The PS4 Won The Console Generation By Being Boring: Can The PS5 Do The Same?

[The_Liquid_Laser]

outlawauron said:

The_Liquid_Laser said:

It's not an either/or scenario.  It's a both/and scenario.  The disruptive innovation changes how the industry works, because a lot of customers switch to the new model and often new customers come in.  Games as a service is not trying to make games with higher production values (higher functionality).  Instead it is making them easier to try out by making them free to play and such.  That makes the games cheaper and more convenient, and also more reliable because you know if you like the game before you spend money on it.  GaaS exactly fits everything I just said about disruption.

However, none of the generation 5 or 6 consoles fit a disruptive description.  They were all trying to make games with higher production values...increased functionality.  It is the exact opposite of disruption.

Online gaming on a console wasn't disruptive? Cross platform play? I feel like you're really selling them short. 

You can easily argue that by attaching non-gaming value to a platform, Sony was able to dominate and change what type of games were being developed as the market opened to a newer, non-gaming audience. PS2 was the first casual console.

The problem with all of these arguments is that you don't know what disruptive means.  It means that you don't sell to your best customers.  Any innovation that sells to the market's best customers is not disruptive.  A new development CAN be innovative and amazing and still not be disruptive.

Disruptive is about changing the status quo from a business perspective.  It's a business term.  Online gaming on a console isn't disruptive, because the best customers in gaming were buying the consoles for online gaming.  It was an innovation targeting the same people.  The term for this is sustaining innovation.  It sustains the current business model.  Usually there are more profits to be made from sustaining innovations than disruptive ones. 

A disruptive innovation changes the marketplace, by going for either marginal customers or customers not in the market yet.  The Wii was a disruptive innovation.  It didn't increase functionality (i.e. hardware power).  It improved on convenience and price instead.  The controls were simple and the flagship games like Wii Sports were short.  All of that is very convenient.  It was made to appeal to people who weren't the main customers of gaming at the time.  That is what made it disruptive.  People still complain about the Wii.  That is how disruptive it is.  

The status quo doesn't like disruptions.  It's like how a teacher doesn't like a disruption to their class.  It's called disruption because it is irritating to the status quo, both to the leading business and the main customers of the leading business.  The status quo of gaming going into generation 7 was Sony.  The Wii was irritating to both Sony and it's best customers.  That is why it gets the name disruptive. Most innovations aren't disruptive, even if they make a lot of money and change the technology standards. 

You actually don't "sell something short" by saying it isn't disruptive.  Instead you "sell something short" by calling it disruptive.  Disruptive products are made for "da cazualz".