How much is the 3DS?
Then we can talk.
Next Gen
| 11/20/09 04:25 | makingmusic476 | Warning | Other (Your avatar is borderline NSFW. Please keep it for as long as possible.) |
How much is the 3DS?
Then we can talk.
Next Gen
| 11/20/09 04:25 | makingmusic476 | Warning | Other (Your avatar is borderline NSFW. Please keep it for as long as possible.) |
| freebs2 said: Not really as much as a company who can afford to dump their products for years to gain market share or advertise them on biggest sports events for decades...Nintendo is not nearly as dangerous as sony, it's just smarter. 3DS is of course a direct move agaist sony since they are the only direct competitors....but I don't see how the Wii was a move agaist sony at any level, different target, different price, different features, different controls, different type of games.....If ever it's Microsoft going direclty against ps3 releasing the conlose one year before, with a more competitive price, offering similar features, stealing exclusives....not to mention that both Microsoft and Sony are the ones going directly against Wii with Move and Kinect. |
For your first paragraph: Nintendo actually has billions of dollars in reserve. And by that, I really do mean "just sitting around." I once heard that Nintendo could stop releasing even one product, continue to pay all of its current employees their current salaries, and still operate without a hitch for several years. Nintendo's worth more than Sony (it was the number two company in Japan for a while). They wouldn't be stupid enough to burn money for marketshare, but if they wanted to, they completely could. Don't buy into the myth!
For your second paragraph, I've got some light reading you can look into, if you have the time and inclination to learn more about how the Wii really was a direct move against its competitors.
| psrock said: How much is the 3DS? Then we can talk. |
Six Hundred U.S. Dollars!
| noname2200 said: For your second paragraph, I've got some light reading you can look into, if you have the time and inclination to learn more about how the Wii really was a direct move against its competitors. |
I would like to, but not now...there are still some other intersting things I want read around and it's almost bedtime for me.
noname2200 said:
|
Blue ocean stands alone, but you can't disrupt by going after what you competetor already has a lock on, which is the red ocean. So to start disruption you need to go after the blue ocean by default.
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs
noname2200 said:
For your first paragraph: Nintendo actually has billions of dollars in reserve. And by that, I really do mean "just sitting around."
|
I demand to know how you can quote twice 



killeryoshis said:
|
Copy or cut the quote. It isn't that hard.
Add in the next one.

| LordTheNightKnight said:
|
On the contrary, you can disrupt without ever entering the Blue Ocean.
Think of the example of the steel mini-mills. They disrupted the established steel industry, but they did not begin by finding customers who didn't use steel, or who were underserved (i.e. Blue Ocean tactics). What they did instead was find established consumers of steel, and offered them a cheaper way to purchase a low-end product (in this case, rebars). Again, these consumers were not new: they already purchased rebars from the established steel mills.
Because the profit margin on these was so low, the established mills were okay with ceding that area to the mini-mills. The problem is that those mini-mills then gradually moved up the product chain until they became the new kings of steel. To sum, the upstart disruptor can succeed by going after the competitor's established territory, as long as it targets an area that the competition possesses but does not care enough for to engage in a sustained competition.
Disruption only requires that you offer a new value, not that you find new customers. It may be easier to start when you're unopposed (Blue Ocean), but it's not necessary to do so.
noname2200 said:
On the contrary, you can disrupt without ever entering the Blue Ocean. Think of the example of the steel mini-mills. They disrupted the established steel industry, but they did not begin by finding customers who didn't use steel, or who were underserved (i.e. Blue Ocean tactics). What they did instead was find established consumers of steel, and offered them a cheaper way to purchase a low-end product (in this case, rebars). Again, these consumers were not new: they already purchased rebars from the established steel mills. Because the profit margin on these was so low, the established mills were okay with ceding that area to the mini-mills. The problem is that those mini-mills then gradually moved up the product chain until they became the new kings of steel. To sum, the upstart disruptor can succeed by going after the competitor's established territory, as long as it targets an area that the competition possesses but does not care enough for to engage in a sustained competition. Disruption only requires that you offer a new value, not that you find new customers. It may be easier to start when you're unopposed (Blue Ocean), but it's not necessary to do so. |
Okay, but in this case, Nintendo got back on top with the blue ocean, and are now going upmarket.
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs
It all makes sense now. Gunpei Yokoi invented a time machine in the early 1990s by duct taping two Game Boys to a radioactive capacitor. Through this monochromatic portal, he saw the Sony 3D Death Machine coming, he had to do something. He invented the Virtual Boy in a bid to battle the Bravia blitz that was to be.
You might ask, why didn't he see the Virtual Boys failure and his own demise in an automobile accident with his Time Boy? Quantum interference from Blast Processing, that's why.
But he still fought the good fight. RIP Gunpei
| LordTheNightKnight said:
|
That, we can agree on!