Which automatically means I'm a good resource for gaming analysis.

What qualifications do you think gaming analysts must possess?  I'd say given his broad gaming experience combined with his literary skills is more than enough to justify him as being capable of structuring a strong analysis of any given gaming scenario.  I will go one step further though and say he's probably a hell of a lot more qualified than most gaming journalists and analysts.

Actually, he can't make a strong analysts. His focus is on literature of all things. Literature in adedemia has never focus on how people write books or how consumers buy them, but them as "art." Becuase of this, he wont know anything about consumers or markets. He is just not trained in that. If we wants to give us a cultural analysts on metal gear Solid 4, then OK. But he porbably can't give a good reason why X game will sell or not.

The degree you need is going to be in business or to actually work in an entertainment industry (outside of print). Accounting, Finance, and Economic are good too. Statistical knowledge never hurt either.

(Not saying he doesn't know this stuff. I am basing this argument 100% of the degree and taking the opposite stance from slowmo)

Multiple degree's is a method of thinking and self motivated learning, but if you believe different then fair enough.  I think you meant analysis by the way, also literature doesn't really encompass the written language as art, as it's core subject.  Knowledge of consumers and markets can only be gained through experience of studying them, not through qualifications really.  Anyone on this forum can tell you how game x will sell, a good analyst will break down his reasons in a structured manner which I think given the users background would be realistic.

Experience of the industry I would agree is the main criteria and in my opinion an avid gamer since the seventies is more than qualified.

To answer your OP by the way Smashchu2, I can highlight some areas you overlooked in your analysis. One of the key areas people mistake when looking at the PS3 sales is the fact it's price point was lowered way too early in the products lifecycle. When Sony managed to misunderstand the market bad enough to release a console that was too expensive they hastily reduced the price to maintain the products viability. This has meant that when originally Sony projected their profits for the PS3 they would not have planned on reducing the price so soon. When compared to Microsoft who made it into their 3rd year without a big drop it highlights why Sony are suffering now.

Sony are currently accepting the lull in demand until they can stretch out the current price point to a window which would have been more in line with when they were expecting a big drop. There is no doubt once the PS3 hits sub $299 the sales will accelerate again although perhaps some people overestimate just how much on here.

The final key in the longevity of the PS3 is the 360. While both HD consoles are around third parties will be happy to produce games for them as they sell plenty of software and they understand the demographics they're developing for. Unless the Wii can break thr 50% market share the Hd consoles have they'll never get wholesale third party support at their expense.

The PS3 is here to stay for a while longer and assuming by saying not for long you expect it to fail within the next 2 years I think you're a mile off in your prediction.

You are right in how I missed the price point. That is an interesting take on it.

The problem with the HD twins and their longevity is they focus on core customers, not on growth. The Wii will always be more appealing as it will post higher units sold due to it being more expansive and inclusive for customers. The 360 and PS3 are only appealing becuase 3rd parties are having trouble understanding the new market (or how to just make a game on a Nintendo system) and they can put a game on both systems, increasing the user base. The third parties are going against what they should. They should be trying to take advantage of the Wii becuase that is where the money is. Heck, you can a lot more money simply in that it is cheaper to develop for. But third parties demand the HD twins win becuase they have similar values to those companies. Some where, it will have to give.

I would not think my prediction is very far off. 2013 would be a bit long. The industry is very competative, so the race to release a new system is very possible. Since these two companies will be playing with a shrinking market (and one is hell bent on killing the other) they will be dead set on controlling the weathered mountain. Also, the sales of the systems are starting to stagnent and most of the big release have come and passed. There are more games, but I don't expect the owners to be entralled by Heavy Rain or MAG (that was the name right).

Not to sound like a fanboy, but Nintendo has spoken a lot about their new software that will change the market. With the mountain crubling, Nintendo may be the crash to cause it to come falling down.

^ Unfortunately, I doubt the Wii is any more the salvation than the HD consoles. Publishers will probably continue to release games at a faster rate on the Wii until on average the Wii is as unprofitable as the HD consoles. With more releases the average price of the games drop quickly and the Publishers are forced to pay more to keep their games in prime retail positions.

     By looking towards the past of anything you can gain some idea as to what will happen in its future.  That is basic social science.

Except all the analysis I have seen from you makes Pachter look brilliant.

LMAO, man that was a low blow.

Owned.