The Malstrom Discussion Thread

[LordTheNightKnight]

puffy said:

LordTheNightKnight said:

puffy said:

LordTheNightKnight said:

Mr Khan said:

Again all the judging about Mario 3DS when we know shit-all about it.

This is why he occasionally states a lot of his analysis is deduction based on things he does know. If the game turns out to be something with more mass appeal (since the facts are that the 3D games are not killer apps), then he will gladly admit his analysis before was wrong.

As for whoever brought up that Nintendo will be the first to stream to a controller, not only is that also speculation, that doesn't mean it will attract the mainstream to the system. They want good games, not mediocre games that have gimmicks and/or just please reviewers (and before you bring up sales and reviews on other systems, correlation=/=causation, and a lot of those games don't have legs).

I was speaking specifically about disruption, you know, the thing Malstrom was actually right about from the beginning?

A new gimmick is not disruption. Just introducing something new is not disruption. Doing what the other guys should have been doing is disruption.

Doing what others should have done isn't the definition of disruption, there's never a 'right way of doing things'.. "The term is used in business and technology literature to describe innovations that improve a product or service in ways that the market does not expect, typically by lowering price or designing for a different set of consumers." 

What I'm saying is we don't know Nintendo's strategy here but it may very well be disruptive in approach. Clearly they aren't content with simply improving their motion controls for example. The fact that they seem to be proposing a new value for this new system, in the rumoured controller, points towards a possible disruptive strategy.

Again, we won't know until E3, but if you can't see that further disruption may be on Nintendo's mind based on the current rumours then you should probably actually go back and read up on what disruption actually is.

"typically by lowering price or designing for a different set of consumers"

A screen that would raise prices is not disrupting. And how would this go for a different set? Since the gaming community would apparently love this kind of gimmick, it's not going after a different set.

Now that is assuming they would do something like this, but you seem to be championing it as something disruptive, based on it being new, not that it meets the disruptive criteria.

And doing what the others should be doing is also disrutptive, because things that drive away customers are grounds for disruption by those seeking those customers.