axt113 said:
None of them pushed hardware, what pushed hardware was the wider market games, like Wii sports Wrong, do you even hear yourself, the causual bandwagon, lol, you really don't get it, there is no causal bandwagon, only idiots think there is, the wider market has always been there, they just weren't interested in playing "core" games, things like Mario 64, they were interested in Super mario, but not 3D star hunter mario. Their games didn't appeal to a wide audience, because none of them came close to the Super mario games of the earlier gens, they had cut off the wider market. Wrong Super Mario has always sold more than 3D mario, get a clue. You really don't understand the market at all do you?
Sony and MS have no chance of making that software, the values of those companies are opposed to what the wider market is looking for, which is why they could never make the, Wii. Back then MOVE wasn't announced, all there was was rumors of what would become MOVE, but he did say that the rumored ideas were a bad idea and that alternatives were what Sony should do, now Sony is doing the wrong move, and it'll end like other disrutions, with Sony being crushed, in fact Christensen has outlined how Sony will be defeated in his books.
Those analysts are not Christensen, Christensen is smarter, he's the guy who created the whole disruption theory, and its the theory that Nintendo has followed to great success, and the success is continuing, so yeah, trust the guys who were wrong and are currently saying Move will be a success, or the guy who was right and who said MOVE was a bad idea, I'll trust Christensen. |
Wii Sports and the like did push hardware; it STILL doesn't mean their big three lineup isn't strong.
If the word "casual" offends you, too bad. Let's use "wider" since you seem to prefer it. Many, many people who bought the Wii are people who fall into the "wider" category. People that , as you admitted yourself, are not core gamers. People who bought it on a whim, many of which hardly use it anymore. People who are grandparents who like Wii bowling. People who play every long once and a while with their kids. In other words: PEOPLE WHO PLAY CASUALLY! Sound better? Less idiotic, perhaps? I never said this was a bad thing; not in the least. No they would not be interested in Mario 64. But Mario 64 did more than deliver a "3D star hunt". It delivered a new era of gameplay and showed that Nintendo could gracefully transition great gameplay into 3D. That impressed people whether they were fans of the direction the game took or not. I personally prefer most of the 2D Mario games myself, and now that the "wider" market has embraced the Wii, great games like NSMB will surely sell much better. But in 1996 Nintendo started the N64 off with a bang by adapting to the market instead of just releasing another 2D Mario which would have largely gone unnoticed at the time. Super Mario World came with the SNES, but Super Mario World 2? Despite being one of my favorite games ever, it definitely didn't sell anywhere near what Mario 64 and Galaxy have... there's your clue.
Sony opposed to what the wider market is looking for? Because PS1 and PS2 didn't sell squat, right? Do YOU hear yourself? I won't argue against Christensen's points simply because I do agree with a lot of what the man says. Doesn't mean Move and Natal couldn't surprise us, but I'm not holding my breath either. And I never stated I "trusted" the analysts; I NEVER did, as I was sure Nintendo would regain their #1 spot in the market. Why? Because I DO understand the market. Do You?
