By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Wii U to be priced at $299?

Tagged games:

happydolphin on 01 March 2012
RolStoppable said:
happydolphin said:

I certainly should read it.

@bold. By that definition, the PS1 is blue ocean. It positioned itself in uncontested marketspace and became highly profitable. And the PS2 even more so. I do want to understand and follow a more comprehensive dialogue. Let's mull over this stuff and find middle ground. I don't like fighting with you.

The funny thing about this definition of Blue Ocean is that the outcome defines the intent. But by definition a strategy is a course of action intended to meet an outcome.

So, ultimately, by these definitions, in hindsight, one can come in and say this or that strategy was blue ocean, and it ends up really meaning nothing at all. In other words, is it the means or the end that matters? If the end testifies of the means, that is very tricky, since we've seen many cases where the ends were not representative of the potential of the means, especially with other factors taken into account.

I personally prefer defining blue ocean as the position itself, where no competitors lie. It makes much more sense to me, and is a much more invaluable concept.

No, the PS1 is not blue ocean. Sony declared war on Nintendo and Sega, priced their system aggressively (i.e. sold it at a loss) and courted third parties with moneyhats. The about $3 billion in profits they made are the result of succeeding with a red ocean strategy. Sony went after gamers who played Nintendo and Sega systems before.

The NES had to be blue ocean, because the video games market in America was basically dead and in its infancy in Japan and Europe. Nintendo didn't go out to beat Atari, they had to establish a market in the first place.

The Genesis went after the NES, so it was red ocean. The SNES went after the Genesis to get the customers that Sega "stole" back with more impressive graphics and sound, so it was red ocean too. Almost all video game systems in existence were red ocean products, except for a select few.

Okay, I understand. After re-reading the definition, the most important key word is "Create" uncontested market space.

Having said that, the NES is blue ocean by circumstance ("because the video games market in America was basically dead and in its infancy in Japan and Europe"), not by strategy.

It begs the question, why would a company go blue-ocean rather than defend what was its blue ocean and is now it's red ocean? And can't it do both?

So, ultimately (apart from refining our definitions which is a great thing), you're postulating that the N64 was a bad move because it didn't create uncontested marketspace? But why should they if they had a tried, tested and true formula with the NES. Rather, what you would be advocating for is for Nintendo to go head-on red ocean and imitate the NES formula. Or are you saying you wanted them to constantly differentiate so as to be constantly blue-ocean?

Yet, wasn't that their strategy (despite them failing at it due to circumstance)? To have superior graphics, lesser loading times, in-game cinematics, innovative games, in order to create a marketspace?

What about the cube, with the "Nintendo Difference", the innovative controller layout, the in-house games of superior quality? Again, this may be a case of what defines the strategy, the ends or the means? And what caused the failure ultimately, the strategy, or the circumstances?

Hopefully we're coming full circle.



Around the Network
happydolphin on 01 March 2012
RolStoppable said:
happydolphin said:

Going by what you're feeding me, the SNES strategy was a Red Ocean one, since it placed the SNES in a position where its competition became once again relevant.

(I know this doesn't make much sense, but I'm just going with it)

It also begs the question. How much of company direction is strategy, how much is pure consequence to a lack thereof?

Yup, SNES was red ocean.

Given that in video games history almost all console manufacturers ended up losing money (there's a whole lot of obscure systems), there doesn't seem to be much strategy involved most of the time. Just a lot of confidence that people will buy whatever is offered.

The blue ocean systems can be called carefully calculated products, because the companies who made them had to think hard on how they could establish a viable market. Red ocean products usually only follow establish paths, so the strategies generally only involve more power and more of everything. If it doesn't sell, adjustments like price cuts are made as good as possible, but most of the time the ship has already sailed, so it's merely damage control.

So what strategy would have made N64 blue ocean? More Mario? I thought that was a Red Ocean approach. Also, the N64 revolutionized (according to the Revolution def) the thumbstick with high-precision input.

Also, going with a new direction for Mario (Now in 3D), all sounds more and more like a blue ocean strategy by this post. The outcome is purely outside the scope of the above description.



