Agreed. Using different controls like motion or voice recognition (Tom Clancy's Endwar) could spark the RTS franchise on the consoles. The RTS games will never come close to being successful as they are on the PC but using different methods of control could at least get more people to give them a try. The analog controls can be somewhat successful (Battle for Middle Earth 2) but the different schemes can make it more fun. Sorry this is off topic :P

I'd add desperation. It won't be good for MS on the internet if this goes down. That's all I'll say on the subject till E3.

So updating Sony's firmware showed a lack of desperation? Should Sony have waited until next generation to add trophies and in game XMB? How many people remember that the first PlayStation controllers didn't even have analog sticks? A new controller with analog sticks later became required for most of their games starting with Ape Escape. Was that a sign of desperation towards Nintendo's N64? Did Sony crash and burn over copying Nintendo when they introduced the Dual Analog? Afterall, users had to purchase a new controller to play these games.  Did Sony regret adding vibration to their controller even later when introducing the Dual Shock?

Let's keep things in perspective. Also, we live in a time when consoles have the ability to have their firmware updated. A console may not have been programmed to accept a certain control scheme, but thanks to firmware updates, that can be fixed so that it would work as if it were native. Sony's PS3 was not programmed for in game XMB and yet here we are.

Also, to say a company shouldn't copy it's competitors is ignorant. See above.

Just to add to my previous post. The Dual Analog controller was introduced 2 years after the console's inception and introduced the DualShock half a year later. Sony added two additional axis to their controller through a new input method. Users were required to buy these new controllers to play new game's which required them. Microsoft may wish to add two new axis to their controller via a new input method; motion. How is this really different other than through bias?

The main problem is that it will never get a big enough user base for any developer to take seriously. So you're likely to see really crappy implementations.

So yes, it makes them weak because they are going to push something that is pretty much doomed to obscurity rather than concentrating on other things that could really make a difference.

There are so many other things they could do that could differentiate them. They need things that are unique to the system, not things that are the same as everyone else.

a lot of you are missing the point here though. When sony added the dual stick, never did they say that using a dual stick is a bad thing or we dont want to add a dual stick because we prefer things this way etc. MS went out of their way to slate nintendo for the wii concept and went on to say sony's six axix is nothing much but a novelty thing.

So they dismiss something and then go back to maybe implementing it themselves. that is why it is a sign of weakness more then anything else. I remember the creator's of GoW ripping the living daylights out of the Wii during a conference. All these people will be going back on their words and every insider within the industry or who knows the industry; fan boy or not will know the truth that MS had to go back on their words. If anything they should make an apology to Nintendo for making such bold statements only to possibly have to eat your own words in the near future.

The guy from Epic's statements were realy messed  up. Called the Wii a "virus" and that it was a step backwards in gaming. MS adopting Xbox "avatars" and X-motes is like conceding defeat to me, even if they work well. They'll still profit and stuff but, they would be labeled Swagga Jackas in my book.