@Alby:

1) Sony's move controller is exactly what Christensen means with least effective + bad execution! The Move controller IS a direct copy of the Wii remote. It has the main unit, almost the same buttons, a nunchuk, the pointer, everything. That's like saying Microsoft didn't copy Apple when it came to user interface because their computer mouse features right-click! It IS a direct copy. If Sony had added something new, something that would enhance on the whole concept you'd have a point. But this is exactly what Christensen meant with copying. He is looking at this from a consumer point of view. To 99% of the consumers Move will look exactly like the Wii remote. Imagine someone inventing a new type of car and someone else copies it, paints it black and puts the engine at a different place and then says "no we didn't copy! Look it has the engine on the left side! And we added this thing nobody needs!"

To die-hard gamers like us there might be a difference but to the average consumer there isn't. My TV remote also has a different button shape than yours but both are the same. Oh and adding that color-ball doesn't change this

Also, when Christensen says "bad execution" he means that the incumbant didn't understand the values of the disruptor which again is exactly what happens here. Sony thinks people will "upgrade" to the PS3 motion because it is "better". They don't understand what makes the product "better" to consumers so this is exactly what Christensen calls a bad execution.

Oh and Natal is not disruptive! Nintendo is disruptive but Microsoft is only trying to counter-act this so this is not a disruption. Natal would be disruptive if it offered something completely new, with a different business model, etc. But Microsoft is only adapting to Nintendo's rules.

2) Even if it is only 30$ that doesn't matter. What makes the Wii "good" for consumers is the software. The only thing Move will offer will be clones of Wii games (why should people "update" to play the same games? That doesn't make any sense) and a number of crazy gaming ideas only a fraction of the consumers even care about. That's what always happens when you add something to your console after 3 years. So consumers can either go for the Wii which was built upon motion controls and features dozens of good games or for the PS3 which features a fraction of the games but "in HD" (which doesn't matter at all).

3) True we can't know. But so far it looks like Sony still doesn't understand why people like the Wii (they think people will "upgrade" because of HD! That's enough proof, isn't it? )

Well. Overshooting is about companies making big expensive products for people who want to pay for big expensive product, and since there are no cheap basic products that gets the job done, the customers that want cheap basic products are forced to buy the expensive ones. If the majority of customers only want the cheap basic products, and there are only expensive elaborate products, then overshooting has occurred.

That's why I think the PS3 launch is the prime example.

Argh, you beat me to it.

@JGarret

A classic gaming example would be 3D Mario.  Notice how 2D Mario sells so much better than 3D Mario.  That is because the addition of a third dimension makes things much more complicated.  For a lot of people, 2D Mario is good enough.  They don't want a 3rd dimension.

Also notice how enthusiasts hold the exact opposite view.  They see Mario Galaxy as one of this generations best games, while at the same time think NSMB Wii is not a great game.

@theRepublic

Interesting..personally I enjoy both 2D and 3D Marios...I grew up with 2D Mario on the NES, was stunned when I saw Mario 64 for the first time, so both have a place in my gaming library...but yeah sales do the talking and they show 2D Mario is still king..which is kinda refreshing...to see some things didn´t really change since the 80s.

I love both, too.

However, when it comes to sales or reviews, the difference in reaction seems pretty clear.

UncleScrooge said: @Alby: 1) Sony's move controller is exactly what Christensen means with least effective + bad execution! The Move controller IS a direct copy of the Wii remote. It has the main unit, almost the same buttons, a nunchuk, the pointer, everything. That's like saying Microsoft didn't copy Apple when it came to user interface because their computer mouse features right-click! It IS a direct copy. If Sony had added something new, something that would enhance on the whole concept you'd have a point. But this is exactly what Christensen meant with copying. He is looking at this from a consumer point of view. To 99% of the consumers Move will look exactly like the Wii remote. Imagine someone inventing a new type of car and someone else copies it, paints it black and puts the engine at a different place and then says "no we didn't copy! Look it has the engine on the left side! And we added this thing nobody needs!" To die-hard gamers like us there might be a difference but to the average consumer there isn't. My TV remote also has a different button shape than yours but both are the same. Oh and adding that color-ball doesn't change this Also, when Christensen says "bad execution" he means that the incumbant didn't understand the values of the disruptor which again is exactly what happens here. Sony thinks people will "upgrade" to the PS3 motion because it is "better". They don't understand what makes the product "better" to consumers so this is exactly what Christensen calls a bad execution. Oh and Natal is not disruptive! Nintendo is disruptive but Microsoft is only trying to counter-act this so this is not a disruption. Natal would be disruptive if it offered something completely new, with a different business model, etc. But Microsoft is only adapting to Nintendo's rules. 2) Even if it is only 30$ that doesn't matter. What makes the Wii "good" for consumers is the software. The only thing Move will offer will be clones of Wii games (why should people "update" to play the same games? That doesn't make any sense) and a number of crazy gaming ideas only a fraction of the consumers even care about. That's what always happens when you add something to your console after 3 years. So consumers can either go for the Wii which was built upon motion controls and features dozens of good games or for the PS3 which features a fraction of the games but "in HD" (which doesn't matter at all). 3) True we can't know. But so far it looks like Sony still doesn't understand why people like the Wii (they think people will "upgrade" because of HD! That's enough proof, isn't it? )

