| RolStoppable said:
2) Disruption is a possibility to take over marketshare from the competition, but it's certainly not the only way or even the common way. Using the PS1 as example, it was not disruptive. The marketleader at the time was the SNES and the PS1 is a sustaining strategy: Better graphics, better sound, more buttons on the controller and more expensive (launched at $300 while SNES launched at $200). The Sega Saturn was the same, as was the Nintendo 64. It's just that the PS1 turned out to be the best of these three products, so it sold the most units. Similarly, in the seventh generation the Xbox 360 didn't disrupt the PS3. Microsoft's console was just a better executed sustaining strategy. The Wii launched as a combination of new-market and low-end disruption, but the latter ended up being incomplete, because Nintendo didn't have the games to move further upmarket. Many of which would have required commitment from third parties, such as FPS, TPS, sandbox games and more realistic takes on the racing genre. So ultimately, the Wii was only successful in the new market while it became stuck in the low end (the arrow in the above graph would be shown as flatlining when applied to the Wii, because there was no upwards movement after a while anymore). So how does disruption apply to 2D Mario and 3D Mario? It doesn't, it's simple as that.
|
Thank you for explaining this to me. Here is a clearer image for those interested.
Ultimately, the term I was meaning to use was Sustaining Strategy, and that by sustaining strategy, 3D Mario would end up reaching a much higher potential, despite early castration (someone help me find a better word).
|
3) My second paragraph was stating the plain obvious, I don't know what kind of proof you would expect. I don't even get why you would need proof for such a statement in the first place. |
I don't buy it. What happened to SMW in Japan? Why didn't it sell 6M? Was it half as much a legitimate Mario game as SMB was? Lets see how you fair in defense mode.
| 4) I would put that number at zero. Zero more N64s would have been sold. |
Case closed. You obviously don't use any common sense. If a game costs:
N64 system cost + Mario 64 game cost.
But could have been sold at
N64 system cost
Then it will sell as many if not less copies? How am I supposed to trust your judgement?
