Late 2009 is when Nintendo will release their next-gen console

You don't think Iwata Asks is interesting? Iwata and Miyamoto sit down and honestly discuss the creation of the Wii, and you aren't interested? I guess I assumed you like to follow the workings of this industry, seeing as you post here and all.

And how can I take anything you say about Nintendo seriously if you won't read a little about the strategy they are using? I'm not asking you to read the whole book, just the first few sections. You'll see that Wii fits the characteristics so well, that it could easily be used as a prime example in the book. Or, simply read a few of Malstrom's articles. Read SOMETHING so that you have a grasp of Nintendo's strategy beyond their PR catchphrases, before commenting on their potential success.

And I can't believe you actually declared yourself the "winner." Just sit back and watch the sales numbers come in. Honestly, you should start coming up with your alternate analysis of Nintendo's success right now, so that 6 years from now when Wii is still selling gangbusters, you can say "no one could have seen this coming!" even though many of us have.

By the way, I have a question for Shane: You have been stating that spending to much time on the Wii is bad for 3rd parties. I wounder when do you belive Wii will become a healty plattform for 3rd parties? How many millions of consols must Nintendo sell before you belive that their is a market for "big" budgett 3rd party titles on Wii?

You do realize that Nintendo has never released a new system less than 5 years after the previous system was released, and that even if the Wii is not selling at an amazing rate in 2009 it would be an awful idea to release a new system before Q4 2011?

So developers, Nintendo included, just failed to utilize the Super Nintendo's power, intentionally giving Sega their entire marketing campaign? Nintendo went with carts because it was the easiest format to monetize. It's entirely possible that Nintendo did make the right decision with Wii, as it will keep the system profitable regardless of any obstacles it may face. I just don't believe it will win them any favors from third parties. Believing that Sony will be the closest to hit the original levels is based on historical data. Believing Nintendo can is unproven. It's entirely possible Wii could shock the world and hit 100 million, but it's not something we're going to be able to judge until there's at least another year's worth of data. What Nintendo's really got going for it is positive buzz, but that relates primarily to the negative buzz currently surrounding Sony. It's much easier to make money off a PS3 to 360 port than it is to make money releasing a game on just Wii. I believe THQ for instance is heading in the direction of the rest of the industry. Give Nintendo your Hot Wheels and Nickelodeon licenses, along with some multiplatform games like WWE, and reserve your next generation $20 million games for the other two. I get Nintendo's strategy. Save (or make) a buck now, do what's in your own best interests regardless of how it may affect others, and worry about the consequences later. See also: the last 20 years. Okay, but I still win, right? If Nintendo could hit Japan DS levels worldwide with Wii, I'm not even convinced then it's the wisest platform to start putting blockbuster games on. Even in that scenario, where third parties are starting to come into their own a bit and release successful games, Nintendo still owns 3/4 of the sofware market. However, that level of dominance would probably be what's needed.

From Wikipedia

There are two very important differences between the SNES and Genesis, the SNES had a far greater color depth than the Genesis, and the SNES allowed for chips to be added to the cartridge inorder to (greatly) increase its processing power. Most developers claimed that the 32X (a an add on) allowed the Genesis to produce games that were as good as the SNES SuperFX chip games.

i can understand that. it is really necessary to spend $20 million to make a great game for 360 & ps3. It won't be to make a great game for the wii.

2 more things...

1. Star Fox and DKC ought to prove pretty well that SNES was more powerful than Genesis.

2. There are no less than 4 historical precedents for Wii selling 100 million units, and none for PS3. Atari 2600 would have done 100 million if heavily pushed in as many markets as exist today, with today's population. NES would have done 100 million if heavily pushed in Europe, with today's population. Game Boy did 100 million, and so did PSone. There are no historical precedents for a console like PS3 selling even 50 million. How are these historical precedents? Its about the business plan, stupid. Not the company.

Why should I take the word of a person who is associated with a Nintendo fan site? It's like taking information from Iraq's "Information Minister" during the beginning of the Iraq war.  Does that mean that you should take every word written by "Joe Schmoe" at thePS3weekly.com? (I made up that site as an example)

If I wanted to read propaganda I'd go to Fox News's website. 

Because you might learn something? The Blue Ocean Strategy isn't even about Nintendo.

From Publishers Weekly
Kim and Mauborgne's blue ocean metaphor elegantly summarizes their vision of the kind of expanding, competitor-free markets that innovative companies can navigate. Unlike "red oceans," which are well explored and crowded with competitors, "blue oceans" represent "untapped market space" and the "opportunity for highly profitable growth." The only reason more big companies don't set sail for them, they suggest, is that "the dominant focus of strategy work over the past twenty-five years has been on competition-based red ocean strategies"-i.e., finding new ways to cut costs and grow revenue by taking away market share from the competition. With this groundbreaking book, Kim and Mauborgne-both professors at France's INSEAD, the second largest business school in the world-aim to repair that bias. Using dozens of examples-from Southwest Airlines and the Cirque du Soleil to Curves and Starbucks-they present the tools and frameworks they've developed specifically for the task of analyzing blue oceans. They urge companies to "value innovation" that focuses on "utility, price, and cost positions," to "create and capture new demand" and to "focus on the big picture, not the numbers." And while their heavyweight analytical tools may be of real use only to serious strategy planners, their overall vision will inspire entrepreneurs of all stripes, and most of their ideas are presented in a direct, jargon-free manner. Theirs is not the typical business management book's vague call to action; it is a precise, actionable plan for changing the way companies do business with one resounding piece of advice: swim for open waters.