RolStoppable said:
sensebringer said:
theprof00 said:
If you let your opponents take the niche gaming genres and gamestyles, you will eventually only be left with an increasingly competitive mainstream market.
That is how companies get disrupted. Nintendo knows all about that.
|
Please explain me the bold part. I have heard the term but I don't understand it very well.
|
You are asking the wrong person, theprof00 himself doesn't know what he's talking about more often than not. This is one of these instances.
Disruption in simple terms is crappy products for crappy consumers. The marketleader of any field most likely won't care if another company makes simple products for what is deemed a consumer of low profitability. It's seen as a market that isn't worth fighting for and so the marketleader focuses on making its established products better and getting more money out of its existing market. A problem only arises when a product starts to overshoot the market's demands and thus becomes seen as too costly. This is when the door for disruption opens. The company who makes the crappy product can start to absorb the market of the previous marketleader after making some refinements to their own product. When it comes to a direct battle between the two companies, the disruptive one is usually very profitable while the established one has a hard time making money under these new conditions.
The Wii and PS3 would be good examples of this, but it ended up being an incomplete disruption because Nintendo stopped to continue eventually (which is why there are barely any Wii games nowadays). Where theprof00 is completely wrong is that the disruptive company doesn't aim for a niche, but the opposite: the massmarket. According to theprof00's theory, the Xbox 360 in Japan should have become a threat to the PS3, because it established itself for all sorts of niche genres. The reality is obviously something completely else, because the massmarket is where you need to get the foothold. Additionally, what he implies is that the PS Vita could disrupt the 3DS, but the PS Vita is in no way a crappy product for crappy consumers. It's more expensive and in no way really aiming for the massmarket. The 3DS isn't aiming for the massmarket either (it would if it focused on sequels to the games you previously mentioned and then some more), but with the way Vita is set up, there's not going to be any disruption occuring in this generation of handhelds.
|
lol, you listen to malstrom way too much, instead of reading his "mentor". His mentor doesn't describe it that way at all. It's more about gobbling up markets that the market leaders don't care about because it's not as profitable or can't enter. High dev costs? check. Fewer sales? Check. Market to a different type of gamer than the current most profitable? Check.
Malstrom has corrupted your minds. He "PROVED" Nintendo's disruption by talking about the sword and shield, and yet, Nintendo never had the shield. He just said that they did. THe fact was, there was nothing preventing competition, and that's what we currently see.
@sense, they're not completely wrong about disruption, but they do look from a skewed perspective. They even informed me about disruption at first, but once I did research, the main ingredient is supposedly taking markets away, or creating new markets that eat into mainstream. For example, Japanese steel foundries simply used american scraps to make low grade steel. The giants here didn't have those types of mills and decided that investing in them would be too costly for the margin on it. Japanese steel created a new market of cheap steel that companies could use in cheaper products. As their technology got better ad better, the cheap steel started becoming better, and their scale further drove costs down. American steel withdrew to the even higher grade steel because their "mid-line" was losing ground to a cheaper, equal quality product. In this scenario, American steel was unwilling to enter the market. Why? The "SHIELD of asymmetry" was that the cost of entering the market was too great. Buying enough mills to compete could've been a costly and disasterous move. This prevention never happened with Wii.
Nintendo, contrastingly, introduced a product that was both viable and cheap, and made hefty margin profit. While at first MS and Sony retreated to the higher quality product, the success of the new market was soon very much apparent. Nintendo's shield was market doubt about the possible success. However, shortly after the second year independent work was on its way as competing products. The kinect was developed out of house. Move was already a concept that Sony had been working on for head tracking. All it took was a paper thin slice of their profit's to employ, they didn't have to buy hundreds of "steel mills".
Every single disruption demonstrated by Christensen (not malstrom) shows that it is nearly impossible for the competitor to enter the disrupted market. As I said a couple years ago, just how much can you innovate? There is a point at which the "new experiences" become standard and innovation falters. Rol is only half right about Nintendo. They couldn't expand much because there wasn't much room to expand without creating new innovation. But to do that, you need to create new experiences, and Nintendo put off new tech for 2 years too many. When move and kinect were announced, that was the time to announce a new console that coexisted with the old one. In that way, it would make the competition look very bad and behind the times, while still making games for wii and not being in such a threatened position.Rol thinks it was sequels they had to make. That is far from the case because sequels don't sell consoles to the same extent that new IP does. They'd profit a lot on the sequel, but eventually the same ideas become stale.
In Rol's last post, I agree that a redesign switching positions of the dpad and analog is the best possible course of action. But I also disagree that 2D gameplay is in higher demand. Again, don't fault them for their skewed look. They tend to read Nintendo as the baseline. It is not 2D games which sell the most, but 2D mario which sells the most.
If you're interested in something they don't care to read about, read christensen, and not malstom. Malstrom is a great read, but he's very biased. He's an old-school gamer and wants current games to crash so that everything can be simple again. Christensen has no allegiance or sway to either party, since he's an economist at his roots, whereas Malstrom twists his words to suit his motive. Mal was right about the Wii, but he wasn't right about everything, nor was he ever as accurate as christensen is.
Source:
"In stark contrast to the bottom-up variety, top-down disruptive innovations actually outperform existing products when they’re introduced, and they sell for a premium price rather than at a discount. They’re initially purchased by the most discriminating and least price-sensitive buyers, and then they move steadily downward, into the mainstream, to recast the entire market in their own image. A top-down disruption is as revolutionary as a bottom-up one. But the good news for incumbents is that they have a much better chance of surviving, or even spearheading, the former than the latter."
In many ways, because the new mainstream is casual, there is the potential to show that quality product is better. It is just as important for the incumbant to rise as it is for disruptors to target less profitable markets.
And if you're truly interested, read them for yourself and make your decision. Don't let me or Rol or anyone else feed you anything that isn't word for word quotation.
