The Move has a CHANCE to be successful, but it's going to come down the the games released. Those people who are just looking at the Move and saying "well.. Wii has motion controls and IT'S successful, now PS3 does, so that means IT will now be successful!!1" don't understand the true roots of Wii's success..

Why would the Wii want to move up to a HD console? 

It might just have to, as Blu-ray looks like the way future consoles will go, and this will help the big 3 avoid piracy which has been hampering the wii.  Proprietary formats haven't done a lot for the wii.

People overstate to significance of HD anyway.  In study after study, you even find that the majority of 360 and PS3 owners have their consoles hooked up with SD/ED cables ...

As an analyst he is supposed to be getting into the heads of the business people, to understand the way they think so he can make predictions about what they'll do and investors can decide based on those predictions which stocks to pick.  Nintendo doesn't do the "us too" anymore.  When Sony and Microsoft decided their market this gen was the same as last gen, "da l33t gam3rz", and Nintendo said "been there, done that, we'll just market to everybody else" and lo and behold they've made mega moolah, that was a pretty good clue that they didn't need to do the "us too".

PS3 and XBox peripherals, by themselves, are not a threat to the Wii.  Let's look at what's left in the market.  The "top tier" gamers have already bought their PS3 / XBox360 and dutifully scorn the Wii for not being superior.  That market is already saturated.  Growing prepubescent boys will fill in as new blood to market to, but Nintendo gave up that market so there isn't a threat of losing that market there because they already lost it.  The segment of that market nintendo did capture was the "nontechnology" gamers -- those that play games for the fun of it, not for the wow factor.  That's a small group, as is the "nintendo fan club".  Significant enough to throw tidbits of games that way, but not a primary target market.

Nintendo's market is "everybody else", so let's look at the threat posed to that market.  The everybody else market is filled with nongamers.  That's people who don't give a rat'sass about the E3, global gaming expo, etc.  A large percentage of those people have heard about the Wii when it came out because it was talked about in the mainstream media.  It became a part of popular culture.  They aren't going to know about the PS3 Move, or the XBox 360 Natal.  They probably don't even know what a PS3 or XBox 360 even is unless they had to buy one for their pimply sons.  So unless the mainstream media is suddenly fascinated by yet another "us too" device, I really don't see any threat to that market.

Another market segment may be the latecomers.  Those who put off buying a Wii because it was too expensive.  Likely, they won't buy a PS3 / XBox 360 accessories for the same reason.

There is only one segment that I can see that they *might* miss sales from.  That would be the latecomers who put off getting a Wii because it wasn't HD.  I don't believe these people actually exist.  Nintendo games don't require high def graphics, so what would be the purpose of wanting to see "Mario's sweat rolling down his face?"  I've seen people claim that they won't buy a Wii until it is HD, but I don't believe these people would buy a wii even it was HD.  "Too Late" would be their mantra now.

As an investor, I'm not interested if Nintendo maintains their market share, even less do I care what some analyst thinks a company SHOULD do when what they HAVE been doing has been very profitable.  What I am interested in is WHAT will they do and WHAT kind of sales are expected as a result.  Patcher provides neither in any satisfactory way when it comes to Nintendo.

Patcher is wrong because he is using the old ways, not the new ways. In 2005 and 2006, it made sense that Nintendo would lose with an non-HD system. Beck then, the battle ground was about visuals. Now, in 2010, it is about motion controls. It is evident as Sony and Microsoft are making motion controls despite no Wii HD.

Patcher is going to be wrong so long as he uses the old ways. He needs to think in the new ways. Had he, he'd say "Microsoft and Sony need Wii controls to compete with the Wii," That would make sense as the Wii was beating out both of them. But a Wii HD is rediculous. But he still thinks graphics are the key factor.

I don't know why Wedbush is still in business. Are people going to take them seriously when their video game analyst is constantly wrong and wont shut up. That has to hurt their reputation. It's not hard to find that Nintendo is disrupting the industry. Go to Hardvard Business Press and seach "Nintendo," and there is Scott Anthony saying how Nintendo is disrupting video games. A logical person would then find out more about disruption. Or just read Malstrom. Any sensable person would see that Patcher is an idiot and even if he's not serious about what he said, people are going to see him as the idiot he potrays. I'm not sure how good this is for Wedbush to know one of theirn analyst is publically wrong all the time. Would you spend a lot of money for market analyst from someone who is wrong?

Well, not *nobody*.  8 years ago I bought an Elsa graphics card with Revelator 3d glasses that would make any direct 3D game in true 3D using the exact same technology (glasses that wirelessly receive a signal to switch the left/right shutters on/off.)  You had to have a 120 hz refresh rate on the monitor to support a good image without flickering.  It was great.  Until I tried to play a shooting game.  When I tried to target something, the aiming indicator was close up (like the site on a gun) and the target was far away.  So you'd focus on the site and see double targets.  You'd focus on the target and see double sites.  It was nearly impossible to hit anything.  And closing one eye (thus removing the 3d effect) didn't help either because it's like holding a gun out in front of your nose and closing one eye -- it doesn't line up!

It was really nice to see the stuff in 3D, especially sim theme park where you could actually ride the rides in 3d!  But ultimately it lost its pizazz.  The glasses became an annoyance, and when the three watch batteries inside them died, I didn't bother replacing them.

There will be the early adopters who go through the same thing.  But next gen after is 3d without the glasses and I know I'll be waiting for that one before buying a 3D TV.

I'm not a Sony hater by any means, but IMVHO MS and Sony's motion controls for this gen are just to stop falling behind Nintendo and let themselves and 3rd parties start grasping the concepts and their practical applications ASAP. They can't harm PS3 and XB360, they can even benefit them, but it's too late to fill the gap from Wii.

About 3D with glasses I totally agree: I won't ever spend a cent on it. When 3D TV will be made WITHOUT any gadget to wear to watch it, I'll start considering it.

BTW parallax barrier 3D screens too, despite being glasses-free, are not very practical for multiple users, as 3D effect is enjoyable only at a limited distance interval from an ideal point, so it's not a tech living room-ready.

You mean Nintendo made gaming big? or do you mean Nintendo makes the best selling "casual" games?

Nintendo wasn't hardcore last gen, they were the same as they are now, its just now they got motion controls.

Casual games wont outsell hardcore games, but casual games with motion controls will.

Actually, Nintendo did pretty much single handedly revive the US games market in the 1980s after the crash.  And Japan's games market was pretty much built on the Famicom.