As I was going to type the name, MILO became Elmo in my head, and I knew that wasn't right.  I happened to completely forget his name, and I wanted to get the post out, so I posted what I did.

It does seem kind of awkward, but if they can make a fighting game that really works well then I'm in! It would be kickass for you to truly move a character the way you want it to.

@OP:
Don't mind. MS always does so, and how could we blame them? After all MS fanboyz were always so amazed and delighted, like those times when MS invented the mouse, the GUI, multimedia, 3D libraries, Internet, hot water, the umbrella...

Or the itch to move towards what we all want... a Holodeck

that's called hypocrisy. it annoy alot.

i am still dpad and tradional controller, i like my analags asymmetric and my R2 without triggers.

while i think motion controlls are nice, they are not for me.

That's quite an assumption you're making there, that games should necessarily tend to strictly emulate reality (or some subjective reality) and that "we all" would like it.

That's quite restrictive in my opinion, as games can be made of abstraction as much as simulation. Monopoly works by throwing dice and moving on squares, its essence is not in simulating people walking around a town. In classic,non-action RPGs the damage you inflict does not depend on a timed and precise input about how you swing your sword, but on abstract concepts such as stats, turns, actions etc. In an RTS the essence of game is about coordination and queuing of abstract orders over an expansion of space, very far from what a person experiences with his/her body actions in any simulated physical reality.

And I don't want to get into technicalities about how motion controls are supposed to work when it comes to speed, scope, interaction with virtual objects etc. I'm still not sold on the idea that rejecting abstractions entirely (and controller's buttons are abstractions made physical, as they map an idea to the simplest physical action) does fulfill a real, non-niche need.

@JaggedSac: this also pertains to your comment

I think the biggest problem with Natal will be the lack of software. When the Wii came out, developers were forced to work with the technology and adapt to it, they were put in a sink or swim type situation. With Natal, this is going to be very different. Developers will look at the sales of Halo 3, a game with a traditional control method that sold nearly 10 million copies. They already know how to design for a traditional controller, and no one is forcing them to do otherwise. If you develop for the Wii, you develop for the Wii Remote and Nunchuk. For those developing for the 360, they will have the option of making games with Natal or with the original controller. I just don't see the biggest, most successful developers being swayed into using this new method if they don't have to. It's too big a risk, when they know the success they can have if they do otherwise, which will lead to a lack of killer Natal software.

I am not sure why you keep bringing up needs.  Video games do not fulfill any inherent need.  If we were to break down what an RTS is, it makes perfect sense with something like Natal.  We could place ourselves into the position that the game itself is trying to convey.  That of a being in power over a battlefield.  The interface of said being would most likely be a touch table screen which the video output is exactly conveyed to the gamer.  The input device of said being would most likely be vocal and touch commands.  In fact, more than one person could possibly be interacting with the same tablet.  Well, the being could be using a mouse and keyboard, but why?  I could definitely move faster with my hands being unemcumbered by something that needs to roll.  Keyboard shortcuts could be spoken without the need for my hands to stop directing units.

If you were to place people who had no idea how to play an rts, and told them to select a group of units and make them go somewhere with only your body, I am almost positive that people would figure it out quickly.  They would make a gesture with their hands to say, this stuff here, I want to go here.  Perhaps even vocally, but that is not necessary.  If you think that all game designers are pleased with being strapped to a controller with finite buttons, you are kidding yourself.  It might not fit a need, as you put it, but I am quite sure it fulfills some designer's wants.

And sure, this idea will not fit in with all genres.  Some genres were made specifically for certain input devices.  The idea of having a d-pad and buttons indicated how games must be designed in order to work.

And I am not talking about making games mroe realistic by using Natal, I am saying games can be more natural using Natal.  Once again, this does not mean shoe horning certain genres into Natal, such as FPS.  It could mean entirely new genres, or current genres that just so happen to go well with Natal, such as RTS games.

^I don't understand what Natal - as you prospected - would add to RTS gaming over what can be accomplished today with mice, keyboards and microphones. Hand motion sensing as a substitute for mouse could work on consoles, though I'd like to test it, but vocal and gesture commands can only clumsily replace a keyboard.

All of this is not important anyway, because that's not the gist of Natal. Voice control is just windows dressing and is already available (and used in some RTS games).
The whole new thing is full body motion control and the "you're the controller" philosophy, and my question about needs was about the tool not the games.
As in: did any RTS developer ever say "we need a tool to control this kind of games, I wish somebody would make a skeletal motion control system"? Retrofitting it to game genres that did not seem to need it in the first place is an interesting thought exercise, though how good the results are is to be tested, but that's not where Natal came from.

Take other "exotic" controllers (cloches and whole instrumental consoles for flight simulators, 3d twist orbs for mechanical CAD software) and it is clear why they were born. With Natal I'm not sure, because I still have not understood to what point they want to push it as a general/universal tool and to what point it will be a specialized tool.

For CONSOLES.  Consoles don't have RTS titles, because the pad controller sucks for them.  With the ability to point on screen, you have the ability to point and order units that way.  That is what I was asking and hoping for.  Consoles don't have mouse and keyboard at this time.  Instead, they have pad controllers, which SUCK.  I like RTS titles, and haven't found any I am happy with.  EndWar is its own beast, but not what I am expecting.

And if anyone gives me "Halo Wars" as a great example, I am going to tell you I don't need a "My first RTS" version of an RTS.