By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - The Malstrom thread

LordTheNightKnight on 09 September 2010
Alby_da_Wolf said:
LordTheNightKnight said:

[...]

Or I'll just direct him to disruption reading, as I'm more of a passive student of this, not a master.

Maybe I'm wrong and surely I wasn't precise stating my points (in the post before this one I'm more precise about what I meant), but I based them on some Christensen articles Smashchu2 suggested to me some weeks or months ago.

But basically, what we don't agree about, regarding the first condition, is whether Sony and MS reacted in time or too late (when it's too late, and if the other conditions are met, the reaction produces what Christensen describes in the cases of successful disruption, and the disruption proceeds, when the reaction is earlier and more proactive, the Kodak scenario instead, that Christensen describes too, becomes possible).


I say it wasn't the timing as much as the blatant ripping off. Okay, the timing did hurt that as now the audience sees it as just imitations.

And I agree the Wii can't really move upmarket right now, but that's of course what the next system is about.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Around the Network
Alby_da_Wolf on 09 September 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
LordTheNightKnight said:

[...]

Or I'll just direct him to disruption reading, as I'm more of a passive student of this, not a master.

Maybe I'm wrong and surely I wasn't precise stating my points (in the post before this one I'm more precise about what I meant), but I based them on some Christensen articles Smashchu2 suggested to me some weeks or months ago.

But basically, what we don't agree about, regarding the first condition, is whether Sony and MS reacted in time or too late (when it's too late, and if the other conditions are met, the reaction produces what Christensen describes in the cases of successful disruption, and the disruption proceeds, when the reaction is earlier and more proactive, the Kodak scenario instead, that Christensen describes too, becomes possible).


I say it wasn't the timing as much as the blatant ripping off. Okay, the timing did hurt that as now the audience sees it as just imitations.

And I agree the Wii can't really move upmarket right now, but that's of course what the next system is about.

You see bad side-effects from ripping off, because like me and most of us on tech forums, you can see the similarities, but common people that swallows that MS created mouse, GUI and internet, or that Apple created the mp3 player, or that call consoles simply "playstations" (very common here in Italy, older or non tech people call any console a "playstation" and even now with Wii's success, the Wii is just something different, the others are playstations for them), can swallow also much smaller BS! OTOH, I see the ripping off, but the fact that Sony tries to aim at a more hardcore market for it, besides the casuals, makes me consider it a "Blue Pond" strategy (Pond, not Ocean, as coming late, even if successful, it won't be able to reach the size of Nintendo's earlier and more original projects). As I wrote many times before, I'm anyway persuaded that even if Sony and MS will be able to stop disruption, they won't be able to prevent Nintendo from winning this gen by a very large margin, and quite likely the next too. And obviously Sony with appalling marketing and MS with excessively ambitious marketing and actual products not up to it are both still totally in time to partially ruin whatever good they could do, anyway: if I state that unknown factors can still heavily influence Wii's chances, I must be honest and admit that the same can hit PS3 and XB360 too.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!   


LordTheNightKnight on 09 September 2010
Alby_da_Wolf said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
LordTheNightKnight said:

[...]

Or I'll just direct him to disruption reading, as I'm more of a passive student of this, not a master.

Maybe I'm wrong and surely I wasn't precise stating my points (in the post before this one I'm more precise about what I meant), but I based them on some Christensen articles Smashchu2 suggested to me some weeks or months ago.

But basically, what we don't agree about, regarding the first condition, is whether Sony and MS reacted in time or too late (when it's too late, and if the other conditions are met, the reaction produces what Christensen describes in the cases of successful disruption, and the disruption proceeds, when the reaction is earlier and more proactive, the Kodak scenario instead, that Christensen describes too, becomes possible).


I say it wasn't the timing as much as the blatant ripping off. Okay, the timing did hurt that as now the audience sees it as just imitations.

And I agree the Wii can't really move upmarket right now, but that's of course what the next system is about.

