He's right... and he's wrong... sort of.
His point is that because Natal is essentially optional - i.e you can chose to ignore it - it runs the risk of just being another peripheral, in fact, it IS just another peripheral strictly speaking.
He clearly feels that the fact that motion controls define the Wii and are inseparable was the way to go - I presume that's what he means by integrated. That the console and the controller should be one experience with no choice to separate them.
However... given that the 360 launched without Natal (or Wave) and has sold around 39 million worldwide, it's clearly way too late in the game to make it mandatory. MS simply can't make Natal mandatory for menu navigation, game play, etc. - i.e. fully integrate it to the console.
It has to launch as a peripheral and an optional choice (unless MS are going to take the mother of all risks - which I really see no sign they're about to) and that's the way it goes.
So he's right - on paper if MS really want Natal to succeed to the max it should be mandatory, no Natal no playing on your 360. But he's also wrong because it's too late to do so.
BTW I should add, to try and avoid the usual you're just anti-whatever angle, that Move has exactly the same problem. It's a peripheral, too. If I want, I can just ignore it and stick to using my PS3 without it.
The only slight advantage I do see for Move is it looks like Sony could more easily tack it onto more games using the buttons - and judging by the Soccom tests they might well try to do so.
But I doubt they'll make it mandatory - so I still think they're in the same boat as MS.
Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...
