Third Place Is Fine By Nintendo

anaesthetica writes "The New Yorker writes that Nintendo is fine with third place. Between Sony and Microsoft both trying to build the most comprehensively next-generation console, and barely breaking even in their efforts [Zonk: Though that's changing for Microsoft], Nintendo has decided to go a different route. Wii doesn't have all the bells and whistles, but it focuses on simple fun playing games — a strategy which turns out to be much better for Nintendo's bottom line and stock prices. From the article: 'A recent survey of the evidence on market share... found that companies that adopt what they call "competitor-oriented objectives" actually end up hurting their own profitability. In other words, the more a company focuses on beating its competitors, rather than on the bottom line, the worse it is likely to do.'"

Comments

I've never owned a game console

[Anonymous Coward]

But I've become intrigued enough with the Wii to want to go check it out. If it is half as fun as it looks, I might even buy one. They seem to have delivered something novel enough in the control area to make me want to supplement my PC for gaming and at a reasonable price point instead of the total commitment the other consoles demand.

Re:Is Wii fun?

[Lane.exe]

The Wii doesn't have to keep going in the long term. The lifespan of a console as a platform for launching new games is under a decade. The Wii just has sell enough units itself to make it attractive for developers to keep producing titles, which it looks like it will, and the platform will live its life and then Nintendo is free to create a new platform for the "next-next-generation" of gaming consoles.

I have an Xbox 360, and will probably get a PS3 as well (Final Fantasy is too big of a draw for me to ignore it). I like my PS2, and I like my Xbox 360. They have certain games I want to play, and I enjoy playing them. That was enough to motivate me to buy the console. That's all the money that these companies are going to get from me, because from here on out, all I'm going to be buying is games. If the console is interesting enough to draw me in to buy at least one, then they've accomplished their job as a console manufacturer with regard to me. So the Wii needs to only hook people this once, and in doing so, ensures that it's profitable for developers to produce games for the next five or six years. Then, once the companies are ready to release new systems, if there are things we like and want to experience about these new systems, we'll pay out the money necessary to get them.

I'm actually quite impressed with Nintendo

[ObiWanStevobi]

Personally, I thought they were going to be the next Sega. When the announced the Wii would not be HD capable I figured they were dead in the water. But after pulling what felt like every muscle in my body playing Wii Sports with friends, I have to admit they will be the true winners of this round of console wars. They went with something different and concentrated on gameplay and really pulled it off. Kudos to them.

They made a console that not only appeals to the all-important 18-35 market, but is also going to be a favorite among parents for young kids becasue the games are mostly PG and they even get some exercise playing it.

However, I wouldn't trade my 360 for it. They pulled off an excellent product through innovative concept and gameplay, but I don't think this will dent the demand for the powerful graphics/complexity that true next gen consoles deliver. In its price range, I think the Wii is a healthy addition to have along with a 360 or PS3, but not so much a direct competitor to them among the 18+ crowd.

Third place?

[Evro]

Third place by what metric? Units sold? If they're netting the most, doesn't that make them #1?

So companies work like people.

[porcupine8]

In other words, the more a company focuses on beating its competitors, rather than on the bottom line, the worse it is likely to do.

Interesting. Psychology studies have shown that when you compare people who have performance goals (focused on performing at a certain level to win outside approval or rewards, or avoid punishments) with those who have mastery goals (focused on mastering a task in order to learn, grow, reach personal goals, etc rather than to gain outside approval), the people with performance goals do much worse in the face of challenge. They adopt self-defeating behaviors and give up quickly, whereas the mastery-oriented people keep working at it and modify their strategies in useful ways.

I guess since companies are made up of a bunch of people, it makes sense that on some levels they work the same way as those people work. If they're focused on beating the outside competition, they falter, whereas if they're focused on improving themselves (even if that's profit-wise, since that's what's important to a company), they prosper.