Hardcore: Stop having fun! Games are supposed to be serious!

[theRepublic]

Alby_da_Wolf said:

theRepublic said:

Alby_da_Wolf said:

theRepublic said:

Alby_da_Wolf said:

theRepublic said:

Alby_da_Wolf said:
Once I managed to install them and configured peripherals, if necessary, I even manage to have fun with PC games... Yep, I am so strange!
This said, even if I think that Malstrom every now and then is right, and he definitely is when he bashes this subset of hardcore gamers, he isn't righ a t all in general on this issue, a lot of hardcore gamers enjoy their games and have fun from them, but even more are hardcore only with some games and casual with others. And Wii didn't disrupt hardcore gaming, sorry Malstrom, Wii added a new way of gaming that can even add something new to hardcore gamers habits without negating their old loves, the only threat to hardcore games are lobotomized versions of classic hardcore titles, like the sequel to Deus Ex.

Malstrom is not saying that "hardcore" games can't be fun.  He is saying that "hardcore" gamers who think that games shouldn't be fun are nuts.

Yes, and as I wrote, maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough, this time I AGREE with Malstrom, it's just that I don't agree with his disruption theory, he tries too much to make facts square with it at all costs.

Sorry, maybe it's almost a non sequitur with the current argument, but each time I agree with Malstrom, I feel the need to specify that I don't agree with him on everything, and his attitude with Wii's success can't help making me think to a tail that tries to wag the dog    

 

Disruption is not Malstrom's theory.  Clayton Christensen came up with the theory in 1995.

It's how he forcedly applies it to Wii against HD consoles that's wrong, and to boast about he's right he ignores PC gaming too in his calculations, it's too simplistic, we perfectly know that the two worlds AREN'T independent from each other.

Actually Wii is the strongest contender, but it didn't crush the others. And it really doesn't need to, just like it doesn't need Malstrom to succeed.

 

Clayton Christensen himself has called the Wii a disruptive product.

http://www.easy-strategy.com/sony-strategy.html

Yes, but he did it in a completely different and more reasonable way than Malstrom. Actually Nintendo found a new market, while keeping its old fans too, but it didn't destroy "old style" gaming, the two worlds have roughly the same size currently, and as long as the current gen ends registering a growth compared to the previous, each console will end its life profitably. And when Christensen wrote that, PS3 was still very expensive and XB360 still plagued by an horrible HW failure rate, things have bettered a lot for both since then. Reasoning as Malstrom does we should conclude that PS2 was a lot more disruptive for the last gen, as its competitors gave up leaving it at roughly 70% market share of their gen, and it's still selling, while GC and XB1 have long died. So yes, perhaps it was even more disruptive, but it killed neither Nintendo nor MS.

 

How successful a product is does not determine whether or not a product is disruptive.  The PS2 was not a disruptive product because it was based on the same values of all the consoles that came before it.

If that is what you understand from Malstrom's writing, then you need to read it more carefully, because that is not what it says.