Lafiel on 01 March 2012

I would be impressed if they really launched it at that low a price, but I really doubt they can, especially if they plan to stick to their usual approach of making profit from hardware sales.



happydolphin on 01 March 2012

It seems the Blue Ocean strategy falls into three sub-parts:

1) The means: alternate approaches, untread paths, more of new, not more of old.
2) The goal: To create marketspace so as to render competition irrelevant.
3) The outcome: Absolute success



archbrix on 01 March 2012
RolStoppable said

1) This still doesn't explain why good third party support was once again relegated to the status of almost irrelevance only one generation later. Maybe, just maybe, it's because Nintendo never had to rely on third party support to make their systems a success and the only reason why the N64 and GC needed that third party support is because Nintendo royally screwed up their first party games. Especially on the Gamecube, a console that sold worse than its predecessor despite better third party support.

 

I believe that the Gamecube did particularly badly due to many factors against it.  The main one being the fact that it didn't have a single, solitary thing that set it apart from the competiton.  The N64 had a new kind of controller with the analogue stick and boasted more power than the competition.  Heck, even the cartridge format at least set it apart (for better or worse).  The Wii needs no explanation.  But the GC fell in line with the competition too much, was hindered by 1st party games that weren't going to move consoles, and was timed horribly, especially when you consider that the PS2 already had such a lead in sales, hype and market perception.  This is the reason why GC having the most cross-platform 3rd party support of Nintendo's last three consoles did nothing for it. 

You bring up the Wii as an example of why 3rd party support is relegated to irrelevance, but you're not considering how well the HD twins have done for themselves.  Where the Wii has done stellarly due to Nintendo's 1st party games and differentiation, the HD twins have achieved such successful sales due to 3rd party games.  Therefore we cannot dismiss the importance of these titles; not when you have monsters and system movers out there like COD and GTA.  Nintendo knows this, too.  As long as Nintendo systems are perceived as consoles that lack the majority of what's on the market, they'll never achieve sales even close to what the PS2 enjoyed (i.e. being a "buy one console, play everything" machine).

I fully agree that it was Nintendo's 1st party games that propelled the NES to greatness, but you can't deny the importance of games like Metal Gear, Contra, Final Fantasy, etc. which were integral in keeping all eyes on the NES and away from the competition; everything was on the NES except for Sega's first party games.  Today, no big 3rd party game is system exclusive anymore, so Nintendo's best move is to obtain these titles without abandoning their own talent of differentiating themselves.  Third parties do not have to worry about competing with Nintendo's games on WiiU, simply because it is incredibly easy and relatively cheap to port their games to.

Nintendo will not keep hardcore Sony or Microsoft fans from buying their respective consoles... they don't need to.  They only need to attract those majority buyers that are not loyal to any one company, but are instead driven by market trends.  An affordable console launching first with both Nintendo's games and the popular 3rd party games (with a "new control interface" kicker) could potentially give Nintendo an insurmountable lead.



Around the Network
glimmer_of_hope on 01 March 2012

I like the price, it is a day 1 buy for me regardless. I also think this might be a "slip" from Nintendo.
Think of it as a slap to the face to Pachter, who just said a few weeks ago that Nintendo will be doomed if Wii U isn't priced at $249. Nintendo is like "oh really?"
Plus it has done wonders for the press, since Pachters comments their was nothing but that floating around the interwebs, but now all I see is the price and how peeps are impressed.
Kind of bizarre how there is a reliable source of the Wii U price after CabbagePach's comments!



                                  Gaming Away Life Since 1985


ChristianTheAtheist on 01 March 2012

Didn't they say it "wasn't going to be cheap"?



famousringo on 01 March 2012
Mr Khan said:
Yes, but this is the place that claimed 768 MB with a 3 GHz PowerPC processor, the last point of which we know is patently false (Power7, as per IBM's own statement)

Not that i disagree with these numbers, but i do doubt the reliability of this outlet.


I haven't been paying much attention to the Wii U hardware rumour mill (it's really not as important as most people seem to think it is), but IBM's POWER7 is a PowerPC processor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PowerPC_processors#POWER_processors

I mean, they're moving away from using the PowerPC name these days, but that's the history of the architecture.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

happydolphin on 01 March 2012
RolStoppable said:
archbrix said:
RolStoppable said

1) This still doesn't explain why good third party support was once again relegated to the status of almost irrelevance only one generation later. Maybe, just maybe, it's because Nintendo never had to rely on third party support to make their systems a success and the only reason why the N64 and GC needed that third party support is because Nintendo royally screwed up their first party games. Especially on the Gamecube, a console that sold worse than its predecessor despite better third party support.

