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

Forums - Sales Discussion - Shigeru Miyamoto: "In the world of fun, there's only number one."

Goodnightmoon said:
NATO said:
982 9,049 14,284 29,949
1,922 3,245 1,126 6,895

Given that it's so poorly supported by Sony it's selling quite well, even now.

No is not selling quite well at all, is the WiiU the one that is not selling shit since is out of production and NX is coming in 2 weeks, but that doesn't make the Vita numbers any better.

Name a high profile game released in 2016 for vita without googling.

and still selling 30k a week, I call that quite well for a handheld so poorly supported, hell the last ps experience didn't even spend any time to acknowledge its existence.

you can't on the one hand say nobody buys them and then wave away 30k/week like it's nothing



Around the Network
NATO said:
Goodnightmoon said:

No is not selling quite well at all, is the WiiU the one that is not selling shit since is out of production and NX is coming in 2 weeks, but that doesn't make the Vita numbers any better.

Name a high profile game released in 2016 for vita without googling.

and still selling 30k a week, I call that quite well for a handheld so poorly supported, hell the last ps experience didn't even spend any time to acknowledge its existence.

you can't on the one hand say nobody buys them and then wave away 30k/week like it's nothing

I don't need to, I imagine Minecraft alone is more than enough to keep those anemic sales, mostly in Japan. At least until Switch releases.



Soundwave said:

I'm saying it's an easy idea to copy and not only that it could be done for a lot cheaper than what Nintendo is asking for. Any tablet can do a 1,2 Switch type game, you probably could even do something like that without a controller and just use the tablet camera. 

MS did release Kinect, and it was hugely successful for them, infact I think the Wii basically only had a couple of months after Kinect where it ever sold more than the XBox 360 in NPD sales tracking ever again. 

If Switch is very successful I think you will see greater focus on physical controllers for existing tablets and phones. Right now it's a bit of a niche market, but if tablet makers see Switch having some success, they will copy it with more "official" solutions IMO (ie: you could see tablets shipping with physical controllers right in the box so that users don't have to buy some weird third party accessorie ... I could see Samsung in particular doing this). 

Flapping your arms doesn't make you a bird.

I've lost track of the amount of times people have thought Nintendo's gimmicks and games can easily be copied/improved upon. Whether it's 2d or 3d platformers, kart racers, handheld competitors, motion control they all end up dead in the end.

Kinect is funny because it was basically a one hit wonder that had MS convinced they could be Nintendo. I bet MS wishes they'd never touched it. It also forced MS to save on power at the cost of Kinect 2 which meant Sony could hold back too. Now they're both making mid gen upgrades. Kinect didn't just kill Wii (debateable), it killed XB1 too.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Soundwave said:
LurkerJ said:

Zoom out, and look at the bigger picture. You are reducing the 3DS successor to a collection of mini-games, completely ignoring the fact that the 3DS pleased the hardcore gamer. Why can't the Switch please them as well? In fact, the Switch is in a better position to please that same gamer, especially when the price comes down. So the success of the Switch is almost guaranteed once it becomes a viable 3DS replacement, if some of the Wii audience comes back, that's a plus, but not a necessity. 

I've said that many times, remember I was saying Nintendo would favor a hybrid design over a 2-system set up that most of this board thought was coming and that emphasis would be on putting it down and having people gather around and play together. This is all before the official unveiling. 

So I get what Nintendo is doing. The design was somewhat predictable. 

I'm just saying it's also a fairly easy idea to copy especailly if they think they are going to bank heavily again on that casual crowd, they are going to get undercut by cheaper tablet makers and software developers that copy things like 1,2 Switch and give away for free or $1. Nintendo should be wary of that. And I've said many times as well the existing 3DS base is basically the main market for the Switch. 

