Much better.

It is a decent rebuttal. I like this:
"Who would be foolish enough to assume that Nintendo is easily beat? The same type of fool which assumes them to be unbeatable."

But then you followed up with this:
"A fool who lucks out is not a fool you should listen to even if they are right once."

Your first statement has some truth to it. I think it a little more foolish to say that Nintendo can be easily beat this gen than they are unbeatable this gen, but next gen, the odds even somewhat. But I do not have to listen to an argument without basis because it might be "lucky." (I don't think you argument is without basis. While I don't completely agree, I will listen because you are not a fool.)

My favorite part was this:
"Sony and Nintendo can no longer be said to be aiming for different segments of the market. With such similar technologies they will be aiming for similar consumers. "
as for Microsoft:
"Microsoft had better be prepared for a fight. They are taking their fight into the very heart of Nintendo's stronghold, they are challenging the very existence of the Wiimote itself."

So, with the advent of these new technologies all three companies are finally in direct competition with each other?

Very well, I can wait.

Its not a rebuttal, its a discussion. I couldn't treat someone so dear to Tims heart with a harsh rebuttal.

Thanks, but yeah I should really write in Word and then copy and paste, to make it easier to proof read. Unfortuntely Vgchartz likes to eat the formatting.

peachbuggy

What the OP has failed to realise is that both the HD system's motion control interfaces aren't replacing their original interfaces. They are just going to be add-ons or alternatives. Am sure they won't appeal to all of their userbases. Therefore both Sony and Microsoft are "going into battle" with essentially at most half of their userbase. I mean these things may not even take off if MS and Sony's audiences decide not to buy into it. So if they are going into it with only "half" the support then i can't see them making much of a dent into Nintendo's market. OP hasn't explored the possibility of none of the HD consoles' fanbase even adopting these motion controls. After all it is only an alternative not a whole new business model where they both completely give up on traditional controllers.

They don't need their userbase to adopt the new control schemes. If they are happy with what they are using then thats fine. What they do need is to gain access to a larger segment of the market. Its pretty obvious that they aren't replacing the interfaces, its not like Wii Fit replaces the Wiimote for example.

Sorry about that: I'll break up my responses.

I see what you're saying (i.e. that Motion+ is more for the core, not expanded, audience), but I can't agree with that position at all. First, Nintendo is the one who created Motion+, and I find it revealing that their flagship Motion+ title isn't a "core" franchise like Metroid, but rather a sequel to the expanded audience title, Wii Sports. If Motion+ was more about the core than the expanded audience, why wasn't Zelda their premier title? More importantly, why is it that the new Zelda only "might" have Motion+, if the peripheral were truly targeted towards the core gamer?

Moreover, I think we must remember the environment in which Motion+ was unveiled. Its introduction was rushed (its E3 debut came after less than six months of development) to counter the heavily rumored Microsoft and Sony motion controllers, controllers which Nintendo feared were meant to attack its grip on the expanded audience. Recall, for instance, how Reggie's speech opened with an oblique reference to rivals' motion controllers...a reference that was completely hollow in light of what actually happened! In fact, that entire conference was designed to counter such an occasion. Wii Music, Animal Crossing, playing frisbee with a virtual dog...these are not tactics you use to entice the "hardcore" gamers amongst us.

Further supporting this is the fact that Resort (and thereby Motion+) were the only games covered at the conference that were not going to be launched within six months: considering how incomplete the game was at the time, why make such an exception? And if Motion+ wasn't a defensive maneuver, why announce it before Microsoft's conference, rather than wait until your own? Were Motion+ really an attempt by Nintendo to entice Microsoft and Sony's install base, Nintendo would not have thrown Motion+ out there so suddenly and cavalierly; they would have had big-name, core games announced, and they would have let at least some third-parties in on the secret (so as to have more core titles ready). Motion+ was a panicked response to a perceived threat to the expanded audience; even though third-parties are utilizing it for core games, Nintendo did not originally mean for it to primarily entice the core gamer.

This is an interesting theory, and it certainly has a ring of truth to it. Domination of the living room was always Microsoft's ultimate goal in entering gaming, and you put forth a compelling case that these steps are meant to arrive at that destination. Where the disagreement lies is that this means that "Microsoft wants to step into the turf of the original Wii." What you've outlined is the publically and of-repeated goal of Sony, who wanted to use gaming as an entry to controlling all of your entertainment needs. The Wii's philosophy is the polar opposite: gaming comes first, with all other features being complimentary to that goal. If you change your statement to "Microsoft wants to step into the turft of the original Playstation," I couldn't agree more.

I'm not at all convinced that Sony expected Nintendo to succeed where it itself would fail, for two main reasons.

