I know you can't respond right now but I'll still answer these if anyone is of the same frame of mind:

Quote Originally Posted by Jon R. View Post
I think this is where things might be able to turn the corner. Some people may also end up having trouble getting used to motion controls, but i'd imagine it to be more to do with the implementation. Motion can potentially be intuitive, while the previous controllers have always had that layer of abstraction since things were always arbitrarily assigned to a button.
How is having to push a button abstract? You push this button, this action happens. It only started difficult when there were combinations of buttons followed by more buttons with more combinations. Motion can be just as abstract. See also the baseball bat scenario or better yet a golf club. Anyone can swing a golf ball and maybe hit a ball. Getting the ball to go in the general direction you want is another matter. There's stance, arm motion, how the club is positioned on the downswing as opposed to how it is when the ball gets hit, etc.

I didn't get this. Using CV as an example with motion, or conventional pad? And the other example is the Wiimote mistaking one motion for another?
Conventional pad. You said its controls sucked balls and in the same paragraph talked about games that used the Wiimote controls poorly, meaning the game itself controlled poorly. I said you can't compare control pad with motion control. CV played exactly the way you told it to. Simon handles like a brick but the control method worked fine. There's a difference.

Sure, if developers are as dumb then as they are now. Realism for realism's sake would screw it all up much in the same way it does now, more accurate hardware wouldn't be the cause of it. Some moron's still going to have to think "Hey, what about a game where we make a completely average person attempt to hit a 90 MPH fastball without being able to even see the point of contact?" before more accurate sensors could be used to actually make a game that stupid.
It's still a complete package, though. The ball does rest in the developer's court but the hardware has to be there too. Then there's the user base and the question of "how far should we go with this game"? If a developer takes the chance and makes a sports game that does have more 1-to-1 realistic controls and it becomes popular, you know others will jump on the bandwagon.

If there's going to be the sort of learning curve as with controllers, i don't know. If developers start using a bunch of arbitrary motions for actions, it's going to create a layer of abstraction similar to the one with buttoned controllers. If they don't, probably not.
There already is a learning curve with motion controls now just as there were learning curves with controllers. Sure the action of using a racket or bowling a ball is familiar but figuring out how to use that knowledge in the parameters of the game is the curve. It all boils down to how much the player wants to practice to "make perfect". If we dial back to 1986 when the NES was available everywhere, the one button Atari player had to learn how to use a pad and if they wanted to follow the generations had to learn the nuance of each new controller to obtain the same level of prowess as the previous game generation.