Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
XBox (Games) PlayStation (Games) Wii

Games Analysts Weighs In On Console War 194

Posted by Zonk
from the xtc-vs-adam-ant-content-vs-form dept.
Gamaustra's latest in its 'Analyze This' series asks the question point blank: Which Console Will 'Win' 2007? The regular series puts weighty questions to business analysts who specialize in the games industry, to get a gestalt opinion on what's really going on. The well-respected Michael Pachter, of Wedbush Morgan Securities, had some of the most interesting comments to review. He says that Nintendo will 'appear' to win in 2007 because of its low price and innovative control scheme, but that Sony will be the winner in the long run. From the article: "My best guess is that Sony emerges as the winner of the movie format war in late 2008, and games start looking noticeably better in 2009. That's when Sony starts looking like the winner of the next generation battle. All of this is pretty far out, and a lot can happen with pricing to change things. For example, if Sony gets down the cost curve for Blu-ray and Cell processors, [the PS3] may be below $300 shortly thereafter. It's hard to say that this will happen before 2009, but it could. That would change everything."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Games Analysts Weighs In On Console War

Comments Filter:
  • by jurt1235 (834677) on Friday January 26, 2007 @05:17PM (#17776818) Homepage
    I am actually more interested about new game styles than new game console. The WII has added some new possibilities and shows potential, certainly looking more reliable than the camera games on my PS2 (The NIKE game. I am a master in karate according to that game by just flapping my arms up and down, lighting is nearly impossible to get correct, and the distance which you need between camera and screen varies all the time).
  • ...that I'm not a game analyst. But frankly, sir, I disagree.
  • by Sciros (986030) on Friday January 26, 2007 @05:18PM (#17776826) Journal
    But if Sony still has a couple of years to go before they get enough consoles out there, how will they hold on to developers and in particular exclusive titles? If a publisher can't count on selling half a million copies of an exclusive PS3 title to break even (games are costly to produce these days) by virtue of there not being enough PS3s out there to begin with (and you need far more than half a million PS3s of course), then that publisher will sign deals with Microsoft and Nintendo as well if not instead.

    On top of that, with the money Sony is losing per console right now, they will have to sell a lot of games per console sold in order to break even. PS2 might be keeping SCE afloat, but I don't really see PS3 keeping a PS4 afloat at all considering how drastically the course of things would need to change.
    • by 2nd Post! (213333)
      Hmm, I think Cars, Monsters Inc, and other Blu-Ray exclusives count towards "exclusive titles" that will make the PS3 profitable.

      Most people buy 10x as many movies as they buy games (since most people don't buy games...)
    • Developers move like the wind - the system that makes money attracts them. Right now the Wii looks like it's doing well, and so does the 360. But that's not to say that in 2 years it will be the same. If the install base catches up, a game development business isn't a fanboy and will go along with whatever system makes them the most money, regardless of what their developers think. If the PS2 was so hard to develop for, how did it win the last generation? Because it had the largest install base and gua
      • by Sciros (986030)
        What you described is *exactly my point.* One "hangs on" to developers, as I put it, by essentially promising them a return on investment (i.e. making money, just as you said). If there aren't enough PS3s on the market to guarantee a decent ROI, then developers will move -- like the wind, no less -- to Xbox and Wii :-P
  • Sooo... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by GweeDo (127172)
    All they have to do is cut the price in half and get more good games out. Lets see, if we use our friend history the PS2 took nearly four years to get to half price. So as we close in on 2011 the PS3 should hit that $300 price point he claims is needed. People just need to realize that this is an expensive piece of electronics and Sony can't cut the price to that point anytime soon. They will need something else to win.

