If by "sustaining innovation", you mean all of the ideas that Nintendo's competitor's have swiped from them, then sure. I hope you don't mean that their innovation was pushing systems to have a graphical upgrade, 'cause I wouldn't call that innovative.

And I'd like to see where you got this definition of the blue ocean being about "crummy" products for "crummy" customers. Sounds like a bunch of sour grapes.

"

Blue oceans, in contrast, denote all the industries not in existence today—the unknown market space, untainted by competition. In blue oceans, demand is created rather than fought over. There is ample opportunity for growth that is both profitable and rapid. In blue oceans, competition is irrelevant because the rules of the game are waiting to be set. Blue ocean is an analogy to describe the wider, deeper potential of market space that is not yet explored. ^[3]

The corner-stone of Blue Ocean Strategy is 'Value Innovation'. A blue ocean is created when a company achieves value innovation that creates value simultaneously for both the buyer and the company. The innovation (in product, service, or delivery) must raise and create value for the market, while simultaneously reducing or eliminating features or services that are less valued by the current or future market. The authors criticize Michael Porter's idea that successful businesses are either low-cost providers or niche-players. Instead, they propose finding value that crosses conventional market segmentation and offering value and lower cost."

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

Maybe I skipped the part where they said "crummy."

Nintendo will be forced to fight again in the red ocean when the blue ocean ends and sony/ms catch up. at some point nintendo's creative solutions will end then it will have to compete with ms/sony on the same areas of techonology, games and ideas and also as a stricly gaming company it cannot afford to lose since it can't retreat anywhere.

Since sony and ms both are moving in on the motion control territory nintendo needs to invent something revolutionary to keep on going and making profit.

Malstrom has gone from someone that had interesting and relevant ideas at the beginning of the generation too being a whiny little fanboy that is threatened by anything and anyone that represents a threat too Nintendo.

Everyone deserves an opportunity too make their ideas work. Granted Sony is simply copying Nintendo, but Microsoft is doing something different and is getting hammered for it in the same way Nintendo was prior to the Wii's launch.

Back then Malstrom opposed that unwarranted criticism. Now it is obvious it wasn't a matter of principle for him, just fanboyism.

They already did, and like before they hid it in plain sight, they even showed it at E3, but most people didn't get it

E3 2009 is remarkable because it clearly illustrates how the console battlefield has now shifted from sight and power to touch and interface. Cleverly, Nintendo has shifted the battlefield to their favor. A battlefield of motion controls is, essentially, going to be a battle of first party games. And we know, of the three, which company has the upper hand on that.


Sony?

No Nintendo, Biggest Sony game ever was GT3 on PS2 at 14.87 million WW and I believe it was a bundled game, not to mention the PS2 sold over 120 million so less than 10% attach rate, by comparison Mario Kart, Wii Fit, Wii Play and Wii Sports have all sold more, on a console with only 50.65 million sold, so much more than 10% attach rate

Maybe you should check the sales of the first party Nintendo games versus the first party Sony games, if you really believe this. We are on a sales site. Checking Sales numbers is easy.

Edit: Avinash_Tyagi did it already for you ...

I think we all can see... do a tweet search for Project Natal and you'll see it's not Microsoft creating the hype anymore. Even this stupid drawn out crap about the hype of Natal is hyping the damn thing. I personally feel it has the potential to change the way I view my games, but it also opens up the door for a host of other things. I also agree that the UI that is there now is just to much for the common users. I think that Microsoft can simplify it drasticly with some question when a user first launches their system. They can take out a bunch of the worthless stuff(worthless to the user not us) and push up front the things that the user would find more interesting. Things like Netflix and the latest movies and tv series could be right up there in front of them... do they game online? No? Take away half of the UI....