How Nintendo Will Dominate The World Of Gaming
In my last post, ludovm responded to one of my extra links with an article. I cannot get this article out of my head.
"Centuries ago, men attempted to fly by putting wings on their arms and flapping really hard. Logically, in their minds, it should have worked. Birds fly. Birds have wings. Therefore, having wings should mean man will fly.
The gentlemen, puffed with pride, failed every time. Had they examined the nature of flight, as opposed to the nature of birds, they would have realized the concept of lift (as Bernoulli did). One must examine the physics of the flight rather than putting feathers on one’s arms in imitation of birds. The descendants of these birdmen are with us today. In the gaming industry, they represent some of the highest gaming executives and esteemed analysts."
Here's the article: "Birdmen and the Casual Gaming Fallacy"
It's very much tl;dr, so here's a cut-down of the article:
When a hardcore gamer looks at a hardcore game, he sees sophistication, magnificence, and, most important, art as if it were a mirror image facing him. When a hardcore gamer looks as a casual game, he sees simplicity, non-art, easiness, and, in sum, a retardation of gaming. Hardcore view casual games not as progress in gaming but as games tailor made for gaming retards.
Anytime you read ‘casual games’ in the news, just replace ‘casual’ with the word ‘retard’ and you will get how it is truly perceived by the industry. “There is a casual gamer boom!” should translate to “There is a retard gamer boom!”. The “EA Casual Games Division” really is translated to “EA Retard Games Division”. “Why are you calling casual gamers retarded!?” thunders one reader. I am not. I am saying that the hardcore industry is the one who thinks this way. ‘Casual’ is just a nice way of saying ‘dumb’ in their eyes.
The reason why hardcore gamers’ hearts sink when a company says they will make the game include ‘casuals’ is because they know that all the edge, difficulty, and passion will be ripped out to make a generic, easy, and soul-less game.
There is no casual gamer. There is no hardcore gamer. There is only the downmarket and the upmarket.
When the upmarket views the so-called casual games or even games of the past (such as the classics on the Virtual Console), they are on the left side thinking “Nice, but I wish I could do more…” The games are not elaborate enough for them. In Wii Tennis, the upmarket keeps saying, “The game is nice but I wish I could move my player around myself” or “Wii Play is nice but I wish the games were more elaborate” or “Downloading Mario Kart 64 is nice but I wish I could play it online with new tracks…”
...downmarket users, if properly treated, will travel upstream to become upmarket users. World of Warcraft novices often become the most die-hard raiders. Many had Command and Conquer or Warcraft 2/Starcraft as their first RTS. They played the simple levels and moved upstream to more sophistication. (It should be noted that World of Warcraft, Warcraft 2, Red Alert, and Diablo are set up to take advantage of this. The first units or choices the player has are small but it branches over time and becomes more complex.)
Why does the industry not treat the downmarket well? Outside of developer passion, the answer comes down to money. The upmarket games are far more profitable. It is a sure thing that the upmarket will buy the next first person shooter or epic RPG. And since the upmarket games take the most time and are costly, publishers will only put their first string teams on those games. The downmarket, that the industry thinks are its worst customers, sees these games as less profitable and cheaper to make. In their mind, it is perfectly logical to assign their fourth string teams to do these games as if they mess up, little harm is done.
Nintendo considered the downmarket to be the most important and put their first string teams to make games such as Wii Sports. The result is an explosion of sales with these low tier Nintendo titles. The industry looks at this and, idiotically, says, “Oh! A casual gamer boom! Quick! Let us all start making casual games to ride this wave!”
The big problem with current research methods is that they are polling active gamers. What about the non-active ones? And are the more hardcore game genres in true decline or are the games overshooting the market and generating more and more former gamers? (It should be noted that Nintendo focused their market research on non-active gamers including non-gamers and former gamers. Nintendo never aimed at capturing ‘casual gamers’ in the same context that birdmen speak today.)
