The fact that all the 360 fanboys feel the need to bash the article must mean its on the mark.

It was beyond stupid to start all this hype if the product is over a year away, probably longer.

Mario Kart, a lot of downstream gamers moved into this game because of the Wii wheel, so much so that Microsoft is trying to replicate its own version with the NATAL, that's all the proof that is needed

WereKitten:

I don't necessarily disagree with you in this matter, but would you be so kind as to answer me 1) what evidence you have that the Wii has not, as you say, created a new market, and is instead filling out the holes left in the old one (given that, IIRC, Nintendo has already produced statistics that would indicate otherwise), and 2) how, exactly, you mean to adduce that the Wii and its innovative (for home consoles) interface has not disrupted the market, when earlier in this very thread you were saying it will not be long for the HD systems to follow? Even if it is, in fact, only a subset of the old market that is being exploited by these new methods of control*, it is still a change that would not have occurred if it were not for Nintendo's strategizing. Of course, this change, in reality, has taken place during a period of time, beginning with the DS, and so it does not fall into the same trap as Malstrom's argument.

*I trust you will not deny the import of Wii Sport's control scheme in the popularization of the Wii.

I believe this to be a reasonable inquiry, and I look forward to your rebuttal.

PS. Yes, I was being intentionally haughty in this post. Humor me.

@malstrom

Hi Mr. expert in Psychology! Do you know what you come off as????...................A scared scared little pup, just backed up into a corner, barking anxiously hoping the big bad wolf would just go away.

LMAO!!!! The 360 didn't support the xbox 1 because it sold 25 million consoles!!!! It had like 16% market share, why would they support it? Clearly it wasn't popular, it was just a stepping stone for the 360 to launch off. When the 360 released do you really think the original xbox was going to get any attention?? It had no where near enough killer apps, nor had it built a strong enough name to garner it's own attention while in the shadow of big bro 360. The ps2 on the other hand was the most succesful console ever! Continuing to support it wasn't a smart move, it was the obvious move!!

Are you really comparing nintendo's scope to Microsoft's??? Microsoft is a behemoth, a beast!! Built to devour everything in it's vecinity in order to stand....ALONE!! Not above all. Microsoft doesn't want to compete with nintendo, it wants to eliminate it. It has the money to outlast it and the scope to outperform it. Remember, MS's ultimate goal is always attaining a MONOPOLY!! Why? It's Bill Gates favorite game...

The reason Natal is getting so much attention is because it WOWED the general public. It didn't just wow the gaming public. We get wowed at things like cover systems and such that the general public just doesn't care for. Natal trancended all demographics and just wowed the world. It's pushing the limits of current technology not playing it safe in the tried and true ground of technology. It's is not the eye toy or pseye or little wiimotes, it is a product trying to revolutionize a revolution.

There's no product to hype??? Clearly there are, as well as games to show it off with, as well as having capabilities outside of gaming itself. Like UI navigation and interaction. They are going from show to show because people are very curious about it and want to see it in action. Microsoft has bought 2 camera companies and is looking to buy the 3rd who focus on this type of technology. They are recruiting extra help as well as eliminating companies from which sony and nintendo as well as any other companies can aquire the tech from. Do you really think they aren't serious? There's no product? 1000'S of developers hav kits in their hands as I type this. It's coming and you know full well. HAHAHAHA!! But of course, that's why you ranted so much.

The Xbox Natal rumor is just a rumor!!! However, it is a rumor I believe has a good chance to be true. The rumor however is not a new console, as in Microsoft's 8th gen console. The rumor is a new sku. That's all. It will be no different than a slim model, just more perks. I predict it'll be slightly smaller than the 360, about 10% smaller but no more. This will be largely do to the Natal Camera intergration. The internal hardware however will be substantially scaled downed. With a 32nm chip and a 45-60nm chip. As well as smaller more efficient heat sink etc. In terms of power it will be decently upgraded however. They are reportedly aiming for a price point below 300$ which is quite cheap for all the perks it has.

It's inevitable, MS will take over the gaming industry. Look at all it's gained in it's short time in the industry against heavily established, deeply entrenched companies like Sony and Nintendo. Do you think it's going to stop? BTW, you are aware that the HD consoles are getting closer and closer to the Wii's sales, right?

You'll have to indulge me, in that I have no background in business studies, thus I could be improperly using terms that have a very strict meaning and causing undue confusion. Improperly put, long text follows :)

1) I suppose you could say that they "created" their new market, indeed, as in tapping into a market that was probably almost untouched since the days of Pong or the very first home consoles, before they became intimidating for most people. I didn't say that Nintendo filled out holes in an old market, merely that the two HD consoles moved towards a different battleground.

