Why do you think the Wii is more popular than Kinect?

[Mackmax]

I used to own a Wii, with the Wii Fit as well. It was good while it lasted, but I found the controls to be very fidgety, and games that were supposed to be fun and active, such as Just Dance, were boring and lazy.

I bought a Kinect a few years later, and I was just amazed. I loved how there was no controller, so you had no choice but to get up and get moving, as opposed to Wii games where you could beat the whole game with a simple flick of the wrist. Dance Central became my favorite game, and I still use Kinect for my daily exercise.
So why do you think the Wii is more popular than Kinect, because in my opinion, the Kinect puts the Wii to absolute shame.

 

[Nero]

It is because the fact that the Wii's wiimote option didn't glitch out like the kinect. There also were fun games that used the wiimotes abilities to move. For example Skyward sword used the best of its abilities.

 

[Solaire]

I think it's just because the Wiimote is mandatory, while Kinect isn't. If you're buying a Wii you'll automatically get to try it out with no additional cost, unlike Kinect. I have no way to compare the quality between the two though, because I've never tried Kinect (for said reasons).

 

[squallsnake]

The Kinect doesn't work. Even if you could get past the laggy input, the voice commands work randomly at best. And "Xbox On" never works when you want it to.

 

[Trip608]

A few reasons come to mind about why Kinect was never as big as the Wii:

1) With Wii the entire system is built around the motion controller; Kinect has a limited library of games
2) Wii came first, had a good release, and no one will ever forget it
3) Wii had some great and anticipated first party titles, while Kinect isn't really anchored to anything that would draw people in
4) Wii and Kinect were both marketed toward families and casual gamers, but Kinect required the 360 console which is not owned by as many casual people.

 

[Mackmax]

A few reasons come to mind about why Kinect was never as big as the Wii:

1) With Wii the entire system is built around the motion controller; Kinect has a limited library of games
2) Wii came first, had a good release, and no one will ever forget it
3) Wii had some great and anticipated first party titles, while Kinect isn't really anchored to anything that would draw people in
4) Wii and Kinect were both marketed toward families and casual gamers, but Kinect required the 360 console which is not owned by as many casual people.

Wii did have a strong start, but I think it fell flat after a while. It took them years to introduce any major add-ons, and even the Wii U isn't fun or impressive, at least in my opinion. You're right though, Kinect has a rather small library of games, and Kinect doesn't have any huge titles like Mario. But I have to agree with your last point the most. Wii is definitely geared towards family and children, while Xbox is geared towards teenagers and adults. The Wii had many more sales than the Xbox and 360, so it makes sense that the Wii sold more than Kinect.

 

[Boxcube]

I think the Wii did better because they were the first ones to really implement motion control gaming. Many people flocked over the Wii during the glory years (06-09) because of the massive casual following it had. Everybody and their grandmother knew what a Wii was, not so much with the Kinect.

 

[AFKATafcar]

You guys are missing the obvious fact that the Wii and Kinect 1.0 or Wii U and Kinect 2.0 aren't valid comparisons. That's comparing an entire console with motion control and a peripheral that tries to do a lot more than it actually can. There are a lot of reasons why the Kinect doesn't work well, but the main reason Wii/Wii U is more popular is because those are actual consoles and not peripherals.

Now if we're talking about motion controls from those consoles....that's an entirely different comparison. ;]

 

[fliktor7]

Yes it is with no doubt, nintendo has sold A LOT of wiis around the world, and it has generate a lot of money for sure, kinect didn't.
I think that the idea of kinect was good, but they should upgrade it to be more popular.

 

[Cereus]

AFKA nailed it. Wii was completely created around motion control being a majority component for gameplay. It was made from the ground up to be used for motion control. Kinnect wasn't. It's like comparing a tablet to use for gaming versus a gaming PC. Sure you can play some games on a tablet but it's not going to be powerful enough to play Skyrim as a whole because it wasn't made for that. A tablet is a light multi-purpose entertainment system, not to be used for things that require the use of a lot of hardware resources.

 

[Goldie]

I think it's because Nintendo's audience was a bit of a better fit than MS's when it comes to motion controlled games. Nintendo fans probably love the fun and party aspect of it whereas MS fans probably want something a bit more hardcore.

 

[Kuzan]

It has to do with the notion that the wiimote at least did manage to serve its purpose and what it was claiming it could do. My kinect experience back with the 360 was abysmal and while the one seems to fair a bit better. I didn't have that much trouble with the wii in general.

Besides, the wii is not as evil looking as the Kinect is.

 

[blur92]

I think Nintendo games in general are better than other systems. Games from other systems are not as unique for the most part. Nintendo has retained a special idiosyncrasy throughout the years. Their games are personable and nostalgic.

 

[hellonamesdana]

I've used them both and I have always felt that the wii was much easier to use than the xbox kinect. That's why I used the wii more. I've never owned an xbox though.

 

[thepieeatingjay]

The Wii was more popular than connect ONLY because it came out first. Kinect wasn't even known about until 4 years after the Wii released.

Not just that, you're comparing a full blown system to a peripheral. If the Wii was priced like the PS3 or the 360, it wouldn't have been popular at all, let alone more or less popular than Kinect.

 

[GlacialDoom]

Because the Kinect simply sucks. It lacks an actual game library, and it glitches out a lot. I guess the only thing it has got going on is the voice commands, which only work about 50% of the time.

Also, the fact that the first Kinect, when used with older Xbox 360 consoles gave them a red ring of death was a huge failure and oversight from Microsoft.

 

[Aladar]

I mean, because unlike Kinect, it actually works, and most importantly.. has good games. It may not be the technology of the future that Microsoft wanted to present with Kinect, but it definitely is more fun.

 

[queenbellevue]

The Wii works a lot better than the kinnect, in my experience. In the gaming community, you get only one shot, and if your product doesn't live up to expectations, say bye bye to your sales

 

[pandabear1991]

I prefer the Wii over Kinect. As others have stated, all game play for the Wii is built around the motion sensor technology. Even though any of the "dance" and most "sport" games can easily be won with a flick of the wrist, the effort put in is ultimately left up to the player. Player=lack of motivation, not the game or game play.

Not to mention the consideration of disabled and elderly trying to play some of these games. The Kinect would focus on full body motions, when some cannot do so. One advantage for the Wii when trying to appeal to all game players is that your body doesn't have to be fully functional. Sitting down and swinging at baseballs, tennis balls, boxing and etc. is really enjoyable for those who have mobility problems. I feel the Wii and motion sensor was designed well in this aspect, and set standards for other consoles.

 

[Johnny Hopkins]

Well the wii is backed by a known and trusted name, Nintendo. It also has the benefit of being much older than the kinect so people are more familiar with it.