I dodged it because it is literally irrelevant and if you cant see how those things are completely different than I cant help you.

Translation: You don't have a good answer to the question, and yet you are too stubborn to change your opinion.

Well this is an interesting line of thinking.  Let's follow this argument to it's logical conclusion.  (I actually think you are on to something, but maybe miss a detail or two.)

There were 33m who got Wii Sports Resort (and motion+), and 24m who got Kinect.  A total of 57m.  (Let's ignore the Move for simplicity).  If your line of thinking is correct, then most of these people would already have a Wii.  They already enjoyed motion controls, and they wanted an upgrade, either Kinect or Wii motion+.  And even the ones who never had a Wii also were enthusiastic for motion controls, they just wanted the tech to improve beyond the basic Wii remote.  So either way you have 57m people who are very enthusiastic about motion controls.  (Again assuming your argument is correct.)  Furthermore these people do not treat motion controls as a fad.  They didn't just play the Wii for a year or so and move on.  They played the Wii and then several years later wanted even more.  These are motion control gamers who have no intention of leaving gaming.

The main problem with this argument is that these 57m gamers did not show up to buy the XB1.  In fact, the 24m people who initially bought Kinect did not show up to buy the XB1 either.  There is no indication that these gamers actually were enthusiastic about the Kinect at all.  If they actually liked Kinect Adventures, XB1 would have had strong sales right out of the gate.  Obviously it did not. 

Instead 24m people were convinced to try out Kinect, and their response to it was "meh".  It was not a craze.  It is difficult to find people who actually liked the Kinect.  It is instead much easier to find people who will swear that "other people" like Kinect.  If it were such a craze then why won't these people come forward themselves?

 A craze or a fad can end though, just look at Wii to Wii U...

Motion controls were once much more popular than they are now, tastes change, and the hot new thing gets cold & old - it's not a constant.

That would explain why those numbers didn't carry over to XB1 & Wii U. The fact that this trend away from motion controls happened across both Nintendo & Microsoft only lends support to this conclusion!

I don't believe anyone is arguing that Kinnect stayed popular, just that it was popular for a time and in that time it helped sell some consoles - seems reasonable enough to me...

I don't follow you.  How did the craze end going from Wii to Wii U? 

For all we know the Wii motion control craze might have kept going.  We'll never know, because Nintendo never made motion control games on the Wii U like, say a Wii Sports Resort 2.  If the "craze" ended then it was because Nintendo killed it.  It wasn't because the customers got disinterested, because they were never given that chance.  They never gave motion controls a shot on the Wii U.  The controllers were there, but the games were not.

On the other hand Microsoft really did try to make Kinect the main focus of the XB1, because they bundled it with the XB1.  Nintendo instead bundled the Wii U gamepad, a different direction entirely.  Microsoft was trying to stick with motion controls.

Your argument doesn't really do anything to disprove what any of us has said as it's very much a speculative piece trying to play down concrete numbers, Wii was the first time any home console catered specifically to the blue ocean so it was a new market even though casuals had always been around since the NES they never really were focused on until the DS and Wii came along and built a market specifically around them and new gamers with lite gaming needs. What gaming companies didn't realize was two things one was the rise of mobile and two was that the blue ocean being mainly new gamers and casuals don't exhibit the same spending habits and patterns as dedicated avid gamers so when they bought the Wii they would be happy with it alone with many likely only having a few titles like Wiisports throughout to the point they won't rush out and get anything else as their needs for gaming were lite. The result was many of them didn't move on from the Wii to the Wii U as the is no incentive for them in their gaming needs to do so instead the market was hijacked by the mobile gaming boom which launched using a similar approach to what Nintendo brought.

MS entered into the blue ocean with the Kinect and did well and ran into the same problem the Kinect owners didn't move on to the X1 because they saw no need to as these aren't avid gamers they were new gamers with lite gaming needs that already had devices giving them what both Wii U and X1 were trying to entice them with this is why the Wii still gets versions of Just Dance that still break 1m. The X1 argument itself is very flimsy because the platform was also heavily expensive and was not marketed as a blue ocean device either with MS trying to push a multimedia agenda at the time Kinect was bundled more as a UI feature than for games.

Microsoft never entered the Blue Ocean.  Blue Ocean means "intentionally not trying to compete".  The Kinect was definitely trying to compete with the Wii.  Therefore it was not Blue Ocean.  It's main target were people who already owned a Wii.  (This is why I said you were close to the right track in your previous post.)

