Alterego-X said:
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)
|
Trying not to beleaguer the point. The Good Enough Strategy is a newish strategy (although not really, its just only now getting recognized). I didn't make it up, there are articles around that talk about it, maybe even a book or two.
Disruptive does not really mean non-competition (blue ocean). Because by the very nature of it, it takes away customers from the established base. It just also happens to also flood the market with newcomers.
I am not alone in distrusting the notion that motion control is the end all be all to gaming. But I already agreed with you that SONY and MS are going to try and go downmarket and Nintendo is going to go upmarket. I don't agree that magically Nintendo is going to whoop the others. Their track record does not warrant such confidence.
Do I think Nintendo will almost always profit more than the others, even if it goes back to second/third place? Probably.














