CriticKitten said:
Warachia said:
"Our competitors need to react to what we're doing in the marketplace and need to figure out what their innovation will be", ""They need to react to what we've done" is saying Microsoft and Sony NEED to respond to them, THAT is throwing down a gauntlet, it IS a challenge.
No, it's a statement of fact.
NO IT IS NOT. Microsoft and Sony can simply choose to do nothing, they do NOT NEED TO RESPOND. Saying they must respond to what you've done is challenging them to respond to what they've done.
I should not need to explain this, when you address your competition you are challenging them, that is a fact.
When your competitor does something that could potentially compromise your market share, you are obligated to respond in some manner, even if the response is "do nothing and hope that it doesn't eat up our market share" (which is usually the worst option, just ask Blockbuster how that worked out for them).
I thought you said it was a fact that they had to respond, but now it's an obligation apparently? Yes, I agree, it's an obligation, but that's about as far as it goes.
I thought point 3 was very clear in pointing out that you a) express confidence in your product and b) compare it to your competitors' products.
I call bullshit, NOWHERE in your points do you ever say you should compare it to your competitors, let's look at them:
1) Introduce your product.
2) Present what you feel is the right product for the consumer, given the modern market.
3) Express confidence in your vision and look forward to competition, having faith that you've presented the right product.
NONE OF THESE says to compare it to others, or to even address your competition.
This is no more of a gauntlet throw-down than any other generic advertisement. For example, stating a line like "Juicy Juice has 10% more concentrated juice than other leading brands!" in your commercials isn't exactly the same as Juicy Juice's employees talking to reporters about how they think their competitor's products taste like piss water.
This is different, this is like Burger King saying they put more meat on their burgers, so MacDonald's needs to respond, that is a challenge in the same way this is.
At no point did Reggie say something like "Oh yeah, we just made the greatest console ever! We're totally gonna kick your asses this time around, Microsoft/Sony! You should stop making things that are pretty and start making more kickass gear like us, brah! Tubular!". He said "our competitor is going to have to respond to what we've presented, and we believe that simply having the best graphics won't be enough this time". That's a very diplomatic way of saying "we're confident in what we've made, and we think our product is the best on the market", which is how you want your company's executives to say and believe.
You're right, he never said that, which is why I never acted like he did, by the way, "our competitor is going to have to respond to what we've presented, and we believe that simply having the best graphics won't be enough this time" DOES NOT mean what you think it means, it means "Our competitors are now going to have to do something different to keep up with us". Which IS challenging them to do something different.
And for what it's worth, he's probably right: the PS3 and 360 had far superior graphics to the Wii but were beat out by a lower price mark and competitive brand marketing. And in the modern gaming market with such a poor economy, graphics alone will likely not be enough to sell people on a console, they'll be looking at a lot of factors, price being a big one (and one that MS and Sony both screwed up last time). And Nintendo is clearly trying to appeal to that same demographic with the Wii U, while bringing back third party support in the hopes of dragging back "hardcore" gamers as well. MS and Sony WILL have to respond to the Wii U at some stage, unless they want to gamble on the possibility that no one will buy it. And I dunno about them but that's not a gamble I would make.
The Wii sold more consoles and had a larger initial audience, but suffered in the long run because it ended up picking up the casual gamer market, and casual gamers don't buy a lot of games, eventually the hardcore gamers mostly went to Microsoft and Sony, and quite a few casual gamers left for iPhone games, This is why the Wii isn't doing as well in it's later life then in its earlier life, whereas Microsoft and Sony are still doing pretty fine, the big question is if (and how) Nintendo can avoid doing this with the Wii U.
Now that's out of the way, you're right when you say graphics can't sell a console any more, I don't know if Microsoft intends to do anything, but Sony already has with the PSVita, you can use it's cross-play feature to play games on your PS3, and it can do more than the Wii U's controller can.
