The idea is supposed to be that Nintendo shouldn't have to cut the price of the Wii if they are properly adhering to the Blue Ocean strategy. It is said by some (like Malstrom), that a cut would be a red-ocean strategy, something to get more combative with Sony and Microsoft.
I disagree. The Blue Ocean entails a struggle on its own, a struggle Nintendo has outlined before: the fight against consumer apathy. Obviously software needs to be the primary weapon against apathy. A console can be dirt-cheap and still worth less than that to a given consumer if that console lacks appealing software. However, it is highly likely that Nintendo has baited in a lot of people who are interested, but otherwise rather iffy on the whole thing. Fence-sitters, as it were. Maybe they know someone with a Wii, and like to play around with it a bit, and genuinely enjoy the software, but just can't bring themselves to put $250 down for it. More software isn't necessarily going to bring these fence-sitters in, if they're already hooked based on existing software, but can't be reeled in under current situations.
A price-cut could work very well in a Blue Ocean setting in this way. It would be a way to grab more of these "non-gamers/Blue Ocean gamers" who are enamored with the software, but need some extra encouragement. A significant number of these people have probably built up over the years, through the virtue of local multiplayer.
Now, it would also inadvertantly be a Red Ocean thing, since you could fight with Sony and Microsoft for a certain breed of casual gamer, the kind that was already into console gaming last generation, but aren't particularly avid and lack any real brand loyalty. People who are looking for replacements for their PS2's, perhaps. Nintendo could get more competitive for these "Red Ocean Casuals," but a cut would not be directed at them, but at the fence-sitters previously mentioned.
Thoughts?
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
