It's not a gimmick if the person who wants it ends up loving it.  To the batman enthusiast that batman lolipop was a nice lovely little treat they happened to find in the store they strolled into.  Nothing less, nothing more.

As long as it's not a flash in the pan then I don't think it's a gimmick.  The wii was not something built for just one game, it was developed intentionally to alter the function of a multitude of games.  It's not a gimmick because it wasn't ever intended as a gimmicky one-off pony trick.

Gimmick = something people on gaming sites laugh at, that ends up being massively successful.

I think one of General Motor's recent added perks for their offerings was to have an Ipad in the glove compartment which housed the driver's manual.

This is a gimmick because an Ipad has nothing to do with driving.  It's a one off deal, one that they obviously don't want to integrate into their offerings forever, that gets you mildy excited for something unrelated.  This is why Kinect, Wii, 3DS, Move, etc... are not gimmicks.

That's one awesome Batman electric rotating lolly... do want!

Entire threads have derailed once the word "gimmick" has been thrown about. I myself have derailed threads by using the term gimmick. Likewise, I have correctly ascribed the word "gimmick" to the Kinect and Move.

You are spot-on in those of us who have used "gimmick" in a negative light in order to try and put a blacker than black lamp shade over the positive light of the definition.

This being said, the OP presents a solid question worthy of lengthy discussion. Does innovation in video games originate from the hardware or the software?

The Wii presents a classic "chicken or egg" conundrum. Were the motion controls designed first and the software designed around them? Or were these motion controls like 3D is for the 3DS something that Miyamoto and other Nintendo developers wanted to create to capture the type of gameplay they always envisioned?

Personally, I believe innovation in video games comes from the games and how developers see consumers playing the game. In contrast, others would believe the hardware is designed first in secret for years, then after a series of secret meetings, the developers develop the software to coalesce with the hardware.

What do you here?

(Sorry, I just had to... )  

A gimmick is something that usually catch's my eye, and makes me want to try something out. It's why I love Nintendo. It's the only reason I ever played an Xbox360, it generally goes hand in hand with innovation (not always) and someone will always find a reason to think it's bad, even if the gimmick was a Wii that brewed beer and spit out money.

@robzo  i agree with you to a certain extent, but i would have to say that the motion controls did not change a multitude of games. IE you still play fighting games with regular controls

True, but it def. was the intention of the Wii.  And as for Nintendo titles, it def. was.  So I don't think Nintendo had some sort of one-off-pony trick they wanted to shoot around.

I would say this though.  Many developers who had traditional games (no motion) were now forced to alter their game to use motion controls since their audience had now suddenly changed in a way they couldn't have expected.  Because of this, the game conceptually is finished and then they ahve to tak on the motion controls at the end.  Smash bros. has motion controls optional and god they suck lol.

And there are other games like that as well.  That is where it gets gimmicky - when people try to exploit the wii's motion controls to make money simply cause their audience changed and now they are trying to tailor perfectly to them.

In the case of videogames, I would define a gimick as a new gameplay mechanic or technology that didn't demonstrate any long term value or sustained interest from gamers. The reason it is used as an insult for most new technologies is because it implies that the technology has limited appeal and everyone will eventually lose interest.