Smashchu2 said:
Seeing as you keep trying to call Nintendo the incumbant, I don't think you do. |
I disagree about what market each are in. Malstrom says Sony and MS are in the old market and Nintendo is in the new market. That's pretty much a direct quote. I'm not going to continue arguing the merits of each market, but I've pointed out various markets and their submarkets and how the two can actually be distinct from one another. Portable gaming is a distinct market from console gaming, as it is distinct from pc gaming.
But how can that be? PC games are all over the consoles, and the only difference is the input?
The difference lies within the type of person that owns the platform. PCs have a variety of different ways to game, from downloads, to demos, to shareware, to piracy, to beta testing, to facebook games, and flash. Because of all those different ways to game, the market must be approached in a variety of ways, and advertised likewise. Just the fact that both malstrom and christensen both say that playstation was disrupting the pc through gaming should be enlightening.
But, the wii is the disruptor, it will continue being the disruptor in the old market until the competition disappears and the wii becomes the standard. You don't even know the basics of disruption.
So then why has the wii began engaging in sustaining innovation? Wii motion plus, iplayer, netflix, string of classic-core games announced at e3. These are not creating new markets. They are evolutionary sustaining innovations. "An innovation that improves a product in an existing market in ways that customers are expecting." Along with that are the revolutionary sustaining innovations of the balance board and vitality sensor. Sustaining innovation is the hallmark of the incumbent. Sustaining information creates disruptive opportunities.
The facts support my position, but you see them as supporting your position. It doesn't mean either of us are wrong. We just disagree on what is what. Instead, we can focus on your statements that Sony and MS have to buy out Nintendo to survive, or that both of them are going to collapse, or that sony has all their eggs in 3D, or how Nintendo has the shields to prevent kinect or move from successful co-option. Or , we don't have to talk about it at all, because if we disagree on the above, then we'll be hard pressed to come to some agreement here. All I can do, as I have been doing, is present concrete examples from Clayton himself and point out how incongrous Malstrom's theories are. Nintendo does not have a shield anywhere near what CC examples have, and Sony's success does not hinge on 3D.
Kinect will appeal to an underserved demographic and create a new market that Nintendo is incapable of getting involved in due to their reliance on peripherals. It has a lot of the requirements, or descriptive factors associated with being disruptive. It's hated by the mainstream, people question its use, and it's called a poor product in terms of gaming needs.
So let's just disagree about everything. I come to this resolution after seeing how you dodge my questions, restate your points, and just generally go against what I see are the facts. A hilarious reaction is brought up whenever someone mentions that console gaming would still be up over this time last gen without the wii. In fact, the only time the market slowed down was because wii topped out. The response comes, "No, it would not, because DS wouldn't exist. DS is the spiritual equivalent of the wii. And if Nintendo didn't think of wii, they wouldn't have thought of DS." I often facepalm when I see this circular logic written in some thread. We are talking about wii as a disruptive technology and how it's crushing the industry, right? So much for transforming the industry with a new standard and bringing the old kingdom crashing down.
See, the problem with the wii is not just that it doesn't have adequate shields, but rather that the entire industry wants to do what the wii does. It's been mentioned by nearly every developer and analyst. Games cost too much too make. Games cost too much to buy. We need smaller games. We could be selling more peripherals. We could stop hurting our profit margin by putting in only the most cutting edge tech. We can't quality control our consoles because of the competition. The razorblade model is failing. Sales of these hardcore, expensively made games is dropping.
The market will change. But it won't change because Nintendo has annihilated the market, it will be because Nintendo evolved the market.