Copying the hardware is easy. Switch isn't just hardware. A collection of IPs that took Nintendo decades to build, the same collection that successfuly pushed the 3DS to success, and the same collection that will push its successor. Don't quote me saying the Wii U failed, nothing could've pushed that turd, besides, in the handheld space, the equation is different; third party AAA titles don't leave their thumb on the scale. So their absence is advantageous to Nintendo's handhelds, and a hindrance to SONY's.

Assuming SONY decides to release a new handheld, any new studio that SONY opens is better off supporting the already successful PS4. The Switch success will be in line with that of the 3DS, the pie will be big, but not big enough to push SONY, or any other company, to want to chew on some of it. SONY's main concern now is selling PSN subs and keeping those subs going for as long as possible, which is why I expect the PS5 to be fully backward compatible with the PS4, and it's why I don't SONY will sacrifice a single game from their studios to support a potential future handheld, that game better heads to their home consoles differentiating their brand further from the Xbox. 

Apple probably looks at the dedicated gaming business and laughs it off. Samsung loves to copy alright, but their obsession is to follow Apple's footsteps. I just don't think there is any company who would enter the risky dedicated gaming market at this point besides the 3 established ones. Maybe Valve's next attempt will be disruptive, but if that happens, their guns will be most likely aimed at PS/Xbox.



Up, please.

Good topic, great argument, and lots Nintendo doomed replies. 



Around the Network
pray4mojo said:
Soundwave said:

It's a nice PR spin, but for those of us who actually remember a time when Nintendo meant great Nintendo 1st, 2nd, AND all the 3rd party support in the world, it rings kinda hollow. The only difference is now we have fewer software diversity on Nintendo platforms and long droughts neither of which is "fun", nor is Nintendo's obsession with trying to win back the mini-game audience, it's more desperate than original in a way, that was original *10 years* ago. 1,2 Switch is something that could have been on the original Wii and it looks inferior to even Wii Sports ... I personally don't call that progress. 

There is a number 1 and it's this:

 

You obviously took what he said on face value. He didn't mean being unique makes you the market leader. He meant that by being "one of a kind" you're atuomatically number one at what you're doing because there's simply no one else competeing. The PS4 is the market leader of the 8th generation, but it's been done before. It's not the "first" in that regard. Sony has released the same basic product since the PS1. They didn't even change the controller until this generation lol. They're followers, not creative leaders. Nintendo are the creative leaders as far as hardware goes. Does that mean they're always the market leader? Nope, not at all. But creatively, hell yeah. They're always taking risks and trying something new. 

Yeah, ok, fine....

Making something different for the sake of different isn't always the way to go. 

What I like about the Sony approach is the fact they have established the "PS" as like a home/"Station." If you like gaming on their console best, then chances are you're always going to like gaming there because it feels so good and familiar. Sony are the ONLY one's that ever took an approach like this. That's probably why beginning with PS1 the PlayStation has always been my "main" console of choice. I was never about "brands" when it came to gaming until PS1. I don't think a gaming console has ever impressed so much. It felt so good to play on, the console itself was so successful that I didn't even think twice about going on board with the PS2. I knew what I was getting.

Yeah, PS3 only suffered due to the high price but the console itself was typical Sony quality. But yeah, in the end, PlayStation is my gaming "home." It has become so familiar now to me I literally cannot even begin to imagine playing with another controller or browsing through an interface that isn't designed by Sony.



I've only read the OP really, but I appreciated a good discussion about Blue Ocean Strategy, especially from someone who has either read the book or at least knows enough that they understand the main points of the book.

For the record I would say that Switch IS NOT a blue ocean console.  However it IS disruptive.  (The OP didn't mention disruption, but during the Wii years Nintendo was using both strategies.)  Blue ocean products grow a market from unserved or underserved customers.  Disruptive products grow by competing using asymmetric skills and motivations.  A product can be both, but the Switch is not both.  It is disruptive only.

