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

Forums - Gaming - Red Ocean: It's funny how MS went from a 25m xbox marketshare to a 69m 360 marketshare

 

What about you, are you in denial?

Yes, I'm in denial, and ... 15 16.67%
 
The blue ocean strategy is enough of a win. 18 20.00%
 
They missed an opportunit... 12 13.33%
 
The opportunity shall ris... 18 20.00%
 
I think Microsoft is the next Nintendo. 27 30.00%
 
Total:90
Immortal on 18 October 2012

Well, if by red ocean, you mean games that involve a lot of blood, Nintendo never had that market, except, quite disputably, with the N64.
If you're talking about their "core" market, then I think the change in sales of a staple Nintendo series such as Mario Kart from GC to Wii or DS would be a great measurement of how much Nintendo has lost and failed to expand this audience.



 

“These are my principles; if you don’t like them, I have others.” – Groucho Marx

Around the Network
JWeinCom on 18 October 2012
Immortal said:
Well, if by red ocean, you mean games that involve a lot of blood, Nintendo never had that market, except, quite disputably, with the N64.
If you're talking about their "core" market, then I think the change in sales of a staple Nintendo series such as Mario Kart from GC to Wii or DS would be a great measurement of how much Nintendo has lost and failed to expand this audience.


The problem is that these franchises don't only appeal to "core" gamers.  Franchises like Mario Kart have a strong following among pretty much all sects of gaming.  I believe Mario Kart Double Dash sold more or less 8 million while Wii has sold over 20, but this boost is largely coming from the casual sector.


Of course, it's quite possible that many of these casual gamers will continue to support Nintendo, and we'll see this as the Wii U hits shelves.



Immortal on 18 October 2012
JWeinCom said:
Immortal said:
Well, if by red ocean, you mean games that involve a lot of blood, Nintendo never had that market, except, quite disputably, with the N64.
If you're talking about their "core" market, then I think the change in sales of a staple Nintendo series such as Mario Kart from GC to Wii or DS would be a great measurement of how much Nintendo has lost and failed to expand this audience.


The problem is that these franchises don't only appeal to "core" gamers.  Franchises like Mario Kart have a strong following among pretty much all sects of gaming.  I believe Mario Kart Double Dash sold more or less 8 million while Wii has sold over 20, but this boost is largely coming from the casual sector.


Of course, it's quite possible that many of these casual gamers will continue to support Nintendo, and we'll see this as the Wii U hits shelves.

I'm not sure why that's a problem, though. Nintendo has never appealed to "core" gamers. While Nintendo could try to appeal to this sector and it is (in vain, I suspect), the OP's argument doesn't make much sense. There was no market that declined for Nintendo this generation. There was no "missed opportunity" (unless you count the core market that they never really engaged).



 

“These are my principles; if you don’t like them, I have others.” – Groucho Marx

JWeinCom on 18 October 2012
Immortal said:
JWeinCom said:
Immortal said:
Well, if by red ocean, you mean games that involve a lot of blood, Nintendo never had that market, except, quite disputably, with the N64.
If you're talking about their "core" market, then I think the change in sales of a staple Nintendo series such as Mario Kart from GC to Wii or DS would be a great measurement of how much Nintendo has lost and failed to expand this audience.


The problem is that these franchises don't only appeal to "core" gamers.  Franchises like Mario Kart have a strong following among pretty much all sects of gaming.  I believe Mario Kart Double Dash sold more or less 8 million while Wii has sold over 20, but this boost is largely coming from the casual sector.


Of course, it's quite possible that many of these casual gamers will continue to support Nintendo, and we'll see this as the Wii U hits shelves.

I'm not sure why that's a problem, though. Nintendo has never appealed to "core" gamers. While Nintendo could try to appeal to this sector and it is (in vain, I suspect), the OP's argument doesn't make much sense. There was no market that declined for Nintendo this generation. There was no "missed opportunity" (unless you count the core market that they never really engaged).

While I certainly don't disagree with the OP, the point they were making is that there was a big segment of the PS2 gaming population that left Sony, which created the opportunity for Microsoft to expand greatly.  If Nintendo could have swooped in and taken that market share from Sony WHILE still doing what they did with the casual market, they could have really dominated. 

Personally, I don't think Nintendo could have done both at the same time.  They made a choice, and it was the right one.



Jumpin on 18 October 2012

I disagree; the only people I can think of that owned a GameCube were 12 and under. I don't think there was much of any "core" audience there at all. I don't think Nintendo ever really had this "core" demograph that people talk about. This was something invented by Sega and PC, carried to and expanded heavily by Sony, and Microsoft in English countries. Nintendo has always been more family oriented and social type people - except with GameCube which was mostly just kids.

As for winning this generation - there is no dispute, Nintendo dominated with 250 million Wii and DSs sold, and over 1.5 billion games. This is the most hardware any company has sold in a generation.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network
S.Peelman on 18 October 2012
happydolphin said:

(..)

