RolStoppable said:
I did and it's right there. Since there are no real challengers, Nintendo doesn't need to reinvent the wheel completely, but just needs to realize the full potential of the Wii idea by refining it and releasing new IPs that create new demand. While that wouldn't be as blue ocean as the original Wii (since the hardware is an evolution and only the software would break new grounds), it would still be a sufficient strategy that leaves Nintendo without any direct competitors, thus ensuring profitability. Simply put, there was no reason for Nintendo to abandon the Wii, because there were no serious threats emerging. Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Ocean_Strategy Kim and Mauborgne argue that while traditional competition-based strategies (red ocean strategies) are necessary, they are not sufficient to sustain high performance. Companies need to go beyond competing. To seize new profit and growth opportunities they also need to create blue oceans. The authors argue that competition based strategies assume that an industry’s structural conditions are given and that firms are forced to compete within them, an assumption based on what academics call the structuralist view, or environmental determinism. To sustain themselves in the marketplace, practitioners of red ocean strategy focus on building advantages over the competition, usually by assessing what competitors do and striving to do it better. Here, grabbing a bigger share of the market is seen as a zero-sum game in which one company’s gain is achieved at another company’s loss. Hence, competition, the supply side of the equation, becomes the defining variable of strategy. Here, cost and value are seen as trade-offs and a firm chooses a distinctive cost or differentiation position. Because the total profit level of the industry is also determined by structural factors, firms principally seek to capture and redistribute wealth instead of creating wealth. They focus on dividing up the red ocean, where growth is increasingly limited. Blue ocean strategy, on the other hand, is based on the view that market boundaries and industry structure are not given and can be reconstructed by the actions and beliefs of industry players. This is what the authors call “reconstructionist view”. Assuming that structure and market boundaries exist only in managers’ minds, practitioners who hold this view do not let existing market structures limit their thinking. To them, extra demand is out there, largely untapped. The crux of the problem is how to create it. This, in turn, requires a shift of attention from supply to demand, from a focus on competing to a focus on value innovation – that is, the creation of innovative value to unlock new demand. This is achieved via the simultaneous pursuit of differentiation and low-cost. As market structure is changed by breaking the value/cost tradeoff, so are the rules of the game. Competition in the old game is therefore rendered irrelevant. By expanding the demand side of the economy new wealth is created. Such a strategy therefore allows firms to largely play a non–zero-sum game, with high payoff possibilities. |
So...release another WIi with different IPs? thats not really blue ocean. What kind of IPs? Is there a gaurantee that those new IPs would have been as popular. Dont devs and publishers make new IPs all the time?
Edit: you say that it would have differiante itself from PS4 X1. Doesnt the WIi U do that already? Last i checked neither of those two systems incoporate a gamepad controller (no PS4 controller isnt the same thing). Granted their are similarities, but there are differences. PS4 and X1 are closer to each other than either are close to WIi U in alot of ways.
