Ah, just like the PS3 hasn't been a success because it hasn't been used to make soup.

I'm pretty sure when someone says something has been a success in every way the caveat that success is measured by it's goals is implied. 

"Well Jim, your team has just won the world series and everyone on the team batted 1.000 for the year and your pitchers pitched 162 perfect games.  How do you feel?"

"The season was a success in every fathomable way!"

"Did you manage to cure cancer?"

"Well, no"

"Then how can you say that?"

"Stop being pedantic."

lmao!!  Yes, perhaps I was embellishing a bit by stating is was a success in every fathomable way, as your anecdote proves.

However, your example is quite amusing :)

sony would difinately have a hard time selling it. even though kinect is a lot more advanced than the ps eye they would have a hard time convincing anyone it was different. even if they did have a $500 million dolar advertising campaign, they would not have been able to shake the image. microsoft is a complete contrast to sony, as it is primarily a software company. they were not only able to give the tech a new image, they were also able to support it properly.

sony would not only have to convince costumer it was different, or make costumers forget about the ps eye, but would also have a great deal of difficulty getting any developer support, the R&D team thought long and hard about were the tech would go and it was pretty obvious that releasing a second camera in a single generation would be incredibly difficult to pull off. they were also focusing on the games that could be created with the two tech (to be honest from what they showed was possible with move the current range of titles have been rather dissapointing) to see which could do more, better.

london studios were the only ones to support the ps eye I doubt we would have very many ps3 kinect games.
so I believe that for sony at least it was a good idea to pass on the tech at least until next gen.

atari passed on the famicom, I think that handily tops this.

i thought this was going to be a thread bashing kinect and microsoft, since we have had threads doing so with the same title before.

Hmmm (rubs chin and strokes beard) very well thought out opinion and I must admit I didn't think about the PS-EYE probelm where sony could find it difficult to differentiate and sell an item like Kinect because of eye-toy.  I also agree that move is not being fully optimized but i think part of this is because sony is not making many Move ONLY games.  Also, i don't think sony should NOT have bundled sports champions with the move starter pack.  They could have exponentially expanded their software sales if it was a stand alone title

I am to lazy to go and get the data, I know it wouldn't really give you any detailed idea about how that would have went but I believe that in europe sports champions wasn't bundled. so if you compared the software sells in ratio to move controllers in europe to america, could you not get a rough idea of the effect?

Yes i get a rouugh idea and you're right sports champs want bundled in europe but i think MOVE would have sold on hype alone and a freebie game didnt really increase the appeal, especially when there was a dearth on move titles at launch anyway. 

Yes BIG mistake for Nintendo, only 86.5 Million consoles sold 0.o

You do understand that the kinect technology only produces the Z depth map.

What are you going to do with just the depth map?

Microsoft themselves spent a lot of money and time producing the skeleton tracking algorithm which is used in the games today. Maybe nintendo and sony didn't have the time and resource to try to research the skeleton tracking, which is really what made kinect what it is.

yeah openni produces skeleton tracking, but its definitely not the same as what kinect is using.