You see bad side-effects from ripping off, because like me and most of us on tech forums, you can see the similarities, but common people that swallows that MS created mouse, GUI and internet, or that Apple created the mp3 player, or that call consoles simply "playstations" (very common here in Italy, older or non tech people call any console a "playstation" and even now with Wii's success, the Wii is just something different, the others are playstations for them), can swallow also much smaller BS! OTOH, I see the ripping off, but the fact that Sony tries to aim at a more hardcore market for it, besides the casuals, makes me consider it a "Blue Pond" strategy (Pond, not Ocean, as coming late, even if successful, it won't be able to reach the size of Nintendo's earlier and more original projects). As I wrote many times before, I'm anyway persuaded that even if Sony and MS will be able to stop disruption, they won't be able to prevent Nintendo from winning this gen by a very large margin, and quite likely the next too. And obviously Sony with appalling marketing and MS with excessively ambitious marketing and actual products not up to it are both still totally in time to partially ruin whatever good they could do, anyway: if I state that unknown factors can still heavily influence Wii's chances, I must be honest and admit that the same can hit PS3 and XB360 too.


That's why right after the bolded part, I mentioned timing still mattered. Those other things ripped off at the right times. Too late, and you have another Zune, which was when the iPod was too big and entrenched.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Alby_da_Wolf on 09 September 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
LordTheNightKnight said:

[...]

I say it wasn't the timing as much as the blatant ripping off. Okay, the timing did hurt that as now the audience sees it as just imitations.

And I agree the Wii can't really move upmarket right now, but that's of course what the next system is about.

You see bad side-effects from ripping off, because like me and most of us on tech forums, you can see the similarities, but common people that swallows that MS created mouse, GUI and internet, or that Apple created the mp3 player, or that call consoles simply "playstations" (very common here in Italy, older or non tech people call any console a "playstation" and even now with Wii's success, the Wii is just something different, the others are playstations for them), can swallow also much smaller BS! OTOH, I see the ripping off, but the fact that Sony tries to aim at a more hardcore market for it, besides the casuals, makes me consider it a "Blue Pond" strategy (Pond, not Ocean, as coming late, even if successful, it won't be able to reach the size of Nintendo's earlier and more original projects). As I wrote many times before, I'm anyway persuaded that even if Sony and MS will be able to stop disruption, they won't be able to prevent Nintendo from winning this gen by a very large margin, and quite likely the next too. And obviously Sony with appalling marketing and MS with excessively ambitious marketing and actual products not up to it are both still totally in time to partially ruin whatever good they could do, anyway: if I state that unknown factors can still heavily influence Wii's chances, I must be honest and admit that the same can hit PS3 and XB360 too.


That's why right after the bolded part, I mentioned timing still mattered. Those other things ripped off at the right times. Too late, and you have another Zune, which was when the iPod was too big and entrenched.

Yes, I agree, and sorry, in my previous answer I overemphasized a single part of your post instead of considering the whole.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!   


LordTheNightKnight on 09 September 2010
Alby_da_Wolf said:
LordTheNightKnight said:


That's why right after the bolded part, I mentioned timing still mattered. Those other things ripped off at the right times. Too late, and you have another Zune, which was when the iPod was too big and entrenched.

Yes, I agree, and sorry, in my previous answer I overemphasized a single part of your post instead of considering the whole.


Well in a nutshell, I say it's too late for Sony and Microsoft to overtake Nintendo by ripping off. How well otherwise they can get in on this market is still up for grabs. It all depends on timing, marketing, and excecution.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Around the Network
Smashchu2 on 09 September 2010

ignore this for now



Smashchu2 on 09 September 2010
UncleScrooge said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
UncleScrooge said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
KungKras said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
 

 


orly, how come?

 

However, these points have been discussed countless times before...

The 3DS is not disrupting the HD consoles, though. Its purpose is to disrupt 3D gaming on home consoles (not the consoles as a whole) by making 3D easy to use (glasses-free) and cheap  (no need for an expensive TV). There are indicators that 3D gaming can be disrupted, for instance the positioning of 3D gaming as a service for only the most avid gamers and the resulting overshooting of, say, 95% of the market.

Disruption's got a lot to do with putting existing technology in a new context of use. For instance the HDD's in an iPod classic aren't really useful when put into a computer but in an iPod they get a new context of use (although this is probably a bad example ) The iPod itself disrupted portable CD players by putting "old" technology in a new context of use. 

The 3DS can't disrupt home consoles in general (because home consoles are not dependent on 3D gaming to sell) but it can disrupt 3D gaming by introducing it to the masses and making it cheap and easy to use. This is in no way illogical, even though handhelds and home consoles are in slightly different markets. As mentioned earlier the iPod disrupted portable CD players but it wasn't a portable CD player itself. This means the 3DS can't disrupt "HD consoles" in general but it can disrupt 3D gaming on the HD consoles.

