This is why it makes more sense for Move to allow for slow-adoption compared to Kinect. There is always time for it to grow, as with the PS3. Microsoft needs a shotgun market to buy up Kinect before people realize that it unreasonably confined in its button-less comfort zone, offering only a small selection of possibilities. Microsoft is claiming they won't tack on Kinect because they can't, even though they most likely wish they could have a Halo-Kinect.Matt K said:Very true. For Kinect you pay $150 and have a library of what 5 titles and the promise of more assuming it doesn't go belly up. Plus the knowledge that these are about the best your going to get. I.E. This is the only type of game you are most likely going to gte since it can't handle most standard game types. For Move you get the same type of titles (super casual) plus pretty much any game Sony can convince the devs to add some motion support or at least make it more like the Wii (i.e. the Wii has tons of different genres). Plus if you don't want to be an early adoptor, you can still buy most of the games since they allow regular controller support and then decide if the catalogue and reveiws are good enough.
So essentially it seem that Move is miles ahead of Kinect (assuming Sony really does mean to support it longer term since they are expecting the numbers to steadily grow) but neither is a real winner here since if people cared about this they'd already own the Wii and I imgine the Move/Kenect knock off games cost significantly more than those titles do on the Wii (plus you know the Wii costs less as well).
For the $150, the Wii is a steal considering that it is a full console, has an established library that is still expanded upon, and has proven to be functional enough for motion control needs longer than Move or Kinect (obviously). I completely agree with you, if people want motion controls, why all of a sudden would they invest in Kinect or Move without giving the Wii a first and even second thought?