Smashchu2 said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
Smashchu2 said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
Smashchu2 said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
So 3DS should disrupt both PS3 and 3D TV with glasses...
While we know that glasses 3D won't ever become mainstream, we also know that parallax barrier 3D isn't good too for the living room, you must stay within a precise spot to enjoy the 3D effect.
BTW, both system are stereoscopic ones, they don't imply big differences for games developers, the skills acquired programming for 3DS can be used to port or develop games for whatever other stereoscopic 3D system, differences are mostly handled at graphics and display drivers level, if even necessary.
|
That is what disruption is. Crappy products for crappy consumers. The 3D will get better and move upstream. All of what has happened cries a disruption.
@Griffen:Have you seen videos of Other M from E3? It is pretty much drama in space. Samus has loads of inner monologues. Character says two sentenses. Monologue. Character says helllo. Monologue. Not to mention how she keeps talking about the "baby." It's just way over the top and is ruining Samus as a character.
|
Portable console often outsold home ones, but they aren't a replacement for them, parallax barrier is a simple and clever tech, but the size of the grille, its distance from the plane of the pixels and the distanze between users' eyes determine a very narrow zone within which you can enjoy 3D, put this tech in a living room and only one user will be able to view in 3D. Is there a way to evolve this tech to overcome this limit? Maybe, but even if it's the case, 3DS remains a device usable by only one person at a time, due to its screen size and having only one set of controls built-in and not expandable. Moreover, Nintendo doesn't own the tech, it just buys displays from display producers, if they find a way to port that tech to home TVs it will be available to everybody and it won't disrupt PS3, that will be able to use it like anybody else, but 3DTVs with glasses, including Sony ones . Whatever 3D tech will conquer the living room will be, if stereoscopic, readily usable by anyone that was already using stereoscopy, including glasses, otherwise, if it will be not stereoscopic, every console and game producer previously using stereoscopy will have to start on a par with the others and will have to redesign the stage of image generation, parallax barrier gives a great advantage in portable devices, but that advantage isn't transferred to other fields, and what's more, it's a tech very SW compatible with its current competitors, that so won't be left behind, not only, it also doesn't create a barrier for SW developers, so that if they choose 3DS they aren't exclusively locked to it.
So, IMVHO, the potential for disruption exists, if they devise the right refinement of the tech, but towards 3D with glasses (*), not towards home consoles.
(*) That is anyway doomed, whatever 3D tech viable for home TVs not using glasses will be released first, will kill it.
|
The bolds
You just described a disruption. A disruption is always bad compaired to the incumbent. Sony would see the 3DS as "crappy 3D." The 3D on the 3DS will get better.
You are totally wrong about the second part, and this is why you do not get disruption. Disruption is a value innovation. Disruptors work in that they have new values, namely a asymetric motivation and an asymetric skill. This is also why Christiansen calls them "Disruptive Innovation," verses a "Disruptive Technology," after his first book. Nintendo's 3D will only be absorbed if they lack the skill and the motivation.
The 3DS is disruptive. There is no doubt about it. Look at the very end of Nintendo's press conferense and how many times they say "No more glasses," and the begining of Sony's Press Conference where they talk about the "true 3D experience."
Here is a video to prove my point. Listen to how he hates current 3D and likes the new one.
|
You are abstracting disruption too much: my main points are that right now parallax barrier isn't viable for home TVs, so it's confined to portables (and so increasing Nintendo strength in that market), and that Nintendo doesn't own that tech.
If and when displays producers refine that tech to the point it's usable on home TVs, it will disrupt without any doubt 3D TVs with glasses (unless they won't have been already disrupted by another glasses-less tech), but those TVs will be usable by ANY console that was already able to deliver stereoscopic 3D.
Whenever that tech will go upmarket in the home TV market, it won't be by any means a Nintendo exclusive. Asymmetric motivation and skill cannot magically give parallax barrier the ability to run on home TVs, but once display producers manage to do it, they'll keep on selling their new TVs and monitors to whoever wants them, not exclusively to Nintendo consoles owners, whenever it will be ready for home TVs, it will be available to everybody, so parallax barrier going upstream will actually benefit Nintendo competitors on home consoles, while currently they are left behind by 3DS on portables. The disruptive potential of 3DS' 3D tech is currently limited to portables, but whenever it goes upmarket to home TV, it will put all the contenders on the same level.
But even if 3DS were disruptive for home consoles, it would be so for EVERY home console, as they are all limited in their 3D possibilities in the same way, by the current 3D home TVs limits.
|
None of what you say Alby ever makes sense. Not to mention you could cut out half of what you wrote there. Most of it is filler. And you claim you know disruption but don't and have yet to prove otherwise. If fact, I notice that you never mentioned asymetric motivation or skill until after I said it. If you knew disruption, you wouldn't parrot me.
What you keep forgetting is disruption is a value innovation. It doesn't matter if it becomes usable on TVs in the future (which is a long way away anyway) because they don't have the value. When you don't have the value, but except the technology, it's called cramming.
Incumbents usually see the same technologies that entrants do. Because of their processes and values, however, incumbents predictably "cram" the technology into the largest and most obvious market applications.
Nintendo is just disrupting Sony because they are disrupting 3D (this is why you missed the idea and say they have to disrupt everyone. They are going after 3D). Disruption is how businesses fight with one another. This is just another tool to do so.
Also, the reason to use a handheld to disrupt 3D is making it cheaper. Making it more affordable is one way a disruptor attacks the incumbent. That technology on a TV would be very expernsive, and wouldn't work as everyone watches a TV from different angles. But only one person uses a handeld. This is where the disruption is.
Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. 1)Nintendo is disrupting 3D this time. 2)Nintendo has a different value. if you adopt the technology, but lack the value, you'll cram and will fail.
@Griffin:So, I can say anything about the game until I have played it from begining to end unless tht something is "this is the best game ever. I can't wait to buy it!"
|
