By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
UncleScrooge on 04 July 2015
Edit Thread
Soundwave said:
UncleScrooge said:

QFT.

It's really amazing how people invent crazy theories for these things instead of just looking at the obvious. And I cringe at people saying the Wii U is anything like the Wii. 

N64, Gamecube, Wii U = sustaining innovation, focus on getting third parties, focus on core gamers.

NES, Wii = disruptive innovation, focus on expanding the gaming market.

It's quite clear which strategy lead Nintendo to success in the past. 


How was the N64 focused on getting third parties? It's was designed basically to alienate third parties, lol. 

The NES dominated because it had all the third party support due to Nintendo's (smart, but borderline monopolitisic) decision to force third parties to only make games for their console. 

Sega could not make any headway against Nintendo at all until Nintendo had to break the lock-out chip rule for the SNES, so developers were able to make games for the Genesis, whereas they weren't able to for the Sega Master System. 


Yeah, N64 doesn't really work here, you're right. Sorry for that one :P It was a sustaining innovation, though, unlike the NES. The NES dominated because Nintendo was the only relevant player for most of its life (due to it being a disruptive product and expanding the market), not because of their 3rd party restrictions. Those policies were installed because Nintendo was the dominant player and could afford to lock third parties to their platform. (I can only praise the book "Game Over", by the way. It's a really amazing and in-depth read).