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_2#Price_ h istory [wikipedia.org]
    • Re:Sooo... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by badboy_tw2002 (524611) on Friday January 26, 2007 @05:46PM (#17777262)
      Apples and oranges. The environment around the PS2 is much much different than PS3. Look at what the PS2 had to face in the Dreamcast, Xbox, Gamecube. There wasn't much difference in game quality, so the PS2 wasn't surpassed by anyone. There wasn't much difference in gametypes (Wii), so you could treat the systems as equals. The Gamecube was cheaper, but not by half. Factor in PS2 locking in GTAIII, GTIV, FFX all in the same year, and you've got a slam dunk. There was no stopping the PS2, so the bottom line: why cut the price when you're selling like hotcakes? You never really know how much they were making off each one, but given that they didn't need to chop the price down, why bother? In this case, they'll continue to lose money on each system but the price can come down faster. There's also the component cost: DVD wasn't super commonplace in 1999, but it wasn't brand new either. It had been out a few years and definately wasn't as new as Blu-Ray. The initial price drops in components as adoption speeds up are much higher than later on the lifetime of a technology in terms of percenteges. So given that, I can definately see the price coming down a lot faster than PS2.
  • by FormulaTroll (983794) on Friday January 26, 2007 @05:20PM (#17776866) Homepage
    On what criteria do we evaluate a winner? Consoles sold, games sold, profits? It makes a difference, does it not?
    • That's quite an even-handed question for a formula troll...
    • by Jartan (219704)
      That's my question too. "Winner" is pretty subjective. The original Xbox was arguably a pretty good buy if you liked certain types of games. If you happened to be an avoid PC RPG gamer who liked a lil console RPG on the side though it was an absolute disaster. Almost no RPG's worth playing and the ones that were came out for the PC where I could play them with real controls and high res.

      If they want to talk about money though it's obvious who's going to win. The Nintendo DS is already the reigning king
    • On what criteria do we evaluate a winner? Consoles sold, games sold, profits? It makes a difference, does it not?

      I think generally the "winner" is essentially the market share leader (which obviously is tied to consoles sold).

      Now granted, you could argue that it should probably be tied to profits, since this is a business we are talking about. However, that's a bit difficult seeing how there's much more to MS and Sony than just their game units (MGS is notorious for losing the company money), so they can a

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by FormulaTroll (983794)

        I think generally the "winner" is essentially the market share leader (which obviously is tied to consoles sold).

        Perhaps the real question is whether or not there will be a loser in this round. Whereas the previous generation had a real loser in the Dreamcast, will this generation see one of the "Big Three" falling down substantially?

        Some people conveniently forget the Dreamcast and call the Gamecube the loser of the previous generation, but as you mentioned, this is a business we're talking about, and

        • by jchenx (267053)

          Perhaps the real question is whether or not there will be a loser in this round. Whereas the previous generation had a real loser in the Dreamcast, will this generation see one of the "Big Three" falling down substantially?

          Some people conveniently forget the Dreamcast and call the Gamecube the loser of the previous generation, but as you mentioned, this is a business we're talking about, and the Gamecube didn't lose Nintendo any money.

          I think asking "Is there a loser?" is an interesting question. You could

          • I have to agree, I'm not sure anyone can "lose" this generation aside from Sony.

            No one doubts Nintendo would make money and gobs of it, even if the Wii only had half the market share it had last time. Everyone knows Nintendo is very good at making money.

            No one doubts Microsoft will keep plugging along. Even if they don't make money they've garnered a place in the industry and aren't likely to give it up. Even should they get thoroughly trumped later, they'll come back.

            Everyone doubts Sony, and not because o
    • by AmazingRuss (555076) on Friday January 26, 2007 @07:41PM (#17778922)
      ...because the other consoles are purchased only by loser moron fanboys.
  • by WillAffleckUW (858324) on Friday January 26, 2007 @05:20PM (#17776870) Homepage Journal
    Directly contradicting this story, I read the print edition of the Wall Street Journal [wsj.com] (expensive subscription required) and it said that in point of fact - as also backed by articles in Fortune [fortune.com] and Forbes [forbes.com] - that Sony is losing the format war to HD-DVD, due to low adoption rates by pr0n providers, low sales of the PS3 consoles, and labels shunning the format. Perhaps if someone were prognosticating back in October 2007, such a forecast might have seemed reasonable, but the post-Christmas sales figures in the US and Japan as well as worldwide show that adoption rates are sub-par.

    But, live in a dream world if you must.
    • Perhaps if someone were prognosticating back in October 2007...
      Damnit, I knew I shouldn't have cannibalized my Alarm Clock's batteries for my Wii. I went and slept through all of 2007!
  • by HappySqurriel (1010623) on Friday January 26, 2007 @05:24PM (#17776954)
    I constantly see people mention that the console war is a "Marathon not a Sprint" which, from what I have seen, is completely wrong. The console war is a sprint to the point where developers simply are forced to heavily support your system; if you have enough of a lead at this point you tend to have support at the expense of other systems.

    I don't know where the point is, and I don't know when any of the systems will hit it, but it is foolish to assume that the PS3 will have an easy time catching up in 2008/2009 simply because it has better graphics.
    • by 7Prime (871679)
      I totally agree. The "Marathon" analogy just doesn't work in this business. A snowball is probably a better analogy. Once a console gets going, it pulls in developers and consumers alike, which then just feed off each other. It's an all out race to convince the developers that you have a product that consumers will buy into. You don't accomplish that, it's all over, marathon or not.
      • A snowball...or perhaps a Katamari?
      • Actually, the Marathon analogy does work. The problem is people just don't know anything about Marathons.

        In a Marathon, there's generally a nice pack of people leading the way. Almost like the Tour de France, this pack has benefits both psychological and physiological. They're keeping each other to pace, slicing the wind for each other etc.

        It can be very hard in a Marathon to break from the pack because you lose the support it provides. It can be done, but it's hard. However, a good Marathon runner will onl
  • Okay, What? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Draconix (653959) on Friday January 26, 2007 @05:37PM (#17777136)
    Are these people all getting paid by Sony, or something? Seriously. IANAGA, but it's not rocket science to be able to know the main driving forces behind the console gaming market. The _only_ customers the PS3 attracts are the techno-whores with lots of disposable income, extreme fans of a small handful of exclusives, and people who want a "cheap" Blu-Ray player while it still seems like it could end up being akin to buying a betamax player. The main factors that drive the console market: 1) Available games. The 360 currently leads the pack, and may continue to do so for some time. It may be passed by the Wii at some point, but is unlikely to be passed by the PS3. 1a) Ease of development. The 360 and Wii are a _hell of a lot_ easier to develop games for than the PS3, and cheaper, too. 2) Total cost of ownership. The 360 and Wii cost less (the Wii a lot less) and the Wii's games cost less. That makes them a lot more attractive to the average consumer thank the PS3. Exclusive titles, though a definite boost to sales, don't even really factor into the big picture. The Gamecube had several exclusives in franchises that had a great many fans, yet that didn't somehow propel them to the top last generation, and the GC was _cheaper_ than its competitors. Seriously, I can analogize this situation pretty easily: PC vs. Mac. Apple was top dog back in the pre-GUI days, and they went on to make the Mac. PCs, however, were cheaper, and had more third party support, and got more software. By the logic of a lot of these analysts, the Mac should have come out on top, which is pretty far from what actually happened. :P
    • The _only_ customers the PS3 attracts are the techno-whores with lots of disposable income, extreme fans of a small handful of exclusives...

      Isn't this what we said about the 360 adopters when it first came out? Replace things like Gran Turismo with Halo and you've got the mirrored story.

    • by 7Prime (871679)
      I tend to agree with you, but I would like to point out that ease of programming has very little influence on a company's decision as to which console to run on. I don't mean to put down all you programmers out there, but programmers are at the bottom of the totem pole. The designers and marketting staff are going to make that decision for you, and the producers are going to listen to them. Programming makes up a very very small part of the time, work, and money that goes into making a game. If exclusivity
  • I'm a Sony guy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mandelbr0t (1015855)
    So what?

