Even if it wasn't their best idea, it was still a good consoles. One of my favorites! It had several good games and we had really good times back when we had the GameCube. Sure, it was a failure in sales, not in games and longevity. (for me at least.)

I completely agree with this. Factors that turned 3rd parties off, we know them, are the cartidge-based format, high royalty fees, a poor and difficult to use API, no moneyhatting (which Nintendo was too proud to extend), horrible branding (3rd parties work on confidence, the mildest sense of misstepping is a turn off). The misstep tolerance is proportionate to the harmony/resentment level between the 3rd parties and the manufacturer. Nintendo was also bullish and difficult to partner with on SW projects. Missing important features disk-based media offered, of which 3rd parties were aware (space for FMVs and music tracks, even pop music, the possibility of distributing multi-disk games).

This is a key Red Ocean failure.

Super Mario Bros. was not a launch title for the Famicom. Yet, until 2005, the Famicom had no Super Mario bros. They had lots of other titles that made the NES a hit. The Famicom moved as many units in Japan as the PS did.

Compare the total sales of the NES versus the N64 in Japan.

Now compare the sales of Super Mario Bros. 3 to Super Mario 64 in Japan.

Data Results (Japan): So, Mario 3 outsold SM64 by a factor of 2, despite the fact that there were 3.5 times as many famicoms sold as N64s, and the fact that Mario 64 was a launch title. Id's say Mario 64 did rather well in japan. Imagine if they had the leading console.

Below is another metric. The relative strenght of SMB3 and SM64 against their platform userbase.

In america, SM64 performed better than SMB3 did, by tie ratio. Now you will tell me that, had SM64 the strength of SMB3, it would have moved consoles, but it's easy to say that after the NES and Famicom were already insanely popular for multiple other reasons than Mario, and SMB 1 as well. The combination of factors helped SMB3 sell as much as it did on a solid platform. N64 didn't have that advantage.

Having said that, since SMB 1 sold this much (table below). A bundled game in NA, of course, it remains the 2nd best-selling game of all time.

Nostalgia dictates that celebrating that game in a completely new IP branded as the "New Super Mario Bros.", Nintendo is bound to turn heads. Sadly, they only realised this in hindsight, after the NSMB experiment. Some would call it blue ocean, I would call it a successful experiment. When the marketshare was obtained, some liked to call it Blue Ocean. But it wasn't a Blue Ocean strategy.

I have more, but I'll keep it for later.

I understand. Since I gave you a quote and read through some stuff, enlighten us and provide some quotes from your end.

If they were going Red Ocean, they really weren't careful with their image and catering to the congested marketspace's needs and interests.

The image of this looks more Blue Ocean than anything, catering to the younger demographics... A failed strategy maybe, but that was their direction in terms of image at least.

Please, HappyDolphin, explain to me what "Blue Ocean" and "Red Ocean" mean. I'm so confused. -.-

RolStoppable might not like you asking me to clarify, since it's his pet topic. But this is my thread, and I want everyone to be more informed. I also like the Red Ocean mentality, and so, to stay competitive with Rol in the content of my posts, I am taking the time to understand it especially in the context of video games market strategy. So I will answer you, with 2 pics.

And a link I haven't read, which I will in a sec.

Who cares man its really not important and writing in english is tiresome (I'm lazy).

Do me a favor, participate or step out. There is no point in you throwing out claims without backing them, that's ridiculous, with all due respect.

At the time it wasn't a Red-Ocean strategy ...

In the early/mid 1990s videogames were considered (mostly) a toy for children and younger teens. At the time aiming for older teens and young adults was very disruptive in the market. Beyond this, it could be argued that the games on the Playstation were far more "casual" because they sacrificed gameplay and made games far easier to appeal to a broader demographic of gamers.

The Gamecube couldn't possibly be a Blue Ocean attempt because it is Nintendo's best "Red-Ocean" console. In practically every way the Gamecube was a better PS2 (more processing power, easier to develop for, less expensive, etc) and Nintendo tried to compete directly against Sony on Sony's terms; and as a result it was Nintendo's worst performing system (in terms of sales)

I just read the Wikipedia article and will break it down for you, it's kinda hard to read I agree.

Book layout and highlight

The book is divided into five parts:

The first part presents:

• key concepts of blue ocean strategy, including Value Innovation – the simultaneous pursuit of differentiation and low cost – and key analytical tools and frameworks such as the strategy canvas,
• the four actions framework
• the eliminate-reduce-raise-create grid.

