This prediction doesn't matter. In fact, it matters even less than the article appears to guess.
Think about it. These thoughts of Pearson's are on the basis of UK sales only. The success of the companies involved relies on overall sales, not UK sales, not American or even Japanese. And as amazing as it may sound, these markets are actually very different beasts from each other, however similar cultures between the UK and the US might be. Taking a sample from predictions in one will not dictate the results in the overall.
Even if it were an internationally universal prediction, the statement in question was based on search engine usage. I'd love to see the research showing that search engines were an accurate measurement of, well, anything other than themselves, because at the moment I suspect that there is none.
The data is fine as data, but it's how we interpret it that needs more work. The fact that a certain number of people happened to make that search could be attributed to anything. Maybe they'll all get the game, yes, but that's one of about ten different possibilities of how to conceptually interpret that data. Maybe they're interested in the game for another reason, and are looking into it but unlikely to buy it. They might take one look at the cover (like many consumers undoubtedly do) and say, "no, it's just not for me or my family".
In short, a search engine defines base interest in a product, not the reasons for that interest, and those reasons are just as important as the pure data. Pearson's approach is like cutting a drumstick off a chicken, eating it and remaining hungry, then saying that the entire chicken won't fill you up and won't taste any different, even though there are different herbs in the rest of it. Fallacies ahoy.
So let's not pretend that Pearson's statement adds anything to the debate, for or against exclusivity. It is but a grain of salt, and we need a better microscope to look at that grain properly.
