Forbes "Nintendo Is Beating Microsoft In Video Game Hardware Sales" (Uses VGChartz # :D)

[binary solo]

kowenicki said:

binary solo said:
Doesn't matter that it's only a blog. If Forbes puts their name on it then it tacitly endorses the content. There isn't even a disclaimer at the bottom of the post. This sort of amateur hour industry analysis diminishes the Forbes brand.

Each console has to be put into it's proper context. Wii U is doing terribly, and as Nintendo handhelds go 3DS is underperforming. Nintendo can, and probably should, push through this bad patch in the hardware game. But they should learn a lesson here and their next home console should do much more than merely cater to the 20 million or so strong core Nintendo fanbase. Nintendo actually has to grab some of that market to which only POS and XB seem to be appealing right now if it wants long term and multi-generational sustainability. it doesn't take long to burn through $8 billion .

But Nintendo may be running out of time, the writing is on the wall for gaming consoles. The age of the streaming device is fast approaching. Onlive was proof of concept, and it worked pretty well. PS Now is one of the big boys getting into it with a good chance of success. And Valve will be there too. Before long everyone is going to make a cheap box that can stream gaming content. Nintendo, will simply be another game developer, as will Sony, though no doubt Sony would still make streaming hardware as they already do.

  Erik Kain Contributor

  

I am a video game and technology reporter and critic covering the industry and gaming culture. I cover consumer rights, business communications, crowdfunding and video game news. You can follow me on Twitter or shoot me an email if you'd like me to review your game, gear, book, or if you have any questions or comments you'd like to chat about. Disclosure: Many of the video games I review were provided as free review copies.

The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

That's not a disclaimer, at least not in any sense that dissociates the Forbes brand from what this guy is writing. In fact it actually associates the Forbes brand with what this guy is writing, by saying "The author is a Forbes contributor".

A proper disclaimer would be "the author is not a Forbes contributor, he merely rents space on this blog site and he is in no way associated with the Forbes company or any of its publications."

If New Scientist hosted a blog site and allowed a creationist to write a creationist blog, that would be New Scientist associating itself with creationist propaganda, regardless of the fact that none of that stuff would ever get published as articles in the New Scientist magazine.