Kinect does work. It isn't a 5 second delay, but there is a slight delay. However, given the imprecise nature of the games that have been demonstrated, it really doesn't matter if it's delayed or not. Casuals don't care if they got every single ring, they just care that they are having fun.

Everything at e3 was staged, I agree. The tried to streamline their presentation but at the same time caused a huge stir and really hurt their image in the eyes of the people who watch e3.

1. My point is that if they wanted a Kinect like expereince, they would have simply used the camera they developed.  You said MS took the Kinect hardware and poured tons of reousrces in to make it work.  Why in the world would Nintendo want to license out some other camera then pump in millions to make it work when they use their own camera, pum in millions and make it work?   So my point is if Nintendo wanted a Kinect like expereince, they would have donw it with thei rown camera...hence why passing on Kinect makes sense.

2. Yes, confrimed to be just 2 players and you must stand at all times.  Capable doesn't mean it is a valid product.  The Jaws of Life are a very capable product, doesn't mean it makes for a valid video game product.

3. The Vitality Sensor and Balance Board are niche peripherals and they understand that.  Why can't you understnad that so too is Kinect?

4. First off,  the difference between Hiroshi Yamauchi and Saturo Iwata is what has established Nintendo as the market dominating entity it is at the moment.  Under Iwata, they've done exactly as you just said.  However, my point was in regards to believing in their judgement over yours.

And one final point, how much more product segregation do you want?  Confuse the market redundant input methods, thin out development resources with multiple products to support, clutter retail space and screw with marketing.  Not to foget the extra $150 needed.  You obviously dont't understand marketing, game development, retail shelf allocation and consumer spending if you think it was a bad idea for Nintendo to pass on Kinect.

No link.  This is just from devs I've spoken with. Getting it to ignore the points of articulation below the rib cage isn't as easy as it sounds like it would be.   The 2 player only bit is because you lose points of articulation per person the more people that are being tracked.  Above 2 players, it loses tracking fidelity to the point that it just becomes frustrating to play anything.

Games included overlays that mapped the pad's keyboard to games' specific commands.

Anyhow, if you look at the control pads better, they look like something else more than a phone: they have the shape of the first Zune, just a lot better.   

It looks like one is labeled "Intellivision" and the other is labeled "Intellivision II" which suggests that the difference was more than just cosmetic. Maybe they were the same, but not much point in checking since Intellivision didn't "invent" the redesigned/refreshed console.

The Magnavox Odyssey from the early 70s pre-dates the Intellivision and it had its share of hardware revisions as well.

Ummm, you do notice that the game is moving before the player, right?

you don't seem to understand my point. Kinect is playable, but they didn't want any hangups or criticisms like for example what happened with zelda. All those gamers were actors even the little girl with skittles. None of them were actually playing wii, but it doesn't matter to the consumer, the filthy casuals, because none of the games require precision and as long as the game is fun, it doesn't matter if it is moving by even a half second.

EDIT: Point was made while I was distracted by Dragon Quest IX. I take no shame in this though.

Well on the HD consoles, there are many core games that have done great and some that struggle. But on Wii, core games that aren't a big IP almost always fail. The PS3 and 360 did a great job selling core games on day one. The Wii userbase however showed overwhelming interest in shovelware, party games, and first party. Which is basicaly the same story today.

I noticed you cherry picked a few core games that didn't do well. First of all you know Lost Planet 2 and and Dark Void got bad reviews. LP2 got some good scores from lesser known sites, but most major websites panned it. Which is a shame because a lot of were excited about LP2. Clearly bad reviews affect HD sales. Dark Void is another game that got shit reviews and people even hated the demo.

Singularity might have been published by Activision, but it was developed by Raven Software. I've never been crazy about their games like most people. When was the last time they had a big hit? The biggest hit they had in years was Ultimate Alliance and that game was awful.

I don't even know what to make of Blur. It was a realistic racer but it had weapons kind of  like a kart racing game. I didn't care for it at all. It was developed by Bizarre Creations and they left MS because they thought the PGR games weren't supported enough. But with Activision's support their racer did even worse even with multiplat sales.

You were able to pick out some HD core games that didn't do well. Its easy to come up with all the core games that did well on the Wii this year. Because I can only think of about 2.