By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Khuutra on 15 December 2009
Edit Thread
The_vagabond7 said:
Khuutra said:

All right, maybe I'm not being clear enough here.. Your statement for A suggests something reasonable enoguh - that Nintendo is not directly competing with Microsoft and Sony - but that in itself can have two (or more) very different implications.

The first (let's say) is the one that you list, that they are actively aiming for an audience that Microsoft and Sony do not have and do not want, and are ignoring the audience that the other two have.

The other (unnamed) possibility is that Nintendo is gaining headways into new revenue streams in addition to continuing with parts of their core strategies, and are not competing with Microsoft and Sony in the sense that they don't really give a shit what Microsoft and Sony do.

Are these not two different but legitimate interpretations of that scenario?

No. That's just a kinder rephrasing with market speak of the scenarios I posit. Your first is (A) the second is just (B) with them being too cool to care if they are ignored by the traditional gamer. What is their "core strategy"? To create a system that traditional gamers would enjoy? If so, they are competing with the PS360, even if they say otherwise. Does their "core strategy" have nothing to do with the same market the PS360 are pursuing? Then you're back in the (A) scenario. Either they want the market that the PS360 are going after, or they don't. There isn't a middle ground. Being aloof isn't somehow a more respectable (or sensical) option that makes it so the media is somehow giving them undue grief.

No, it isn't. When I said "core strategy" I was referring specifically to the way that they produce core games (their words). As in, they still cater to the core in addition to undercutting the competition by cutting their way into new markets.

Being in direct competition implies that the actions of Microsoft and Sony would imply that Nintendo takes a reactionary stance to their methods, which is not the same thing as going for a similar market. You can go for the same market - being in competition - without being in direct competition, which is to say they are not being reactionary.

I would say that's actually closer to the truth, though, and it's starting to show - they should have been reactionary in certain places where they were not, and Reggie in particular is starting to publically opine that fact.