By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Here's the big problem with analysts for Video Game market share.

Because most aren't serious gamers (which they shouldn't be), a large portion of their prediction comes from such factors as Formats (DVD, Blu-Ray), "Brand Value," and multi-media flexibility.

A disproportionately small value is given to how much fun people actually have playing these systems. Good games -- such as Metal Gear or Mario Galaxy -- are only given credence when their predecessors are known to move system units; in other words, those games are only given system selling value because of their brand name, not because they are actually fun.

To an analyst, the number and quality of games on a system is important, but not nearly as important as I believe it is to a consumer. For example, I know Pachter believes that a large portion of the PS2's success was the brand recognition established from the PS1 and its DVD playback ability; I certainly agree that both of those played a part, but my personal opinion is that the massive number of exclusive titles -- both high profile and budget -- played a much bigger role than he (or most analysts) tends to recognize. And again, I don't entirely blame him; how do you quantify such a property as the fun-ness of games?



http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">