Surely the 3DS as a whole is more of a blue ocean than a disruptive product. 3D movie playback for instance is not targeted at people who are being "overshot" by handheld gaming (handheld gaming is already pretty easy and since Brain Training not even our grandmothers are really overshot by it ) but it is clearly something to get distant customers to buy the product - typical for a late step in Blue Ocean strategy.

What always strikes me as special is that disrupting 3D gaming - if successful - will prevent Sony from moving upmarket in the home console business. That's rare considering disruptors usually get increasingly successful because the incumbents move upmarket which leaves a bigger slice of the market open for the disruptor (because of an increase of overshot customers). On the other hand this could be a genius move by Nintendo as Sony is currently in a weak position - they lost more than 3 billion dollars during the PS3 era and won't be able to keep that up so they have to focus on profitability right now. Nintendo on the other hand is in a great position financially, they were able to get a lot of 3rd parties to develop for the 3DS (and they will be able to pull this of for the next home consoles, too. I more and more get the feeling that all you need to to gain 3rd party support is a platform that does what the developers want it to do) and they increased their portfolio of multi-million sellers by a huge amount.

While a lot of people keep focusing on declining Wii sales they forget to think about the future. Nintendo could easily lose billions of dollars with their next home console without getting into trouble - and they won't because they are the disruptor, they have the better business model - while Sony will have to cut back on production costs because they need to stay profitable after years of posting a loss. This is most likely going to result in Nintendo dramatically catching up to the competition in terms of hardware power (just like with the 3DS!) which will be part of their plan to move upmarket against a Sony that is being attacked from all sides while still being weakened by their PS3 losses.

So while the 3DS is not going to disrupt HD consoles it is going to be a threat for Sony because it stops them from retreating upmarket with the PS3.

I still see it possibly disrupting more the 3D TV business, not the console one. BTW, PS3 became affordable last year and next year it will start approaching popular price, retreating upmarket isn't needed anymore. I'm also sure that Sony doesn't really believe that 3D with glasses could become more than a high end tecnophile niche, waiting for more practical 3D techs to emerge and become affordable. Overshooting isn't a risk as 3D is within current GPU capabilities, it doesn't require expensive HW add-ons on the console side, the problem is only on the display part, glasses-free tech is still viable and affordable only on portables and for single users only, but, as I wrote, consoles are agnostic about display tech, as long as it's stereoscopic, they can use whatever stereoscopic 3D displays users plug them in. As consoles offer a so wide degree of freedom, they don't risk disruption from this side, again the arguments taken indicate more a possible disruption of 3D TV with glasses only. A deserved disruption, I'd add, the fact that many people are willing to use glasses to watch a small subset of the movies they normally watch at the cinema, and obviously for a very limited time, shouldn't have made TV producers believe that it meant that they would have been willing to use them also on home TVs and for more extended times. BTW LG, not Sony, is currently heavily advertising its latest 3D with glasses models and the ads are appalling: to begin with, obviously the ad can't adequately show the tech on 2D TVs,  then, when they show the family with those horribly nerdy glasses, they could just have added a caption like "family of dorks".


this is not how disuption works

The 3DS can't disrupt the 3D TV business because TV's and the 3DS don't compete over the same audience.

I'm going to have to ask that you pull a quote that supports this. I have never heard that mentioned. Remember that products fulfill a job, and anything else that fulfills the job is an alternative. So I'll have to see a quote or I'll haver to call bull.



UncleScrooge on 10 September 2010
Smashchu2 said:
UncleScrooge said:
 


this is not how disuption works

The 3DS can't disrupt the 3D TV business because TV's and the 3DS don't compete over the same audience.

I'm going to have to ask that you pull a quote that supports this. I have never heard that mentioned. Remember that products fulfill a job, and anything else that fulfills the job is an alternative. So I'll have to see a quote or I'll haver to call bull.


When I made that post I knew someone was going to get me because of the products doing the same job Of course that explanation wasn't correct so I can't give you a quote for it.

Let me put it this way: The products are not doing the same job. The 3DS was primarily made to play videogames not to watch movies. So the job the 3DS fulfills is still playing games. I stated earlier that the movie player seems to be targeted at distant customers (at least that's the way it looks from what we've seen) and not at people overshot by 3DTV.

I was one of those people who were really on the fence regarding the iPod disrupting Nintendo's handheld market precicely because of this. One product does the job of another one but only as a secondary function (iPod playing games, 3DS playing movies) and both do it in a way that could be described as disruptive.

