I think you are making a premature assumption in terms of what Kinect can and can not do.  I agree that the success will be determined by the games and applications made for it but I think you are missing the direction MS seems to be taking the xbox and that is for a central intertainment hub.  I believe it may have been you that mentioned that in an earlier post (not sure as I write this) but if so, that was correct and I would argue is still being developed.  While not popular among the core gamers, games such as Kinectimals does have potential with younger gamers as well as with parents, etc.  If some forward thinking developers can harness the huge potential of Kinect and MS can get the word out regarding other potential uses (movie's, manipulation of virtual objects ---think control of virtual presentations, painting, etc.), it may harness a market unyet tapped or create a new market we have not realized yet.

We already know what it can and can't do, because MS has told us. It has problems handling players who are sitting down. There's no buttons, so the amount of things you can actually control at once is pretty limited. The input lag is extremely high compared to the standard controller, which kills it for any kind of online competitive game.

For dance games? It's great. But that's not the market that has an Xbox now, and it's a hard sell to get them to spend the kind of money it'll take when Microsoft is so late to the market.

This is an incorrect statement.  We have the initial release but it has great potential for future application in the future...kind of like Elemental.  It is also falsely reported that it has issues whith the player sitting down.  I do not have the article with me at the moment but can provide the reference (when I get back in town to dig up the magazine) where the project manager of the Kinect project debunks that claim quite well.  I will be getting one and will definately report back my experience so we can see what it can and can't do.

They are targetting the wrong market with the Kinect. Microsoft is obviously trying to go after the same people Nintendo has had a stranglehold on for the last four years. So their target audience is people who are interested in motion controlled gaming AND don't already own a Wii. And in order for buying a Kinect to come out cheaper than buying a Wii they have to already own an Xbox 360. The people who already own a 360 are for the most part at best apathetic about motion controls, and at worst hate them. Everyone and their mother and their grandmother already own a Wii if they're the least bit interested in motion controls. Why would they want to drop another $300 for a console and accesory that does fundamentaly the same thing?

I don't know why you bring up Wii Fit. It isn't required for most games and most of the commonly perceived best games on the Wii don't even use it. If the Kinect was priced closer to $75, it would probably sell like crazy. But $150 for something that does pretty much the same stuff as what you already have is too much.

The Kinect itself is a peripheral, and unless you plan on playing nothing but Kinectimals or use wired controllers, you're going to need controllers that use batteries of some sort. If you don't think the Wii has many solid games, that's your opinion, but you're looking in the wrong places   It has plenty of solid games, they're just not all FPSs like the 360. And look at the current lineup of Kinect games. How many of those aren't just straight-up copies of Wii games? Not a lot. Again, they're trying to do the exact same thing the Wii is doing, only more expensive.

I use that as an illustration of one of the several additional peripherals needed to enhance the user experience of the wii that is not needed after you purchase the kinect.  I know the kinect is not a gaming system and is, in fact, a gaming controller so that argument is not lost on me.  But the fact remains that the wii is NOT as inexpensive as you say if you want to take full advantage of its potential functions...they simply charge you ala cart.

Everyone is making a lot of assumption on who plays a wii vs xbox, including myself but I think many households have both...we do.  I think MS is simply trying to make a better mouse trap.  Just because one company has the market in an area does not mean you do  not try to break into it with a better product.  Pricing can be a dicey issue and I think $150 is a good price point.  $75 more than likely does not have much of a profit margin AND implies lower value (it is well known that many people will not purchase something if it is too inexpensive). 

MS has a challenge that I do not think they will completely overcome.  Many people simply want them to fail.  The reasons are many but they do exist and that alone will create many nay sayers.  I prefer to look at this one as a potentially great product and will try it BUT who knows...I could end up with egg on my face as well. 

There are others that try to make innovative games, it is just most people never hear of them as they are not mainstream. EWOM may have been the last by a company large enough that many gamers have heard of them, but certainly not the last small developer that will try.

Yeah, your references are pretty dated....Shadow of Collossus? GTA4? Welcome to many, many years ago.

I've got my eye on plenty of indie developers. To me, EWOM as an indie game trying to become mainstream that blew it. All this "last hope" stuff....I dunno. Maybe I'm just not a big enough fan of Stardock to be quite that melodramatic.

But again, it's not needed, and most of the best games don't need it. I don't have one, and have never wished I did have one. You still get all the motion control without it. Kinect, on the other hand, is required if you want motion control. Wii Fit is only optional, and you won't be missing out on much if you choose not to buy it.

I own both, which is all the more reason why buying the Kinect would be a waste of money. Why would I spend that much money on something that does the exact same stuff as something I already own? I didn't say that MS would be making much money if they sold it at $75, but if they want to move significant numbers of it, the Kinect needs to be lower priced. That's still pretty expensive for a peripheral, and I don't think it's low enough to imply that it has low value.

I predict that in its lifetime, the Kinect will sell enough to break even on the ridiculous amout of money MS is spending to market the thing, but little more. Within a year of release we will see a price drop. But that's just my guess

Well I didn't necesarily like the game as much as everyone else did either, I didn't even get all the way through it. But I have to admit that it was a unique and original experience even if it wasn't entirely my cup of tea.

I was also under the impression that Nintendo never intended to push the balance board as the next big thing. It was always kind of a side item. From the way I am seeing Kinect advertised and all these announcements around Fable III, it seems MS really wants all the new games to use it if they can manage it.

So you don't like some publishers. I don't like some too. So what? Your taste is just that, your taste.

Yeah Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion was a case in point where it was designed for a console and didn't get properly ported to PC. But it is the strength of the PC that a very very strong modding community arose and fixed most of the issues with the game, and if you used something like Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul, it made it a seriously awesome, proper PC CRPG.

So while Bethesda catered to the console with inteface design, basic levelling etc, they at least released the mod tools that enabled the community to modify it in very major ways. And it was very cool to see questions on the forums from 360 players wondering why they couldn't use mods.

So this is a curious case where Bethesda gave the best of both worlds. But Vanilla Oblivion was rubbish.