Presumably humanity is on the verge of extinction at that point, so selling videogames will be the least of anyone's worries.

Nintendo should find a way to cater to the Blue Ocean and "Hardcore". They need a formula that bridges that gap. Either way, it seems the consumers demands so much from Nintendo; it seems they must be innovative, revolutionary, and unique to be successful whereas Sony and Microsoft have it easy - they just need to have a media-driven, powerful consoles in order to be successful.
In my opinion, of course, as how I see the market.

If the PS3 or the 360 for that matter had to survive based on the 3rd party support the Wii currently gets, they would have been dead, period. Sony was so close to complete decline, but multiplatform titles kept the PSTriple afloat until Sony could adopt some type of new strategy, culminated by the Slim model, PS Move, and Japan's complete Wii abandonment.

I don't feel like cycling through his website either lol. I agree with his overall premise that Nintendo needs to cover the bases (Adventure, Sports, Introductory, etc) with all their consoles. It provides an easy example of how the previous ones failed, and how the Wii lost a large segment without many adventure games.

I like its argument, but still I think this guy is also in denial, he's forgetting that actually the majority of people now wants HD graphics, story-telling ecc.ecc, the combined demand of HD consoles has been higher than the Wii demand, software like Call Of Duty has actually sold more than Super Mario Bros 5. So the consumers behaviour has changed.The real question imo is if this console isn't too late to catch up with sony and microsoft.

For your first two paragraphs, you may be right, but as I noted in that post, what does that mean for the analysis quality of the majority? The examples you cite are actually the opposite of what's going on here, since in those cases the person is simply betting with what the majority is going with, and as we've repeatedly seen sheer weight of numbers can help overcome reality for a fair amount of time. Malstrom is not going with the majority, though.

As for your last paragraph, I think you're giving him far too short a shrift. He called on Nintendo to make more 2D platformers, although that's far from the entirety of his thinking, but you're brushing that success aside far too casually. You're pinning that success on the lack of 2D platformers in the market, while not giving him the credit he deserves for pointing out that said market is still quite strong and completely unserved.

More importantly, you're overlooking the fact that there's more to Nintendo's success than simply targeting genres that no one else is: platformers and action/adventure games were a dime a dozen during the 8 and 16 bit eras, but that didn't stop Nintendo's games from outshining all the rest. Their 3D platformers were arguably the only reason the N64 moved as many units as it did, yet that genre wasn't exactly starved during its era. It may be a mistake for Nintendo to target the "mature" audience, yes, but that's because they've never specialized in those types of games, not because of genre saturation.

But we're drifting from the main topic now. I can agree that Malstrom's main point is that companies should create "a distinct product that is desireable." That's the goal of roughly every company that ever existed in any market. Where the unique value of Malstrom lies is in his thoughts on what makes a videogame distinct and desireable. I haven't seen any other blogger that's called for the same things he has.

I definitely agree that I don't understand his motivations most of the time, thus the reason I feel he is contrarian for the sake of it. you however can't ride on the whole "you don't understand the majesty of the great Malstrom" when someone doesn't like him.  It's not that I don't like / don't understand the Blue ocean strategy, its that I think he's a douche nozzle.   

I still have every right to hold to my opinion that when he started talking about how great game X is and how shitty game Y is, it ruined his blog.  my whole opinion of him changed when he satrted doing this.  Then he bagan screening hatemail to post on the site.....strike 2. Since when did he become an internet version of Sean Hannity?

If the guy can seperate himself from his work, I may pick it up again, but ATM he has turned his blog into an extension of his ego.  This is also why GJAIF and even a handful of other blogs turn out crappy after a while.  If enough people stroke the ego and say "you're a genius!" they usually turn out a bit d"ouchey."

I agree, but in my mind Sony's fortunes basically came from clinging to 360 ports, cutting their price, and waiting for the Wii to get starved out. Their assertive attempts to break out, like Home and Move, have by and large failed at their goal. They've essentially just lucked out, as far as I can tell.

Are you sure this is true?

His analysis does not explain the success of PS1/PS2 in expanding the market.

The majority of people buying software today, yes. But he's saying that, if Nintendo provided, the entire video game industry would be double the size; have double the customers.

What we aren't seeing in the figures is those who would buy a console if it made their kind of game (be that arcade games, more Wii Sports, 2D Mario) but they don't.

If Nintendo try and compete with HD and with storytelling they will lose, because MS and Sony have greater experience and more franchises. But if they make their own market like the early Wii did they can enjoy boundless revenue from the expanded market.

Malstrom does credit CoD as being one of the big three market phenomena this generation, along with Mario 5 and Wii Sports. This is because they are good games with mass appeal and great local and online multiplayer. The HD and story aspects of it aren't what sells it in his opinion - it is the Wii-alike values. More games with those values would sell very well if they were on the 360 too. But there aren't any. The copycat shooters don't have nearly the success.