NTDOY analyst article with interesting historical data

[Final-Fan]

The article is at http://ce.seekingalpha.com/article/40770. 

This article has a lot of interesting history, and a LOT of numbers, but as soon as the author strays from reporting history into making the most basic value judgements, it falls apart.  Many of the conclusions drawn are, frankly, ridiculous.  The only saving grace this guy has is that when he seems to have a much stronger grasp on the future than the past. 

I don't know how plausible his predictions are, but they certainly aren't as silly as his apparent belief in a handheld console called "Super GameBoy".  (I suppose he's thinking of the Game Boy to SNES adapter cartridge that went by that name.)  And he certainly makes the right call as far as the future of NTDOY stock goes, which is the important part of an article on stocks.  ('Buy, you fools! BUY!')

Example A:  "Sales of these systems suggest that a successful new video game system should be expected to sell about 120 million hardware units and 600 million software units within five years of such introduction."

Why is this ludicrous?  Because the best-selling game console of all time failed to reach this benchmark.  The PlayStation 2 just recently clawed its way past the 120 million mark in May 2007, a full seven years after its introduction.  And it achieved this by outselling each of its two competitors by a ratio of more than four to one.  The Wii may well reach 120 million in five years, but if it only gets 100 or (the horror!) 80 million, it certainly won't have failed to succeed. 

Example B:  The utter disregard of the Sega/Nintendo wars.  The closest the article comes is in admitting that Nintendo had only 70% American market share in 1992.  (Which, by the way, apparently includes both NES and SNES numbers teamed up against Genesis (a.k.a. Mega Drive) numbers, since Wikipedia reports that the SNES only had 45-50% of the 16-bit market at that time.  That, or the 70% number is pure crap.)

Why is this ludicrous?  Because the fact that Sega went down in disgrace in the mid-90s, recovering later only to be given the coup de grace by PS2 HYPE alone, shouldn't eclipse the fact that earlier in the decade it was a force to be reckoned with, its Genesis battling the SNES in a bloody see-saw war of attrition -- a war it won in Europe.  The article talks as if the SNES was the uncontested heir to the empire its predecessor built from Atari's rotting corpse.  On the other hand, the article later -- paradoxically -- claims that Sega once was the #1 video game console company, which is quite the compliment, although the author gives no clue as to how Sega achieved this feat in between Nintendo's rule and Sony's dominance. 

P.S.  I hope this is in the right section.