    I know, they've been involved in all kinds of terrible anti-customer sorts of things lately. The fact is, I've never been unhappy with a Sony product. I think that their product quality is excellent. My portable CD player would be stolen or misplaced before breaking down, while I've lost two competing brands to a mis-aligned laser. They consistently had better battery life in their portable products than their competitors. PS/2 is an amazing platform; it's 4 years old now, and there's still new titl
    • by timster (32400)
      Really, if your standard for technology products is reliability and nothing else, history would suggest you'd be a Nintendo fan.

      I'm glad that you've gotten good use from your Sony products, but why would that stop you from giving competing products a fair shake? Sure, the PSP has some good games, but it's hard to build a case that the PSP has a better library than the DS. I mean, Hotel Dusk _alone_...
    • Disclaimer, I work for MS, so I'm technically a 360 guy ... although what I may next may surprise some of you ...

      PS/2 is an amazing platform; it's 4 years old now, and there's still new titles being released for it.

      I have to say that the PS2 can probably be considered one of the best video game platforms of all time. It would definately rank up there with the NES or SNES in my book. Reason? It's not so much the PS2 itself, but the amazing library of games it had. It pretty much had all of the major franchi

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by dukieduke (918198)
      "They consistently had better battery life in their portable products than their competitors." If this is not enough to convince you of a troll, you deserve to go up in flames.
    • Sony are really a mixed bag. They're usually reasonably good, except for a few rather high-profile proprietary technologies that they've attempted to force onto consumers. I assume you never had the misfortune of owning a Minidisc or MicroMV recorder. On the flipside, our family has a Sony TV from 15 years ago which still works absolutely perfectly. In the same period we've had it, we've gone through around four other (non-Sony) sets.

      That said, it's interesting to note that for every dodgy new piece of prop
  • Mike Wolf (page 2):

    Their system will age faster due to the lack of high-end graphics and HD resolution...

    The near constant thing I hear people say about the Wii is the game play. So if the key compliment to the Wii is not the graphics then I'm not seeing how the Wii will age faster...because of its lack of HD graphics. Perhaps most notably is that people who aren't gamers are also talking about the game play.

    The game play is what will keep the Wii from aging fast.

    • by Lehk228 (705449)
      the Wii plays just fine at 480P using Component cables from nintendo.

      the "lack of HD" is really lack of 720 and 1080 resolutions, though supposedly the hardware could put out 720i but nintendo doesn't allow it in firmware because game performance would be unacceptable at those resolutions
      • the "lack of HD" is really lack of 720 and 1080 resolutions, though supposedly the hardware could put out 720i but nintendo doesn't allow it in firmware because game performance would be unacceptable at those resolutions

        The Wii does 480p (and 16:9) which by Definition is EDTV. 720, and 1080 are HD. The PS2 and X-Box has a few games in 720p, and even 1080i. Since the Wii more powerful than the X-Box 1, there isn't a technical reason why they can't support this.

        The Wii (like the Gamecube) won't support

    • by westlake (615356)
      The game play is what will keep the Wii from aging fast.

      assumming that players don't tire of the Wii controller.

      I have to ask how the casual gamer reacts when he is first exposed to Oblivion or Gears of War.

      There seems to be an opportunity here for Sony and Microsoft to strike gold with titles that have game play, graphics and sound that the Wii simply can't deliver.

      • by Mr. Hankey (95668)
        I have to ask how the casual gamer reacts when he is first exposed to Oblivion or Gears of War.

        That experience varies, some people like the graphics while others dislike the violence. I can tell you that in my experience, all the non-gamers and casual gamers who have seen it reacted surprisingly well to the Wii's control scheme and had no complaints. Wii Sports was really the first killer app for people who wouldn't consider themselves video gamers, with Rayman:RR and Wario Ware being excellent follow-ups t
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Toby_Tyke (797359)
      Actually, I have a slightly different take on this.