1) You are bashing Move too harshly. If Move allows to make different things in different way compared to a WiiMote without WM+, and its biggest games will be different enough from Wii's biggest games, people will notice a difference. Anyhow, unless something new we don't know emerges, it's not disruptive but evolutive, I agree, so, if good enough, it should at most buy time for Sony. The worst option described by Christensen, instead, would be a mere copy, badly done, neither disruptive nor evolutive, and unconvincingly stuck to the old product.  About Natal, I wrote about disruptive "potential", it's a good objection that MS could not have the capabilities (or the will to undertake the necessary changes) to exploit it, but the potential is there.

2) I always agreed that coming too late, even in the best case for Sony, Move's effects for PS3 will be quite limited. They can be what Christensen calls "buying time". This is the same reason why even Natal, despite its disruptive potential, will give at most a limited benefit to XB360. A true disruptive strategy will be possible for Sony and MS only starting from next gen, including and carefully integrating it in PS4 and XB720 since the beginning, since their project. Let's just think about it: "PS3 (or PS4)! Now with OPTIONAL disruption"! It sounds quite ridiculous. 

3) We can have the "impression" Sony could mess things up again, based on previous records, but impressions and certainties aren't the same thing. If we want to give our impressions, I have also the impression that a possible Apple console wouldn't be as successful as iPod and iPhone, considering Apple never was a gaming giant, not even when the Mac should have had a great theoretic advantage on the primitive DOS, and let 's forget about Nokia, considering the N-Gage precedent, the engineer of the first version that thought it was a good idea to have to remove cover and battery to insert a game should be fed to red ants, and the execs that approved the project too.

About the business model you cited: Nintendo clearly showed that its business model offers a lot of advantages, this is undeniable, and Sony and MS models make costs go out of control, this is undeniable too and they must work on it.

Anyhow, at E3 2010 we'll be able to get the first significant previews and reactions, and next Autumn the real stuff will be released so we won't have to wait too much.

To comment, the success of Nintendo's efforts is going to be their software. Nintendo has proven, time and time again, that software is the main driving force in the videogame market. Think about New Super Mario Bros Wii, for instance. It doesn't use the features of the Wii outside of shaking the remote, but the game is very successful on the Wii and is having a massive impact on sales. The Wii Remote, much like the touch screen, is really just the tool to making great software. A big problem with third parties is they don;t see the need to make fun software, just to make good Wii Remote games. The success of the 3DS is going to be their games.

Nintendo's trip upmarket is going to depend on their software offerings. Zelda Wii is huge becuase it is software that is for higher tier games. Most current games may not want to get fit or relax or play sports. They may just want a good action game. So this is where Zelda comes in. It's also going to be that the Wii Remote is getting better. The Wii Remote is not "good enough" yet. This is what is going to hold the high tier markets from the Wii. This is why Zelda is so crucial, because it will make the Wii in a lot of these gamers minds. Sony's biggest mistake, I think, was not readying a counter to Zelda Wii.

You're very knowledgable UncleScrooge. Welcome to the forums.

"Gaming was so much more fun and magical before the existence of the ‘Industry’. Come to think of it, gaming really began to go on a downhill slide after the 16-bit generation when Sony entered the stage. And the more Sony is in decline, the more and more fun games are becoming again."

He sure got that part right.

I bet he even phrased it just to weed out those claiming he hates Sony instead of just him hating their approach to gaming.