It is doing it right now. Did you miss all the "Wii destroys gaming" rants?

Wii motion plus makes it so.

Do you understand disruption? Bringing the new market upstream (with the new values such as motion control, not the old values such as ever improving graphics) is the "attacking" part.

@squilliam read read read and understand how nintendo has adopted this strategy. Your comments are just falling into the trap

I would say that Microsoft is the more dangerous of the two other companies to Nintendo. The motion+ and Sony Moto 2.0 are game interface technologies. Natal on the other hand isn't specifically a game interface its more a general human interface. If you consider the HD controllers as they stand as gamer contriollers, the Wiimote is an interface for potential gamers, the Natal interface is for what people would refer to as not gamers or never will be gamers. So the Sony thing and Natal are designed for two different purposes. The Sony thing is a Miitoo type approach and the Natal could be considered a counter disruptive approach.

Microsofts business strategy is to act as a facilitator or the middle man. Their clients are both the consumers which use Microsoft devices and the businesses which use Microsoft solutions for their products. Its a flexible approach, with Windows they are the operating system suppliers and their clients are both the OEMs and the end users. With consoles they are the hardware/interface/software solution whilst their clients again are the consumers who buy the end product and the businesses which use their solutions.

Nintendo is just interested in gaming and Sony has too many conflicts of interest with their consumer electronics businesses, so both infact are vulnerable. Microsoft doesn't care which label is on the box that the consumer buys, it can be Sky, Samsung, or Sony. Microsoft doesn't even care about gaming in the way Nintendo or Sony care about gaming. All they are interested in is creating an industry standard, a monopoly on interface just as Blu Ray is a monopoly for HD media. If your TV converges with computers, they want it to use a Microsoft interface. If you download a movie, Microsoft wants to manage your DRM rights account. If you Log into a messenger on that TV, Microsoft wants it to link with their MSN service.

Microsoft is dangerous. Not to gaming itself, but to Nintendo and Sony because their entire business philosophy is dangerous to each company. Nintendo and Sony are at fault for the danger Microsoft poses to them. Sony invited Microsoft to be a greater part of the industry by directly challenging Microsoft. When asked about what his biggest competitor in the industry was, Ken Kutargi said 'Its Microsoft and I will destroy them' Well great work Ken, you invited Microsoft in and they are whipping you. Nintendo on the other hand bought consoles in line much closer with PC world that Microsoft dominates. They created a mouse-like interface and that let Microsoft leverage their PC domain and research and development. Natal uses Windows 7 voice interface technology, it uses the surface PC interface technology and Microsoft has already forged many of the links with other businesses like Sky TV, Netflix, Internet Radio, Gaming, TV manufacturers, I saw the NXE, gesture interface and game download service running on a TV at the CES this year.

Microsofts roots in the console business are in deep now. They have a profitable business structure that they can build on and they have forged enough links and established the credibility to really move on the console business. They are approaching their end game where if they aren't shunted out now, they can and probably will control over 80% of the gaming market along with every other related field. For people who think that Microsoft is simply not agile enough to pull something like this off, you're looking at it the wrong way. They aren't a company built for agility because their strategy is designed so they don't have to be. They rely on third parties which are just as much their consumers as the end users are to do it for them.

Sony and Microsoft are softening up the hardcore gamers to the idea of motion control. Because the Wii is SD and doesn't include the values they esteem, nobody from the hardcore gaming audience would even take a fair look at the Wii's values. Of course this is also because they were still basic, and not evolved.

Sony and Microsoft were drawn to the motion controls not only because it seemed attractive, but because they thought Nintendo was in a weak position right now. This is an illusion.

What this battle will do is force both Microsoft and Sony to bring hardcore gaming into motion controls. Nintendo will up the bar and cross many franchises into a new paradigm, maybe even challenging their competitors if they need to. At some point Nintendo will cross the point of good enough, and flip the tables on both Sony and Microsoft. By that time motion controls will be entirely legit with the old market.

RE5 already gave us a hint of that. It's not gonna happen overnight, but this is the perfect opporunity for Nintendo to finally complete their disruption. And everyone will be happy in the end I assure you.

You'll eat those words by the end of 2010 and especially the end of this gen when every major IP is on Wii, that isn't 1st party MS/Sony obviously.

In fact by then, Wii will more than likely be the primary development while others are ports and simply upscaled.

I think Sony/MS are definitely falling into a trap.

I don't see this going down well with 3rd parties. How much will porting a HD motion game cost considering the totally different technologies used?

How big is the risk of a failed M+ game compared with Natal or Somo? Who are 3rd parties going to appeal to? Hardcorz/casuals? The casuals will be too busy playing their M+ collection. Hardcorz might be too risky given that porting will cost more, assuming games can be ported.

I think it will just lead to Sony/MS losing a lot of money and maybe a few fans if their favorite game gets butchered by Natal or Somo.

The only thing holding Nintendo from the majority market share is the fact that it isn't HD. I bought a Wii on launch day. A year later I bought a 360 because I wasn't able to play games like Call of Duty 4 or Assassin's Creed. The main weakness of the Wii is how much it compliments a two console set up. If Nintendo were to release an HD version that was on the same level as the 360 or PS3, then it would be able to truly pull away from the competition. Square Enix would jump at the chance to put Final Fantasy XIII on the Wii. Capcom would put Resident Evil 5 on it. We'd see Bioshock and Assassin's Creed and Metal Gear Solid. And guaranteed profits for any company involved. The only question would be when is the best time to release a Wii HD? And when will Sony and Microsoft release their next consoles?

Sweet! That means theres still 5 days to stop myself from marrying that evil b*tch!

I disagree. 

It is relatively easy to downgrade a game's graphics. PC games lowest and highest settings often have about a console generation's difference between them, and it is an obligatory part of any PC orientated game. Even multiplatform games have this to certain extent. 

The true barrier is the Wiimote. Every HD game is also designed for a radically different gameplay. Visuals can be changed. The whole gameplay can't. 

This is also why PC gaming is dying. The exclusives work perfectly, but simply applying the controller-orientated gameplay to the keyboard, doesn't work.