Slashdot Mirror
Games Analysts Weighs In On Console War
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."
On what criteria do we evaluate a winner? Consoles sold, games sold, profits? It makes a difference, does it not?
Directly contradicting this story, I read the print edition of the Wall Street Journal (expensive subscription required) and it said that in point of fact - as also backed by articles in Fortune and Forbes - 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.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
All being an analyst means is that you pull things directly out of your ass and present them as news. It's actually a misspelling of Analist.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
Anyone can do that. Being an analyst means you somehow convinced someone to pay you to do it.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
It looks a little different when you get the punctuation right
t ion+3%2C+wii&ctab=1&geo=all&date=all
http://www.google.com/trends?q=xbox360%2C+playsta
Anyways, as was already noted, Google trends don't exactly indicate hard scientific data, and especially sales. The 360 outsold the Wii 3/2 in the US over the holidays and the PS3 3/1 yet it lagged behind both of them in the Google trends for that period.
...because the other consoles are purchased only by loser moron fanboys.
"Sony is hanging by a thread financially."
That's not in any way true. Multiple Apple's sales by 3, and their profit by 4, and you got Sony. Sony has $32B in short term assets. Sony is quite healthy, financially. I don't know where you got your information.
I don't respond to AC's.