I think it's an accurate argument in "defense" of the product, considering the type of "attacks" being made. The people attempting to make a "case" (why?!) against Kinect are making a technical "attack" with their frame rates, pixel counts, lag times, no hardcore games, can't sit and play for 10 hours straight, can't control Netflix with your hand, etc. They're making a GAF-centric argument and applying it to the world. No one in their right mind cares. In other words this is a re-worked keyboard and mouse vs. controller argument. (Yes, the controller is different and not as precise...and most people are okay with that....)
Kinect is not going to succeed or fail on the basis of its technical specs or nerds whipping themselves into a circle jerk of rage on GAF. Only two things will count: fun and value. From what I've seen it apparently is fun. That seems to be unanimous from the people who either used it or watched a video of real people using it. Deal with it the best you can if it bothers you that much. Other people like different things. Unless you believe everyone is either lying or was bribed....(you know who you are...or do you?).
The only question is whether it is $150 of fun. For me and the people I'm buying for, that's an easy question (yes). If the Wii was worth $250 (or much more if scalped, before any accessories) four years ago, this is worth the extra amount it costs. But if you're 22 years old and have your 360 set up in your bedroom (or no 360), money's a little tight, etc. then it doesn't make much sense for you. There's nothing wrong with that. Just wait until you're buying gifts for children one day. Shit like this is gold and makes for easy shopping.
It comes down to this: Put a Kinect kiosk in a Wal-Mart with Kinectimals running and I doubt any of the objections raised here on GAF about Kinect's technical flaws will amount to anything. That's why the "GAF opinion" is likely wrong. The thing just looks fun. That's it. Fun.
