The video game sector has been a tremendous avenue for money in the business sense. Not only has gaming become popular, but it is approaching profits that the movie and music industry would love to have. Nintendo created the Wii as a result of the gaming industry shrinking by only catering to the 18-35 year old male demographic.

Sony and Microsoft have entered the gaming sector at an attempt to garner some of these profits made, so why is it that Nintendo seems to be the one solely focused on gaming in general?

It is interesting watching Sony and Microsoft this generation as both have a corporate business structure that doesn’t quite benefit gaming as a whole. Instead of focusing on gaming both are actually focused on other areas of media that should be played with a game console. As this may seem like a great idea- bringing a media hub into the living room- it does little for video gaming in general outside of consoles getting more pc-like features.

Microsoft and Sony are business giants that instead of pioneering their fields try to one up their competition. Meaning you see slightly enhanced features from generation to generation. Now you might ask, what this has to do with gaming, and how is this bad?

Well, it is simple. Evolving video games are not the top priority for these companies, and proof is shown all around for this. Instead of evolving the user interface or the ease of use to expand the market, Microsoft and Sony are to busy making gaming a gateway to other businesses that they have their hand into.

The reason for this is because Sony and Microsoft both really don’t care if the video game industry dies. They both have other technology avenues to pursue if this happens so expanding the market is not their first priority like it is for the gaming only Nintendo.

Expanding the video game market is looked at as a non structuralist strategy as a structuralist would rather steal ideas to try and make them better. Grabbing a bigger share of the video game market is seen as a zero sum game as companies gain market share at another company’s loss.(1) This means that instead of creating wealth, companies such as Microsoft and Sony see the video game industry as having a set amount of people who would buy the products, and there for focus their attention on stealing customers rather than creating them.

Instead of the above thinking, Nintendo is in the business of creating demand instead of creating supply (which is a structuralist view). Nintendo did this with the Wii and DS because they stimulated the demand side of the industry and created value innovation or leap in value.

You see Sony and Microsoft doing exactly what a structuralist would do. Instead of creating demand in the gaming industry they are trying to mold video gaming into movies, media, music, internet, etc sectors.

Further proof includes Microsoft and Sony creating motion control/buyer innovations that Nintendo helped in creating. The problem with this is that the disruptor (Nintendo) redefining the industry standard with its buyer innovations first make more profit than those that follows for various reasons.

Why would Sony and Microsoft have to include other areas of entertainment if they thought the video game industry had more potential than where they are at?

Remember reconstruction (what Nintendo is doing to the video game industry) reshapes the boundary of the market space and creates innovative solutions, while Recombinations (Microsoft and Sony) tend to maximize tech possibilities which in turn create less profit and revenue than that of the disruptor.(2)

The bigger question is why Microsoft and Sony have not seen this yet?

Sooo... What's this author trying to prove from this stupid article?

Is he saying that Wii Sports is true gaming because it's on the 'revolutionary' Wii and games like Uncharted 2 for PS3 and Halo 3 for 360 are not real gaming?

*facepalm*

TAKE COVER, WE"VE GOT FLAMES INCOMING!

This won't end well.

Anyway, the formatting of that article reminded me of this pretty cool optical illusion:



The square is actually the same colour as its surroundings!

@OP
Judging by the layout this looks like a cut & paste. Shouldn't it come with link and credits?

OT:
As often, the author seem to focus on Wii vs the world, and forget the expansion into what we now call casuals that happened last gen on the PS2 with things like Singstar or Buzz. The fact that Sony and MS started this gen fighting over a different turf (wooing PC developers and users, multimedia and streaming) does not mean that they don't know other market segments exist.
Sony for one simply wasn't poised to even start competing on such segments with an expensive console marketed as a premium product.
Let's see what happens in 2010.

This article is plain crap. Like most crappy articles, it takes some truths, then incorporates a load of guff.

Link?

....and here we see the HD fanboys calling this article crap
while in reality, all of this makes total sense..
just let them be blind..who cares

Sony, particularly, has benefitted a lot from gaming. Not nowadays, but back at the PS2's peak, the gaming division made up the majority of the the company's profits. No, they wouldn't go under if SCE and gaming failed, but the article is acting like they really don't care at all, and if the gaming industry crashed, they would shrug, start whistling and move on. It wouldn't work like that.

Microsoft, to a certain extent, might behave like that, since their original aim was to thwart SCE. A gaming crash would thwart SCE. Unfortunately, if would also destroy PC gaming, which Microsoft joined to protect (in a strange, twisted way). Doh.

hahaha