PS3 to win, says Analyst.

[COLOR="Yellow"]When i read about this, instead of posting about something i know nothing about like most the rest of the people here i asked myself, who is this da[COLOR="Yellow"]m[/COLOR]n Yankee Group anyways?

I did some research *gasp* and found out that it is the global leader in technology research and consulting. When it comes to their research and forecast they tend to be pretty accurate and reliable. Now that may not mean much to you, but at least you know now that these people actually know what they're talking about.

As far as the outcome of their predictions, i found an article of 2002's results. I know were not in fu[COLOR="Yellow"]c[/COLOR]king 2002, but i really, really tried looking for more recent articles, but check this out:[/COLOR]

http://www.yankeegroup.com/public/promotion/2002predictionsreview.pdf#search=%22Yankee%20Group%20accurate%20predictions%22

[IMG]http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e43/ikepsawn/yay.jpg[/IMG]
60% is more than half

Game analyst are wholly inane and simultaneously inept in the grand scheme of things, as the basis for their often arcane, and silly assumptions are lacking in anything remotely concrete or factual. For proof of this, one need not look any further than the possible information there is to go on. The only "next-generation" console that has been released as of yet is the Xbox 360, and until either the Playstation 3, or the Wii are released, along with games for them that are not quantifiable as merely speculatory, then what can the basis of their assertations be?

Sales? Public response? Marketing practices? Performance? Announced games? Speculated games? Even if these are the foundation of their arguments, utilizing these can not come to a conclusion that can be even logically considered as grounded in anything significant, regardable, relevant, or correct. If the console isn't out, then there can be no estimation of sales, console performance, or even public response seeing as how we have nothing but rhetoric, drivel, assumption, and opinion to base any statements we make in regard to the PS3 off of.

Regardless, the article itself is contradicted by the public response of the PS3post E3. The pricing has effectively ostricized the casual gaming audience, their shown games perfectly contradicted the "next generation" graphical quality expected in the E3 before last, thus disappointing fans (making the system seem like a ripoff, that is not worthy of the price); and what with the current lack of sales in regard to Blu-Ray (a format whose sales account for only 0.4% of overall disc readers), which, by the way, a very minuscule amount of gamers even remotely care about, I would have a hard time seeing the PS3 reaching this number in North America without a considerable price drop soon, something I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that Sony is loath to do, both for the fact that they have this preconceived notion that they are indomitable as a company, and also, because this would significantly decrease profit per system sold, (the reason why the PSP has no perceivable price drop in the foreseeable future).

This is actually slightly more serious than it seems when you factor in the minor fact that 70% of the PS2's sold were sold after the price dropped, and not a moment sooner. It's very easy to state that the platform would not be as successful as it is right now had the price drop never happened, or occurred much later than it did, and I see no reason why this logic can't be applied to the PS3.

The report should be subsequently, and expeditiously disregarded. It's as valid as the opinions of the mainstream gaming audience, and offers even less of an argument for its basis.

...said [i]analysts, several days ago.

no way man my source is the GAME AGE forums. I mean that thread the kid hos dad works at nintendo and said capcom and nintendo are making a super console.

I don't care if that was a joke or not. You're never allowed to post again.

You do realise they don't just say "Hey, I think the Sony will come out on top again lol"... there's actual research and reasoning behind their decisions. Shouldn't this be really obvious?

Of course, but the article didn't show any of it. Thats why TendoAddict said the article is poor. Its just "here's whats gonna happen 'cause we say so".

Whatever, all I know is I won't be contributing to that top 44 percentile. :)

[quote=Vampiro]You do realise they don't just say "Hey, I think the Sony will come out on top again lol"... there's actual research and reasoning behind their decisions. Shouldn't this be really obvious?

Yes, but it revolves around technology. They think the key to winning any console war is technology, which is total bull. They don't pay any attention to Nintendo's non-games selling millions, or Sony's small stock for launch, or developers flat-out preferring 360 and Wii development.

Or advertising, or the fact that brand loyalty is 60% of the games industry.

Brand loyalty, pah. The second there was a more attractive product, Nintendo and Sony were ditched.

Other way round. Nintendo were ditched because the product they made seemed inferior. You can't look at all the fanboys in the world and tell me that brand loyalty isn't a part of the games industry.

Oh, it's part of it, but it's not 60%. More like 10%, maximum. The vast majority of gamers are casual gamers, and don't care what they play (despite what they actually say) as long as they have fun.

Nintendo was ditched, thats what I was saying. Sony were also ditched for DS.