Nintendo’s worldview is simple: aim at making hits on the downmarket to make the Wii platform dominate the lower tiers. Then slowly move upmarket.
The rest of the industry has a completely different worldview: view the ‘explosion’ in downmarket games as a unique phenomenon (in this case, the fictional “Casual Games Phenomenon”), and then assign many teams to make these ‘casual games’. Instead of trying to understand Nintendo’s flight, they are putting on wings and trying to flap. Wii gamers become frustrated while Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 gamers laugh and say, “If you want to play REAL games, buy a real gaming console! Hah! Hah!”
While the journalists and analysts parrot one another with “casual gaming” speeches and rhetoric, keep in mind Nintendo’s plan. The strategy is to start with the Blue Ocean, seize and dominate the lower tier (which the industry doesn’t really care for anyway), and then slowly move upstream.
Imagine Nintendo using The Blue Ocean Strategy to gain a foothold in the market, attract new gamers, former gamers, and dominate on the downmarket. Once successful there, Nintendo slowly moves upstream with superior business models which prove more profitable than the competitors (that attracts more and more third parties). As Nintendo moves upstream into the upper markets, Sony and Microsoft either fight or end up retreating upstream. Since Nintendo has a more profitable business model, they will win any fight over a tier with Microsoft and Sony. As Sony and Microsoft retreat upmarket, Nintendo follows. Eventually, Sony and Microsoft either become niches or leave the gaming market entirely.
You see it, don’t you? You now are suddenly seeing the Big Picture. Now, when you hear Sony says that they think Final Fantasy XIII or Metal Gear Solid 4 to ‘save them’, you realize they are relying on the upmarket.
Casual game phenomenon? No. It is a disruptive game phenomenon. Despite all the talk about ‘casual games’, do you ever hear Nintendo (whose games are creating the big so-called ‘casual’ boom) join the ‘casual games are the future’ chorus? Of course not! It is because they are following the path of disruption, not the path of casual games (whatever that means). If there is a fad, it is the Industry’s sudden romance with ‘casual games’ for they see them as easy money (which they will soon discover that there is no easy money in this business).
...realize that Nintendo did not make a Nintendogs 2. While they did make a Brain Age 2 and Brain Age Academy, the brain games have stopped. There is no Wii Sports 2 or Wii Play 2.
Nintendo is already busy putting out Tier 2 and Tier 3 titles. The Wii Zapper and Wii Wheel are the ‘bridges’ to move Tier 1 gamers upstream.
Nintendo is winning not because it is attacking at the top and going on down but by attacking from the bottom and moving up.
The fad was not in Nintendo’s strategy but in third parties (incorrect) interpretation of Nintendo’s strategy. Trying to escape their hardcore labyrinth, many are donning waxy casual wings to fly over the vast Blue Ocean. Those wings will melt and many millions will be lost as they plunge into the deep.
BASICALLY: Nintendo's strategy of working the gamer market from the bottom up has the potential to completely shake the market to it's very foundations and could result in eliminating all of Nintendo's competitors. By making games accessable to non-gamers, they are forging a re-emergence in gaming interest and customer loyalty; rightly realizing that by catering to the current market of gamers, who have grown up with the gaming industry, they are failing to get the interest of a younger generation of gamers, overshooting their market with higher-tier games. What Nintendo is doing is changing their strategy to market to non-gamers, something that hasn't been done since the birth of the industry; and then working their way up as these gamers grow with them. They're re-starting the gaming industry, and if Sony and Microsoft fail to realize it, they will get left behind.
I urge you to read the full article when you have the time. It's a fun read, and very insightful.
So someone saw fit to make a list of their top 10 annoyances in video gaming. I'm going to have to add some things to that list, the main one being overly restrictive DRM in PC games.
Pioneer, one of the leading supporters of digital anime, has announced that it will retire it's laserdisc players after 27 years of competing with video cds and later DVD's.
