If Nintendo really thought things would be going this well, we wouldn't have supply problems in some regions almost a year after launch.

Nintendo's goal was to sell more systems than they did in the previous generation. It's a goal that the company will probably reach by the end of the March 2008 -- less than 18 months into the Wii's life cycle. The success of the system has been magnified by strong marketing, unparalleled word of mouth, and avoiding the mistakes made by the other two manufacturers out there.

As to the analysts, they're like sheep and like to provide what they feel are 'safe' bets. The Wii was certainly not a safe bet. For those monitoring the gaming public's reaction to the name and underpowered specs, the Wii was doomed to fail. And in some ways, the system has and continues to underwhelm that audience. But the bet Nintendo made with itself that it could capture a whole new group of people has paid off and then some.

It was kind of surprising that the analysts still didn't shift their forecasts sooner. With Sony delaying the PS3 to late 2007, announcing a price that shocked most at E3, and delivering fewer systems than promised for the holidays, the writing was on the wall that this generation as not going to be like the previous one. (In fact, none have ever been the same as the previous one. So why people expected this one to be the same is even more puzzling.) Maybe they'll learn in time for the next console cycle...

DonWii said: Very long read. Describes how analysts have been doubting Nintendo/will continue to doubt Nintendo. http://malstrom.50webs.com/risingcontinent.htm If you are interested.

Interesting find, thnaks! I found these two bits insightful, because they reflect my own opinion:

Microsoft does not practice the ‘razor and blades’ model either as their model appears to resemble the “let us throw money at it” maneuver that world governments enjoy so much. And like world governments, Microsoft knows the key to making profit in consoles is to set aside a ridiculous amount of money, say a billion, delegate it towards a particular issue, such as hardware problems, only to later take those remains to funnel it back in as profit.

MS is going to prop up their future quarters with the $1 billion they have set aside. But I realize I'm off topic now. Sorry!

mesoteto said: dgm6780,hey i just want to know how the ps3 and 360 are going to survive once the minorty group of "hardcore" gammers have stoped buying the system? Try to tell me how third parties arent loven the wii after reading this, http://wii.ign.com/articles/819/819586p1.html

The 360 and ps3 will survive just fine thank you, both will get plenty of support

Wii will be the winner this gen, but the 360 and ps3 will do just fine

reverie said: DonWii said: Very long read. Describes how analysts have been doubting Nintendo/will continue to doubt Nintendo. http://malstrom.50webs.com/risingcontinent.htm If you are interested. Interesting find, thnaks! I found these two bits insightful, because they reflect my own opinion: Microsoft does not practice the ‘razor and blades’ model either as their model appears to resemble the “let us throw money at it” maneuver that world governments enjoy so much. And like world governments, Microsoft knows the key to making profit in consoles is to set aside a ridiculous amount of money, say a billion, delegate it towards a particular issue, such as hardware problems, only to later take those remains to funnel it back in as profit. MS is going to prop up their future quarters with the $1 billion they have set aside. But I realize I'm off topic now. Sorry!

 lol that reminds me so much of that irack video lol

They underestimated how cheep people are

rofl hus

your right mass market goes for the cheapest

BrainBoxLtd said: I'm going to take a wild guess and say these particular analysts merely looked at final tally from the 6th Generation and just predicted the same thing would happpen all over again. Â

Pretty much. Kind of like predicting the weather- if you say today will be like tomorrow, you'll be right 90% of the time, so that's the safe bet. Had Nintendo not opted for the Wii- had they gone the traditional route that MS and Sony went (expensive, graphic pimping boxes), I wouldn't be surprised if their analysis ended up being more accurate. But the problem with analyzing past trends is that you can toss them out the window when something new comes in and succeeds. Still, that's no excuse. The writing was on the wall at E3 2006. The Wii went huge, and everyone - hardcore and casual- wanted to play one. With the low cost and Nintendo lineup, most gamers wanted one, either as a primary console, or a second one. We all remember the "Wii60" catchphrase sprung up at that time, with a few "PSWiis, but not many PS360s, because of the great overlap (or if you prefer, redundancy) in the Sony and MS consoles. You also had a massive success with the DS, Brain Age and Nintendogs, which sounded a loud warning bell that the nontraditional gamers were coming. Now, none of this means that the what the Wii has done could have been predictied - it is truly unheard of to have this high a demand for so long. But it should not have been a surprise to see the Wii if not in first, then in a very solid second or maybe third in a very close 3-way race. OTOH, let's look at what Sony did at E3. They were arrogant (we will tell the consumers what they want!), neglected the gamer for an expensive BR player, got mocked for the "Wii Too!" Sixaxis, and pretty much turned the hose on whatever interest had been percolating among the wider base. That Sony would stumble was also easy to predict (even if not to this extent).

Grrrr.... damn double post!

I think it the general myopia that every industry suffers from. Unfortunately the business world adopts no sense of anarchy. While the real world will abide by stagnation for only so long. So they have no capacity to anticipate radical changes, or even the reasoning beneath them. When you think about it they are relying on data that appears to flow in a nice orderly fashion, and radical changes totally invalidate that data.

What is lacking is imagination, and more importantly the desire to apply that with no limitations. For that you need a specific mindset one that is not bound by conventions, or even mathematics. A mind that can view situations from multiple angles. Looking not for the general patterns, but the smaller distortions that indicate change. There were folks forecasting these events a couple years ago.

They were ignored not for any flawed logic they sighted the same issues we sight every day. They were ignored for not having a degree, or for not having a fancy title, or working for some large company. None of those things give you instinct. None of those things give you the mindset, and you cannot buy it, earn it, or get put in a position which grants it. You either have it or you don't.

That is the problem with analysts they do not get their titles or positions based on inherent skill. They get them by doing things, and behaving in ways that guarantee they will have the wrong mindset. Seriously do we let psychotics teach kindergarten. Do we let career criminals work in banks. Do we let crack heads play doctor. So why let a ultra conformist study insanity, and try to understand it. They think they can get it. Which is not the same thing as getting it.

I know why they got it wrong so far, they thought that the name itself would sell the console just like what Sony thought, but like what Liquid Snake says " No Snake it's not over yet" . Now Sony knows they can't sell it's console on just it's name but the price and content that it carries. It may look bad now for Sony but with a proven library of quality games like GT5, MGS4, R&C Future Tools of Destruction, FFXlll, and SOCOM which have proven in the past to be great titles will certainly help Sony in the years to come and remember these predictions are for the whole race not the checkpoint. As for the Wii they underestimated its price and the games that came with it.