First, remember that the decision to can motion controls was made long before this generation started, and long before Nintendo unveiled its Wiimote. Were Sony truly just waiting for Nintendo to pioneer a trail that it could later follow, they would have to have an excellent industrial espionage program (to know that Nintendo was seriously considering motion technology as the mainstay of its next system) and an incredible amount of foresight (to know that motion controls would successfully take off in the face of the many naysayers, that Nintendo's initial controller would be followed with Motion+, and that third-parties would be willing to embrace a peripheral made by Nintendo, of all companies). The former is unlikely, as Nintendo's pretty damn good at keeping a secret. The latter is very unlikely: Sony and foresight haven't gone together this generation. This theory requires far too many unlikely conditions to be true, in my opinion.

The second issue is that Sony would have to believe that Nintendo would be more successful at pushing something than Sony could be, a belief that would defy most predictions at the time Sony would have had to make this decision (2005). Recall that Sony was successful in pushing the CD format on gaming (contrary to Nintendo's direction), then the DVD format (again contrary to Nintendo, who went with a mini-disc format), then the PSP (which was doing very, very well against the DS at the time).

Starting with its entry into gaming, everything Sony touched was golden, while Nintendo's share of gaming kept declining over time ("Is Nintendo going third-party next gen?" was not an uncommon article). Its highly unlikely that in 2005, when the decision would have been made, Sony would sit back and think "we need for Nintendo to do this for us before we can take the next step." At the time, Sony was flush with cash from gaming and had a track record that no one could touch, while Nintendo was supposed to be down and out. Indeed, Sony figured it could use its brandname alone to push the incredibly pricey Blu-Ray and Cell technologies on consumers and developers, an attitude which belies any claim that Sony was resource-strapped or ambivalent about its influence on gaming.

Part two to follow!

I think the thing that "elitist core" gamers fail to realize, or are in denial of is this:

In order for both Microsoft & Sony's motion controls to be viable they will have to be the primary control scheme and traditional controls the add-on like the Wii. I see this happening next cycle.

You're almost certainly a bigger expert on the workings of Microsoft than I am, so I'm willing to give your assertions here more wieght than my own. That said, there are a few things I don't understand. First, what patent protection did they gain from buying the Z-Cam, if they were already deep into their own, almost-identical technology? And why have they failed to patent such a thing? Because from all that I've heard and read, the Z-Cam and Natal are essentially the exact same technology (at least so far as the camera goes). And it strikes me as a very strong coincidence that the head of Natal was hired at about the same time as the Z-Cam was sold. I'll admit this is just a suspicion on my part, but I feel that it is a very strong one.

As for the rest, I again agree that this is Microsoft's ultimate goal. However, I see this directed against Sony (as much as its "against" anyone: as you correctly stated, its closer to being "for Microsoft" than anything) rather than against the Wii, which is the original statement with which I disagreed. Natal seems to be Microsoft's first attempt at realizing the goal of using gaming as a trojan horse to dominate the entire living room (although personally I feel this attempt will fail). Since this is, in your own words, a mostly-non-gaming strategy, I don't think it has much to do with the Wii's core strategy (which is all about gaming). Again, I think we're in agreement about the scope, but we quibble on the minor details about how this relates to the Wii (which is mostly a side-issue in the grand scheme of things, but since we're on a gaming site, it takes on more importance than it otherwise would).

I see what you're saying, and again I agree. The difference between us arise, I think, from how I read your original post to be examining primarily gaming, where it seems you meant to expand the scope more than I had thought you did. My responses were drafted accordingly. I do still think that the gaming market is far and away the most important aspect to consider though, since I strongly believe that Microsoft and Sony are not yet able to realize their ultimate goal, so gaining more traction with gamers (i.e. the folks most likely to be comfortable with using expensive technology for entertainment purposes) is the most important thing either of them can do this generation (Nintendo is omitted because they do not have that same goal).

I believe that all of the services you speak of are there not for the goal of gaming (let alone the expanded audience), but to make the console a media hub. Since I read your post to be about the impact these new moves will have on gaming, I framed my response accordingly (and for the record, I don't for a second believe those features will help Microsoft's gaming business, which is fine since that's not the real point). I think You're In The Movies did in fact belong at E3, since it is as much of a game as Wii Fit is (which is to say "it is," fools be damned), and I think they were ill-served by omitting 1 vs. 100, but then all three companies make dumb decisions at E3 (it's like a rite of passage). I also feel there's a bit of a contradiction here, since they showed off Natal at E3, but Natal is not intended primarily for gaming, but perhaps they just felt that they should scale back how much of that type of thing they showed off. In any case, it certainly won them buzz, which is quite helpful if they can sustain it.

Come now, all's well. Even the best of friends don't always see eye-to-eye, but I feel that having these discussions with friends is much more enjoyable than having them with strangers. Don't you agree?

