I'm confused...they announced tickets sold out, presumably they would know how many that would be. Yet they expected 75,000? How the hell does that work?

@Michael
The Wii Remote has always been able to detect tilt 1:1. What it can't do (without Wii MotionPlus) is do 1:1 when it's moving in any way but tilt.

@why not the LS2LS7?
I just recently used MotionPlus, which this technology is being used in, and it works amazingly well. The slightest movement was picked up and represented on-screen. It's very impressive.

You know, I want to believe you...but being the internet and all, it's hard to. Can you reveal more about it? What makes it so cool? How does it work?

"The Microsoft camera won't require gamers to "hold any hardware in their hands to control in-game action,"

I'm not sure why this is being touted as a positive. What this means is the camera will only be useful for broad actions in very specific circumstance. I'm not saying it won't have some useful applications, but it will restrict what it can be used for--how else would you move an avatar in a virtual world, for instance?

@cloud858rk / McNugget
Actually, that article was retracted by Nielson as the figures were inaccurately assigned. They since corrected it, showing the Wii is the MOST played of the current-gen consoles, and 2nd overall, behind the PS2:
http://kotaku.com/5205249/nielsen-drops-the-ball-on-console-usage-numbers

So McNugget, looks like it's been "scientifically proven" that the Wii is the most played of the current gen consoles. Your response?

@John
What are you talking about? All of the impressions I've heard/read (and I've seen a lot, as I work in the industry) have been extremely positive. What negative impressions have you read, except for the one posted on this very site--a year ago?

"I can agree that the ars "Wii Killer" title may be hyperbolic, because the Wii has nothing to worry about. At the same time, I just didn't find your concerns compelling, especially the "your image on screen at all times" comment, since there is absolutely no technical reason for that to be the case. In short, your concerns seemed to be disspelled by the article itself."

I addressed this in my original point. If there wasn't a compelling reason to have your image displayed on the screen, then why was that the case? The EyeToy resorted to the same technique, as there was no other gauge to determine whether the camera was picking up your movements or not. I think this could be a very significant hindrance to offering compelling gameplay experiences.

"There's nothing FYC (from your comments) that suggests you've spent any time with it, though FYC you like to defend Nintendo a lot."

I've "defended" Nintendo twice. You're right, I haven't used this tech, and I didn't pretend to. However, I did watch the videos and what I saw wasn't that impressive, for the reasons I cited. This is very similar to stuff we've already seen years ago on EyeToy--and regardless of my trying it or not, it won't mitigate some of my concerns, unless Microsoft has other ideas in mind (like a motion-sensing controller) to work in conjunction with the camera.

Listen, I own both a Wii and a 360--I love both systems for separate and distinct reasons. I've berated Nintendo for its piss-poor "classic controller," which is similar to this situation--a console offering an experience contrary to its original intent. This tech does not seem it would have been practical applications for delivering deep game experiences.

FTA: "In our time spent with it, felt even better than Nintendo's"

I don't know if that's a fair comparison. Right now, it's looks like an improved EyeToy--with similar limitations. The fact that your image was displayed on the screen at all times doesn't bode well for the technology. Granted, they obviously don't have to show your image, but it makes one wonder whether that's practical--after all, if you exit the camera's field of vision, you may not realize it, and the game clearly won't detect anything you're doing outside that range. And if they do have to show you on-screen, it will only work in the most basic of applications, as it would be immersion-breaking and detrimental to any deeper experiences (try playing Zelda or Halo with that?).

Also, no buttons? Or tactile feedback (rumble, controller speaker). And how would you move your virtual character? Would you have to hold a 360 controller as well?

In short, they've seen in employed in one game--a very contrived example at that. I'm not ruling out that it could be very impressive technology, but to declare it better than Nintendo (particularly with MotionPlus just around the corner) seems a bit premature.