Why isn't Switch a blue ocean product?  It's not for a want of trying.  Nintendo has made the following games so far in an attempt to reach brand new or underserved customers: 1-2 Switch, Arms, Labo, Pokemon Let's Go, Ring Fit Adventure.  Of these 5 games only Ring Fit Adventure is actually reaching new customers and not nearly on the level of Wii Fit.  1-2 Switch, Arms and Labo are essentially niche games and represent only a small fraction of the customer base.  Pokemon Let's Go would only be Blue Ocean if it could bring in a significant number of mobile gamers from Pokemon Go.  It didn't, because its sales were mostly front loaded.  It was selling to an established customer base instead of a new one.  Ring Fit Adventure is actually selling like a Blue Ocean game, but Switch was already extremely successful before it came along.  There are several other games that contribute to Switch's success much more than Ring Fit Adventure.  Clearly Switch is not a blue ocean product.

What about disruption?  Is Switch a disruptive product?  Disruptive products either start in a different market or on the low end of an existing market.  Switch started in both.  The handheld market is a different market.  Also the launch price of Switch is cheaper than the launch price of a Sony or Microsoft console.  Does Switch fit the profile of a low end/different market product?  Check.  Disruptive products also compete by ignoring functionality and instead improve other aspects that make the product either more reliable, more convenient, or cheaper?  Portable gaming and hybrid gaming are both more convenient than home gaming.  Also carts are more durable (reliable) than disks and it launched at a cheaper price.  Meanwhile it has ignored functionality (hardware power).  Does Switch compete like a disruptive product?  Check.

Switch is a disruptive product, but it is not a blue ocean one.  If it's sales grow to unprecedented levels (and I think it will), it is because it will take customers away from Sony and Microsoft.  In fact that is one reason why I think it is called "Switch".  Iwata liked to give consoles 2 or 3 different meanings.  Obviously Switch refers to switching between home and handheld gaming, but I also think it means Nintendo has a strategy of people switching from Sony and Microsoft to Nintendo.  Switch's growth will come from competition and not from reaching a lot of new customers.



The_Liquid_Laser said:

I've only read the OP really, but I appreciated a good discussion about Blue Ocean Strategy, especially from someone who has either read the book or at least knows enough that they understand the main points of the book.

For the record I would say that Switch IS NOT a blue ocean console.  However it IS disruptive.  (The OP didn't mention disruption, but during the Wii years Nintendo was using both strategies.)  Blue ocean products grow a market from unserved or underserved customers.  Disruptive products grow by competing using asymmetric skills and motivations.  A product can be both, but the Switch is not both.  It is disruptive only.

Why isn't Switch a blue ocean product?  It's not for a want of trying.  Nintendo has made the following games so far in an attempt to reach brand new or underserved customers: 1-2 Switch, Arms, Labo, Pokemon Let's Go, Ring Fit Adventure.  Of these 5 games only Ring Fit Adventure is actually reaching new customers and not nearly on the level of Wii Fit.  1-2 Switch, Arms and Labo are essentially niche games and represent only a small fraction of the customer base.  Pokemon Let's Go would only be Blue Ocean if it could bring in a significant number of mobile gamers from Pokemon Go.  It didn't, because its sales were mostly front loaded.  It was selling to an established customer base instead of a new one.  Ring Fit Adventure is actually selling like a Blue Ocean game, but Switch was already extremely successful before it came along.  There are several other games that contribute to Switch's success much more than Ring Fit Adventure.  Clearly Switch is not a blue ocean product.

What about disruption?  Is Switch a disruptive product?  Disruptive products either start in a different market or on the low end of an existing market.  Switch started in both.  The handheld market is a different market.  Also the launch price of Switch is cheaper than the launch price of a Sony or Microsoft console.  Does Switch fit the profile of a low end/different market product?  Check.  Disruptive products also compete by ignoring functionality and instead improve other aspects that make the product either more reliable, more convenient, or cheaper?  Portable gaming and hybrid gaming are both more convenient than home gaming.  Also carts are more durable (reliable) than disks and it launched at a cheaper price.  Meanwhile it has ignored functionality (hardware power).  Does Switch compete like a disruptive product?  Check.

Switch is a disruptive product, but it is not a blue ocean one.  If it's sales grow to unprecedented levels (and I think it will), it is because it will take customers away from Sony and Microsoft.  In fact that is one reason why I think it is called "Switch".  Iwata liked to give consoles 2 or 3 different meanings.  Obviously Switch refers to switching between home and handheld gaming, but I also think it means Nintendo has a strategy of people switching from Sony and Microsoft to Nintendo.  Switch's growth will come from competition and not from reaching a lot of new customers.

Great point. The same coincidence as DS. DS may refer to the developer system, dual screen and disruptive system. With the DS, Nintendo threw Sony out of the handheld market. Climbing the market share and snapping up much of the market even with its successor, the 3DS. Nintendo played Sony so much for the high-end gaming market that Vita ran out of AAA games because it wasn't profitable to produce games for him, despite being very powerful.

Agente42 said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:

I've only read the OP really, but I appreciated a good discussion about Blue Ocean Strategy, especially from someone who has either read the book or at least knows enough that they understand the main points of the book.

For the record I would say that Switch IS NOT a blue ocean console.  However it IS disruptive.  (The OP didn't mention disruption, but during the Wii years Nintendo was using both strategies.)  Blue ocean products grow a market from unserved or underserved customers.  Disruptive products grow by competing using asymmetric skills and motivations.  A product can be both, but the Switch is not both.  It is disruptive only.

Why isn't Switch a blue ocean product?  It's not for a want of trying.  Nintendo has made the following games so far in an attempt to reach brand new or underserved customers: 1-2 Switch, Arms, Labo, Pokemon Let's Go, Ring Fit Adventure.  Of these 5 games only Ring Fit Adventure is actually reaching new customers and not nearly on the level of Wii Fit.  1-2 Switch, Arms and Labo are essentially niche games and represent only a small fraction of the customer base.  Pokemon Let's Go would only be Blue Ocean if it could bring in a significant number of mobile gamers from Pokemon Go.  It didn't, because its sales were mostly front loaded.  It was selling to an established customer base instead of a new one.  Ring Fit Adventure is actually selling like a Blue Ocean game, but Switch was already extremely successful before it came along.  There are several other games that contribute to Switch's success much more than Ring Fit Adventure.  Clearly Switch is not a blue ocean product.

What about disruption?  Is Switch a disruptive product?  Disruptive products either start in a different market or on the low end of an existing market.  Switch started in both.  The handheld market is a different market.  Also the launch price of Switch is cheaper than the launch price of a Sony or Microsoft console.  Does Switch fit the profile of a low end/different market product?  Check.  Disruptive products also compete by ignoring functionality and instead improve other aspects that make the product either more reliable, more convenient, or cheaper?  Portable gaming and hybrid gaming are both more convenient than home gaming.  Also carts are more durable (reliable) than disks and it launched at a cheaper price.  Meanwhile it has ignored functionality (hardware power).  Does Switch compete like a disruptive product?  Check.

Switch is a disruptive product, but it is not a blue ocean one.  If it's sales grow to unprecedented levels (and I think it will), it is because it will take customers away from Sony and Microsoft.  In fact that is one reason why I think it is called "Switch".  Iwata liked to give consoles 2 or 3 different meanings.  Obviously Switch refers to switching between home and handheld gaming, but I also think it means Nintendo has a strategy of people switching from Sony and Microsoft to Nintendo.  Switch's growth will come from competition and not from reaching a lot of new customers.

Great point. The same coincidence as DS. DS may refer to the developer system, dual screen and disruptive system. With the DS, Nintendo threw Sony out of the handheld market. Climbing the market share and snapping up much of the market even with its successor, the 3DS. Nintendo played Sony so much for the high-end gaming market that Vita ran out of AAA games because it wasn't profitable to produce games for him, despite being very powerful.

I agree that "DS" had multiple meanings, but in practice I don't think it was really a disruptive system.  I DO think DS was a blue ocean system, but I don't think it was disruptive.  (Basically the opposite of my views on Switch.)  Disruptive products invade and take over existing markets even if they start in a new one.  What market did the DS invade?  The generation 6 default for the handheld market was that GBA was the only viable handheld.  DS didn't disrupt the handheld market, but it did grow it a whole lot and at the same time it wasn't really competing with the PSP because it was also fairly successful.  That means it was a Blue Ocean product.

3DS on the other hand was a red ocean product.  Nintendo cut the price by $80 within the first year.  That is red ocean behavior.  The philosophy behind the Blue Ocean Strategy is that you make more profits because you don't have to cut the price or add expensive features or other costly things that products have to do when they compete directly.  3DS defeated the Vita, but it didn't make good profits while doing so.  3DS was neither blue ocean nor was it really disruptive.



The_Liquid_Laser said:

I've only read the OP really, but I appreciated a good discussion about Blue Ocean Strategy, especially from someone who has either read the book or at least knows enough that they understand the main points of the book.

For the record I would say that Switch IS NOT a blue ocean console.  However it IS disruptive.  (The OP didn't mention disruption, but during the Wii years Nintendo was using both strategies.)  Blue ocean products grow a market from unserved or underserved customers.  Disruptive products grow by competing using asymmetric skills and motivations.  A product can be both, but the Switch is not both.  It is disruptive only.

Why isn't Switch a blue ocean product?  It's not for a want of trying.  Nintendo has made the following games so far in an attempt to reach brand new or underserved customers: 1-2 Switch, Arms, Labo, Pokemon Let's Go, Ring Fit Adventure.  Of these 5 games only Ring Fit Adventure is actually reaching new customers and not nearly on the level of Wii Fit.  1-2 Switch, Arms and Labo are essentially niche games and represent only a small fraction of the customer base.  Pokemon Let's Go would only be Blue Ocean if it could bring in a significant number of mobile gamers from Pokemon Go.  It didn't, because its sales were mostly front loaded.  It was selling to an established customer base instead of a new one.  Ring Fit Adventure is actually selling like a Blue Ocean game, but Switch was already extremely successful before it came along.  There are several other games that contribute to Switch's success much more than Ring Fit Adventure.  Clearly Switch is not a blue ocean product.

What about disruption?  Is Switch a disruptive product?  Disruptive products either start in a different market or on the low end of an existing market.  Switch started in both.  The handheld market is a different market.  Also the launch price of Switch is cheaper than the launch price of a Sony or Microsoft console.  Does Switch fit the profile of a low end/different market product?  Check.  Disruptive products also compete by ignoring functionality and instead improve other aspects that make the product either more reliable, more convenient, or cheaper?  Portable gaming and hybrid gaming are both more convenient than home gaming.  Also carts are more durable (reliable) than disks and it launched at a cheaper price.  Meanwhile it has ignored functionality (hardware power).  Does Switch compete like a disruptive product?  Check.

Switch is a disruptive product, but it is not a blue ocean one.  If it's sales grow to unprecedented levels (and I think it will), it is because it will take customers away from Sony and Microsoft.  In fact that is one reason why I think it is called "Switch".  Iwata liked to give consoles 2 or 3 different meanings.  Obviously Switch refers to switching between home and handheld gaming, but I also think it means Nintendo has a strategy of people switching from Sony and Microsoft to Nintendo.  Switch's growth will come from competition and not from reaching a lot of new customers.

Extremely simplified, a disruptive product that can be described as a crappy product for crappy customers. I don't see that applying to Switch.

As for blue ocean, you are mixing up an analysis of individual games with an analysis of the console itself. Extremely simplified, blue ocean is a creation of uncontested space that renders competition irrelevant. That applies to Switch because it's the only console that works as both a home and handheld console, and also because it is the only portable console.

Up until now, there's a lot more evidence that Switch's success has not been at the expense of other consoles rather than its success coming at the expense of other consoles.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments