Don't make things up. People didn't say the same about the Wii, otherwise Twilight Princess, Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3: Corruption wouldn't have been nominees and winners of overall game of the year awards in 2006 and 2007. Mobile gaming has been said to put an end to dedicated gaming handhelds for at least a decade. Overall Kinect software sales are still low, so that looks like confirmation for barely playable games. So you rolled three different cases into one thing that doesn't match with what I said.

Angry Birds hasn't been sold 350m times. The reason why people will continue to buy handhelds over phones are better games that aren't available anywhere else.

Hardcore gamers were always the minority of the market, nothing new here. The only thing that changed recently is that Nintendo started to sell more systems which drove hardcore gamers mad. They didn't seem to have an issue with all those casuals buying PS2s. Even with Nintendo's surge, virtually no games were lost for hardcore gamers, because third parties shunned the Wii. So the issue wasn't casuals entering the market, it was Nintendo taking the lead in sales. Anyway...

The DS looked outdated as soon as it launched against the PSP in late 2004. Your point about yearly updates in horsepower is completely irrelevant.

Personal computers also sell at a much higher rate than consoles. Every month, quarter and year. So why didn't PCs kill home consoles? Probably because only a minority of these PCs are bought for gaming. The same holds true for smartphones.

Sales of smartphones only prove that people need phones.

As a business analyst you should be able to come up with at least some sort of substantial argument. If you agree with the notion that smartphones will cut into the sales of gaming handhelds, then you need to show numbers that prove exactly that. So far you haven't shown one bit. Growth charts of smartphone sales are as meaningful as presenting rising sales of iMacs and Macbooks.

Smartphones aren't modern handhelds, they are more like portable PCs and as you might know, actual PCs are never refered to as home consoles or some sort of home console. Horsepower doesn't define what is a handheld and what is not. Primary purpose does. And for phones that's obviously being a phone, so calling them handhelds is delusional.

What you fail to take into account when it comes to 3DS sales is that its starting price was $100 more than previous Nintendo handhelds. The only thing that the struggles of the 3DS early on prove is that people aren't willing to pay $250 or more for a handheld. The PSP failed at that, the 3DS did and the Vita will. So much is clear, but that doesn't spell doom for dedicated gaming handhelds. The proof is already there, with the 3DS price being corrected everything is running smooth again.

Which brings us full circle. I started this post by pointing out that mobile gaming was said to put an end to handhelds since at least a decade. The reality is that the GBA was very successful by moving 80 million units in six years. The following generation when mobile gaming became even stronger (you have the numbers in your link), the DS and PSP sold a combined 220 million units in seven years. So despite this rise in mobile gaming, the handheld hardware market almost grew by 200 % and software sales quadrupled, maybe even quintupled over the previous generation.

Explain these numbers, Mr. business analyst.

Firstly way to brutalise a quote...couldn't you have just replied afterwards like a normal person? Now i have to go through my own post to find out what you said.....

So bare with me. The bits in Italic are what you said

First up "Don't make things up. People didn't say the same about the Wii, otherwise Twilight Princess, Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3: Corruption wouldn't have been nominees and winners of overall game of the year awards in 2006 and 2007. Mobile gaming has been said to put an end to dedicated gaming handhelds for at least a decade. Overall Kinect software sales are still low, so that looks like confirmation for barely playable games. So you rolled three different cases into one thing that doesn't match with what I said."

Make what up exactly? When the Wii was announced people thought it would be crap. Many people called it a "fad" remember? Or are you new to gaming? The fact it had motion controls made a lot of people think it would fail. It was different from what was already available. People said it wouldn't take off but it went on to be one of the biggest selling devices in history. What has your list of games got to do with anything?? The point of which you clearly missed was that CONTROLS and the changing of CONTROLS is not anything new. When a new device comes out that changes CONTROLS it receives a luke warm reception. But eventually people get used to the CONTROLS. And some games work really well with it. Like the Zelda game that you mentioned.

As for the Kinect sales being low are you for real?? It is the fastest selling device on record http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12697975 is thatnot "proof" then? As for the software again you seem to have totally missed the point.....only HARDCORE gamers will buy lots of software at the £40 mark. The casual market will not have loads of games at that price. But at the app type price they will have many.

