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

[Alby_da_Wolf]

theRepublic said:

Alby_da_Wolf said:

theRepublic said:

Khuutra said:

Alby_da_Wolf said:

Well PS2 could be defined disruptive as it widened the functions offered by a consoles.

About understanding Malstrom, wouldn't it help if he avoided using doom and gloom tones? And if he avoided implicitly implying destruction after disruption? Or pretending that each move of Wii's competitors is wrong? Disruption happened, it's undeniable, but what Malstrom writes can maybe describe the initial mind-boggling Wii success and the reactions to it, not how things evolved. Sony and MS were initially caught by surprise, but they both reacted, and about motion detection itself, it has already been experimented both on PS2 and PC, it's just that Wii was the first to have the right formula to make it really usable, enjoyable and appealing for the masses, but Sony and MS don't have to start from scratch to react to it too, it's more correct to say that they have to work on ergonomics of motion control, instead.

That isnt what "disruptive" means, either. Disruptive means that it undercuts traditional values in favor of new ones and thereby gains control of the market through channels that its competitors never considered. The PS2 was not disruptive. It was a logical progression of the PS1.

Khuutra took the first paragraph, I'll take the second.

The reason that Malstrom generally talks about doom and gloom for Sony and Microsoft is because of how the process of disruption works.  It is not a one time event (like the launch of the Wii).  Disruption involves a series of steps, starting with a low end innovative product, and slowly moving that product upstream to users who require more performance (the first steps seem to be the Balance Board and Motion Plus).  Historically, the disruptive product pushes incumbents out of the market.

This can happen, it's one of the ways games theory provides for incumbents to be overthrown, but is it happening now? To be quite sure to prevail the new market must include and dwarf the old one, up until now it looks like the new market is roughly equal to the old one.

You seem to think the process is over.  It is just beginning.  Nintendo is going to continue to take steps to make their products more attractive to higher-end users.  One route Nintendo could take, would be to launch a Wii successor in 2012 (or maybe even later) that is at least as powerful as the 360/PS3, HD ready, cheap, and with 1:1 motion controls out of the box.  This console would further push Microsoft and Sony out of the market.

Microsoft's and Sony's motion controllers could fend off Nintendo, but the copycat never does as well as the initial innovator.  Another issue could be the level of support that those controllers get.  If it is anything less than full support, they are likely to flop in the market compared to Nintendo's offerings.

If Nintendo does see them as a threat, they could decide to innovate in a new direction with their next console.  At this point, I would believe that Nintendo could do it again, as they seem to have made it a part of their corporate culture.

What you say is possible, but it doesn't prove Malstrom is right, fact is that you are confident about Nintendo's possibilities, Malstrom tends to be plain fanatic about them, he almost always starts reasoning correctly, but when it comes to foresee Ninty's success and Sony's and MS' doom he short-circuits   

What do we know up until now? That the current trend for Wii is hovering around 50%, not even big, further, successful innovations like Balance Board changed this trend out of the short term. And about crushing competitors, looking at the past, it doesn't look Nintendo's style, more MS' style in other fields. In the past Nintendo more than once did incredibly well, but it went always its way straight towards leadership without crushing its competitors, they always crushed themselves with incredible mistakes. Nintendo is a world apart, it doesn't need worrying about other than keeping on being itself, while innovating itself at the same time. It's a unique style, like Apple's.