 

I believe that the Gamecube did particularly badly due to many factors against it.  The main one being the fact that it didn't have a single, solitary thing that set it apart from the competiton.  The N64 had a new kind of controller with the analogue stick and boasted more power than the competition.  Heck, even the cartridge format at least set it apart (for better or worse).  The Wii needs no explanation.  But the GC fell in line with the competition too much, was hindered by 1st party games that weren't going to move consoles, and was timed horribly, especially when you consider that the PS2 already had such a lead in sales, hype and market perception.  This is the reason why GC having the most cross-platform 3rd party support of Nintendo's last three consoles did nothing for it. 

You bring up the Wii as an example of why 3rd party support is relegated to irrelevance, but you're not considering how well the HD twins have done for themselves.  Where the Wii has done stellarly due to Nintendo's 1st party games and differentiation, the HD twins have achieved such successful sales due to 3rd party games.  Therefore we cannot dismiss the importance of these titles; not when you have monsters and system movers out there like COD and GTA.  Nintendo knows this, too.  As long as Nintendo systems are perceived as consoles that lack the majority of what's on the market, they'll never achieve sales even close to what the PS2 enjoyed (i.e. being a "buy one console, play everything" machine).

I fully agree that it was Nintendo's 1st party games that propelled the NES to greatness, but you can't deny the importance of games like Metal Gear, Contra, Final Fantasy, etc. which were integral in keeping all eyes on the NES and away from the competition; everything was on the NES except for Sega's first party games.  Today, no big 3rd party game is system exclusive anymore, so Nintendo's best move is to obtain these titles without abandoning their own talent of differentiating themselves.  Third parties do not have to worry about competing with Nintendo's games on WiiU, simply because it is incredibly easy and relatively cheap to port their games to.

Nintendo will not keep hardcore Sony or Microsoft fans from buying their respective consoles... they don't need to.  They only need to attract those majority buyers that are not loyal to any one company, but are instead driven by market trends.  An affordable console launching first with both Nintendo's games and the popular 3rd party games (with a "new control interface" kicker) could potentially give Nintendo an insurmountable lead.

That's all fine and good, but you don't have to explain that to me. This point was part of a bigger argument:

happydolphin said:

1) If you deny the fact that the N64 released at a time where 3rd parties were yearning for another manufacturer to make consoles, and were sick and tired of Nintendo's 3rd party policies.

(...)

Then yes, probably you would argue that the N64/GC failure is rooted in the HW Interface and SW offerings.

And you basically agree with me. This thing just has gotten so big that some things were lost along the way. I wasn't arguing that third party games don't matter at all, just that they are not vital to Nintendo's success, hence why Nintendo themselves have to take the most blame for the N64 and GC failures.

Rol, yes promise we agree alot, but like arch said, it's not that 3rd parties don't matter and that Nintendo can fend for themselves. Way the opposite, 3rd parties are vital for this one thing: " you can't deny the importance of games like Metal Gear, Contra, Final Fantasy, etc. which were integral in keeping all eyes on the NES and away from the competition; everything was on the NES except for Sega's first party games."

Of course Nintendo can fend for itself just with 1st party offerings. Of course! But the danger is always present "How long will Mario sell? How long will Brain Age sell?"

When you have all your company files on a file repository, you NEED a backup just in case things go wrong. Nintendo's DR system is its relationship with 3rd parties. Its heart is its 1st party, its backup is its 3rd party relations. They need, vitally need to get that resolved. Where N64 failed, of course along with what you said granted a Blue Ocean strategy at the time of the N64 would have worked given all the other variables were in place (disks, good 3rd party relations, etc.). But to discount those variables and simply state that a blue ocean strategy would have been the be all end all is really really limited. Educated YES! I admire your getting into your books, I really do.

But ultimately, you really can't deny the importance of Nintendo's business mistakes at the beginning of gen 4, to the dismay of many a fan (myself included).

Listen, Arch's opinion is very similar to mine, he just has a much better memory of the events in gens 4 & 5 (I've watched him post). Though the arg is with me, you need to be able to address arch if you want to convince me too.



happydolphin on 01 March 2012

And for the record, Rol, I learned a SHITTON today, thanks to you. Alot of what I post comes from the things I learn from you. You need to know that.