Now for the Angry birds bit which is just really confusing. You said i made it up. Why would i do that? I mean just a simple bit of googling would of helped you out. The reason i said 350m was because i remember reading a report around June time saying that was the current number. A quick google from the official numbers shows as of nov 2nd 2011 Angry Birds sold over 500m copies http://www.rovio.com/en/news/blog/95/angry-birds-smashes-half-a-billion-downloads/ or is that not "proof"?Another phone game that has done well is Minecraft. You might of heard of it?

"Hardcore gamers were always the minority of the market, nothing new here. The only thing that changed recently is that Nintendo started to sell more systems which drove hardcore gamers mad. They didn't seem to have an issue with all those casuals buying PS2s"

What does this even me?? The hardcore gamers were always the minority? That is just mind boggling dumb. You mention the casuals all buying PS2's. Tell me exactly what are these casual games that they bought on mass for that console? The biggest selling game for the PS2 was GTA:SA. Feck looking at the list i can't see any casual games in there?? On the contrary look at Wii sales and you see 8 of the top 10 are casual style party games. The top one selling 80m units. That is x4 what the top selling PS2 game did. Which just shows the whole you were always the minority thing is wrong....The emergence of the casual market is a this gen thing. Has nothing to do with GBA or anything like that....

"The DS looked outdated as soon as it launched against the PSP in late 2004. Your point about yearly updates in horsepower is completely irrelevant"

Again what does that even mean?! Are you seriously saying people don't care how powerful something is before they buy it? So if say a new one comes out that is in black and white people will snap it up? Of course they wouldn't. Technological advancement is what drives markets forwards. As i mentioned look at 3D. Nintendo have a console out with it as do a number of phone companies, not to mention the films/cinemas and TV's that do it. The point which again you missed is that when people go to buy their shiney new phone they want it to be NEW. They want it to be better then their current phone. The same-thing goes for consoles. If they buy a new console they want it to be more powerful then their last. I don't even see how anyone could not think that is correct or "irrelevant"....

"Personal computers also sell at a much higher rate than consoles. Every month, quarter and year. So why didn't PCs kill home consoles? Probably because only a minority of these PCs are bought for gaming. The same holds true for smartphones."

Now your starting to get it! You just proved my point....People do not buy pc's or laptops because of games. The reason they sell so well is because of the other things you can do with it. But for some people gaming plays a part in which one they will buy. If it didn't then why would heavy spec pc's do so well? When people buy a pc they want it to be able to do all the other things they enjoy doing. The same goes for smartphones, i gave you multiple examples of what people look for when choosing a phone. If you think that they don't then you are deluded. Which leads to

"Sales of smartphones only prove that people need phones."

Which connects into the bit above. If you think people choose a phone every year or two based solely on the ability to actually phone someone then it shows you have no clue in what your talking about. Because if you were right then why would these companies invest billions on developing new things to include in the phones? If people were only interested in calling someone why would they spend nearly 3x what a 360 or PS3 cost to get one?

And on the flip side of that if what you said was true which it isn't why would these handheld (by your definition) companies be trying to imitate smartphone by including many of their features? Such as social networking/Internet explorer-website surfing capability/ability to use them over a network ala 3g, cameras, music players etc etc?

"As a business analyst you should be able to come up with at least some sort of substantial argument. If you agree with the notion that smartphones will cut into the sales of gaming handhelds, then you need to show numbers that prove exactly that. So far you haven't shown one bit. Growth charts of smartphone sales are as meaningful as presenting rising sales of iMacs and Macbooks."

Again a simple bit of googling here would of made you think before you posted that and went on the attack. There is no argument there are simply predictions. Ones which are made on real numbers. Ones that i linked above. Seeing as they are official numbers why have you ignored them? Do they not count as "proof"? Or is it because they don't fit your opinion? But okay i will play along.

