1. Partially true, but at least PS3 is up YoY, so it contributed (regarding market share, as I don't think PS3 "stole" any potential Wii buyer)

2. But it's not their business keeping alive anybody else than themselves and 3rd party Wii and DS developers. What I mean is that Nintendo only cares keeping healthy whatever matters for it, but, for example it wouldn't cut profits or even sell at a loss to pump HW specs (and maybe even moneyhatting hardcore developers) so much to steal "techno-hardcores" from PS3 and XB360, if Sony and MS are fine with their business model, so much the better for them, but Nintendo is perfectly fine with its own. And Nintendo model doesn't pursue gigantism without any other purpose than itself, a gigantic growth is welcome, but as a consequence of a hugely healthy business. While I don't believe in disruption, I believe in Wii's huge victory, but I see in it more a regal detachment from others' worries than Malstrom's appetite for disruption. And facts proved Nintendo sales are only affected by Nintendo moves, Sony and MS, when they correct their flaws, don't steal Wii buyers, they simply "unlock" their own potential buyers making them become real ones. To cut it short, Nintendo can afford minding only its own business.

Actually, I would be happy if we at least defined the terms we're using.

When we talk about disruption, what are we talking about?

a) the wiimote and motion controls are disruptive versus other interaction technologies.

b) the focus on low barrier of entry, inclusive gameplay of many successful wii titles is disruptive versus more complex, cinematic, story-burdened, high production values games.

Sometimes it seems like we're talking of a), but Malstrom often says that it isn't about the wiimote, it's about the "new values". I'm fine and dandy with that, though I often had to argue with other people on these forums that you can't treat fluid things such as intellectual works the same way you treat technologies, ie just by comparing the specs.

Then I read this, with M. answering an email (email is in italic, M. answer follows):

...

First, Nintendo pulls out a perfect low-end disruption, then a few years later, at the same time, one of its two competitors does a defensive co-opt while the other an offensive co-opt. Whether these too will be perfect is still up in the air (though as far as Sony is concerned the result isn’t interesting anyway).

Disruption has generally been confined mostly to electronics. Video games are not really in the electronic business. They are in the entertainment business. And there aren’t any entertainment examples I remember reading about in the disruption literature.

 

At this point I'm not sure what thesis is being pressed anymore. While we can all clearly see how the blue ocen strategy applied, what disruption are we talking about?

Maybe in the beginning, now it has a market so independent from competitors that it can simply mind its own business and ignore them. Remember that Wii's success surprised even Nintendo, so much that shortages happen even now, although less often. At the beginning of this gen, Nintendo thought  it had to fight harder, now it can relax (not in the sense of getting lazy, but devoting its efforts only to cater for gamers' wishes) and profit.

Edit: (just corrected two grammatical and orthographic horrors)

Though I did read Christensen and his predesessor, prof. March, works I can't say I'm a big specialist on that matter, in fact, I never read Malstrom articles until recently thanks to this thread. But from what I understand we're not talking exclusively about the former. If anything is to be labeled "disruptive" here it should be the games or game design Wii has to offer rather than just Wiimote\Balance Board (or Vitality Sensor?) per se. Clearly the latter and the former are dependent on each other. I, myself, once said that Wii Remote is a bluff, fraud, bait for competitors.

True, Christensen theory or rather hypothesis was never applied to businesses that not directly dependent on pure technology, such as entertainment business of video games. And I'm not sure how exactly it should be applied to it, since we don't have a measurable performance of motion-controlling devices that in theory should eventually catch-up with demanded by high-end users performance when going upmarket and surpassing established technology. Motion-controlling devices and traditional ones seems uncomparable to me.

What qualities controlling device or rather interface should has for high-end user? What high-end user values in such things? Maybe it's reliability measured by responsiveness/lag? Or it's applicability of use in traditional games? Anyway there's definitely a difference in values of controlling devices/interface for gamers who enjoying Wii right now and those who still not sold on the idea, ergo we might need to measure it in those 'values'. Chirstensen talk much about such values and disruptive technology that "initally has little value to mainstream consumers". In theory motion-sensing eventually should be valued by high-end user as much as by low-end, that's full circle when and if motion-sensing becomes standard. (Honestly, that's just off the top of my head, never was bothered by such questions ^_^)

I remember Iwata was quoted as saying he was sure that Wii will be successful beforehand, though he didn't anticipate that it will turn out to be a success that quickly. I can't find this interview, but you may instead check yet another Malstrom article for that matter - there're a lot of self-confident quotes like: "Yes, we have already disrupted handheld and it worked...", - pretty cocky to say the least, he's referring to previous success and sure about the future success of Wii (merely a PR? sure, but it seems like he believe what he's saying). That might explain shortages and why Wii peaked so early - they tried too hard ^_^

Quoting myself. Monologue.

Undershot customers would never change their attitude and value Wii more than HD twins with or without motion-sensing, they never do. In theory according to Christensen it's a disruptive technology that eventually reaches high-end consumers when it's perfromance is on acceptable level compared to established technology, which performance well above demanded performance. High-end consumer would never value new qualities of disruptive technology as much as low-end user do, but he readily would admit old qualities of a new product if it meets his demand. Speaking about qualities for high-end consumer of video games... well, if we look at technology as a whole package, not just a controller - it's obvious what those 'core' consumers value the most - graphics etc.

