I will have to say the move. But both will not light the world on fire. The problem that comes in is that both are after launch accesories (no matter how you try to argue otherwise.) Plus they come late in the life cycle of each console. And in the past 30 years only two after launch  accesories have ever been adopted in an amount needed to keep the games coming. The Rumble Pack and Duel Shock (Which added  both analog and rumble to Sony's main controller) I don't consider the motion plus as one because I like how one source puts it: The motion plus is "criminally undersupported."

It's difficult to say, because if they both fare well, Move will be weaker, due to its similarities with WM and WMPlus, but in a wider market, while Kinect will be stronger, but in a smaller, although rich, market. And while Move can exploit Wii to PS3 ports, it could also benefit Wii too with ports in the opposite direction. And where ports aren't concerned, Sony tries a more hardcore approach to motion control, so, again, not directly attacking Nintendo, despite the bombastic ads, but mostly just defending its core business and possibly trying to expand it. Kinect, OTOH, directly attacks Balance Board, it's too different from it to allow easy synergies and, if properly exploited, it can be a lot better for dance and soccer games and also for some fitness games.

I don't now about compelling, but yes they were big.  I think Mario Kart used 2, brake and look behind, but I could be wrong.  Either way, lets look at that for a second.  Something simple like looking behind wouldn't work well without a button.  How would you tell that to a game in Kinect?  Are you going to actually look behind you?  Would defeat the purpose, wouldn't it?  You need buttons for things like that in games.  One of the big control problems facing motion game designers is making is what to control with motion interpretation and what needs more direct input.  

With Kinect, they've opened up the developers possibilities for motion control input but removed the direct.  So, now you face these problems.  How do you look around in a car in a racing game?  Using voice commands is a pretty slow way to do what you do naturally very fast.  Sure you can tell the game you want to walk, but forward and backward are a problem.  What it leads to are games that actually have less avatar freedom.  Sure that avatar can express lots of actions that the player does but some of the simplest are out of their reach.  How about walk right and walk left?  Are you going to have a screen on rollers that shifts as you do so you can turn around in a circle and explore a game world?  Look at the Star Wars game.  It's a rail shooter with a light saber because there is no way for the player to actually run around.

So, while Kinect opens up a few doors, it shuts a few also.  Those that it shut are pretty damn important though.  The Wii does not survive off of Wii Sports and Wii Fit alone.  Kinect needs to show that it isn't a one trick pony.  It needs to show that it has the ability to not have everything be on rails.  While I think Kinect is neat and is possibly an important contribution to the evolution of motion control games, it is missing something that will limit it.  This missing component will reduce the diversity of the games and limit it's market acceptance.  Also, being a peripheral attached to an existing system, the consumer needs to not only be sold on the Kinect, they need to be sold on the $300 system the $??? Kinect.  The Wii was $250 and came with Wii Sports and a controller.  Granted you still needed to get the $20 Nunchuk and more controllers, but the control scheme came with the system.  Firmly entrenched in that casual market, the Wii Fit board sold well.  I don't think it would have sold half as well on any other system.

I love my 360, but I just don't see Kinect taking the world by storm.  Part of it is trying to appeal to the people that already own Wiis, then there are some of the game limitations and it is a peripheral.  I hope it's a good beta test for the next xbox control options, but I think that Sony made the better choice here in sticking with the controllers, even if they don't have some of the cool "whole body" interpretations.  Not that I think Move is going to do a whole lot better.  It is an expensive peripheral setup on top of the HD console pricing (the same issue that affects Kinect), but I think the games will be more diverse and we'll see HD versions of many Wii style games because the control scheme is similar enough.

I give that post a 9.3.

Kinect is going to be more successful.  Microsoft seems to be going after the casual crowd more aggressively than Sony is.

Move will sell better because Kinect is overpriced and besides Forza I didn't see any games worth playing that will be using it.

How can people say Kinect is overpriced and Move isn't (only fanboys here?).

Kinect costs you one-time 150$ (for up to 4 players).

For Move you need the bundle 100$, a navigator 30$ (i know, you can also use your normal controller, but that isn't very comfortable) ,  a 2nd Move controller 40$ (some games need 2) and then you have the peripherals for 1 player.

Yes, very cheap ...

but are you going to buy move?

Move because of price.

Kinect potencial? If Kinect has so much potential then why are some Kinect games also releasing for the PSEYE, no, not the MOVE. The old PS EYE. It basically can do the same, and "who wants to push a big red ball through a hoop?"

lol

This.

And about buttons and niche or wide appeal games, the rule is not to use as few buttons as possible, but to avoid using more buttons than necessary, but neither less than necessary, in both cases the control scheme will become more complicated than the ideal case. In the case of less buttons than necessary, it could force to remove, or make awkward to control, actions that even the most casual gamers find useful.