MS has done a good job of promoting believable future innovation with Kinect but they have delievered none of it, you say MS had the right idea but the tech isn't there, did you forget that Sony beat MS to it and didn't go with an upgraded camera because they weren't advanced enough and weren't cost effificient for what they wanted? The move works better and is cheaper then Kinect, Sony made the right move, in the future they may go back to camera only when it's actually viable but saying MS had the right idea and Sony didn't is so ill-informed.

Why would a Move 2.0 be good? In case you haven't noticed move is already too accurate in the raw data and developers have to give the user some room for error. What would the benefits be of a move 2.0? Sony made the move because it did everything well at low cost, there really isn't anything that a more advanced move could do that move can't already do.

1) At what exactly? 3D tracking? Body tracking? Voice commands? The Move is more accurate with what it does, but Kinect does a lot more stuff. 

2) Depends on what you want to achiece. A single Move controller and a camera is certainly cheaper, but start adding more Move controllers for multiplayer or certain games, not to mention the Navigation Controller.

3) How so? Microsoft has made lots of money from Kinect and it's been a huge success, while the Move is a moderate success at best. The technology in the Move might be more mature, but Kinect is much more innovative and has attracted a much larger audience, despite its limitations.

As for why a Move 2.0 is needed, why isn't it? The Move might be good at what it does, but why not make it do more?

We need this for next gen:

A hybrid Dualshock / Move.

1. Controlling games

2. It's usually cheaper for the consumer, making them is cheaper, the R&D is cheaper and the advertisement needed to get people to buy it is WAY cheaper.

3. Because Sony beat them to it years ago. Kinect is only a short term success and only because of the massive amount of advertising MS put into it. Kinect sold more at this moment but beyond that how is Kinect more successful then move? Do you even have confirmation that MS made more money off Kinect then Sony did off Move?

@LordTheNightKnight

I. Perhaps I wasn't clear I think Sony should discard the Move entirely. Go all the way back to the drawing board to come up with a idea of their own. Can we be honest the Move is a blatant knock off. Most consumers see that, and it just plain makes Sony look bad. I think it is better for Sony to have something to offer of their own. Rather then just copying what the other guy is coming up with. You can't win by playing follow the leader.

2. I am getting really tired of people neglecting qualifiers in their remarks. Your statement is subjective, and that is all there is to it. By neglecting to incorporate some phrase or word to represent some uncertainty it just causes you to look arrogant. Learn some humility for crying out loud. On point it could be a lot of things that are hurting the sales of the new system. Perhaps it was the wrong innovation. Perhaps consumers are showing a unwillingness to buy yet another handheld. Perhaps consumers want to invest in hand held devices that are truly multimedia.

3. Historically speaking that doesn't seem to be the case. In retrospect the PS2 was dominant, because it offered a cheaper media. While Sony offered a compelling business model that was more favorable to third parties. It can be argued that the 64 lineup in the beginning of that generation was better, and Nintendo had a better interface.

Looking to this generation based upon your apparent logic the PS3 should be a distant third by this point. The first year was a wasteland as far as software was concerned. What got the console through that first year can be seen as a culmination of a lot of things. The console allowing for surfing the internet, the ability of the console to play high definition media, and brand loyalty.

So no software doesn't seem to be the king you make it out to be. It is just part of the equation. In this case the Move is just a poor user interface for a lot of reasons. Changing the software isn't going to change that. Sony has to win rather then just show.

"I. Perhaps I wasn't clear I think Sony should discard the Move entirely. Go all the way back to the drawing board to come up with a idea of their own. Can we be honest the Move is a blatant knock off. Most consumers see that, and it just plain makes Sony look bad. I think it is better for Sony to have something to offer of their own. Rather then just copying what the other guy is coming up with. You can't win by playing follow the leader."

Consumers are not turned off by unoriginality. It's just the closed enthusiasts circles of various mediums that are. Consumers are turned off by bad products, but are turned on by good products, even if they are copycats.

It's the distinction and originality myth that is making Nintendo create weird systems, and have done so before. Those turn off consumers.

"2. I am getting really tired of people neglecting qualifiers in their remarks. Your statement is subjective, and that is all there is to it. By neglecting to incorporate some phrase or word to represent some uncertainty it just causes you to look arrogant. Learn some humility for crying out loud. On point it could be a lot of things that are hurting the sales of the new system. Perhaps it was the wrong innovation. Perhaps consumers are showing a unwillingness to buy yet another handheld. Perhaps consumers want to invest in hand held devices that are truly multimedia."

It's not subjective. 3D hasn't been a boon to movies that was hoped, and the reputation for 3D being nothing but a cheap trick has not been helped by just a few, and I mean a few, movies that don't involve just stuff flying at the screen. 3D on the 3DS has also been getting more and more comments about people just turning it off after a few minutes, as they find it's more distracting than it supposedly helps.

3D is a visual gimmick, that also has the stigma of making things using it to be works relying on gimmicks. That is what the mainstream thinks.

"3. Historically speaking that doesn't seem to be the case. In retrospect the PS2 was dominant, because it offered a cheaper media. While Sony offered a compelling business model that was more favorable to third parties. It can be argued that the 64 lineup in the beginning of that generation was better, and Nintendo had a better interface."

First of all, I hope you meant PS1, since the GC discs were basically mini DVDs. Second of all, media wasn't the only factor, as the problem was only a generational one. It has to be deeper rooted to last even when other factors point to favoring Nintendo, and third parties still refused to do so.

Third of all, the games didn't sell the systems on the N64. The PS1 games did. That's not up to arguing. The hardware sales make that clear.