I disagree.  Any ground lost this week is going to be regained and more next week.  Using this weeks numbers and ioi's info from another thread we are looking at around 800k minimum between this week and next which would average to 400k per week which is still gaining ground on the 360.  It will also still outsell the 360 in the US for December due to that increase.  Being behind for the wek of the lull before the storm isn't that surprising.

You called me belittling and condescending? Look at your own posting style before making accusations.

I'll respond to all of your points when I have time.

Love,

-an "idiot, troll, or fanboy"

@Melisa

WTF does hurricane wilma have to do with the wii?

This kinda of negates my initial premise though, right? Let me  distill the conversation to explain what I mean:

Me: "If the Xbox360 and/or PS3 outsell the Wii this month, that would be bad for Nintendo."
You: "The Xbox360 and PS3 will not outsell the Wii this month."

Well.... okay, in that case everything would be fine, but the entire argument I just fleshed out was built on the premise that the Wii does not come out on top (which I think we can agree is at least possible at this point? Unlikely, perhaps, but not absurd).

So again, this isn't supposed to be a discussion about whether or not the 360/PS3 will or will not outsell the Wii. I start with the (unlikely, but possible) premise that the Wii will be outsold -- and if the Wii is outsold by its competitors in the busiest month of the year due to supply issues, that would be bad for Nintendo. Do we agree?

If by "bad" you mean less than desirable then yes we agree on that point.

If by "bad" you mean indicative of things to come then no we don't agree on that point.

But I can skip ahead of this and tell you that I don't think a concern of the Wii being outsold in December is a concern worth having given what we know right now. Which is really my point, I'm not debating that Nintendo would have liked to do better, just simply stating that its not going to lose ground in December.

 That is really what I was focusing on more than anything actually.  I do not think the 360 will continue to outsell the Wii and I think the Wii will actually significantly outsell the 360 next week.  Concerns and considerations should be left for observing after the fact, when we are in the midst of these sales it just feeds sensationalism to try and imply or extrapolate meaning out of a single week, particularly when we have good information that it won't continue at this rate. 

I realize you were trying to make a broad two-way statement about performance but it has the effect of implying that the Wii is on far more trecherous ground than it really is even if it wasn't your intention (which I don't think it was).

[edit: corrected spelling of "debate" both here and up above]

Let's start by defining our terms:
condescension: 1. voluntary descent from one's rank or dignity in relations with an inferior; 2. patronizing attitude or behavior (www.m-w.com) So, 2. or behaving as if 1.; also, "talking down".
belittle: 1. to speak slightingly of : disparage
disparage: 1. to lower in rank or reputation : degrade; 2. to depreciate by indirect means (as invidious comparison) : speak slightingly about
slighting: (adj.) 1. characterized by disregard or disrespect : disparaging


Jigglypuff said: ... "2. Awful analogy" Not to mention that Jigglypuff wasn't even talking to you; and by the way, it is possible for an analogy to be "awful". So, me quoting Jigglypuff could not possibly be condescending to you or belittling you; moreover, I assert that Jigglypuff was not even condescending or belittling to Godsmurf.

"[...] you've conceded my point" I saw (and still see) this as a simple statement of fact free of implication and innuendo, and explain my reasoning. In what way is this condescending or belittling?

"Next, the supposedly lethargic increase in production" This is mainly an introductory remark and was intended only to highlight the dubiousness with with I viewed your claim. It is arguably somewhat belittling to your argument, which is very different from belittling you. In what way is this condescending or belittling to you?

"You only had two comebacks" This is definitely belittling your arguments. I don't think it belittles you except to the extent that you suffer from the discrediting of your arguments. I still don't see that I've been condescending. In what way is this condescending or belittling to you?

"Bzzt. Wrong." Fine, this one is belittling to you. My only defense is I was very annoyed because your claim was so patently untrue. As my recent response asks, how does the existence of one qualified exception to "biggest first-year increase ever" disprove the main thrust of my argument? Actually, don't answer that in your response to this; leave that for the main exchange for simplicity's sake. Rather, answer this: In what way is this condescending to you?

"Wow. You are so right. Nintendo deliberately decided to massively underproduce the Wii, because it hates money." OK, you got me. This one passage, out of my entire post, is belittling and condescending - and sarcastic to boot. I don't think that this means that my posting style as a whole is so disrespectful of others that I can't call people on stuff like

"If you're ignorant about how complex devices are, then maybe you shouldn't be speaking about it."

when it seizes on a stated disclaimer of expertise in order to dismiss my entire argument. I was angry that you'd used an excuse that implied I was some sort of ignoramus groping in the dark talking about technology I couldn't comprehend to avoid having to actually come up with a counterpoint. This, along with what seem to me to be similar misrepresentations and dodges in your posts, led directly to the only other insult I have directed at you -- "idiot, a troll, or a fanboy".

Speaking of misrepresentation, what on earth caused you to attribute Jigglypuff's post to me, if not a failure to carefully read my post?

By the way, I think your entire post oozes the definition of snide.

Similar example, where stock could not be brought to sufficient levels simply because demand increased very quickly to a level that the production could not keep up with.  In Florida's case, it took an entire year to get materials up to "acceptable" levels, so it shouldn't be surprising that Nintendo is taking somewhat longer than expected as well.  It was also a response to the iPod example, showing that even something as simple to manufacture as a brick can get delayed in manufacturing if demand rises quickly and unexpectedly, let alone a device as mechanically complex as a Wii.

10-15 million more is insane!! i doubt that... yes they could've sold more, but i doubt it would be more than 2 mil... U can say they blew it, but not even the most positive analyst would've predicted this kind of wii domination which matched the PS2 and even more! After the gamecube, i would've thought they would be mad to produce more than 500k a month! But credit to nintendo, they took many chances, one with the wii, which many thought would fail, and second by increasing production, for didnt alot of us think the wii was a fad that would end soon??? maybe shipment could be better and more efficient, but in the end they dont care about the weekly charts as much as they care about the final result... and we arent qualified to know how this business works which is very complicated. U cant be too conservative and at the same time can't take too many risks. What nintendo are doing is pretty good, and they did it better than anyone else in the market. They have been in the gaming business for a long long time, and i bet they can handle this by their own and dont need our advice!!!

I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of your accusation. No need to pick nits.

Like I said, I'll get to your specific points about Wii production when I have time to sit and compose.

You're pretty literate for someone who went to Normandale. There, that's belittling.