Why does anyone even listen to him. I didn't do research, but I'm sick and tired of every major and minor gaming site talking about him. Why is he so important to some people?
This Michael Pachter dude...
- Thread starter disturbed_one
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't know. I certainly don't, I haven't heard him say anything that isn't utter bullshit. I don't know why sites continue to report on the crap he spews out, and when they do I tend to take them less seriously. It gets tiring hearing about him after awhile and on one occasion I've actually stopped visiting a website because it kept reporting on the things he said.
Well, he's got two law degrees, an MBA, a bucket of experience and it's his job to care about what might come and how it might play out. Also, he tends to be right (else he might be out of his proper job, mind you).
He understands how money (funds) flows, and why.
In general, I'd take his advice over that of any gipsy handreader or Tarot wielder.
Does that answer your question?
He understands how money (funds) flows, and why.
In general, I'd take his advice over that of any gipsy handreader or Tarot wielder.
Does that answer your question?
I find he provides interesting analysis as to the likely results of, say, a successful or failed launch of a new game and how the company is likely to follow through (or not). Other than that I don't worry too much.
My big issue comes with not knowing how to pronounce his name. Is it Pak-ter? or Pash-ter? or how about Pa-ter? I don't care enough to put any effort into finding out, but it's an issue all the same.
My big issue comes with not knowing how to pronounce his name. Is it Pak-ter? or Pash-ter? or how about Pa-ter? I don't care enough to put any effort into finding out, but it's an issue all the same.
So can we maybe get a quote or a link to a quote from him?
No?
Then why should I muster up the impetus necessary to give a shit one way or the other?
No?
Then why should I muster up the impetus necessary to give a shit one way or the other?
He is a game journalist who specializes in the gaming industry's economics. Known for bashing Nintendo every chance he gets and almost never being right.Lionsfan said:
As for Gametrailers: Eh, they host Screwattack videos, and was one of the only places you could find the AVGN for a while. Plus, the show Pop Fiction has a meticulous amount of research done. Most of the time.
Example of a good Pop Fiction episode:
Really, the worst thing about them is the God-Awful video player that they use.
Yeah I'm pretty sick of him as well. The Escapist loves him for some reason though, as a quick search will show.
He makes vague statements that practically any consumer could make with little information, and he's been involved in several immature scraps in the industry. Whatever he's getting payed it's far too much.
He makes vague statements that practically any consumer could make with little information, and he's been involved in several immature scraps in the industry. Whatever he's getting payed it's far too much.
Damn you ninja'd me. It's kind of funny how often his big predictions are completely wrong.felbot said:
bro that's way to easy, OP doesn't want your life to be too easy else you might pick up a habit of taking the easy road in life. Really, when you think about it, he is doing you a servicehooksashands said:
He is a professional analyst who often comments upon video games in terms of how successful or not successful a product will be and other similar things.Lionsfan said:
He tends to be right more often than chance by a statistically significant margin and thus is, by definition, a good analyst. People dislike the man because, it would seem, there is a suspicion that he has some hidden agenda, because he says something will do well/won't do well and that runs contrary to the opinion of another individual, or because they simply have no idea who the man is in spite of the fact that in any written publication I'm aware of, they tend to cite the man's credentials at some point.
He is right more often than chance and he is not a journalist. His work is cited by journalists. Journalists do not generate information: they report it. An analyst takes data and produces information, generally with the goal of predicting some future event.saintdane05 said:
For example, an intelligence analyst is a person who takes unprocessed information and uses it to produce assessments (a prediction) about future factors that various national decision makers require to make decisions (What result will action A have on some "thing" B). A military intelligence analyst does the same only it specifically relates to things of concern to a military operation (Will enemy unit A attack along this avenue of approach inside of the next 72 hours for example). Market Analysts produce assessments of overall market behavior (Will the stock market generally go up in the next quarter). Market analysts produce assessment of buying trends (Will the Nintendo Wii sell more than 1 million units in November). In the end, analysts generally have the same job - the difference is what sort of questions they answer and what kind of data they receive.
But, analysis of this sort is never perfect. The goal is to predict with greater accuracy than chance allows. If one can achieve that, they are successful at the role of analysis.
Contrary to what some people are saying here, he's an analyst who is very, VERY often VERY wrong about the biggest things in the industry. He can be way off base and make flat out bizarre assertions. He's right sometimes of course, but he's basically never been right about anything nintendo related, which is where the money is, to be blunt.
He seems like a nice, funny guy and all. Easy to talk to and what not, but he's just...wrong. Often.
He seems like a nice, funny guy and all. Easy to talk to and what not, but he's just...wrong. Often.
You're actually mistaken there. For example, consider handhelds. While nintendo has done an admirable job of selling the DS line, the device is consistently losing ground with the "casual" audience thanks to the smart phone, most notably, the iPhone. In terms of gross revenue, the company only makes a fraction of what Microsoft or Sony make from their respective game divisions. Moreover, for the last several quarters, Nintendo has operated at a net loss (though in that same period, so has Sony).Overusedname said:
While the man may be wrong often (such is the nature of analysis), he is correct more often than pure chance allows for - in other words, he does better than simply guessing. Additionally, many of his assessments that are considered "wrong" by the public are, at best, partially wrong. For example, he was notably negative about the fate of the 3DS but after the price drop the device started selling better. People jumped at the chance to say "See? He's wrong", overlooking the fact that an improvement in the immediate term does not indicate the long term success or viability of the device. Market trends (the whole smart phone thing) are such that a dedicated handheld that deals in expensive software is an increasingly difficult proposition. Thus the smart money would tend to bet against the strategy as there is no real indication that it is a useful move.
Another example is the Wii and while Pachter was notably negative about that platform as well, people can point to the success of the device. Yet, in many ways, the platform was an enormous failure. Sales of the console cratered, attach rates are significantly lower than other consoles (the number of games sold per console), especially when you factor out the pack in games. Moreover, the only game developer to regularly find success on the platform was Nintendo. So, while the device was successful, it was far less so than is immediately obvious based on numbers of consoles sold.
As a general rule, the ease of accuracy of any assessment is proportional to how general the assessment is. In 2004, a military intelligence analyst supporting a combat operation in iraq could make the following assessments: "There will be an IED event somewhere in the nation over the next week" or "In the next 36 hours, Coalition forces will encounter hostile insurgent activity". Such assessments would be right for 100% of the time during that year. But the problem is that they are so general, the assessment is not actionable and is thus useless. Producing something actionable requires taking increasingly dangerous assumptions.
These reports haven't been getting my views because I've never heard of the man before this. Or maybe I read something about him and completely forgot about him. I'm assuming he isn't memorable?Irridium said: