Can't wait to see the youtube videos of attractive women playing the flute on their Wiimotes, then Wii Music will be genius.

Ps.  In retrospect it probably wasn't Wii Music that got to me so much at the E3 Conference but the cheesy opening video about smiles followed by that woman that was on stage for about an hour.

Good point, BUT... we're discussing Malstrom here and in my interpretation Malstrom articles was more serious than games on HD consoles have high budgets and Ninty must fixed it. The gaming as we know it is changing  wether the Wii is introduced or not. According to Malstrom this is the end of core gaming as we know it. For disruption to work you must change the value of the current product that is on the market. Why are MP3s becoming more popular even music companies sue Napster and hold its business? Why there are more MP3 sites that download songs for free? And why apple take advantage of it by inventing Ipod? In reality, nothing the music companies to stop mp3s from downloading. What music companies can do in the future was just download their songs for free on the internet but in expense of having advertisements and commercials on their site and not supress the websites from acquiring songs and upload it on the net. Though theres Itunes shop but...

Now onto topic, for disruption to work you must change the value of the product, how will you change the value of a product lets say a video game just by changing its how you control the game. Thats not how disruption work, how will you change a game if its just the same platformer, FPS, action adventure, RPG, adventure RPG, etc...? Now to music industry again, the music industry change so much that CDs are almost obsolete and you hardly listen to radio anymore unless if you're on a trip driving. Most of the time you just download your favorite songs on then net, put it on your favorite mp3 player and listen to it OR just visit imeem and listen to it directly on your PC. 

And in gaming industry, before the video game crash and before NES came, the gaming industry was different, most gamers dont just sit on their TV and play video games on their console for hours everyday, they go to the arcades go outside and play their favorite videogame for atleast 20 minutes and spent all their quarters just to beat the highest score. Thats what videogaming before, just look at how much it change now. Now comparing the current videogame till the Wii introduced, now its not a kid or a teen just sat on TVs for hours everyday just to finish one game. Its now a social gathering of family and friends playing atleast playing once a week or a month, (Ninty never care they have money) playing the same game over and over again like Wii Sports and Wii Fit. Thats what videogaming has become. And dont tell me that somehow Ninty will change their business strategy soon and suddenly their games cater more to core audiences and abandon their party games. Ninty will make casual social games from years to come thats how it will ever be. 

Thats why they didnt do the PC gaming approach, where a gamer plays hours on PC online or on LAN just to compete and be the best. Thats not what Ninty is intended, thats what SONY and MS wants to intented. But fails, because PC was still superior than consoles even PCs are still functional as a videogame hardware even its a few years old while consoles are replaced for atleast 4-5 years.

P.S. Doesnt mean that traditional games will not be lost or die, its just that its not the main focus anymore. Core games as we know it will become niche in months or years to come...

@Paul Warren: Nintendo never said they couldn't afford a console like PS3 or 360. Nintendo could have afforded a failure like Xbox.
What Nintendo have said is, that they could have done a console like PS360, but they didn't see it profitable and Nintendos PR have been talking about disruption for years now, so if you knew disruption, you knew what was coming. Nintendo is continuing with its disruptive strategy.
Nintendos level of dominance isn't because of Nintendos disruptive strategy, but because of the competition fucking their own things up. Well, that's how Sega and Nintendo helped Sony into console market a decade ago.

Now that you were talking about experience, then you should know why Wii is selling. It offers completely new experience, while PS360 offers the same shit in prettier wraps. And yes, Wii offers also the same as before in prettier wraps, just not as flashy as flashy as the HD consoles.
Wii takes the experience in a whole new level, while M$ offers you achievements in Live, Nintendo offers you achievements in life. Losing five kilos with Wii Fit, is always superior to gaining 500 points to your gamerscore in Halo.
Looking at the games that you constantly see on top-sellers lists, Wii Sports, Wii Play and Wii Fit, they all are about a new experience, which isn't possible on the HD consoles, and even less, when the competition strategy is only to follow, instead of innovate. The biggest strength of Wii is, that its hardware is designed from the ground-up for the software, while the competing consoles are designed for the hardware.

As for the review scores, since the score and sales don't meet, it just proves that reviewers doesn't resemble the public, so the review scores can't be taken as an indicator of the games perceived quality. No matter how you try to prove something that doesn't exist with the score.

