ssj12 said:
ummm Nintendo's stocks took a massive hit too. You obviously never took a basic economics class. Nintendo's console is still in demand, Nintendo still hasnt filled the demand with supply yet. So even with a shaky economy Nintendo can do well due to cheaper games and a cheap console that is in demand. |
This paragraph ignores the fact that the 360 is now cheaper than the Wii in the US, and that it has been cheaper in Europe for a while now.
Oh, and it ignores the massive elephant in the room of why the "cheap console...is in demand." (Hint: price isn't the biggest factor. See above.)
Video games are something that while not greatly effected is effected by the economy. Sony's console while a better vaue is considered but might not be purchased due to price tag. Meaning the Wii or 360 gets the sale or the person waits a few more weeks and gets the PS3. If the economy was like it was a year ago the PS3 would instantly have sold if said person wanted it.
This paragraph inserts the preferences of one ssj12 to stand in place of the values of the masses. Data indicates that this reasoning is flawed. Sony's console is demonstrably not a better value in most consumers' eyes. You may recall that a year ago, the PS3 did not instantly sell. Anywhere. At all.
Sony;s other ventures, are also taking a hit because electronics in general are not a needed thing. Food, water, shelter are the thing thats on everyone's mind. Buying any form of electronic entertainment device or electronic device in general comes in second due to cost versus need.
The same can be said about Microsoft, do you really think someone who can barely afford food will buy a new PC with a windows OS, an xbox 360, or a Zune? the answer is NO.
Which again brings us back to Nintendo. Their stock price is down, but unlike the other two demand for its products has not decreased, and its profits are still gi-normous. By contrast, we have Sony, who's slashing profit forecasts at the same time that Nintendo's raising theirs, and whose gaming division is "anemic" at best right now.
You're emphasizing stock price to the exclusion of everything else. Not smart, dude, not smart at all.
To summarize my post: you're ignoring the data, and replacing it with what you want to happen. You completely ignore large chunks of the data, and you don't bother to examine the impetus behind the data you do bring to the table.
Knock yourself out, but don't expect the rest of us to accept your analysis...
