WereKitten said:
As for disruption, I know the concept, but you're applying it wrong because there's no such thing as a single market for videogames. Nintendo did not disrupt the core market at all, they did not bring any huge new added value to it with the Wii. Traditional gamers and developers did not flock abandoning the PS and Xbox machines. That's actually the whole point of the blue ocean strategy in this case: market segmentation. They sold approximately the same quantity of Super Mario, Metroid and Zelda games as always to their core market and they made alot of money on a market on which they actually don't have competition from the other two consoles. Meanwhile the two HD consoles are happily selling on their core market with pretty similar results to the late PS2. At Nintendo they actually don't have any interest into "going for the kill". Didn't you say yourself that it's about the profit? Why should they hope to turn the whole industry around? Are they zaelots that want to convert to a phylosophy all the developer and gamers? Or are they businessmen that are making money, and the later others enter their own space, the better. One last misunderstanding on your part: I didn't say that your arguments were devoid of value. I said that this conversation was valueless as a debate. I stand by this. |
I haven't replied to your post becuase I've either been gaming (going though both Golden Suns) or working. However, I will clear one thing up. Yes, Nintendo is disruptibng. Here is a video from the co-author of disruption (he's written more on it, I beleive). He mentions examples, including the Wii. Let's not forget that Reggie mentions disruption quite often and mentioned in at E3 06-08 (he talked a different, yet related, game at 09).
