Maybe all this ps3 stock issues is saving up for GT5? haha I doubt it, but ya never know.

i don't care if they criticize it, and i'm not saying they are the culprits here, but there is some crazy aggression without any real reason. Sure there is no real proof, and that does warrant critique. Perhaps I've just been a complete failure in trying to contain the fire. I just want people to approach this kind of stuff a little more professionally, which i know both surge anf 505 demonstrate on a daily basis.

anyway, here is some cute hoppy kpop to soothe everyone's nerves.

lol all we can garentee is that this game will sell like hot cakes

Let's see what happens to sales in the lead-up and weeks/months following GT5's release.

Who knows whether the study was conducted properly, but the findings don't seem off:  if 10 million are going to buy GT5, 3.9 million haven't even bought a PS3 yet, though it's 6 months till the game comes out.

You think Halo 3 moved 4 million 360's?  I'd say more.

50% of the gamers who plan to buy Halo Reach do not yet own a XBox360... I surveyed my brother,myself and 20 friends.. my 20 friends don't want it only I & my brother wants it but he doesn't own a 360.. ;)

And 46% will sell it 3 days after as they realize that the games are even more boring than metacritic says, if they used to play games on the superior ps3 ;)

On Topic:

39% for America so maybe even more for Europe where Racing and Cars are much BIGGER?

Point proven. 

wow dude, way to go.

Well, there is reason to attack it. I think the lack of relevant data makes it hard to believe this study is accurate. When a study seems inaccurate, there is far more reason to attack it than defend it. But, I'm not saying the study is definitely inaccurate, I'm saying it's weird that they wouldn't supply the data to make it seem accurate. That's why I find it very hard to believe. If it were an accurate study, wouldn't they want to prove it? What would they have to hide unless it was inaccurate?

I think I'm being quite objective here, I'm looking at this from the outside. If ANY study were to try and tell me some % of people do X and then it doesn't show how it came up with that number or that result, then the first thing I'll think is that there's something to hide, and that the study's results are deceptive. If anyone is attacking the study's results because they think it's ridiculous that 39% of gamers planning to buy GT5 don't have PS3s, that is subjective. But also, if anyone is defending this study because they think it's totally possible, it is also equally subjective.

I think GT5 could be a crazy system mover, moreso than anything else PS3 has seen before, so I don't doubt the possiblity of what this study is suggesting. But without more concrete information, this study should be doubted and questioned. Why are they not discussing the sample in detail? Or what was asked and how they came to their conclusions? You know, a group can lie about a study's results and get away with it easily, but when you don't show all your work (like math in high school) people question how you got there. The first thing that will pop into most people's minds is "where'd they get that number?" followed by "anyone can make up a statistic".

In short, if this study wanted to come across as accurate and believable, they should have included more data.

P.S. Totally off topic but MS just gave me 400 free points! Sweet!

But that's the whole point I've been talking about. VGC doesn't show how it collects data either save for a few resources which this site in question also does. Tracking formulas and such are highly guarded industry secrets. It's not fishy, it's common practice. NPD VGC Mediacreate and lots more do the exact same thing.