I don't condone any of this at all, but you got to admire the ingenuity displayed here. Some really ingenious ways to cheat on classroom style tests.
"Centuries ago, men attempted to fly by putting wings on their arms and flapping really hard. Logically, in their minds, it should have worked. Birds fly. Birds have wings. Therefore, having wings should mean man will fly.
The gentlemen, puffed with pride, failed every time. Had they examined the nature of flight, as opposed to the nature of birds, they would have realized the concept of lift (as Bernoulli did). One must examine the physics of the flight rather than putting feathers on one’s arms in imitation of birds. The descendants of these birdmen are with us today. In the gaming industry, they represent some of the highest gaming executives and esteemed analysts."
Here's the article: "Birdmen and the Casual Gaming Fallacy"
It's very much tl;dr, so here's a cut-down of the article:
When a hardcore gamer looks at a hardcore game, he sees sophistication, magnificence, and, most important, art as if it were a mirror image facing him. When a hardcore gamer looks as a casual game, he sees simplicity, non-art, easiness, and, in sum, a retardation of gaming. Hardcore view casual games not as progress in gaming but as games tailor made for gaming retards.
Anytime you read ‘casual games’ in the news, just replace ‘casual’ with the word ‘retard’ and you will get how it is truly perceived by the industry. “There is a casual gamer boom!” should translate to “There is a retard gamer boom!”. The “EA Casual Games Division” really is translated to “EA Retard Games Division”. “Why are you calling casual gamers retarded!?” thunders one reader. I am not. I am saying that the hardcore industry is the one who thinks this way. ‘Casual’ is just a nice way of saying ‘dumb’ in their eyes.
The reason why hardcore gamers’ hearts sink when a company says they will make the game include ‘casuals’ is because they know that all the edge, difficulty, and passion will be ripped out to make a generic, easy, and soul-less game.
There is no casual gamer. There is no hardcore gamer. There is only the downmarket and the upmarket.
When the upmarket views the so-called casual games or even games of the past (such as the classics on the Virtual Console), they are on the left side thinking “Nice, but I wish I could do more…” The games are not elaborate enough for them. In Wii Tennis, the upmarket keeps saying, “The game is nice but I wish I could move my player around myself” or “Wii Play is nice but I wish the games were more elaborate” or “Downloading Mario Kart 64 is nice but I wish I could play it online with new tracks…”
...downmarket users, if properly treated, will travel upstream to become upmarket users. World of Warcraft novices often become the most die-hard raiders. Many had Command and Conquer or Warcraft 2/Starcraft as their first RTS. They played the simple levels and moved upstream to more sophistication. (It should be noted that World of Warcraft, Warcraft 2, Red Alert, and Diablo are set up to take advantage of this. The first units or choices the player has are small but it branches over time and becomes more complex.)
Why does the industry not treat the downmarket well? Outside of developer passion, the answer comes down to money. The upmarket games are far more profitable. It is a sure thing that the upmarket will buy the next first person shooter or epic RPG. And since the upmarket games take the most time and are costly, publishers will only put their first string teams on those games. The downmarket, that the industry thinks are its worst customers, sees these games as less profitable and cheaper to make. In their mind, it is perfectly logical to assign their fourth string teams to do these games as if they mess up, little harm is done.
Nintendo considered the downmarket to be the most important and put their first string teams to make games such as Wii Sports. The result is an explosion of sales with these low tier Nintendo titles. The industry looks at this and, idiotically, says, “Oh! A casual gamer boom! Quick! Let us all start making casual games to ride this wave!”
The big problem with current research methods is that they are polling active gamers. What about the non-active ones? And are the more hardcore game genres in true decline or are the games overshooting the market and generating more and more former gamers? (It should be noted that Nintendo focused their market research on non-active gamers including non-gamers and former gamers. Nintendo never aimed at capturing ‘casual gamers’ in the same context that birdmen speak today.)
Nintendo’s worldview is simple: aim at making hits on the downmarket to make the Wii platform dominate the lower tiers. Then slowly move upmarket.