@Yushire: The end of gaming as we know it, happened with NES, it also happened when the games went to 3D and it's happening now too. With the difference, that the instance that's driving the change, has no motivation to give up with the old audience. I've explained this to you a few times already, but you still don't seem to understand.
Nintendo wants to upstream the new audience. When they do, the new audience buys X amount of the blue ocean/disruptive games, when they move up in tiers, they buy bridged games and when they keep moving up, they end up buying core games.
If we assume that the blue ocean audience would be a million in size and everyone would upstream and the core audience would be the same size, but they would go to lower tiers only up to bridged games:
You would sell million copies of blue ocean games.
You would sell two million copies of bridged games.
You would sell two million copies of core games.
So, what it would mean is, that the core audience games would get even more profitable to publishers, making even bigger budgets possible, instead of abandoning the "hardcore", in the end Nintendo is saving the "hardcore".

So Nintendo isn't abandoning their business strategy, they just continue it. Look at the number of the party games/minigames Nintendo have published in a while. The latest is around 1,5 years old and there's not a new one in sight, outside Wii Sports Resort, which essentially is just a tech demo that you have something to play along Wii Motion Plus (and to boost its sales, of course).
We aren't seeing Wii Sports 2, Wii Fit 2 is a remote possibility, but what we will see, is a big number of bridged and core games.
The core games aren't going anywhere, the old audience, whose values are "more the same with flashier visuals" just will be the minority in the audience, whose values lie in innovation and gameplay - in the core of videogames.

"Now onto topic, for disruption to work you must change the value of the product, how will you change the value of a product lets say a video game just by changing its how you control the game. Thats not how disruption work, how will you change a game if its just the same platformer, FPS, action adventure, RPG, adventure RPG, etc...? Now to music industry again, the music industry change so much that CDs are almost obsolete and you hardly listen to radio anymore unless if you're on a trip driving. Most of the time you just download your favorite songs on then net, put it on your favorite mp3 player and listen to it OR just visit imeem and listen to it directly on your PC. "

But music never seems to have been disrupted. Sure it comes in different formats much like the change from cd to dvd to blu-ray, but the core genres of music that people listen to never seem to change. Ie. the genres of country, rock 'n roll (including alternative, hard rock and metal), and motown (including jazz and hiphop) continue to be the most popular forms of music decade after decade and new genres that have tried to come along like disco in the seventies or techno in the nineties have never made large impacts on the culture at large and have only been popular for short periods of time. Eg. no techno music ever made the No. 1 spot on Billboard's music chart.

I have a feeling this thread will go on until Wii Music gets released but the thread doesn't even seem to be about Wii Music anymore.

@Paul Warren: You seem to be understanding disruption all wrong. Disruption isn't about becoming dominant, disruption is about gaining marketshare/entering the market. Of course, if the disruption really succeeds, we see ipod/Wii/DS kind of success, but that's what it is all about, we can have things like Blackberry as a disruptive products.

Rock&roll "disrupted" the music industry, disco "disrupted" the music industry. Things like heavy metal, techno, dance are only sustaining changes in the industry, whery you push "a little more" from the previous music.
When you look at the charts, you'll notice it's dominated by "rock&roll" and "disco", usually "disco" being at the top.

I am a musician. That's why I'm looking forward to Wii Music.

I'm not nearly the most technically proficient but I understand the soul of playing music.

Malstrom is a daggone genius!

John Lucas

""disco", usually "disco" being at the top."

disco has been dead since the seventies. Hip Hop is not disco.

"Another reason for hip hop's rise was the decline of disco, funk and rock in the mid- to late 70s. Disco arose among black and gay male clubs in America, and quickly spread to Europe, where it grew increasingly sunny, bright and poppy. Once disco broke into the mainstream in the United States, and was thus appropriated, its original fans and many other listeners rejected it as pre-packaged and soulless. While many remember the white teens shouting "disco sucks" at every available opportunity, often in racist and homophobic contexts, inner-city blacks were similarly rejecting disco and disco-fied rock, soul and funk (which was virtually everything on the radio at the time).

If disco had anything redeemable for urban audiences, however, it was the strong, eminently danceable beats, and hip hop rose to take advantage of the beats while providing a musical outlet for the masses that hated disco."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_hop_music

@Paul Warren: Hip hop isn't disco, but techno, dance (look, what's funny is, that there are two different genres inside one, techno being "hip hop" and dance being "disco". Both of them are often count as one, due to huge overlap between them) etc. is. Although, it only depends how do you look at it, since there's one major value that has sustained since rock&roll grew popular among the white population, which is it being rhytmic and being able to dance it, no similar "revolution" than rock&roll have been seen since.
Elvis was to rock&roll, what Abba was to disco. Today, Nightwish and HIM are to rock&roll, what Sophie-Ellis Bextor is to disco.

What has changed during the years, is basically everything, only thing that have happened is the music changing over time, the change have allowed new kind of music to enter between genres, that are going apart from each other.

If we want to go by "strict" definitions, rock&roll is dead, disco is dead, heavy metal is dead, etc. None of the genres are what they used to be, unless you start looking how the music have evolved over the time.