Malstrom: Why Wii Music is Genius

[bdbdbd]

@Paul Warren: Nintendo never said they couldn't afford a console like PS3 or 360. Nintendo could have afforded a failure like Xbox.
What Nintendo have said is, that they could have done a console like PS360, but they didn't see it profitable and Nintendos PR have been talking about disruption for years now, so if you knew disruption, you knew what was coming. Nintendo is continuing with its disruptive strategy.
Nintendos level of dominance isn't because of Nintendos disruptive strategy, but because of the competition fucking their own things up. Well, that's how Sega and Nintendo helped Sony into console market a decade ago.

Now that you were talking about experience, then you should know why Wii is selling. It offers completely new experience, while PS360 offers the same shit in prettier wraps. And yes, Wii offers also the same as before in prettier wraps, just not as flashy as flashy as the HD consoles.
Wii takes the experience in a whole new level, while M$ offers you achievements in Live, Nintendo offers you achievements in life. Losing five kilos with Wii Fit, is always superior to gaining 500 points to your gamerscore in Halo.
Looking at the games that you constantly see on top-sellers lists, Wii Sports, Wii Play and Wii Fit, they all are about a new experience, which isn't possible on the HD consoles, and even less, when the competition strategy is only to follow, instead of innovate. The biggest strength of Wii is, that its hardware is designed from the ground-up for the software, while the competing consoles are designed for the hardware.

As for the review scores, since the score and sales don't meet, it just proves that reviewers doesn't resemble the public, so the review scores can't be taken as an indicator of the games perceived quality. No matter how you try to prove something that doesn't exist with the score.

@Yushire: The end of gaming as we know it, happened with NES, it also happened when the games went to 3D and it's happening now too. With the difference, that the instance that's driving the change, has no motivation to give up with the old audience. I've explained this to you a few times already, but you still don't seem to understand.
Nintendo wants to upstream the new audience. When they do, the new audience buys X amount of the blue ocean/disruptive games, when they move up in tiers, they buy bridged games and when they keep moving up, they end up buying core games.
If we assume that the blue ocean audience would be a million in size and everyone would upstream and the core audience would be the same size, but they would go to lower tiers only up to bridged games:
You would sell million copies of blue ocean games.
You would sell two million copies of bridged games.
You would sell two million copies of core games.
So, what it would mean is, that the core audience games would get even more profitable to publishers, making even bigger budgets possible, instead of abandoning the "hardcore", in the end Nintendo is saving the "hardcore".

So Nintendo isn't abandoning their business strategy, they just continue it. Look at the number of the party games/minigames Nintendo have published in a while. The latest is around 1,5 years old and there's not a new one in sight, outside Wii Sports Resort, which essentially is just a tech demo that you have something to play along Wii Motion Plus (and to boost its sales, of course).
We aren't seeing Wii Sports 2, Wii Fit 2 is a remote possibility, but what we will see, is a big number of bridged and core games.
The core games aren't going anywhere, the old audience, whose values are "more the same with flashier visuals" just will be the minority in the audience, whose values lie in innovation and gameplay - in the core of videogames.