Ironman yeah I dont see that this gen, I understand you don't think it will period.

I think it will be introduced next gen as the "next step" for natal or whatever slogan they put on to spin it.
Even then I reckon it'll only be for a few apps and games and they'll be mostly kept seperate but the option for devs will be there.
Might as well have as much choice as possible.

I will be annoyed if I buy, sorry when I buy this and then the next-box comes out and there's a new one to buy.

They'd better give it away with the console if they do that.

Natal does not use 2 cameras in concert to detect depth. It uses an infrared projector that pulses infrared light and a sensor to detect depth. Probably uses the time-of-flight model of depth detection.

It also has a regular RGB camera for the usual video camera needs, but this is not used for depth detection.

You cannot be serious.

What you are saying is that non-parallel technology progression can necessarily be compared in terms of linear logic, which is fallacious. You cannot be more wrong than you are being right now. Not all technology is "forward leaning", whatever that means.

The technology used in Natal and the technology used in the Wiimote are not comparable in that way. They are just different. One is not inherently more "advanced" than the other.

What you are describing is not "stripping away the need for" technology, it is finding an alternative method by which to produce the same results.

You're arguing semantics.  Something that is more complex is often synonymous with "more advanced".  For example, if you poll 100 people on the street as to which is more advanced, a computer or a hammer, I would think that almost if not all the people would say "the computer" even though they are 2 different technologies paths completely.  A computer is not part of the linear development of hammer technology yet it is clearly far more advanced.

In this case it's even more true since both deviced are motion control systems for video game platforms.  That the way they achieve the results is different doesn't preclude the fact the Natal system is more advanced because it can do things that WM+ can't.

The problem with reductio ad absurdum arguments is how easy they are to screw up.

Case in point: one cannot compare a "hammer" to a "computer" in the context of the argument I'm making, which is that different technological means that achieve the same ends cannot necessarily be said to be more or less advanced than one another if they do not use the same means to achieve those ends. A hammer cannot be said to be more or less advanced than a wrench, nor can a pair of pliers be said to be more or less advanced than, say, a nutcracker.

The idea of something being more advanced because it can "do things that [blank] can't" is equally absurd: it's like saying the Wright brothers plane is more advanced than a hydrogen cell automobile because it can fly while the hydrogen cell automobile cannot.

Further than that, the WM+ is capable of functions that Natal isn't capable of, either, including operating as a more sensitive tilt sensor (we've seen nothing that suggests Natal is particularly capable of this, much less as sensitive as the Wii remote), providing tacticle feedback,  and incorporating buttons so that different gametypes can be experienced without extra hardware. It's true that the Wiimote can't recognize when I'm frowning at it, as I may do, but it is also true that Natal has no way of telling when I'm trying to pull a trigger, or press the gas in a car, or change the angle of a camera.

I cannot see a reasonable argument for Natal being more advanced - it is just different.

Again, you're just arguing semantics.  In common speech "more complex" and "more advanced" are often synonymous.  To use your own example, an F16 would be considered far more advanced than the Wright brothers plane despite both achieving flight in different ways.  The WM+ and Natal both use motion to control video games, they both use different methods for achieving that, yet it's perfectly valid to compare the complexity of those two approaches in terms of technology.

I'll concede that the WM+ does have some advantages to Natal and would be a better choice in some situations but I don't think you can argue that the technology with Natal is more advanced.  My hammer is better at hammering nails than my computer is but I still consider my computer far more advanced. 

Would you not say a nail gun is more advanced than a hammer?  They work on very different principles to achieve the same result.

trying on virtual clothes could be the next big thing...must patent this idea

Of course I'm arguing semantics, my field of study is next-door-neighbors to semanticism and linguistics is one of my passions. Arguing semantics does not somehow invalidate my point.

What you're doing is not comparing an F-16 to the Wright Brothers plane, you're comparing a Harrier to an attack helicopter. Neither is necessarily more advanced than the other, they just use dissimilar technology to achieve superficially similar ends in very specific (but different) contexts.

There are two separate arguments that can be made here, and those are the only cases in which "advanced" can be accepted as a descriptor of two technologies that achieve similar ends through distinct means.

The first is in the sophistication of any given technological part: the fact that Natal is able to read depth via an IR sensor that reads wavelengths and so forth is considerably more sophisticated than, say, the Wii remote's IR sensor, but I don't know if it's necessarily more sophisticated than the gyroscopes and accelerometers that WM+ uses. I'm not an expert there.

The second is how close it is in achieving a given purpose (your hammer is a more advanced nail-pounder than your computer, for instance), and on this front I don't have enough data to say for sure one way or another, but it looks as if playing games via motion has been made more intuitive and more efficient on the Wiimote. I don't know that for sure, of course, so I won't pass judgment, but I have the feeling that this is the definition of "advancement" that will end up mattering most. Until Natal proves itself, anyone who cares will be able to say that Wii remote is more advanced as a motion detecting game device.

And, you fail.

The fact that you are trying to use the Write brother's plane vs, a hydrogen powered vehicle, is just sad. Thats compairing apples to oranges. Here, however, we are compairing two similar items, in the way that they are both used to controll games. So I think the more realistic argument would be, what is more advanced, the gasoline powered car? Or the hydrogen powered car. Both of these are meant to move the average consumer in a relativly cheap and fast way. The fact that NATAL deletes the need for a waggle device completely tells me that it is a true advancement, and thus it would be synonomous to the argument I listed above in the way that the hydrogen powered car would render the gasoline powered one obsolete.

Further than that, NATAL is capable of eliminating the need for a Wiimote. You don't need a tilt sensor (it sees you move, it sees you "tilt"), buttons (instead of pressing a button to jump, just jump), and if you truly need that "tactical" feedback, then you can use a prop, just scan it. Can you imagine playing Halo 3 where master cheif could fire 50 cal bullets out of a nerf gun with high accuracy?  

Well I guess that's the point we're making, technologically I feel Natal is more advanced than the WM+ because it's doing things that no one else is doing or has done.  3D sensing cameras are far more current technology than gyroscopes and accelerometers, as brilliant and groundbreaking as that controller was to video games.  Just as the Wii remote is more advanced than the Sixaxis controller. Nevermind also have face and voice recognition.  Whether one is more adept at being used as a game controller is another debate altogether but I think the technology behind Natal is more current ie. more advanced, than what is used in the Wii controller.

Just my opinion anyway.