Mobile is irrelevant, because it had nothing to do with motion controls.  It literally makes no sense that the entire motion control market would go to mobile gaming.  They have nothing in common.  It is even debatable if the handheld market went to mobile, but at least they have something in common.  The motion control market has nothing in common with mobile.

Let me get back to my original point.  Kinect was never a craze.  This may be harder to understand if you don't live in the USA, but no one cared at all about the Kinect.  USA is supposed to be Microsoft's main market right?  Kinect was never a thing here.  The Wii was sold out for years.  It was a huge craze and people were talking about it a lot in RL (and not just internet gaming forums).  No one cared about Kinect. 

I was posting in this thread last night, and my wife asked what I was doing.  Both her and my daughter really played a lot of the Wii and Wii U and Switch.  They also have plenty of friends who are like gamers.  They would be the so called "casual audience" people refer to only they play lots of games.  I told her, "I'm replying to some guy who thinks Kinect was a craze."  Her reply was, "What's Kinect?" and my daughter said the same thing from the other room.  When I explained what it was, they burst out laughing.  They are the so called perfect target audience for Kinect and yet they've never even heard of it!  Ask them about Fortnite or Minecraft or any other legitimate craze and they will tell you all about it.  But they've never heard of Kinect, and do you know why?  Kinect was never a craze.

I'm gonna own up here and admit I wasn't fully aware how little motion-based games were released for Wii U. I took one look at the thing when it was announced and knew that it wasn't for me. It makes that choice of name even more bewildering.

Regardless, Nintendo didn't move away from motion controls because they didn't like to make money or want sell another 100+ million consoles. The sharp drop-off in Wii sales and presumably, other metrics, must have made it apparent to them that an HD Wii wasn't gonna make it rain twice in a row. So I think the idea that motion controls could still be enjoying the popularity they had back then is stretching it somewhat...

It seems you don't even know what blue ocean means it's nothing to do with not competing and everything to do with who you target as a consumer, DS and Wii targeted a group who have always been around but not focused on casuals as well as establish the goal of bringing in new gamers rather than strictly focus on people who were already gamers this is why Gen 7 grew so much as blue ocean brought in many new gamers. Kinect targeted the same group simple as that.

Mobile is very relevant because that's where many new gamers have ended up this further highlights your lack of understanding the blue ocean because it all started with the DS which ignited the touch screen craze and lead to Apple implementing it on the iPhone, the blue ocean were brought in not strictly by motion controls but by intuitive control set ups like touch screens and motion control why? Because they didn't need to know button combinations and such to play it was all simplified they could just pick up a DS and touch away or a Wiimote and jump right in or in the kinect's case turn it on and load up the game, mobile market took off and grabbed this market as now they didn't need to buy a dedicated gaming platform they just needed their phone that they got for free on a contract deal.

Kinect was never a thing in US but sold 15m more than any other region combined? Ok mate you keep telling yourself that, Kinect sold sold more than 50% of what PS3 and 1m short of what the Megadrive/Genesis sold in NA so that says more than you trying to tell us otherwise.

What you are saying here is extremely logical.  However, Nintendo did not do the logical thing.  They released Wii Sports Resort and it sold 33m.  They never followed it up with a decent motion control game after that.  In fact, Ubisoft kept releasing these Just Dance games to decent success, showing there was still a market for motion controls, but Nintendo largely gave it up after Wii Sports Resort.

The Blue Ocean Strategy book is subtitled, "How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make The Competition Irrelevant." (emphasis mine)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Ocean_Strategy

If you are going to tell me that I don't know what I am talking about, then you yourself should actually know what you are talking about.

Creating an uncontested market space does not mean intentionally not trying to compete with the competition like you're trying to paint the link you posted doesn't back this as it is essentially just saying carve out your own niche even which both companies did if you want to try and argue the book's definition then it contradicts you even more because casuals were already around long before Wii and DS and had many games aimed at them already this goes against the "Untainted by competition" and "Unknown Market Space" part. Under these notions no platform is blue ocean but ofcourse we're not using the exact pure definition in gaming's context here as we're looking more at this part "reconstructing market boundaries" and "focusing on the big picture".

Carving out your own niche is competing by ways of fostering a unique following or approach it's by no means intentionally not competing so no you still haven't debunked anything here. Splatoon is an example of the context of use in gaming as the are many shooters around but none like it meaning it has carved out it's own space with in the genre even though the are many shooters out there competing for fans of the genre, it's niche is uncontested by definition in the genre but it still competes with the competition.