The second part describes:

• The four principles of blue ocean strategy formulation:

1. how to create uncontested market space by:
2. reconstructing market boundaries,
3. focusing on the big picture,
4. reaching beyond existing demand and
5. getting the strategic sequence right.

These four formulation principles address how an organization can create blue oceans by

1. looking across the six conventional boundaries of competition (Six Paths Framework),
2. reduce their planning risk by following the four steps of visualizing strategy,
3. create new demand by unlocking the three tiers of noncustomers and
4. launch a commercially-viable blue ocean idea by aligning unprecedented utility of an offering with strategic pricing and target costing and by overcoming adoption hurdles.

• The book uses many examples across industries to demonstrate how to break out of traditional competitive (structuralist) strategic thinking and to grow demand and profits for the company and the industry by using blue ocean (reconstructionist) strategic thinking.

The third and final part describes:

• The two key implementation principles of blue ocean strategy including:

1. tipping point leadership and
2. fair process.

These implementation principles are essential for leaders to overcome the four key organizational hurdles that can prevent even the best strategies from being executed.

• The four key hurdles comprise the

1. cognitive,
2. resource,
3. motivational and
4. political

Hurdles that prevent people involved in strategy execution from understanding the need to break from status quo, finding the resources to implement the new strategic shift, keeping your people committed to implementing the new strategy, and from overcoming the powerful vested interests that may block the change.

In the book the authors draw the attention of their readers towards the correlation of success stories across industries and the formulation of strategies that provide a solid base create unconventional success – a strategy termed as “Blue Ocean Strategy”.

Unlike the “Red Ocean Strategy”, the conventional approach to business of beating competition derived from the military organization, the “Blue Ocean Strategy” tries to align innovation with utility, price and cost positions.

The book mocks at the phenomena of conventional choice between product/service differentiation and lower cost, but rather suggests that both differentiation and lower costs are achievable simultaneously.

The authors ask readers “What is the best unit of analysis of profitable growth? Company? Industry?” – a fundamental question without which any strategy for profitable growth is not worthwhile.

The authors justify with original and practical ideas that neither the company nor the industry is the best unit of analysis of profitable growth; rather it is the strategic move that creates “Blue Ocean” and sustained high performance.

The book examines the experience of companies in areas as diverse as

• watches,
• wine,
• cement,
• computers,
• automobiles,
• textiles,
• coffee makers,
• airlines,
• retailers, and even
• the circus

to answer this fundamental question and builds upon the argument about “Value Innovation” being the cornerstone of a blue ocean strategy.

Value Innovation is necessarily the alignment of innovation with utility, price and cost positions. This creates uncontested market space and makes competition irrelevant. The following section discusses the concept behind the book in detail.

[edit]Concept

The metaphor of red and blue oceans describes the market universe.

Cirque du Soleil – an example of creating a new market space, by blending opera and ballet with the circus format while eliminating star performer and animals

The cornerstone of Blue Ocean Strategy is 'Value Innovation'. A blue ocean is created when a company achieves value innovation that creates value simultaneously for both the buyer and the company. The innovation (in product, service, or delivery) must raise and create value for the market, while simultaneously reducing or eliminating features or services that are less valued by the current or future market.

The authors criticizeMichael Porter's idea that successful businesses are either low-cost providers or niche-players. Instead, they propose finding value that crosses conventional market segmentation and offering value and lower cost. Educator Charles W. L. Hill proposed this idea in 1988 and claimed that Porter's model was flawed because differentiation can be a means for firms to achieve low cost. He proposed that a combination of differentiation and low cost might be necessary for firms to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage.

Funky Business (Swedish book)

Many others have proposed similar strategies. For example, Swedish educators Jonas Ridderstråle and Kjell Nordström in their 1999 book Funky Businessfollow a similar line of reasoning. For example, "competing factors" in Blue Ocean Strategy are similar to the definition of "finite and infinite dimensions" inFunky Business. Just as Blue Ocean Strategy claims that a Red Ocean Strategy does not guarantee success, Funky Business explained that "Competitive Strategy is the route to nowhere". Funky Business argues that firms need to create "Sensational Strategies".

Just like Blue Ocean Strategy, a Sensational Strategy is about "playing a different game" according to Ridderstråle and Nordström. Ridderstråle and Nordström also claim that the aim of companies is to create temporary monopolies. Kim and Mauborgne explain that the aim of companies is to create blue oceans, that will eventually turn red. This is the same idea expressed in the form of an analogy. Ridderstråle and Nordström also claimed in 1999 that "in the slow-growth 1990s overcapacity is the norm in most businesses". Kim and Mauborgne claim that blue ocean strategy makes sense in a world where supply exceeds demand.