No. The minimum speckle size is 2 by 2 pixels to make the depth math thing work reasonably reliable. Therefore the depth image is reduced from 640*480 to 320*240.

Kinect2 does not use any sensors at all. According to the leaked general docs, it uses two normal webcams (of unknown resolution at this time). This is of, course, no surprise as MS never patented anything in connection with PrimeSense or bought out that company right away (as MS usually does). MS did, however, buy out several companies working in image processing. Kinect2 will be a massive software load, therefore the high specs for the CPU in the next XBox.

So will this thing be an even more expensive microphone?

With the right amount of accuracy it becomes a great way to control games. Albet, it needs assistance from some form of controller to see full potential, but it will expand gameplay oppertunities non the less. We as a community need to be much more open to advances in tech on all fronts. We need deeper control options to expand the hardcore sector, we need much more power to utilize these inputs and expand graphical capabilities, and finally we need to be willing to pay a price that fits the market of today.

I hope to see a highly improved Kinect with every console, and much more controller + Kinect games.

I'm glad to read that (bold), and as a long-time Nintendo supporter I am happy we've come full circle, and I agree.

No, the hardware will be much cheaper than Kinect as it basically consists of two cheap webcams/mics.

I'm thinking of this in the context of my brother's family ...

When Kinect came out they bought my nephews an XBox 360 with Kinect for Christmas, and (in generaly) my brother and sister in law have been very disappointed with the XBox. The reason is that there are few age appropriate games for the boys (they're now 9 and 11 so it isn't as bad as it was initially) and the games that were available were for Kinect and they only kept the boy's interest for a couple days; in contrast, many of the Wii games I helped them select were regularly played for months after the fact. 

While they were impressed by the graphics, begrudgingly allowed me to by them "inappropriate" games for their XBox, and with the boys (probably) being teens by the time the next XBox is out they may buy another Microsoft system; but I suspect Microsoft faces an uphill battle on re-selling Kinect to girls, women and casual gamers who bought into Kinect thinking that it would make the XBox as viable as the Wii for them. Certainly the technology has probably improved, but people tend to be gun shy about buying into a concept a second time after their needs weren't met the first time.

As for why people are not as critical about Sony on some topics ...

I would say that, at this point in time, people are less critical of Sony for similar reasons why people weren't (that) critical of Nintendo at the end of the Gamecube generation. No one enjoys kicking someone when they're already down, and Sony is in pretty rough shape at the moment.

If you need a controller to use it, what's the advantage of a Kinect?  The Kinect was made to appeal to the Wii crowd, the kind of people who are intimidated by the 10 buttoned, dual analog monstrosity gamers have adapted to.  The prospect of taking my hands off of my controller during a game is unappealing and counterintuitive.  Besides that, using the controller as a hybrid kind of thing would limit motion based inputs to hand gestures.  In that case, what advantage does the Kinect offer over a setup like the Wii or Move?

It's not that I'm not open to new ideas.  It's just that Microsoft tried it already, and it showed it didn't work. 

 I don't know much about Kinect, but it looks the same to me

I'm thinking in the context of my family too.  

We are much older than your family for one my little cousin being 20 now.  She really enjoyed Dance Central and some workout games though she was also heavily involved in basketball in highshcool.  We have pretty similar tastes though she exchanges RPGs for Sim Sports.  Xbox was a good fit for her even without kinect.  KS,DC, Lips, UFC PT and Zumba plus voice commands to control navigation and media were enough for her. Voice commands are easier and faster to use and explain she tells me.  If she could browse the web and chat with it she would probably squeal.  

In fact the only female I've heard of not being satisfied by kinect was the girl I bought it off craigslsit from when I decided to get an Xbox because my BC PS3 broke.  Guys on the other hand it's the opposite.  Nothing but complaints.  While I agree with most of them I still find it enjoyable.  I also didn't pay 150 for it.  

But, if Kinect 2.0 doesn't have an infrared camera, then you couldn't be able to play in the dark or a dimly lit room. Or have digital cameras gotten so good, that even a tiny amount of light is enough for them. I can see two cameras being very useful, but I thought they still would include some infa red (I just hope it's less bring than this one.)

I like Kinect 1.0 - it does have some limitations that make you think about how great it *could* be, and I hope the go even better with Kinect 2.0, because they will be designing the console from the ground up to work with Kinect 2.0.