravo. if its pointless/needless why use it?

Don't waste time with things you aren't going to put your full effort into, I don't see how anyone could be against that. If Levine doesn't think his game will need Move and he also doesn't want to go into the idea with half a heart, then he shouldn't even bother with it. 

I  completely agree. 

I do not want move support (or hell any support) that is only half assed, which by the way he is talking this would definitely be the case if they were forced to do it.   How could this be a good thing?

how says it would have to be half assed.

killzones certainly wasnt. 

Eh, I don't see what peoples' problem with his statement is. If it doesn't fit, don't force it.

I don't see why move has to be a 'new expirience'. While Kinect is an entirely new interface / gui I always feel that move was nothing more than an alternate control scheme, sort of like a wheel & pedal for racing games or a arcade stick for a fighters; the application on most FPS would be virtually the same; the replacement of the right analog aim stick with a motion controller.

In this case, I feel the answer is more like 'why bother, we didn't plan for move and everyone who is interest in our game will get it with or without move support'. Which to be honest is fair enough, I have no issue with it in fact.