      Lets assume HD TV adoption really takes off in the next year or two, to the extent that by, say, 2010, SD sets are a real minority (-30 percent of sets).

      Lets also assume, and it's probably not too far from the truth, that MS has a bottomless pit of money, and are willing to do prety much anything to bury Sony.

      Now, lets stop assuming things and look at stuff we know. The X-box had a four year life cycle (2001 - 2005). The PS3 is being sold at a loss,
      • Maybe I could be an analyst too.

        If you become one, send me a link. I'd read your drivel over their anyday.

        Why? Because you go out on a limb. Everything the guys in the articles said was about as vague and uncommital as it comes. One guy even went so far as to note everything could change on him and ruin his predictions! While that was honest of him, the least he could have done was be somewhat more specific with his predictions.

        The scenario you've detailed is highly interesting. The potential graphical sup

  • by jchenx (267053) on Friday January 26, 2007 @05:49PM (#17777350) Journal
    I was surprised by how good the analyst opinions were. They all pretty much said the same thing: Wii is doing well, MS is on track, and Sony is lagging a bit now ... but it's still too early to say who the long-term market leader will be. I think that's definately the right approach to take.

    In contrast, here's a typical fanboy view of all the consoles:

    Wii
    Pro: Wii-mote rules! It's all about the innovation and gameplay. Sony and MS have none of that, so they're doomed! Who cares about HD? Look at the holiday sales! We are DEFINATELY going to win.
    Con: The Wii was doomed from the start when they released the hardware specs. HD is the wave of the future. The "waggle" is just a gimmick, no one is going to want a "GameCube 1.5" months from now. Nintendo is DOOMED.

    Xbox 360
    Pro: First to 10 million baby! Also, see how Sony is losing exclusives left and right. Xbox Live all the way. Finally, Halo 3 babeeee! We are DEFINATELY going to win.
    Con: M$ should go back to making Windows. 360 is failing in Japan, and red-lights are everywhere! M$ is DOOOMED.

    Playstation 3
    Pro: Blu-ray all the way baby! PS3 is the real next-gen and HD. Also, the PS2 is still selling like hot-cakes. Finally, you can't deny the power of MGS4 and FFXIII. We are DEFINATELY going to win.
    Con: Batteries exploding, root kits, and constant PR fiascos. Also, PS3s sitting on shelves everywhere? $ony is DOOMED!

    Certainly, there are lots of both truth and falseness to the statements above, which is why fanboys keep making them. However, it's still way too early to tell anything, especially when consoles generally last for years and perceptions change quickly. Remember how doomed many people thought Nintendo was when they first announced the "Wii" name? Or how silly the DS seemed, compared to the sexiness of the PSP? Or about how solid the PlayStation brand was a year and half ago?

    Yeah, go figure.
    • by Daneboy (315359)
      LOL, pretty funny how all three of your fanbois misspelled "definitely" in the same way! :-) Joking aside, I think you're absolutely right -- the only people who are making bold predictions now are either (a) fans of one of the platforms, or (b) paid by the creators of the platforms, or (c) clueless idiots. Personally, I think Sony will win in the long term, precisely because Sony is thinking in the long term. I bet the Sony execs don't give a damn how much they're losing on each PS3 unit, while the PS2
      • by jchenx (267053)

        LOL, pretty funny how all three of your fanbois misspelled "definitely" in the same way! :-)

        Argh, "definately" is my Achilles' heel of spelling. I didn't mean to spell it incorrectly, although in that context, I guess it does make sense. ;)

        Joking aside, I think you're absolutely right -- the only people who are making bold predictions now are either (a) fans of one of the platforms, or (b) paid by the creators of the platforms, or (c) clueless idiots. Personally, I think Sony will win in the long term, pre

    • by Mathonwy (160184)
      Certainly, there are lots of both truth and falseness to the statements above, which is why fanboys keep making them.

