Currently Online 
S.T.A.G.E. said:
The Wii had a monopoly on the non-gamer type of casual. The new market I was showing to you that harvard business was talking about. The trendy gamer bought the Wii for sure, but I am talking the vast majority of the gamers Nintendo invited to the gaming market would not have cared about the market if word of mouth and accessible simplistic gameplay hadnt been created for them. Did you see the video from harvard business as well as the article? It explains it perfectly. Nintendo circumvented the traditional audience even though the Wii aimed for everyone regardless of ability. The PS3 and 360 always were the natural choice in the traditional market. Thats the reason why Microsoft halved the PS2s sales and they both sold about 160-170+ combined. The PS2 population heavily lived in those two platforms and the sales of their third party games shows it. The Wii's success was based on non-traditional circumstances because the Wii wasnt not a traditional console and was not aimed at the same gamers. Once again, Nintendo has been circumventing Sony and Microsoft, trying to aim for a broader audience since the Wii and have failed to rekindle it, so they did the next best thing as went for a sure thing by wooing the handheld and console audience all at once this gen. |
I'm familiar with the blue ocean theory, but it's a mistake I think to assume that accounts for the entirety of the Wii audience.
The PS3 and 360 do not account for the whole PS2 userbase, because the PS360 numbers include the kids who started gaming on PS3/360 last gen and didn't own a PS2. There's a whole chunk of casual PS2 owners who got a Wii instead because it was the next trendy/popular system.
