So he says that hardcore gamers will play/buy Kinect because they can get achievements?!

Not every hardcore gamer is an achievement/trophy whore! (the amount of "whores" is actually very low)

A pathetic PR, damage control and overcompensation, that's what I hear in these words. Gamers who called themselves 'hardcore ' might not be as stupid as he's seemingly implying, it looks like MS have problems controlling their minds.

I find it interesting that it seems like mostly the PS3 owning guys are upset by this...

IMO, you have to look no further than the Wii to see how wrong the hardcore audience has been in the past... 

Additionally, it's not like he said, "hardcore players are stupid!".  I mean honestly, is this that big of a deal?

Just because you buy a product does not mean that you should feel any sort of brand attachment to it. Fans of certain companies tend to get an affinity with a brand eventhough they are not getting paid for it and have no financial stake in the success or failure of a brand. The emotional attachment is what makes someone a fan and you need to look no further than Elvis Presley to see how strong emotional connections will create fans.

As I said earlier, it is a loser strategy to cater to a small niche because in the process you will alienate a larger potential customer base. This is comparable to musicians who are overtly political such as Ani DiFranco and other musicians who are subtly political such as Bruce Springsteen and Bon Jovi. Ani DiFranco will never sell as many records as Springsteen or Bon Jovi because her political views are constantly being pushed in songs and in concert to the point where she gets caricatured as that radical alternative musician who can't separate music from politics.

It is in the best interest of any company, no matter their product to not push a certain view to the extent it caters to a certain segment of the market. You need the whole market to be successful.

Dude, he pretty much did say "hardcore players are stupid!". His really going down on the fanbase that's put food on his plate for the last five year's and I feel insulted that a company I support think's that I'm an achievement whore, who'll jump on to anything made by them no matter what, his pretty much saying they can do what ever they want and we should just shut up and buy it. It's very 'get a second job' ish.

Weren't Microsoft (and Sony) equally wrong when it came to the Wii back in 2006?  

Nobody expected the Wii to be the succes that it is, even Nintendo themselves, and both Microsoft and Sony are trying desperately to emulate the Wii's success four years later, only in both cases it seems they still don't understand just how the Wii and DS became what they are today.

Nintendo approaches hardware from an entirely different perspective than Sony and Microsoft.  Nintendo's software designers work directly with their hardware designers to create the technology necessary to facilitate whatever new gameplay experiences they have in mind.  "Revolutions" like the Wiimote were created expressly to enable the creation of titles like Wii Sports.  The balance board was designed specifically to allow players to use Wii Fit.  The hardware is designed for the software, and it is the software that ultimately sells the hardware.  The Wii first became a success thanks to Wii Sports, and titles like Mario Kart continued that success.  The balance board ONLY sells because of the popularity of Wii Fit itself, and few other games support the peripheral as a result.  It's the games that sell.  You just so happen to need the hardware to play the games.  It also just so happens that Nintendo makes fucking amazing games, as evidenced by their sales.

On the other hand, Microsoft and Sony designed Kinect/Move first and foremost with the capabilities of the hardware in mind, and that is why thus far we've seen mostly tech demos showing off what the hardware can theoretically do (and in the case of Kinect, many of the tech demos from E309 turned out to be quite unfeasible).  We've yet to see a standout showcase title for the capabilities of either device.  A killer app, so to speak.  In the case of Move, we've at least seen that the device can competently be used to play games in a similar manner to the Wii, but that's about it. 

There was no single vision behind these devices other than "let's go after the Wii's market."  Nobody said "this would make a killer game, now what new tech do we need to make to do it."  Instead they were thinking "we've made this new tech, now let's see if somebody can make a killer game with it."  Or in the case of Move, "let's make a device that can do everything the Wii can do but more!"  A much safer route, to be sure, but with far less market potential as a result.

The closest thing Microsoft has to a killer app for Kinect at the moment is Dance Central, a game that could easily be substituted with the Wii's Just Dance 1/2 for most of the casual crowd, and a game that could come to the ps3 as well according to the developers.  That's not gonna be enough.

Both companies are trying to sell their new peripherals primarily on the potential of the hardware.  As the ps3 showed back in 2006, that just doesn't work.  Especially in the case of new control schemes, it's all about the software.

Without a system seller like Wii Sports at launch, these devices will struggle to meet any definition of "success".

How many people almost 10 years ago would have predicted that at this point a number over half and closing in on 2/3rds of current generation consoles would be connected to the internet? I guess the comment relates to the Xbox 1 and not the Xbox 360.

You are right stating Nintendo develops the hardware around the software, while Sony and Microsoft have 2nd and 3rd party developers develop the software around the hardware.

I am in full agreement that both Sony and Microsoft need to create 1st party, exclusive brands only available on the PS3 and Xbox 360 and no other system including the PC. If you look at Nintendo, their brands from the 1980s are always highly anticipated and always sell well 20 years later.

In this economic environment, multi-platform titles makes sense for 2nd and 3rd party developers, not for the console makers. Henceforth, it is in their financial interest to dilute and kill the potential of a fanatical fanbase for Sony or Microsoft by making it multi-platform in order to appease the publisher.

Sony and Microsoft could brand very easily. Sony should try to buy the rights to the Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid brands. Likewise, Microsoft should buy the rights to Gears of War, Halo, Fable, and Mass Effect.

In my view, pushing the software and creating 1st party exclusive brands will allow a company to weather any financial storm. Nintendo has shown it during the N64 and Gamecube years with Zelda, Metroid, Mario, and on carrying Nintendo eventhough the Gamecube was getting curbstomped by the PS2. Microsoft and Sony would do well to learn and follow, which in this case there is no shame in following because it is a good lead.

In the end, software sells consoles, not hardware. If the converse was true, Sega would have killed Nintendo during the 1990s, the Sega Dreamcast would have stayed around to give the PS2 a run for it's money, and the PS3 would be king in hardware sales today.

Kinect will sell just as an exercise device alone. (without a controller is a plus for exercising) Anything that helps you to lose weight sells like hotcakes in USA. Yet this doesn't mean it a big plus to  gamers who wants some depth in games.

you mean.... you are going to buy kenict just for the achievements?

also
What moves?