75% of all downloads on an Iphone are games http://blog.flurry.com/bid/65656/Free-to-play-Revenue-Overtakes-Premium-Revenue-in-the-App-Store  I quote "games often occupying more than 75% of all top 100 grossing apps in the app store, it’s the single most dominating business model in the mobile apps industry today." On top of that it has now been proven more people spend more time looking at their phone then they do on the internet http://blog.flurry.com/bid/63907/Mobile-Apps-Put-the-Web-in-Their-Rear-view-Mirror  again another example of what i was saying about people using their phones for different things. You said they were more like PC's which in part is true. But as i mentioned things such as the 3DS and Vita also copy things that a PC does, why do you not consider that a PC too? But hey i know you want more "proof"....

Nvidia. You know that company that makes components for technology? Well this is what one of their heads said in august about why they were shifiting towards mobiles " it will be a while before tablets and mobile phones become proper gaming devices, but it won't be too long before they eclipse the Nintendo 3DS and Sony's upcoming PlayStation Vita, they will eventually eclipse the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and the PC itself." http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Igor-Stanek-Tony-Tamasi-Tegra-Tegra-Zone-Optimus,13258.html

Again does that qualify as "proof" in your view? The fact a company which creates the technology of tomorrow is going in that direction in regards to its own products does not make you think there could be something in it?

But hey no worries. I know you want something a bit more solid. So how about official numbers from NPD which did tracking on gamers?They said

"Mobile devices have seen a drastic increase in the amount of gaming activity over the past few years. For instance, since 2009 gaming on mobile devices is up from 8 percent to 38 percent, while gaming on traditional portable gaming devices went up more modestly, from 38 percent to 45 percent."

http://www.industrygamers.com/news/npd-number-of-children-gamers-increasing/

Meaning that in 2 years "traditional (notice that word? why would they say that when smartphones are not considered handhelds acording to you?)" consoles increased just 3% a year. Compared to mobile gaming increasing by 15% each year. Does that not show that eventually increasing at that rate it will over-take "traditional" handhelds? Again does that not count as "proof"? But ok one last one. If you want to see some other numbers check out http://www.reghardware.com/2011/11/10/us_mobile_game_sales_see_android_ios_rocket_past_nintendo_sony/   they did an official survey on gaming and say mobile gaming makes up 58% of all game sales.

Which brings me to the best bit of all

" The proof is already there, with the 3DS price being corrected everything is running smooth again."

Price corrected?? You do realise the reason they had to lower the price was because demand for it was low? The fact they lowered the price so soon means that all the research they did into target audience and how much they would pay was totally wrong? Meaning that to right that wrong they probably are losing a shit load on every console sold. Just look at their most recent financial numbers. To say the price is now correct is laughable. Do you want Nintendo to go bankrupt or something? They over-estimated how popular the "traditional" handheld gaming market is. Will the 3DS still be selling as much as it is this week in 7 years time? After all if we look at the DS numbers for this week last year we see it sold only 300k less then that of the 3DS. For a 7 year old console that is good going.

"Explain these numbers, Mr. business analyst"

As you can see from the links above. All the numbers shown, indicate mobile gaming is increasing a lot. You mentioned the PSP and DS numbers and they are decent numbers. But this isn't 2004. It isn't against a market like it is now. This was the biggest selling phone in 2004 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_2600 an old crappy Nokia that had Snake. Look how far phone technology has come in just 7 years. If you went back in time and handed that guy with that Nokia a new Samsung Galaxy they would of thought you were from space. It will be the same-thing in a further 7 years. The technology increases so fast where as "traditional" handheld does not increase at the same rate. They increase over generation cycles. Which is what i meant when i said phones get changed yearly.

But hey if you want some more numbers check out this http://phandroid.com/2011/11/09/mobile-gaming-revenue-surpasses-that-of-nintendo-sony/  it shows in revenue terms the increase/decrease of the gaming companies. For 2011 mobile gaming made more money then Sony and Nintendo's software combined.

As i said to the first guy just because you don't like it does not mean it will go away. You can attempt to attack me all you like but the facts are the facts. I have shown you the numbers, shown you industry people and manafacturers opinions on how they see the future.

So i would be most interested to see your "proof" as to show they are all wrong. Because right now it just seems totally false.