      What the heck is that supposed to mean, exactly? Fanboys keep making the statements above, because they are both true and false? Because they contain both truth and not-truth? Becase they are simultaneously both correct and incorrect?

      If you'd said something like "Certainly each of these viewpoints has a grain of truth buried somewhere in it, which is what fanboys cling to" I'd have been al
    • I guess we should give these analysts some credit for not going wild on the predictions of X company's victory, but they were still rather vague and at the same time uncommittal in their prognostications.

      I'm not a market analyst, and I'm also not a fanboy (though I've been accused of being one for each system in turn). Perhaps my own predictions have simply been lucky of late, but I did believe that the DS and the Wii would succeed before it was popular to think so, though the systems have out performed my
  • Isn't the goal to sell a profitable product that people like?

    The Wii is there, sales are strong because it's fun, they're making a profit and people are happy. This is win for Nintendo. BTW I bought a Wii and Zelda and it's my first Nintendo product.

    Xbox360 has the critical mass to encourage continued third party development, lots of games == happy people. Again this is a win.

    PS3 most powerful, lots of people like power and they'll pay for it. I think the PS3 will remain a usable console well into the next
  • 2008? 2009? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tkrotchko (124118) * on Friday January 26, 2007 @06:58PM (#17778382) Homepage
    With due respects to these "experts", the race for videogame supremacy will be over before 2008/2009. The next generation of consoles will probably be out in 2009.

    I'm really surprised the "experts" have missed the obvious point here...

    I think MS released the XBox360 about a year earlier than Sony anticipated. I believe Microsoft did this to force Sony to release a console 9-12 months before they were ready. Sony essentially abandoned the very profitable PS2 way too soon to push the PS3 and compete with the Xbox360. In my opinion, Sony managed in the space of 6 months to throw away a commanding lead in videogames. Now they're in 3rd place for the "new" generation. And it's going to be a tough hole to dig out of.

    You can argue that the new PS3 has wonderful technology, you can talk about the wonderful WiFi, BluRay, and all of that is true. But people are going into stores and looking at $250 for a Wii (which is still hard to get), $300 for an Xbox360 (even if that price is deceptive), and then $500/600 for the PS3. I think it's a tough sale.

    And again, listening to these experts talk about how the PS3 will come from behind in 2-3 years to take over the lead... it's never been done in consoles, I doubt it will happen now.

    I'm really surprised at Sony. They know as well as anyone how easily the lead in videogames can be lost. And despite all that they threw that lead away.

    If I was Sony, I'd cut prices by $100-150 across the board, get the cheaper unit into stores, get some games out there and advertise the heck out of the console itself. I think they're in trouble at the moment, and the game is MS's to lose right now.
    • He says that Nintendo will 'appear' to win in 2007 because of its low price and innovative control scheme, but that Sony will be the winner in the long run.
      Here in the console market we have a word for consoles that "will win in the long run":
      Losers.

      If you think that 2009 will be the year of the PS3, then you're delusional, the Xbox 720 and the Wiiii will be right around the corner by then.

      • by ivan256 (17499)
        Console makers can not sustain a 3 year release cycle. Many games are in development for that long. Even the Xbox, which had an incredibly short run due to having production cut the instant the 360 was released, was around for five years.

        The PS2 will likely have a 10+ year run, the PS1 had 11 years, the SNES had 13 years...
    • by Yvan256 (722131)

      But people are going into stores and looking at $250 for a Wii (which is still hard to get), $300 for an Xbox360 (even if that price is deceptive), and then $500/600 for the PS3.

      If that's the prices in the USA, no wonder people are buying the Xbox 360 instead of the PS3.

      No wonder people are buying the Xbox 360 instead of the PS3 in the USA at these kinds of price differences if the prices you wrote are correct.

