This really sucks for those using that feature (unless Sony changes its mind another time).

I wonder why Malstrom linked a page that temporarily denied it...

I say it is. The more I think about Natals gaming applications the more im drawn to the true value of Natal is not that its a controller or that its different to the Wii or PS3s versions of the controller but the potential to disrupt the normal business practices of the market. Nintendo created the modern closed box console ideal, Sony introduces a razor/blades mentality to take over a market which had similar offerings by taking a hit on initial sales but reaping the reward long term and finally I believe Natal changes things up again by introducing an OEM mentality where the added value of Natal is in bundling the entire console and interface into completely new products.

The value of Natal is as a hands free generic interface which is useful for televisions and other media watching as well as accessing additional content outside of the typical broadcast model like for instance internet TV and media stored at home. The disruption is against the typical TV remote control which has become overcomplicated with time and most people cannot figure out how to use it or the features of their TV. They know what they want, they can say what they want to watch but many cannot easily perform the actions to do it efficiently. This is where Natal comes in, its a way to both make controlling the TV easier and freeing people from the bonds of being forced to hold a remote control. People only have two hands and technology which frees them of their burdens and provides addition options whilst doing so can be very compelling.

The model as I see it is this; the person buys the interface by buying the TV which has Natal built in and they get the Xbox 360 automatically as the one package. This isn't disruption of the market in the Wii sense, its more along the lines of how Sony won with the PS1 its a change in business practices. The idea is to get as many Xbox 360s with Natal emplaced around the world and then afterwards figure out how best to sell software. The Natal idea is to disrupt the typical TV/human interface and in doing so leverage that as an advantage in the console space. The reason why Xbox Live still costs is that Microsoft needs a carrot for TV manufacturers whom are struggling with low margins on long term sale products to give them a great financial incentive to get on board.

Oh I agree that Japanese sales matter, but it's not exactly clear how Nintendo is supposed to restrengthen the brand in that region. Spirit Tracks takes enormous - enormous - leaps in the right direction in making Zelda a more arcadey experience, albeit with heavy puzzle elements rather than actiony ones, but that has not sparked greater interest in the games again.

I actually share his expectation of an extreme series reboot (in his case it may be more of a hope) and I also expect that, if they pull it off, it will be the biggest game in the franchise's history, but I do not acknowledge the idea that the series has become less relevant or interesting or genuine over time.

They likely didn't deny it when he made the post.

While I think Malstrom is over exaggerating the decline of Zelda, I do think it would serve the series well to go back to roots. That is, open-ended, somewhat non linear exploration and fast paced, arcade style combat, especially with the implications of Motion plus.

Bold. Zelda taking enourmous leaps in the right direction + not sparking sales = does not compute.

Zelda is one thing that Malstrom is very right on. First we had Ocarina of Time wich was a complete masterpiece. Then we had Zelda with Masks, then Zelda with boats then Ocarina of Time but with dumbed down difficulty and item usage (Twilight princess) and now Zelda with more boats and Zelda with TRAINS!? WTF!?

Nintendo is ruining the Zelda universe. There are no trains in a fantasy world, it's supposed to be medieval. Majoras Mask got that wrong too. 

I'm still waiting for a proper sequel to Ocarina of time, not another Zelda with [Random gimmick]

What will become an enourmous leap in the right direction will hopefully be Zelda Wii. As long as it doesn't have a random unfitting gimmick like MM or ST. (I don't like using the word gimmick in conjunction with nintendo, because of all false accusations of Wii being gimmicky, but when talking about the newer Zelda games, there really isn't a better word to describe them)

You make a valid point, but i suppose that brings in the question of Microsoft's broader strategy beyond gaming. It could potentially be a coup in light of a convergence strategy (if Microsoft has one, and i think it's apparent they do). The question is if it would truly be disruptive in the gaming space itself.