Why Nintendo Gets It

GamesFirst has a decent persepctive on Nintendo's direction with the Revolution:

Nintendo "gets" it. Microsoft and Sony don't understand that a new generation of gaming machine does not automatically beget a new generation of gaming. A "next" generation requires a significant change in gaming itself. Gamers care about hardware and hardware generations only insofar as those generations mark major changes in the way games are made and played. Gamers care about framerate only insofar as framerate is connected to the limit of a player's reflexes. The interaction of technology and creative expression and experience is complex terrain, which often understood in a highly intuitive array of impulses on the part of gamers. This intuitive understanding of the relationship between tech and game leads easily into fetishization of game hardware: Witness the hip NES controller belt buckles sold in mall shops worldwide or the Xbox 360 faceplates. All tech-dependent art forms fetishize the mechanical aspects of their practice: photography, computers, sports, music. In each case one can see similar devotion to the objects and implements of the practice on the part of the practitioners.

-- Why Nintendo Gets It, or Why Sony Should Start Trying

It underpins the view with a brief history lesson. I'm rather inclined to agree. In fact, I think we're going see very mirrored competitions when it comes to the Revolution versus the PS3 that we've seen with the DS and the PSP. Nintendo may be quite able to keep their market alive even without having to bridge the hardware gap.

I do wonder, though, what would happen if someone comes out with a motion device for the other consoles. Is Nintendo hinging it's future on a technology which others will easily adapt and clone? Not unlike say, analog control, rumble packs and shoulder buttons?