Perhaps one day we'll have Star Trek style holodecks. And that will be great. Until the point - roughly 10 minutes after the first trial - when people realise that if they're really bad at running around doing atheletic stuff in real life, they're also going to be really bad at it on a holodeck like that.
I think controllers which try to make games more immersive by having them mimic real life activities are (with a few exceptions I'll touch on later) missing the point.
That isn't to say that games shouldn't try to be immersive and that controllers don't have a role to play in immersion. However, given that in most games, the player is doing things he wouldn't be able to do in real life, simply trying to translate real-life controls into the game isn't going to work. In most genres, the best thing the controls can do is let the player forget that they are there at all. They need to be the most efficient means possible of translating the player's will into the behaviour of his on-screen avatar.
Every time a player dies (or otherwise fails, depending on genre) in game due to control issues, the immersion is broken. I can think of some really awful examples here, going back decades. Remember Ultima VIII, as it was at launch? Those jumps across the moving platforms, where a mis-step meant death? Remember how you could see precisely what you needed to do to get across, but how the atrocious point and click control inputs made each and every jump an exercise in trial, error and sheer luck? And remember how much it broke the immersion every time you failed - reminded you that you weren't the Avatar exploring a strange land, but a player wrestling with a cumbersome interface and control system? That one was bad enough that they eventually patched it (turning it from "atrocious" to "just about tolerable").
Or more recently, take the Super Mario Galaxy games. I enjoyed both of these immensely - until the point at which it became necessary to use the spin-jump to make certain jumps. See, "spin jump" was mapped to "waggle the Wii-mote". And "waggle" is not, on a Wii-mote, a precise input. There's actually a good bit of variation in just how much and how hard you need to waggle before the game will accept that, yes, you have waggled (and I can't believe I've just typed that sentence). So all of a sudden you have a precision platformer which is dependant upon a non-precision input. And even though it's only for one single input, each time you rack up an unnecessary death due to that input going wrong, the immersion is broken.
Or sometimes a game uses a "normal" input device, but because the game adapts itself to that device badly, it still ends up feeling broken. Resident Evil 6 is a case in point here. I've played this on the 360 and the PC and found the 360 version effectively unplayable, due to control issues. I don't normally object to playing shooters on a console controller (though I'd prefer mouse and keyboard), but the shooters in question need to make concessions to the fact that they're being played on a device less suited to precise aim. Actually, many console shooters these days do that well; snap-to aim, relatively generous hitboxes and slow-moving enemies may not always make for the most exciting game mechanics, but they do take a lot of the pain out of playing a shooter on a console controller. Resident Evil 6 makes no such concessions; in a game where only headshots do appreciable damage to enemies, aiming at these tiny, fast bobbing targets on a console controller is nigh impossible and the abiding impression I took away from my 360 version was that my in-game character actually had worse accuracy with a gun than I myself would in real life (which is saying something). After that, playing with mouse and keyboard on the PC was a complete revelation - while the game itself still has flaws, it was an order of magnitude better than the console version. By contrast, the recent Tomb Raider reboot makes such good concessions to aiming on a controller that I played it on PC using a 360 controller-for-Windows, as the platforming felt more natural that way.
To be immersive, a controller needs to be three things.
It needs to be ergonomic, so that the player can access all of its buttons and functions quickly without physical discomfort. Modern controllers have made a lot of progress here, though some issues still remain to be sorted (finding a convenient way of doing L3/R3 in particular is a problem that still needs to be solved; clicking down on the analogue sticks really doesn't work, as I think a lot of developers would acknowledge).
It needs to be precise. Or at least, it needs to be precise enough to keep up with the mechanics of the game it's being used for. See above points about Resident Evil 6 and Tomb Raider.
And it needs to be consistent. The player needs confidence that when he makes a particular input, it will translated into the expected action from his on-screen avatar. This was a big deal-breaker for me with Zelda: Skyward Sword. I got heartily sick of sitting there shouting "no, I did a vertical slash you stupid thing, don't try to tell me it was diagonal". By contrast, Dark Souls (a game with very, very similar block/dodge-and-counter combat mechanics) did that that feeling of consistency to the inputs, which made the game far more satisfying and immersive.
I look at input systems like the ones in TFA and I'm not particularly convinced they satisfy any of the three requirements above particularly well. I can't imagine that trying to play any existing fps on it - let alone a competitive online fps - would be anything other than pure frustration once the initial "oooh cool" factor wore off.
Is there any role for stuff like this? Yes, possibly. There are subsets of games out there where the whole point is the player's physical activity; exercise software.
Exercise is boring. Really, really boring. It's one of the reasons we have an obesity crisis; in an era where average calorie burn from work-related activity has fallen through the floor from where it was a few decades ago, most people just don't have the willpower and tolerance for boredom to do equivalent exercise outside of work hours. Sure, there are plenty of ways of trying to make exercise less boring; the obvious one is to turn it into "sports". But then, even there you run into a couple of problems; first, a lot of people (like me!) find sports even more boring than just staring at a wall while they exercise and second, a lot of sports don't actually involve very much calorie burn.
I think this is why exercise games have taken off so much in the last few years; they're another route to making exercise more interesting. Titles like Wii Fit and Your Shape: Fitness Evolved are pretty poor considered just as games, but for many people (like me!) they do just about enough to make sustained exercise tolerable. They're certainly the only thing I've ever made really substantial use of my Wii or my Kinnect for.
So something like the tech in TFA might have a role here; if we accept that the purpose is to make exercise more interesting by giving the player the chance to zap aliens while he jogs or whatever. The games that make the best use of this technology will never be the same as - and never, considered on an equal footing, be as good as - games which are designed to be played on traditional controllers. But there might be a niche to be exploited there.