I think you're misunderstanding the rating system.

It's not a rating of your reaction to the news, but a rating of the way it's reported. If they're predicting that the news means the Wii U will certainly fail, then it's a -5. If the news is reported as though it means the Wii U is a guaranteed massive seller beyond the level of the Wii, with others simply unable to keep up, then it's a 5.

It's not how good YOU think the news is, but the attitude of the article itself.

Well I'm rating how likely the article is. Thats My take. I'm not taking it on a selling point because then your first rating will be your last. I'm rating the article on it's glory (truth) and it's Doom( fail). This is my article and Used your rating system but used it my own way. I did edit the article. Don't highjack my article bro. LOL

But that's just it - the rating we're using here isn't about how accurate it is, it's about the attitude being taken. If you want to rate the likelihood of your article being right, then go right ahead, but don't do it in this thread as though you're using the rating system being used in this thread.

In short, don't hijack (not highjack) the thread.

A nintendo system with a 2D mario at launch... its a garanteed sucess. Analysts are pricks who really dont know the market half as well as they think.

The 2D mario aswell as pikmin and rayman will bring in the hardcores, the kids and the family. From my point of view as marketeer, the analysts really dont know what they are talking about. Nintendo has the family by the balls (aka the kids annoying their parents to get the machine). That garantees a sucessful launch and more adopters down the road because the risk of adoption is much less (and im sure more cool gams are coming down the pipe).

And for the record, i didnt get a Wii, and im unsure on wether to get a WiiU. But, unliky analysts, i actually can see Nintendo's genius marketing. I really dont know where these analysts get their educations from, because they dont seem very good at all.

Oh, they know what they're talking about. It's just that what they're talking about isn't quite what you think.

Whenever an "analysts" talks to the public, it's not analysis, it's PR. They're trying to convince the public of something to the benefit of one of their customers.

Analysts get paid to give good analyses - an analyst that can't do this loses their job very quickly. But they're also NOT paid to give their analyses away for free to the public. So anything they say in public, you can be sure isn't of any value. If it was of value, they'd charge for it.

You are completely right.