Two systems. Two bundled "gimmicks" which people begged to have dropped from the respective console. The Kinect is dead  (ITS FATE HAS  BEEN SEALED) with the new Kinectless XOne , while the WiiU Gamepad survives.

Frequent criticism made of WiiU games has been "it doesn't use the GamePad in any meaningful way" (even if has Gamepad features). However, I don't think XOne games were really critiqued for a lack of Kinect-based content. And from what I gather, that aren't many games with Kinect-exclusive content, even fewer that implement it well.

In comparison, the WiiU actually has several pretty good games, including some 3rd party ones (even if they are ports), that utilize the Gamepad.

I think XOne owners got shafted worse by the Kinect than WiiU owners ever did with the Gamepad. Both have cost launch-day buyers an extra $100 -- but Kinect's legacy ends with practically nothing to show for it -- except for Kinect Sports Rivals (which is somehow a worse game than previous Kinect sports games....). The only selling point the Kinect really only had for me wasn't even a game -- it was Skype.

On the Wii U side, you got some Mario games, Zelda, ZombieU,  Rayman Legends, Need for Speed, in addition other titles + indies that use the Gamepad in a way that at the very least makes the Gamepad momentarily interesting

Nintendo will still release games for the gamepad, althought none of those use it in a meaningful way.

Kinect is worse, since it got cut from the bundle.

What defines "using the Gamepad in a meaningful way"? It's different things to different people from what I gather.

Here's the list of Gamepad features

-NFC

-Motion control

-Off-tv play

-Extra sound

-Second screen map/Menu

-Second screen control input/mechanics (including blowing on the Gamepad)

If a game offers more than 3 of these, I consider that game to use the Gamepad in a meaningful way...

Agreed to some extent. A gamepad-less WiiU is just an Xbox 360 with Nintendo games, but fewer games overall.

Taking sales out of consideration though, and looking at it purely from a gameplay aspect -- Kinect is far worse.

the vita :p trolollollollol!!!!

Kinect 2.0 is worse, as it's too similar to the original it hasn't been used creatively in new games. People always mention voice control as the reason for Kinect, so it's a glorified microphone / webcam for most.

The game pad has been used in some creative ways, and you can always use it for off-screen play.

Something that you really need the gamepad, for example Nintendo Land and Zombi U.

To this point, the gamepad has been more meaningful for gaming than the Kinect, though neither are necessary. Whether each one lived up to its respective $100 fee would be a judgement call. Really, the best features of each are enhancements for other media and content rather than directly for games.

The legacy for each is that they stunted sales for their respective consoles before they could get off the ground. Part of that is the additional cost but it also has to be said that neither console manufacturer has been able to give a compelling reason for people on a large scale to want their gimmick/innovation. Kinect has mostly featured voice commands--nice but it's hardly going to make people reach for their wallet. The gamepad has shown off-tv play--nice but most people will prefer playing on a big screen--as well as a mix of in-game uses that varies from nifty to meaningless.

The gamepad has been a failure as a system-selling feature. Kinect 1.0 was a huge success initially, which makes the fall of Kinect 2.0 all the more gruesome to watch.

Both should serve to remind console manufacturers that hardware gimmicks/innovations normally need compelling content in order to thrive. Yes, there have been aberrations but banking on that is a gamble. The assumption that developers will use your gimmick/innovation simply because you build it is deeply flawed and a good way to get your console ignored.

I think the concept of selling a console mainly around a controller is a flawed concept.

It worked once for the Wii, and that was more of a case of being the exact right product for the exact right time IMO.

X1 and Wii U struggling while Sony has the only game console that's selling well with no gimmicks attached to it shows that gamers just want to game.

I think it also shows that the casual player is gone ... console gaming is for the hardcore player, a casual person doesn't need to spend $300 on a completely separate device just to play video games, they get their gaming fix on devices that are much more convenient and far more cost friendly (per game).