In any case, I think we're mostly on the same wavelength, save for the matter of what impact Natal and Sony's wand will have on the gaming industry. But if you're right, and Natal is meant for bigger things, I don't think that much matters. It'll be interesting to see where the three companies go from here.

^^This here is a very profound post. After Malstrom made the connection between Natal and Surface (not that both are vaporware, i don't really think that, just that he connected the two ideas together), and then watching a vid about Surface, i really think that Natal is meant to succeed where Surface failed to materialize. The non-gaming applications of Natal they showed were incredibly similar to the images they promoed for Surface, so i think that with the move with Natal, the gaming applications are just the hook to draw people in, the revolution in interface is what they're trying to sell you.

In this vein, it could be seen as the spiritual successor to Surface, something infinitely more practical, because its only $200, and will probably be less when it comes out, and just hooks into the TV (of course, via the 360), instead of a $10,000 behemoth you have to clumsily install into a table.

It could even be that the gaming applications of surface become peripheral to the interface possibilities, and Microsoft will speedily introduce this for Windows, or even adopt this to a powerful counterweight to Apple TV, and the gaming will remain a side-interest (just like gaming was merely a side venture to help them with their main struggles)

As for Sony, i think it's too early to really factor in their strategy. At least wait until we see something that they claim is a finished product.

Sony is still reeling. The idea that purple wands are designed to take advantage of M+ makes sense, but that alone is not a strategy to beat Wii. I don't think Sony have had a single cohesive strategy since they drove Kutaragi out. They may be able to get great games on their platform still, but Kutaragi's old strategy was about using their leadership in videogames to "take over the living room." Now they are out of leadership, and all the great games in the world don't help against blue ocean strategy. I think PSP Go was their stronger showing, since it isn't simply in DS' wake, but searching for some sort of new advantage.

As a gaming platform, Natal is nothing until it has some games. If it really has higher ambitions, to "take over the living room," the question is how do they plan to push widespread adoption. Their customers don't necesarily have to be consumers in that case, and XBox360 may or may not be involved at all. And their competitor in that case is not necesarily Nintendo, who don't have those ambitions. Even in a world where Microsoft owns a connected TV interface/OS monopoly, they aren't necesarily in position to kill console gaming any more than they are now with a PC OS monopoly.

I think that Microsoft presented Natal with the timing and in the manner that they did for the express purpose of "winning E3." I would assume they have big ambitions for it too, but they know that one of the biggest ways they can take the fight to Nintendo is by winning over the media, and people's hearts and minds, even if they won't have a product for a long time.

And btw, Nintendo's responce to all of this has already been announced. Nintendo very deliberately "hides their strategy in plain sight" as they did with the Vitality Sensor announcement. When motion controls become a red ocean, their intention is to leave. It doesn't matter if Sony or Microsoft CAN come up with a Wii Sports killer in 2010, if Nintendo is on to the next big thing (whether VS is the next big thing or not).

Further, M+ is not about the "core" in terms of pre-Wii existing customers. It is about building a higher-end part of their new market. One of the best signs Nintendo could ever hope for is EA Sports Active. Their big problem for awhile has been that third parties are "birdmen" and have put out really crappy knockoffs of Nintendogs, Brain Age and Wii Sports. There were a bunch of crappy Wii Fit knockoffs too, but EA Sports Active is not one, and Peter Moore is not a birdman. If EA can sell 5-10 million fitness games on Wii every year, and Activision and Ubisoft make serious entries into that market, Wii could gain the type of unbeatable momentum that PS2 had last gen, in that one piece of the market, regardless of Sony or MS siphoning similar experiences to their systems.

I think motion control for Sony and MS is good for everyone. It will push Nintendo as well to stay on their toes and also to bring out a Wii successor probably sooner than they would have otherwise. Everyone wins IMO.

That said, there are some realities to consider.

1.) By the time next April/May/June (spring 2010) actually rolls around and Natal and Sony Wand are actually released (if they're not delayed), Nintendo will already have sold probably close to 70 million Wii systems. A lot of the market for motion gaming has already been gobbled up by Nintendo because they'll have had almost a 4-year head start.

2.) How much is all this going to cost? Even if the PS3 drops to $299.99 next year, 2 wands + Eye Toy Camera probably runs you an extra $120+. So now you're back in the $400+ range. Nintendo drops Wii to $199.99 ... a lot of people are just going to go for the option 1/2 the price. Ditto for Microsoft, Natal likely adds at least $100 more to the 360 price and it isn't neccessarily a direct replacement for the Wiimote (not without its own wand ... which if MS adds to the package is likely another $40).

3.) Add-ons are a tough sell as is, but add-ons for systems that have both been on the market for over 3 years is really, really tough. The 360 turns 5-years-old next year, the PS3 turns 4-years-old. Late gen add-ons have not been very successful in the past.