I think you are missing the point here. The reason I brought up the 30 person sample size is to show that a sample size of 1050 is clearly a valid sample size, even if some of your objections about the 30 person sample size are true. As the article states, the maximum margin of error was 3.5%, which is negligible as a whole.
There were a lot of valid objections you could have made regarding this article, such as the fact that using ad populum arguments are logical fallacies, etc, but to object to the sample size is ignorant and asanine.
I would hope that you would know the fundamentals of sample sizes too, but you obviously don't. If you honestly believe that a sample size of 1050 is insufficient, then your "credentials" are utterly meaningless and you should seriously think about choosing a new school. (Does a half completed degree even meaning anything to begin with?)
@Hairygrim You obviously know nothing about statistics and sufficient sample sizes. In fact, a survey of just 30 people would have been a adequate sample size if indeed the sample selection was truly random. A sample size of 1,050 is overkill and is actually a very conclusive result. Please do some more research on this topic and educate yourself on some of these statistic fundamentals. Not doing so makes you look very ignorant.
That's not quite correct. The Wii was profitable from day one without any software sales. Nintendo's philosophy has been that consoles should be profitable in and of themselves. The fact that the Wii U isn't doing that is actually deviating from their normal business strategy.
My guess: His prediction comes from a straight line estimation and not a more accurate exponentially decreasing one. I seriously doubt hardcopy games will die out, especially in the next ten years.
Darth_Tyrranus' comments