diff-chan is actually michael pachter
that's why he's always so miserable
Printable View
diff-chan is actually michael pachter
that's why he's always so miserable
Hey.
He enjoys Call of Duty.
Diff is right though. And I love Pachter because every time he opens his mouth, NeoGAF goes balls to the wall apeshit
you love pachter because he's just like you...
And i'd probably be okay with Pachter if he didn't make statements like he was an angry poster on a video game message board, but then i (and no one else who actually plays video games and doesn't, i don't know, rely on market analysts to make decisions) would ever even know who he is. He actually posts on NeoGaf, doesn't he?
Why should Nintendo give away their GBA games when people are willing to pay good money for their older portable games on the 3DS? If that model was a complete failure, I could see them in theory changing face, but if people are spending money on them, it would be stupid to make them completely free unless they got desperate - like with the Wii U eShop uber-discount thing. There, it was like "okay, the system has next to nothing on it right now - to make up for that, here are a bunch of really cheap older games."
but is this analysis based on your perceptions as a gamer? Since to a lot of gamers, the Wii was going to fail and blah blah blah, make Nintendo 3rd party already and...it didn't. It did the opposite. So you might see the Wii as 'a hunk of shit' but it sold. You might see the Wii U as a hunk of shit and at least there's sales numbers to back up that grim perception.Quote:
Originally Posted by diff
Which is odd, considering that the Wii U's release list this year, while slim, seems more in line with something like the Gamecube - games for the gamers, but the gamers don't give a shit Because Reasons. Or they give too much of a shit, and scream "I'MMA KILL MYSELF OR PLATINUM UNLESS BAYONETTA'S ON PS3" Instead of...you know...buying a system for the game they want so bad. I thought that was part of the point of consoles.
As far as Pachter's concerned, he's been wrong before. By a wide margin - his speculation that the Wii would be a failure, then it was bound to fail unless they made a 'Wii HD' then the assumption that the Wii was failed again because PS3 + Move = Wii HD and Nintendo could not compete with that...you know, being way off the mark.
You say that people pay him big money for his analysis, but from other sources I've read, any analyst worth his salt doesn't run around giving this kind of information out to media outlets, essentially for free. They keep info close to the vest and share it only with the people paying them for these insights, so that those people can make better informed investment decisions. If anything, I'd think he makes his living off of his cozy incestuous relationship with the games media. He even had his own show 'Pach Attack' or some bullshit on one of the larger games outlets.
The only reason he thrives is that he has an audience who's already bought in to the notions and ideas he's selling.
The Wii was, at the least, a system that people wanted to buy. Maybe not "gamers", but people. The Wii U isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hero
Go watch CNBC sometime. Of course they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hero
This goes back to what I was saying before. They should do something on mobile because that's where the market is headed. Just because they can wring money out of a shrinking market today doesnt mean they shouldn't plan for the future. Do you know what year Blockbuster peaked in # of stores and revenue? 2004. Like 6 years after Netflix came out. Companies need to be proactive and move to where the market is headed or they can get left behind very quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy
but it's not like there's only 1 or 2 analysts that exist for the totality of an industry. So you have to ask, when one does show up on a news broadcast/is quoted in an article, what's in it for them? Why are they giving away information that they could leverage for their own monetary gain? Once that info goes 'public' its worthless. So why would they do that? More importantly, how and why is it Pachter returns so often to the media that he's practically a gamer-household name by now?
Which still doesn't cover how he's capable of being so incredibly wrong publicly, yet still to be trusted by gamers. Only reason I can think of is he tells them what they want to hear.
Well, all the info is public. Anyone can come to the same or different conclusions as Pachter, and then bet on it in the same or a different way. I'm not Michael Pachter but I imagine that he sees getting his name out there as a good way to drum up business.
I doubt anyone really cared about whether or not Pachter was right about the exact details of the PS Move vs. the Wii. Since then Nintendo stock has tanked anyway. If anything it was MS not Sony who ate Nintendo's lunch.
Sorry, no. The future is not phones and tablets. That's the present you're thinking of. I don't know what the future is but, while phones and tablets will have their place, they're not It. The mobile marketplace is a combination garbage-dump/wasteland, and Nintendo is smart to steer clear of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
The Wii U is another problem, though. Nintendo got arrogant and stupid with the Wii, and if they want to stay in the console business they need to sort their shit fast. I actually like the Wii U as a system, but Nintendo's decision to go cheap has doomed it to early obsolescence. People were already tired of the current gen, and just because Nintendo got lucky with Wii Sports doesn't mean they could pull the same trick twice. The point, though, is that Nintendo needs to be in control of their own hardware. It's more important to them than money. Whether it's more important to them than profitability is something we'll see over the next year or two.
James