Looking at the PS2 library with its Buzz and Singstar and Guitar Hero, plus the plethora of kiddy tie-ins one could have thought that in an alternate timeline the PS2->PS3 transition might have been designed to be more inclusive of the casually-playing users. But the war with MS and the dawning market of digital media content required focusing elsewhere.

2) Proper market disruption would mean that the novelty popularized by Nintendo can't be fully pursued by Sony or MS because of their business model. And thus that it will always give Nintendo an edge as it gnaws the market from under their feet, up to the point where all gamers' needs are fulfilled by a new and different evolving line of products.

I just say that it's not a given for several reasons.

The first is that nobody knows what will happen when that new market becomes a battlefield, or how the newly found focus on casual users (I don't like the term much, but it's not at all derogatory in my mind) by Sony and MS will turn out. How much will brand loyalty count for such users? What will happen if Sony or MS start marketing their family friendly offer, maybe pointing out their peculiarities over Nintendo's offer (games or family activities that involve the camera?) How much will the MotionPlus succeed? I don't think that we can say that they can't pursue the same road a priori.

The second is that even if Sony and MS were unable to make inroads into this market, I still have to see any indication that the "new" gaming can grow to fulfill all existing needs of the gamers' base. This is not the same as talking about the controls, mind you. GTA V could be coded with beautiful, effective motion controls and still be quite the opposite of the "new" gaming as Malstrom identifies it (less complicated games, low initial entrance barrier, intuitive interaction).

One thing is to say "quiet and sturdy solid-state HDDs will eventually get cheaper and bigger enough to disrupt the rotating, magnetic HDD market". You only have to become good enough in all the relevant specs (say cost per gigabyte), while keeping the properties that give you an irreplaceable edge over the old product (say resistance to mechanical stress). At that point you fulfill the needs of the market.

But the same can't be blindly extended to contents such as movies, music, literature or games. There's no such thing as "being a good enough poetry" if your added value is a simplified language. To write some poetry, that value will actually be a hinderance.

In all of this, please note that I'm not downplaying the great success of Nintendo, nor the freshness of the motion controls they introduced at the heart of their platform. I'm just asking for more evidence that this is truly a disruptive process of the whole console gaming as we know it, and not simply an expansion and re-adjustment of focus that will end up in a different but not revolutionized balance.

PS: haughty? English is not my first language, thank god, thus such undertones zoom over my head all the time :)

dcIKeeL said: @malstrom Hi Mr. expert in Psychology! Do you know what you come off as????...................A scared scared little pup, just backed up into a corner, barking anxiously hoping the big bad wolf would just go away. LMAO!!!! The 360 didn't support the xbox 1 because it sold 25 million consoles!!!! It had like 16% market share, why would they support it? Clearly it wasn't popular, it was just a stepping stone for the 360 to launch off. When the 360 released do you really think the original xbox was going to get any attention?? It had no where near enough killer apps, nor had it built a strong enough name to garner it's own attention while in the shadow of big bro 360. The ps2 on the other hand was the most succesful console ever! Continuing to support it wasn't a smart move, it was the obvious move!! Are you really comparing nintendo's scope to Microsoft's??? Microsoft is a behemoth, a beast!! Built to devour everything in it's vecinity in order to stand....ALONE!! Not above all. Microsoft doesn't want to compete with nintendo, it wants to eliminate it. It has the money to outlast it and the scope to outperform it. Remember, MS's ultimate goal is always attaining a MONOPOLY!! Why? It's Bill Gates favorite game... The reason Natal is getting so much attention is because it WOWED the general public. It didn't just wow the gaming public. We get wowed at things like cover systems and such that the general public just doesn't care for. Natal trancended all demographics and just wowed the world. It's pushing the limits of current technology not playing it safe in the tried and true ground of technology. It's is not the eye toy or pseye or little wiimotes, it is a product trying to revolutionize a revolution. There's no product to hype??? Clearly there are, as well as games to show it off with, as well as having capabilities outside of gaming itself. Like UI navigation and interaction. They are going from show to show because people are very curious about it and want to see it in action. Microsoft has bought 2 camera companies and is looking to buy the 3rd who focus on this type of technology. They are recruiting extra help as well as eliminating companies from which sony and nintendo as well as any other companies can aquire the tech from. Do you really think they aren't serious? There's no product? 1000'S of developers hav kits in their hands as I type this. It's coming and you know full well. HAHAHAHA!! But of course, that's why you ranted so much. The Xbox Natal rumor is just a rumor!!! However, it is a rumor I believe has a good chance to be true. The rumor however is not a new console, as in Microsoft's 8th gen console. The rumor is a new sku. That's all. It will be no different than a slim model, just more perks. I predict it'll be slightly smaller than the 360, about 10% smaller but no more. This will be largely do to the Natal Camera intergration. The internal hardware however will be substantially scaled downed. With a 32nm chip and a 45-60nm chip. As well as smaller more efficient heat sink etc. In terms of power it will be decently upgraded however. They are reportedly aiming for a price point below 300$ which is quite cheap for all the perks it has. It's inevitable, MS will take over the gaming industry. Look at all it's gained in it's short time in the industry against heavily established, deeply entrenched companies like Sony and Nintendo. Do you think it's going to stop? BTW, you are aware that the HD consoles are getting closer and closer to the Wii's sales, right?

