Commercially? Yes

Strategically? No

I would guess so as long as games continue to be made for it and the Kinect continues to sell.

Well, I was very optimistic about Kinect but, at the end of the day, it didn't change the world like I thought it would. I've had a lot of fun with my Kinect and I'll never sell it. Hell, I kinda want to buy a second on for my gaming room's Xbox 360 just for the voice commands and interface.

Were the Rock Band/Guitar Hero peripherals a success? They were pretty expensive (and I never bought anything in those series) and they didn't function with a lot of games, but that didn't matter. I'm assuming that the people that bought them and the games they supported had a blast. That's how I feel about Kinect. It didn't change the face of gaming. It didn't make me throw away my controller. It gave me some really good times with some really cool people. What more can I say?

My Current Kinect Library (from memory)
-Kinect Adventures
-The Gunstringer
-Child of Eden
-Your Shape Fitness Evolved
-Dance Central
-Dance Central 2
-Fruit Ninja Kinect

I'd rate every single one of those games an 8/10 or above (except Kinect Adventures). For what they offered, they did it well.

It really just depends on the person. For me, I don't play Kinect games that often. The last game I played was the PowerUp Heroes demo a week ago with my nephew. He was having so much fun his parents got the game yesterday for him. I might not use it for gaming that often, but I use it easily everyday using voice commands via Netflix, Youtube, etc. There are still some games I want to pick up like The Gunstringer(along with Fruit Ninja), KS2, and Dance Central 2. Now it might not seem successful to most "hardcore" gamers, but to everyone else I would say yes, and the software sales seem to back it up pretty good.

There is not a single game on Kinect that interests me that would warrant the $150 price tag. So I would say no, it has failed to impress me and others who were looking for the gaming revolution it was presented as back when it was Project Natal.

If MS can some how make games that are a hybrid (controller-kinect) then im happy. Just like what they did with Steel Battlion.

Is it accurate to call the Kinect a success saleswise?

Despite its incredibly hot start, the Kinect has slowed down considerably. I believe it sold about 8 million in the first six weeks, and then sold about another 8 million in the 70 weeks since then. Much of these sales came around the holiday season last year, where the device and the console bundles were heavily discounted by many retailers. Throughout the holiday season, many retailers were offering 100 dollar gift cards with a Kinect Bundle, and the Kinect itself for 100. Presumably, Microsoft was giving vendors a kickback.

Kinect software hasn't been moving too well. Neither Kinect Sports 2 nor Dance Central 2 have matched up to the sales of their predecessor. Aside from those two games and just dance 3, sales have been dismal for pretty much all games, with the possible exception of Kinect Star Wars.

As a peripheral, you'd have to consider the Kinect a success, but the problems come when you take a few factors into consideration.

Firstly, Microsoft spent a ton of money advertising the Kinect. The Kinect reportedly had a 500 million dollar advertising budget at launch. That's a big number more in line with the launch of a console than a peripheral.

Secondly, you have to figure in opportunity cost. What games would Microsoft have made if they weren't busy making Kinect games? Rare has done nothing but Wii Sports, Lionhead Studios is being occupied with Fable: The Journey. In the meantime, Epic Games, and Bungie have left Microsoft's fold. Microsoft's exclusive lineup for the coming year (Halo 4 and ummmmm...) is looking pretty thin, and Sony continues to gain on Microsoft in worldwide sales.

So, while the Kinect almost certainly has been profitable, has it been more profitable than the alternative of using those resources to make more games for MS's traditional audience? I don't think it has been.

It's obvious that Kinect is a big financial success for Microsoft.
Gaming wise I would say yes. Even though I don't own a Kinect, and I dislike motion control in general, all the people that try it have a lot of fun with it (myself included), and I think this is the only thing that matters.

Okay, it's also pretty clear that there aren't any good singleplayer experience, and Kinect Sports, Dance Central and so on are just party games, but, as I said before, the only thing that matters is how much fun you have when you play it.

Edit: I voted "In a way", because it was a huge success for casuals, not for hardcores.

I think Kinect offers some cool games like d21lewis mentioned. The point is that you have to look for them, because there is a lot of trash coming out as well.

Kinect is an awesome device when it comes to casuals. I played Kinect Sports / 2, Dance Central 2, Kinect Adventures with some friends and we always laugh our asses off.

But it is NOT the future of gaming for every single genre. I think that is the problem. MS marketed Kinect as the device that changes everything. It didn't, but it is not bad either.

Commercially Kinect has been a hit and successfully extended the life cycle of the Xbox 360.

Based upon holiday sales and the coinciding drop in sales for the Wii over the last two holiday seasons, it would appear that Kinect essentially replaced the Wii as the family/holiday gaming purchase of choice.

But on a critical level, it's had two perfectly suited games in Dance Central 1 &2 and not a whole else beyond the same types of games that were popular on the Wii, minus the 1st party quality games.

It still feels as though the best uses for Kinect beyond the casual and family fare has been for the related voice recognition used in titles like Mass Effect 3 and soon Skyrim and to a lesser extent as a UI for the 360 menus.

Didn't live up to the marketing hype, but then who really expected it would?