The whole thing about casual gamers is that they are ill-informed about consoles and therefore go with what they know. If they've had a PlayStation they're much more likely to stick with that brand, as other brands are unfamiliar. I know one person, for example, who when I showed him my DS on launch day, said 'oh yeah,the PSP is gonna be better.' I admitted yes, power-wise, fair enough. 'But the PSP will have better games,' he argued. Why, I asked.

'Because it's Sony'.

Oh sure, that mentality stays for a while, but it soon wears off. It's by no means an instant transition, but history has shown that it's the games that matter, not the logo. That's why PS1 won in the first place, it had the most developer support.

Coarse isn't a casual gamer, pay attention.

EDIT: Git beat me to it.

Here, Paul. Let me show you how "plastic" my Master Sword is. Just flick your finger against its blade when it protrudes from your chest.

What does it take ot be a freaking analyst? Any idiot could see that prediction is total BS. It's not a matter of fanboyism in this case, it's just a matter that I know Wii won't be beating by PS3, at least not by more than 15 million.

I assume degrees in Mathematics, Business, and Theoretical Mutated Rabbit Breeding would make you a shoe-in to be an analyst, given the sort of predictions these mysterious figures have made for the video game industry over the years.

Haha i think that this is going to be a fun war to observe. I honestly personally think that it will be sony in the end. But its the same thing as most of the arguments on this thread, its all about opinion. Even if your an "analyst" its still mainly opinion. No one knows how its going to turn out but its going to be quite exciting.

I predict the Dreamcast will sell more Pre Owned systems then the PS3 sells new systems.

Its obviously why...

Osama Bin Ladin is still on the run...

Pluto is no longer a planet..

John Mark Karr loved Joanbennet very much..

and Hilary Clinton is still alive..

With that in mind, theres no way in hell the PS3 could possibly defeat even the Dreamcast.

Pluto's a planet again, Random. The National Aero-Space...guys, or whatever redefined the term "planet," so that just about anything with a spherical shape can technically be called one.

I shall call you.. MINI PLANET? *Points pinkie towards mouth*

I believe they prefer the term "little planet" rather than "dwarf." Try to be more sensitive.

Indeed. 14 pounds of cold Irish steel. I've actually been putting on a bit of muscle lately since I stepped up my training with it. Had I the time, I would have auditioned for the Ren Faire this year.

Nintendo fanboys > Professional analysts, every single time. :rolleyes:

To be fair, I was right about DS. Every analyst who bothered to make a prediction regarding DS and PSP were completely and utterly wrong. As bizarre as it sounds, people like us who pay attention to the industry and actually enjoy games know a heck of a lot more about what will happen than some men in suits who predict technology trends.

If the Wii is supposed to be under $250, it would take about two and a half Wiis to match the purchase of one PS3. So all Sony has to do is match at least half the sales and the round is even. That doesn't even sound difficult. :/

I might buy three Wiis just to fix their little red wagon.

Sounds resentful, very unbecoming of a gamer. :|

Haha, it's not anything like that - I've just realised how bizarrely my mind works.

I'm willing to pay as much as the PS3 consts on other stuff, simply because it's an outrage that it costs that much. But I'm still spending that amount of money. :)

Haha, I see no need to wait for the PS3 when I can get the other stuff at any time! :o

Oh, I'm going to buy one. To sell it straight after.

I'm buying one to keep it! Probably not at launch, seeing as how my boyfriend is getting one, but I'll eventually own one. :)

I'll have one eventually. If I manage to sell the one I get at launch for double price, I might just buy another one then and there.

[quote=Princess Fate][COLOR=skyblue]If the Wii is supposed to be under $250, it would take about two and a half Wiis to match the purchase of one PS3. So all Sony has to do is match at least half the sales and the round is even. That doesn't even sound difficult.[/COLOR] :/

Stop, just stop, please. That's not how it works at all, youre going to injure yourself.

Do console sales really matter when it comes to who makes more money? I thought this was a business. :/

Except that making money relates to profits, not amount of money taken. Nintendo break even with every Wii sold. They may even make a profit. Sony lose money with very PS3.

Does it really cost that much to make a PS3?

Blu-Ray players alone cost over a grand, and they aren't packed with RAM, a Cell or an RSX. PS3 is going to lose a lot of money, this is a garuntee.

Can you link me to this info? I haven't read too much on costs and stuff.

I said that not knowing how much it costs to actually make a PS3. I still don't have any linkage to official sites.

And yeah, I should play that game again. I remember the last time I played it I beat my wife and raped her.

You don't have to be a man to have a wife these days. :o