Oh please, do you honestly think Malstrom will read this & be scared? IF he does read that which is probably about 1/1000 of a chance, he'll probably just laugh for a minute & then move on.  Come on, even the chances of you finding some rare Neo Geo AES homecarts is bigger! There's no sense trying to talk to him without him hearing it. 

dcIKeeL said: Are you really comparing nintendo's scope to Microsoft's??? Microsoft is a behemoth, a beast!! Built to devour everything in it's vecinity in order to stand....ALONE!! Not above all. Microsoft doesn't want to compete with nintendo, it wants to eliminate it. It has the money to outlast it and the scope to outperform it. Remember, MS's ultimate goal is always attaining a MONOPOLY!! Why? It's Bill Gates favorite game...

And that is where the disruption disagrees. In case of counterattack, it's always the downmarket-based disruptor that wins.

Microsoft already lost 9 billion dollars in the video game industry. And compared to that, what did they win? 30% market share in an industry, where they still don't know how to earn any money?

To even counterattack Nintendo, let alone destroying it, they would need to lose more billions of dollars.

IIRC, Nintendo already has 10 billion $ to spend if it is needed. But it won't be needed, because when THEY expand, they earn even more money with it. Even if Microsoft would manage to steal some market share from Nintendo, Nintendo would still be much more profitable than Microsoft.

You are right that having more money is an advantage for Microsoft, but it is not an infinite one. No company would lose all of its profits on a single unprofitable division.  Bill might be a visionary business leader, but eventually if the next generation xbox wouldn't dominate the market either, the executives, and the investors will start asking themselves: Exactly WHY are we spending billions on being the part of an industry that didn't bring any profits to us? 

Alterego-X said: dcIKeeL said: Are you really comparing nintendo's scope to Microsoft's??? Microsoft is a behemoth, a beast!! Built to devour everything in it's vecinity in order to stand....ALONE!! Not above all. Microsoft doesn't want to compete with nintendo, it wants to eliminate it. It has the money to outlast it and the scope to outperform it. Remember, MS's ultimate goal is always attaining a MONOPOLY!! Why? It's Bill Gates favorite game... And that is where the disruption disagrees. In case of counterattack, it's always the downmarket-based disruptor that wins. Microsoft already lost 9 billion dollars in the video game industry. And compared to that, what did they win? 30% market share in an industry, where they still don't know how to earn any money?   To even counterattack Nintendo, let alone destroying it, they would need to lose more billions of dollars. IIRC, Nintendo already has 10 billion $ to spend if it is needed. But it won't be needed, because when THEY expand, they earn even more money with it. Even if Microsoft would manage to steal some market share from Nintendo, Nintendo would still be much more profitable than Microsoft.   You are right that having more money is an advantage for Microsoft, but it is not an infinite one. No company would lose all of its profits on a single unprofitable division.  Bill might be a visionary business leader, but eventually if the next generation xbox wouldn't dominate the market either, the executives, and the investors will start asking themselves: Exactly WHY are we spending billions on being the part of an industry that didn't bring any profits to us?

Always fails? Ahh, I see how disruption works basicly if it doesn't work its not disruption therefore disruption never fails. Its quite a genius philosophy because it can never be proved wrong.

You're piling the assumptions really high here. Lets see, they have to lose money to compete with Nintendo? So you're essentially assuming that Microsoft knows as little about business strategy as you? Since you don't know anything about how Natal and the other things will be used you shouldn't pass judgements on things you know nothing about.

Point well taken. I believe we share our opinions in this matter.

PS. I assume that to be a sarcastic remark on your part, as it is in fact quite haughty (depending on how you interpret it, of course - is it a good thing English is not your primary language, or is it a good thing you don't easily notice people's attitudes towards you (which I doubt), or both?). In either case, the irony was not lost on me.

PS: indeed