I really don't understand people that are making a comparison between Kinect and Eye Toy because it's so flawed in my opinion. It would be like someone a few years ago making a comparison between the PS3 and Sega Saturn being hard for developers to work with and declaring the PS3 doomed to failure because of it. Even back then the differences in the situations between the two were pretty obvious and significant (Sony could withstand billions in losses and has very good third-party support).
The same applies between Kinect and Eye Toy. The amount of money that Microsoft is putting behind Kinect alone pretty much makes the situations completely different (I doubt the Eye Toy and all its games combined would come close to a half billion dollars spent on advertising). Was the Eye Toy ever on Oprah or Ellen or on morning and late night talk shows? That along with all the other attention Kinect is getting dwarfs anything the Eye Toy ever got. Then there's the fact that Microsoft is working hard for third-party games that require a Kinect. Compare that to the Eye Toy in North America for example only getting 3 third party games in 4 years that actually required it.
Anyways I just wanted to add my opinion but I'm sure there are people that will still ignore all that or attempt to explain it away with logic like advertising, attention, and word of mouth doesn't translate into sales or compare it to a game and claim its sales will be front loaded. Kinect is hardware so why not treat as such? Did the PS3/360/Wii sell the majority of their units in the first 2 months they were on sale? Do controllers sell the majority of their units in their first 2 months? So does it really make sense to you when you see people compare it to a single video game rather than hardware?