Wii HD, it's coming! ^_^ Seriously speaking though, what will happen next gen when the trio will be much more close in tech specs?

UPD:

Speaking about mainstream, at least those 'mainstream' gamers who're playing on HD twins mostly, we obviously need consider yet another 'value' of traditional mentality, online, as driving force behind sales of such games as COD:MW2. Despite stereotypes of inferior service it seems to me that Nintendo own efforts (huge hits like MKWii and SSBB) along with some 3rd party games put Wii percentage-wise on par with PSN. If they eager to pursue those 'mainstream' gamers they desperately need such hits like COD:MW2.

But again they might not pursue this '50% for now' marketshare but instead keep competitors locked in this 'core' box on one front and naturally diminish their marketshare by expanding own marketshare further on another front of the battle... and eventually gore them.

The thing is that most of the high end games aren't really being bought by high end users as much as just people looking for a fun game.

This is why gaming needed this disruption. It's being largely run by those part of the vocal minority, not the mainstream. They won't accept the Wii, but they aren't those buying even the HD systems. The mainstream are, and they are making fewer games for them (just relying on dishonest hype for games to make them look appealing to the mainstream).

Alby_da_Wolf said: axt113 said: Alby_da_Wolf said: axt113 said: Alby_da_Wolf said: Malstrom, DON'T PANIC!!! ...OK, panic. Actually malstrom is right Not totally. He's right, for example, about the spin, but then he spins things too. And as almost usual for him, he seasons his articles with his cheesy and patronizing attitude. But when he downplays every possible good result of Wii competitors (for example MW2 sales) he touches the bottom. I'm even surprised he doesn't totally trash Natal, but overall what he wrote about Sony and MS motion control systems and sales results for games on their platforms speaks of insecurity and being utterly pissed that his predictions of disruption look more and more unlikely to come true. Sorry, Malstrom, your craved career of overpaid analyst, possibly for Nintendo, ends here, before even starting. What a shame, beaten at this even by Pachter!   Wow, I can't tell if you're a blind fanboy, or stupid, good job   Disruption takes decades in most cases and yet you're arguing about just a few years as indicator of no disruption, actually Move and NATAL are pretty clear signs its going on Thx a lot for the compliments, but I suspect you were watching a mirror. Disruption takes decades? I agree, but a console gen lasting a single decade is already an achievement, and when a new gen begins it's all over and back to the beginning, so if most of the disruption doesn't happen during a single decade time span, in console world it's very unlikely it will be completed. The heart of the issue is that most markets have more continuity and not a sharp division in generations, but console market has it, so disruption needs to be faster to happen. As I wrote elsewhere, disruption really happened, regarding gameplay and controls, but not economically, under that aspect Nintendo conquered again the leadership, but it's quite far from disrupting competition, actually 2nd and 3rd have greater market shares and absolute number sales than in most previous generations. I won't tell you are a blind fanboy, though, as it's obvious that the situation is different: Malstrom special glasses directly project on retinas an alternate black-and-white, edge-sharpened reality. I won't report you either, as you do a job to discredit the sect of Malstromites so outstanding it would be really a shame to stop you.

Wow you really don't get it, products in many markets get refreshed every few years, doesn't stop the disruption from occuring the reason is that the incumbent companies are unable to change their values and processes to stop the disruption, As we are seeing with Sony and MS clearly.

So I guess in your world, profits have nothing to do with economics?  I guess those billions in losses from Sony and MS mean nothing?  Thanks for proving my opinion about you

Actually Wii's successor is pretty much guaranteed to follow up the disruption, unless they choose to deep six it themselves, only they could kill their own disruption by abandoning the values that have gotten them this far, and so far that doesn't seem to be the case.

NATAL wont succeed because of how its being positioned, in the hands of a company like Nintendo, it could probably co-opt the disruption of the Wii, and open up a whole new Market, but MS is positioning in a way that will keep it from being a disruptive product, at bes it'll only help them with the core gamers that already own a 360 or are planning to buy one anyways.

Yep, the point is that I read "the innovator's dilemma", but I can't really see how to translate something like transistor-based hi-fi systems disrupting valve-based ones to the wii vs others situation. Especially since M. speaks of "values" based on gameplay, immersion, replayability etc. TV shows certainly offered differetn entertainment values as opposed to movies, and still they never disrupted movies. Just as movies did not disrupt theater or literature.

I see the "new" appeal of wiimote+sport games for a long untapped market, and I see motion controls gaining ground with the "core" gamers if it satisfies their needs. None of that is disruption in Christensen's sense, though.

"I can't really see how to translate something like transistor-based hi-fi systems disrupting valve-based ones to the wii vs others situation. Especially since M. speaks of "values" based on gameplay, immersion, replayability etc. TV shows certainly offered differetn entertainment values as opposed to movies, and still they never disrupted movies. Just as movies did not disrupt theater or literature."

Those weren't media disruptions but obsolescence based disruption. Gaming is actually the values of the mass market versus the value of the enthusiast. When you go to the latter, someone going for the former will disrupt you.