You can say they are the undisputed winner, but most will not agree with you. They are the winner, that's not being disputed, but they're not the Undisputed winner, meaning people can still claim certain things against the victory. For example, that the HD twins combined sold more than the Wii. The PS2 was therefore a stronger winner, as was the DS. The Wii did not win in the red ocean market, that's something the PS2 pulled off. The Wii won off of the casual market, which does not hold as much respect where the debate matters.

If anything, I think Nintendo gained more 'fans' this generation than they lost. Even ones that could fall in the so called 'core' category. Most core Nintendo-franchises saw increase in sales over the GameCube generation; Zelda, Smash Bros., 3D Mario. Hell, even third party core games like Resident Evil.

Of course it's undeniable that the Wii has enjoyed a lot of casual buys. Ultimately, plusses and minusses combined, I don't believe Nintendo lost any of the 'red ocean'. I could be counted among them, I don't feel dissatisfied in the slightest. I think Nintendo made a great move with the Wii and, even though I have less games for the Wii, I like it way better than the GameCube. Also, looking at total sales in all categories and the money they made, they are the laughing third.

As I don't believe the Wii is not the undisputed winner. Was the SNES an undisputed winner? Sales between it and the Mega Drive/Genesis were a lot closer than they are now. Plus, the combined sales in that generation outsold the SNES just like they do now with the Wii. This is not unprecedented. I've never, however, heard of someone questioning the victory of the SNES.



famousringo on 18 October 2012
BenVTrigger said:
@famousringo

1. First of all the reason the E & D division took a loss last year is because R&D increased 3x as much which is obviousky the Nextbox. It was the largest jump in R&D in the division since the launch of the 360

2. Secondly the 360 was never blamed for the loss, they blamed it on "a soft gaming market". We know for a fact the 360 has been sold for a profit for years now.

3. Third I believe Xbox Live revenue is not included with E&D right? I could be wrong on that one.

4. Either way the 360 has psted a profit this generation I assure you.

1. Oh, so R&D that takes place before a console launches shouldn't be applied to the previous generation, huh? Guess I need to add 2004's operating loss to that list.

2. How exactly is a soft gaming market going to turn a profit to a sequential loss in the next quarter, if not through the Xbox? You think it was declining game sales for Windows and Windows Phone that caused the shortfall? If you wanted to be in denial, you should have pointed out all the clear money losers in E&D, like Skype and Kin, and how they drag Xbox down.

3. Do you have any evidence of this? Because every time I see Xbox Live mentioned in Microsoft financials (and MS loves to brag about it), it's preceded by Entertainment and Devices in the same paragraph. This report makes it explicit:

http://www.microsoft.com/investor/EarningsAndFinancials/Earnings/PressReleaseAndWebcast/fy11/Q4/default.aspx

EDD offerings include the Xbox 360 entertainment platform (which includes the Xbox 360 gaming and entertainment console, Kinect for Xbox 360, Xbox 360 video games, Xbox LIVE, and Xbox 360 accessories),

Sounds like more denial to me.

4. Oh, well, I had my doubts, but they've all been whisked away by the personal assurance of Anonymous Internet Forum Dude who totally knows the Xbox 360 is profitable but isn't quite sure where Xbox Live revenues fall.



"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.

samuship on 18 October 2012

It's funny how Nintendo went from a 23m NGC marketshare to a 100m Wii marketshare



We need moar Zelda, now!

We need moar Unchartedzz!

We need less DLCs.

runqvist on 18 October 2012

I am hoping that MS will get even bigger slice next gen. Would be sweet if they would have 50%+ marketshare.



runqvist on 18 October 2012
se7en7thre3 said:

What is this about? Nintendo won this gen, blindsiding everyone, hands down. Yes, MS is also a big winner, r*****g the dog s*** out of Sony. But this was expected, because everyone knew once M$ entered the scene, it was only a matter of time before they took over (so called "hardcore"). They were the NEW BIG BULLY on the block, with Sony rightfully crapping in their pants.

Nintendo passive aggressively backs off, creates a system you can have ALONGSIDE either of the two "big red" machines. But as the two dumb cavemen are killing each other, one battling RROD losing asstons of $$$, while the other is overpriced to death but no one gives a **** about blu ray...Nintendo's sippin mai tais on their blue ocean. Then the herp-a-derp copycat cavemen realized "OH, WE MUS COPEE NINTENDO NOW WITH TEH MOSHIN CONTROLE". Kinect was a disgrace (I can't even get good value at gamestop FFS), and Move was so shameless that people ignored it, despite being better than wii remote plus.


Big Winner by far (profits + units sold)
1. Nintendo

Mongolian Kamikaze mass destructor (big $acrifice to bring down Sony)
2. M$

Fall of the Roman empire (every dog has its day)
3. Sony

Your post makes me think that you have some serious issues. Derp is strong with you.

Moderated,

-Mr Khan