| celine said: I'm curious. Could you explain beyond the metal illness why do you think that piece lack substance ?
|
I'm curious, too. Curious why the comments section is closed on his blog. Could it possibly be because he doesn't want people to refute his feeble analysis?
Isn't it ironic that he compares analysts to the scarecrow, when he relies on a straw man argument against them? Why is it that he uses an analyst's prediction taken from a year before the Wii was unveiled to prove them wrong? Why doesn't he refer to the prediction made by Michael Pachter when the Wii released: that it would dominate sales due to its low price point and novelty factor, but that it would peak earlier than the competition and sales would taper off in 2009? Is it because that could still be true?
Another irony is that his Wizard of Oz analogy actually works against him. Remember that the Wizard turns out to be a charlatan, and the scarecrow, tinman and lion realise they had a brain, heart and courage all along? Come to think of it, maybe the analogy works pretty well!
His entire argument is predicated on the notion that two different strategies cannot both be successful. This is obviously not true, but even if it were, the facts in this case would prove the exact opposite of what Malstrom claims! Even if you exclude PC gaming (which you shouldn't), the demand for "next-gen" gaming is still evidently higher than for "new-gen" gaming (53% vs. 47% by VGC reckoning).
I really need to send some flying monkeys in Malstrom's direction.
PS: I dare you to post this at NeoGAF and see how long it takes for the thread to get locked.
