let's bump my thread !!!

@ dharh

you sayu sony will be different by doing casual and hardcore, yet thats exactly what nintendo has been doing

im from the UK and in 2008 nintendo offered me

casual: wii fit, wii music, wii chess, animal crossing

bridge: mario kart

hardcore: batallion wars 2, fire emblem radiant dawn, SSBB, warioland shake it, disaster day of crisis

now to me that doesnt look casual favoured at all

I just don't see Nintendo dropping the price before the holiday season with the nice profit they are making on hardware.

The brand loyalty is too much true.

There are tons of amazing cuting-edge tech touch phones out there, and yet, people still prefer the iPhone because it "is the real touch phone. Is the best of them all"

It was the first big mainstream phone, now it is complicated to take that out of people's head. And Apple is a marketing beast.

If you read what I said I already mentioned that Nintendo is going to target their previous core audience, and more of the mature audience. Though my issue was will this work given the reliance solely on motion control when a large portion of hard core (gettin a little tired of using this word) games are not very amenable to motion control. FPS on rails for example may not good enough, then again, FPS on rails may bring in enough casuals and hard core that you get great sales numbers anyway, despite most traditional gamers shunning the controls.

Actually I understand the disruptive economic model quite well, thank you. As per your assertion about my 'gripes' being invalid, lol. First, they are valid solely because I still do not buy into Nintendo's motion control. That's why they are MY gripes. The rest of my post wasn't really about my gripes anyway. Second, 50% of the market is good enough, and it does put them in first place. But it hardly means that traditional gaming is over. Which means I can still look forward to my kind of gaming on future MS/SONY consoles still. 

^

First, console wars are muddled. A great number of console owners are in fact duel console owners. I have all 3. Taking away a significant part of Nintendo's audience basically means "Oh by the way you Wii owners should get a PS3/X360 also cause we have something you like that Nintendo doesn't offer." You may entirely be right that Nintendo's current 'upmarket' as you put it strategy will block SONY/MS 'downmarket' strategy. I don't really see it quite so black and white, but ok.

You guys and your blue ocean analogy. The Good Enough strategy IS a way to create a disruptive tech. I don't think its the exact same as Nintendo's Blue Ocean but it sort of does compare.

The Wii has Good Enough performance, its above the GC but can't match the other consoles of the gen, but a large significant segment of the gaming population are fine with it (maybe even prefer it, far as I can tell). It made the Wii cheapest to buy out the gate.

Motion controls are simple enough and intuitive its easy to become efficient in controlling whatever game uses it. This allowed people to play games that had never done so before (this is by the way the blue ocean strategy, get new gamers). The controls are Good Enough for alot of people for alot of games, but not all people and not all games.

Look at the Flip camera. It does nothing new at all, all it does is focus on the KEY elements of a digital camera, make it intuitive to use, cheep to buy. It completely disrupted the digital camera market.

I think, that you are mixing the Blue Ocean Strategy, and the Disruption Strategy (and also made up your own "Good Enough Strategy" WTF?!)

These are both existing, well defined strategies from business professionals. The former means, in short, non-competition and exploring new markets.

The latter is a much more complex process, and while it DOES begin with finding a blue ocean of downmarket users,  you make it sound like if that would be all, and the two markets could peacefully live near each other. But that is wrong.

 That graph I quoted, was used by Clayton Christensen, the writer of the Disruption books. Upstreaming IS a vital part of the disruption, not just "a possibility". If a company would simply find an underserved niche, it would not disrupt anyone else by serving them. The disruption happens when the disruptor kicks the previous market leader in the groins, and destroying them, hence the name "disruption".  Even if Nintendo would be unaware of the Disruption Strategy that they started,( but they are aware), they would upstream. Every company, every product is upstreaming. It is the natural thing to do. (The first step, that indeed uses the KISS principle, is more like the anomaly, this is why disruptions are rarely started.) Starting the disruption is the "revolution", while the usual business process is an "evolution", (including the continuing of the disruption). 

That's the whole point. While now motion controllers are only "good enough" for the downmarket, they will natually evolve, until they are good enough for the upmarket. And when they are going to evolve, Nintendo will be in the front line.

If the console war would be a real battle, Nintendo would put itself on the high ground, from where they can attack to downhill swiftly and powerfully, while the enemy attackers woud be slowed down, an tired while charging uphill. (this high ground also happens to be called the "downmarket", so yes, my analogy sucks from that perspective)