I've never seen a quote from Christensen that a secondary function of a product that was designed to do a different job disrupted a market it wasn't really in. The 3DS's job is to play games not to watch movies in 3D. If there are indicators that the 3DS could disrupt 3DTV feel free to give me a quote or something. We're all here to learn, I don't mind being proven wrong. If we don't agree I could also shoot a mail to Malstrom.

But I guess you didn't want to tell me it could disrupt 3DTV, you just disliked my (wrong) reasoning, right?

Edit: Ok I just re-read your post and I think I know what you mean now so I'll clarify. My first statement was an answer to his whole post in which he did some mistakes regarding disruption. The second statement was in no way related to the first one. It wasn't meant to be read like "this is not how disruption works because they do not compete over the same audience." I realize it must have sounded weird that way. I just didn't want to discuss that point because I would've had to explain it in so much detail.



Killiana1a on 10 September 2010
UncleScrooge said:
Smashchu2 said:
UncleScrooge said:
 


this is not how disuption works

The 3DS can't disrupt the 3D TV business because TV's and the 3DS don't compete over the same audience.

I'm going to have to ask that you pull a quote that supports this. I have never heard that mentioned. Remember that products fulfill a job, and anything else that fulfills the job is an alternative. So I'll have to see a quote or I'll haver to call bull.


When I made that post I knew someone was going to get me because of the products doing the same job Of course that explanation wasn't correct so I can't give you a quote for it.

Let me put it this way: The products are not doing the same job. The 3DS was primarily made to play videogames not to watch movies. So the job the 3DS fulfills is still playing games. I stated earlier that the movie player seems to be targeted at distant customers (at least that's the way it looks from what we've seen) and not at people overshot by 3DTV.

I was one of those people who were really on the fence regarding the iPod disrupting Nintendo's handheld market precicely because of this. One product does the job of another one but only as a secondary function (iPod playing games, 3DS playing movies) and both do it in a way that could be described as disruptive.

I've never seen a quote from Christensen that a secondary function of a product that was designed to do a different job disrupted a market it wasn't really in. The 3DS's job is to play games not to watch movies in 3D. If there are indicators that the 3DS could disrupt 3DTV feel free to give me a quote or something. We're all here to learn, I don't mind being proven wrong. If we don't agree I could also shoot a mail to Malstrom.

But I guess you didn't want to tell me it could disrupt 3DTV, you just disliked my (wrong) reasoning, right?

Squilliam answered this quite well in a unique way on page 124 of this thread:

"Cable TV isn't a dedicated sports medium and yet they are the dominant medium for delivering that kind of content. Facebook isn't a dedicated gaming platform at yet it sports the game with a userbase exceeding the Wii. So with iOS devices not being dedicated gaming devices doesn't mean they will also never become an important handheld gaming marketplace." -Squilliam

Yes, the 3DS and 3D TV may not be fulfilling the same function. This is a given. However, we are missing the forest while we are over analyzing the trees like a botanist.

As Sony intends, they want to use 3D television to sell PS3s among other things in their diverse line of products. Nintendo with the 3DS intends to handicap Sony's ability to sell PS3s via 3D televisions. There is no love lost between these two companies, both see each other as their respective main, domestic competitor. As such, the business moves of Sony are faced with asymmetric attempts intended on lowering Sony's bottom line to the point. Nintendo did this with the Wii monopolizing the lower end from the get go leaving a Red Ocean at the upper end between Sony and Microsoft.

Sony's experience with the PS2 coming out just as DVDs were becoming the main vehicle for home video viewing, thought that spending the extra year to add blu ray functionality would immediately blast the PS3 to the top of this generation. Blu ray never did for Sony what DVD did for Sony. Sony with 3D television is once again retreating upmarket in order to monopolize a niche they believe Nintendo cannot disrupt.

Sony is wrong, Nintendo can and intends to disrupt their upmarket via the 3DS selling to the lower market. Once the 3DS comes out, there will be a media fervor asking why a company as small as Nintendo can put out a glassless 3D experience while Sony, toshiba and panasonic are going glassless for 3D tv, is requiring $3000 for a full on 3D experience?

Sony will not answer that question because they will be caught with their pants down or they may mutter "we are working on it, why don't you ask the same question to Toshiba or Panasonic?" Of course, your good journalist will retort, "Well Toshiba and Panasonic are not in the video game business trying to push the sales of their gaming product with their television for a 3D gaming experience. Again, why are you requiring $3000 for a full on 3D experience?"