The rest of the industry has a completely different worldview: view the ‘explosion’ in downmarket games as a unique phenomenon (in this case, the fictional “Casual Games Phenomenon”), and then assign many teams to make these ‘casual games’. Instead of trying to understand Nintendo’s flight, they are putting on wings and trying to flap. Wii gamers become frustrated while Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 gamers laugh and say, “If you want to play REAL games, buy a real gaming console! Hah! Hah!”
While the journalists and analysts parrot one another with “casual gaming” speeches and rhetoric, keep in mind Nintendo’s plan. The strategy is to start with the Blue Ocean, seize and dominate the lower tier (which the industry doesn’t really care for anyway), and then slowly move upstream.
Imagine Nintendo using The Blue Ocean Strategy to gain a foothold in the market, attract new gamers, former gamers, and dominate on the downmarket. Once successful there, Nintendo slowly moves upstream with superior business models which prove more profitable than the competitors (that attracts more and more third parties). As Nintendo moves upstream into the upper markets, Sony and Microsoft either fight or end up retreating upstream. Since Nintendo has a more profitable business model, they will win any fight over a tier with Microsoft and Sony. As Sony and Microsoft retreat upmarket, Nintendo follows. Eventually, Sony and Microsoft either become niches or leave the gaming market entirely.
You see it, don’t you? You now are suddenly seeing the Big Picture. Now, when you hear Sony says that they think Final Fantasy XIII or Metal Gear Solid 4 to ‘save them’, you realize they are relying on the upmarket.
Casual game phenomenon? No. It is a disruptive game phenomenon. Despite all the talk about ‘casual games’, do you ever hear Nintendo (whose games are creating the big so-called ‘casual’ boom) join the ‘casual games are the future’ chorus? Of course not! It is because they are following the path of disruption, not the path of casual games (whatever that means). If there is a fad, it is the Industry’s sudden romance with ‘casual games’ for they see them as easy money (which they will soon discover that there is no easy money in this business).
...realize that Nintendo did not make a Nintendogs 2. While they did make a Brain Age 2 and Brain Age Academy, the brain games have stopped. There is no Wii Sports 2 or Wii Play 2.
Nintendo is already busy putting out Tier 2 and Tier 3 titles. The Wii Zapper and Wii Wheel are the ‘bridges’ to move Tier 1 gamers upstream.
Nintendo is winning not because it is attacking at the top and going on down but by attacking from the bottom and moving up.
The fad was not in Nintendo’s strategy but in third parties (incorrect) interpretation of Nintendo’s strategy. Trying to escape their hardcore labyrinth, many are donning waxy casual wings to fly over the vast Blue Ocean. Those wings will melt and many millions will be lost as they plunge into the deep.
BASICALLY: Nintendo's strategy of working the gamer market from the bottom up has the potential to completely shake the market to it's very foundations and could result in eliminating all of Nintendo's competitors. By making games accessable to non-gamers, they are forging a re-emergence in gaming interest and customer loyalty; rightly realizing that by catering to the current market of gamers, who have grown up with the gaming industry, they are failing to get the interest of a younger generation of gamers, overshooting their market with higher-tier games. What Nintendo is doing is changing their strategy to market to non-gamers, something that hasn't been done since the birth of the industry; and then working their way up as these gamers grow with them. They're re-starting the gaming industry, and if Sony and Microsoft fail to realize it, they will get left behind.
I urge you to read the full article when you have the time. It's a fun read, and very insightful.
So someone saw fit to make a list of their top 10 annoyances in video gaming. I'm going to have to add some things to that list, the main one being overly restrictive DRM in PC games.
Pioneer, one of the leading supporters of digital anime, has announced that it will retire it's laserdisc players after 27 years of competing with video cds and later DVD's.
I don't condone any of this at all, but you got to admire the ingenuity displayed here. Some really ingenious ways to cheat on classroom style tests.