I don't know how anyone could make $3 billion+ for one period and complain that they couldn't do better next time. The fact that they matched it seems good enough.
Like someone else pointed out earlier, the market generally expects companies to constantly grow.
I know, but as a later "finite growth" comment pointed out, it doesn't make sense. Also, GameStop isn't the only store that sells games, so maybe more people started shopping at other stores or online.
All I was saying is that there are many factors here.
Regarding the first comment, based on my understanding of how the market works it actually makes perfect sense. Remember, the primary (not only) way most investors make money is for the stock price to rise, and that most reliably happens when the company's profits or marketshare grow. Once a company has established itself, like Gamestop has, steady performance isn't going to get more people to want the stock. This means current stockholders aren't really making (fast) money on their investment. Since they presumably could do better shifting their money to stocks that are growing, they will usually opt to do so.
This is why the market really only cares about growth, and why not meeting (even high) expectations is such a no-no. It's a structure that's divorced from reality and even long-term good for the company itself, but it's also how the game is now played.
Regarding people buying at other stores, NPD figures suggest that even a shift from Gamestop to other retailers isn't enough to offset the drop in Nintendo product sales. I suppose it's possible that online sales made up for that, since NPD data doesn't cover that market, but I'm personally skeptical.
Finally, and most important of all, even if Gamestop is completely correct and the Wii's sales drop is responsible for Gamestop's flat performance, I still consider Gamestop's performance to be exclusively Gamestop's responsibility. So no excuses!