24th February 2003, 1:06 PM
Jellybean- I chose the mainstream consumer's viewpoint because it is the best indicator of sales.
What I did not make clear is that when you choose the consumer as the reference frame, that doesn't mean you'e limiting innovation or "pandering." That' a different, but interconnected factor.
Let's say that popularity of image among the mainstream is as predictable and simple as the mathematical function: y=100sin(x) + x (using degrees, not radians). "y" DOES NOT equal popularity. For example "y" could be "Reality," where positive values correspond to greater reality, and negative values correspond to lesser reality. "y" could be "Focus on the self," where 0 is complete inner focus, and positive infinity is complete focus on others. Choose whatever factor you want for y, because, in reality, there are an almost infinite amount of factors. It makes sense in this example if x corresponds to the passing of time. This is a simplification.
So, let's say current popularity is at point (180,180). Pandering would be to put out a product that tries to fit (180, 180). A small amount of innovation would try to pinpoint (210,160). A largely innovative project would look at where this trend is going (positive infinity), and would look far beyond the scope of the individual which holds this pattern. The product would target(3600030, 3600080). Sure, (-10000000, 10000000) is more innovative, but it disagrees with the attitude of the mass market. It would not be easy for the mass market to accept. I applaud anyone that has the presence of mind to create such an innovative product, but it's unhealthy for a company to do this. I mean, OB1's life experience may have lead his interest curve toward WW, and WW fits as a huge advancement in his curve, but his curve is not the absolute innovation curve. In fact, I am arguing that there is no absolute "correct" interest curve. As a company responsible for making entertainment, it is Nintendo's aim to innovate in an agreeable direction for the most people possible. And I hope this graphical perspective makes this clear.
The difficulty of this modelling is that popularity is not so simple. Each individual person has an interest graph of sorts, and as soon as something innovative is experienced, the graph shifts and/or receives an acceleration. For example, once the person experiences the product at (3600030,3600080), the viewpoint completely changes. Experiencing a product that mearly improves to (3600060, 3600146) would have less impact than the change from (180,180) to (210,160), even though it "jumped" as many time units.
I hope I didn't lose anyone, but my idea is definitely based on a physics perspective. So perhaps that is the best way to explain it. This idea has taken me years to ponder over, so I don't expect anyone to understand my insane rambling for at least a month of "settling in."
What I did not make clear is that when you choose the consumer as the reference frame, that doesn't mean you'e limiting innovation or "pandering." That' a different, but interconnected factor.
Let's say that popularity of image among the mainstream is as predictable and simple as the mathematical function: y=100sin(x) + x (using degrees, not radians). "y" DOES NOT equal popularity. For example "y" could be "Reality," where positive values correspond to greater reality, and negative values correspond to lesser reality. "y" could be "Focus on the self," where 0 is complete inner focus, and positive infinity is complete focus on others. Choose whatever factor you want for y, because, in reality, there are an almost infinite amount of factors. It makes sense in this example if x corresponds to the passing of time. This is a simplification.
So, let's say current popularity is at point (180,180). Pandering would be to put out a product that tries to fit (180, 180). A small amount of innovation would try to pinpoint (210,160). A largely innovative project would look at where this trend is going (positive infinity), and would look far beyond the scope of the individual which holds this pattern. The product would target(3600030, 3600080). Sure, (-10000000, 10000000) is more innovative, but it disagrees with the attitude of the mass market. It would not be easy for the mass market to accept. I applaud anyone that has the presence of mind to create such an innovative product, but it's unhealthy for a company to do this. I mean, OB1's life experience may have lead his interest curve toward WW, and WW fits as a huge advancement in his curve, but his curve is not the absolute innovation curve. In fact, I am arguing that there is no absolute "correct" interest curve. As a company responsible for making entertainment, it is Nintendo's aim to innovate in an agreeable direction for the most people possible. And I hope this graphical perspective makes this clear.
The difficulty of this modelling is that popularity is not so simple. Each individual person has an interest graph of sorts, and as soon as something innovative is experienced, the graph shifts and/or receives an acceleration. For example, once the person experiences the product at (3600030,3600080), the viewpoint completely changes. Experiencing a product that mearly improves to (3600060, 3600146) would have less impact than the change from (180,180) to (210,160), even though it "jumped" as many time units.
I hope I didn't lose anyone, but my idea is definitely based on a physics perspective. So perhaps that is the best way to explain it. This idea has taken me years to ponder over, so I don't expect anyone to understand my insane rambling for at least a month of "settling in."