      Here in Canada, the Wii is 280$, the Xbox 360 (Core) is 400$, the Xbox 360 (20GB) is 500$, the PS

    • In 2009 we will be seeing the next generation of consoles. The war will have been over long before then. I'm not so sure the analysts have been following previous consoles, but the first two years pretty much show who is the premiere console, and then we have a year or two left before the next one is out. Sony and Microsoft need to lower their prices big time if they ever hope to outlast what the Wii is capable of. If sales continue through 2007, the Wii will be the next "Playstation".
    • by brkello (642429)
      Are you insane? Are the mods insane? You think the next generation of consoles will be out in 2009? What kind crack are you smoking? Console life cycles are 4 years at the very least (xbox->xbox360). It is more commonly 5-6 years. I don't think MS will have such a short lifecycle on their console again. The only reason they were so fast is that they wanted to correct the mistakes they made from their entry in to the market.

      Now you may be right that the console war will be over by then because one
      • I would lay money that at E3 2009 all three companies (Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft) will be talking about their "upcomming" gaming systems which will be released in 2010/2011.

        The only reason that the PS3 is a tough sale at this point is lack of games worth playing. It has one game that doesn't suck.

        I would say that the PS3's biggest problems are that it is really expensive, has too few games and offers little benefit for the majority of people who don't have HDTVs; in 2008/2009 it will be a far more modera
  • look ma, no ads [gamasutra.com]!
  • I think it's funny that none of the analysts mention pre-installed base of portable units. The 'base station' aspect of these new consoles will play into the equation for sure.

    Download services and hand-held integration hopefully will play a big part in this generation. A wireless Four Swords
    would be great, and SOCOM3 has some unlockables when you plug
    your PSP into a PS2 USB port. I also remember hearing that PS3 has a download service already in Japan.

    If Sony and Nintendo can leverage their handheld sales
  • Who cares? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Lithdren (605362) on Friday January 26, 2007 @08:19PM (#17779222)
    Do these people's opinions really matter? It seems like they speak with 10,000 analysts, get 40,000 diffrent answers, and when one is correct (suprise suprise) they tout it as some achievement, beacuse they guessed the right number.

    Who cares who wins in 2007? I sure dont. If you like Wii, you'll go Wii. if you like PS3, guess what, you'll go PS3. Xbox? Do a little dance and make a 360!

    The only true winner is the consumer, because they have a choice, IMHO. Analyze that.
  • BS mainly. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ecuador_gr (944749)
    There are three analysts on TFA and the first two basically don't declare a winner. It's far too early in the game, so it is better if they don't risk such estimates based on wild speculation.
    Now there is the third, "respected" analyst. Example argument from TFA:

    "If I'm right, Sony will end up winning the high-definition format war, and once there are millions of Blu-ray enabled PS3s floating around, I think we will see sharper graphics on PS3 games compared to Xbox 360 games."

    Where does he base this? Becau
  • If sony drops thier price do you think it will go unaswered by either nintendo or Microsoft??? Its very very likely that Microsoft would follow suit and do the same if not being the market leader in doing so... In wich case Sony will be grasping at the possiblity of making some sort of profit... Even though the cheap ps2 is making them a killing at the moment. I work in the gaming industry... My prediction at the pricing of consoles over the next year maybe two years is that Xbox will have a newer model ou
  • The Majority of Certified Analysts in 2006 did not beat the S&P 500 with their portfolio rec's.

    That's right "MAJORITY". Which actually means you'd be better off doing the opposite of what they suggested.

    I just read "A Random Walk Down Wall Street" --- highly recommended if anyone is interested in the
    mathematical provability of analysts' incompetance. Any analyst who believes he is operating in
    an enviornment with a limited enough set of variables to render a prediction, is inherently mathematically
    inco

A committee is a life form with six or more legs and no brain. -- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough For Love"

Working...