I don't know about that. Last I checked, Kinect was doing well. In fact Kinect Adventures is #1 [1]
> The Wii wasn't really a success either.
Nintendo, until most recently, was the only console manufacturer to actually profit.
Kinect Adventures was a pack-in game, so that doesn't really count.
So far, there have been only 7 Kinect-required titles in 2012, and except for 1, all are either movie tie-ins or rhythm games.
The one exception is Steel Battalion, which managed a whopping 90,000 sales, and a 35/100 Metacritic score.
In fact, only 2 Kinect titles have even managed to break an 80 on Metacritic, both music games.
Its first loss since inception in 1889. Not bad for a company that didn't have any successful consoles.
> Kinect Adventures was a pack-in game, so that doesn't really count.
It does count. For 2 reasons: 1) you got Kinect Adventures because you bought Kinect - which is more money than any single game, and 2) if you decided to buy the Xbox with Kinect, you paid more – and seemed to be okay with it. Not exactly a complete failure.
> In fact, only 2 Kinect titles have even managed to break an 80 on Metacritic, both music games.
You're getting outside of the original point – Kinect is a great, inexpensive technology that is being used in all kinds of applications (i.e. interactive displays, teaching, robotics, etc.).
Neither of which has really taken off for gaming. The Wii wasn't really a success either. Sure, they sold a lot of consoles, but the console is sold at - at best - break even (and only there after 3-4 years on the market). All the money is in the game licensing (Paid per copy from the developer to the console maker). Wii owners just don't buy that many games - I remember a study that pegged it at ~half what a typical Xbox owner bought.