Sony at this point may walk away from the interview and mutter "fuck you" bombs under it's breath to the journalist.



UncleScrooge on 10 September 2010
Killiana1a said:
UncleScrooge said:
Smashchu2 said:
UncleScrooge said:
 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

Squilliam answered this quite well in a unique way on page 124 of this thread:

"Cable TV isn't a dedicated sports medium and yet they are the dominant medium for delivering that kind of content. Facebook isn't a dedicated gaming platform at yet it sports the game with a userbase exceeding the Wii. So with iOS devices not being dedicated gaming devices doesn't mean they will also never become an important handheld gaming marketplace." -Squilliam

Yes, the 3DS and 3D TV may not be fulfilling the same function. This is a given. However, we are missing the forest while we are over analyzing the trees like a botanist.

As Sony intends, they want to use 3D television to sell PS3s among other things in their diverse line of products. Nintendo with the 3DS intends to handicap Sony's ability to sell PS3s via 3D televisions. There is no love lost between these two companies, both see each other as their respective main, domestic competitor. As such, the business moves of Sony, are faced with asymmetric attempts intended on lowering Sony's bottom line to the point. Nintendo did this with the Wii monopolizing the lower end from the get go leaving a Red Ocean at the upper end between Sony and Microsoft.

Sony's experience with the PS2 coming out just as DVDs were becoming the main vehicle for home video viewing, thought that spending the extra year to add blu ray functionality would immediately blast the PS3 to the top of this generation. Blu ray never did for Sony what DVD did for Sony. As such, Sony with 3D television is once again retreating upmarket in order to monopolize a niche they believe Nintendo cannot disrupt.

Sony is wrong, Nintendo can and intends to disrupt their upmarket via the 3DS selling to the lower market. Once the 3DS comes out, there will be a media fervor asking why a company as small as Nintendo can put out a glassless 3D experience while Sony, toshiba and panasonic are going glassless for 3D tv, is requiring $3000 plus for a full on 3D experience?

Sony will not answer that question because they will be caught with their pants down or they may mutter "we are working on it, why don't you ask the same question to Toshiba or Panasonic?" Of course, your good journalist will retort, "Well Toshiba and Panasonic are not in the video game business trying to push the sales of their gaming product with their television for a 3D gaming experience. Again, why are you requiring $3000 for a full on 3D experience?"

Sony at this point will walk away and mutter "fuck you" bombs under it's breath to the journalist.


About Squils post: The iPod isn't disrupting Nintendo's handheld business because it is not a dedicated gaming platform and the reason people buy it is to listen to music. Mobile Phone gaming didn't disrupt Nintendo either and neither is Facebook going to disrupt Nintendo. I didn't get the Tv thing either. Of course you are watching Sports on Tv, where else should you watch it? That differs greatly from the situation the 3DS in. You can'T compare that.

About the bolded:

1) Yes, that's what I already said in my previous post. Nintendo is stopping Sony from moving upmarket with the PS3 by introducing 3D play on the 3DS.

2) Yeah, I agree here, too. I also said that in one of my previous posts to Alby

3) That may be true but this is not disruption, it's just the media asking Sony why they can't produce a 3DTV for less money

Going by your post I didn't miss anything because I've said all those things before in the discussion with Alby I even made a post about this on this forum before Malstrom made a blogpost about that issues.

The 3DS is not going to disrupt 3DTV's, though and I'm gonna stay by this no matter what people say. The 3DS is a gaming device. Nintendo doesn't give a damn about Sony's 3DTV business they just care about Sony's Playstation business because Sony is their biggest competitor. There is no value for Nintendo trying to disrupt 3DTV in general. They are not in the 3DTV business so why should they try to disrupt it? Disrupting 3D gaming makes sense to Nintendo because they are in the gaming business. But Nintendo doesn't care whether people are watching their soaps in 3D or 2D.

The thought of the 3DS disrupting 3DTV in general is just hillarious to be honest... neither is the 3DS going to have a huge movie library (as I said they are trying to get distant customers with it, this is mainly a blue ocean product!) nor will Nintendo put any more effort than neccessary into their 3D movie library. There are also mobile phones with 3D displays already and I'm sure there will be dedicated movie players that can display movies in 3D but not even those will not disrupt 3DTV because a TV does the job of displaying movies at home, often together with your friends. Portable 3D movie players are only an alternative for a very limited amount of people (watching alone, watching on the go, etc).