Brilliant Sean Mastrom's blog entry

[Garcian Smith]

 

Squilliam said:

Because for someone who seems to think he understands, he actually doesn't.

1. His posts read like a cross between a get rich quick book and cultist literature. They do not understand, while you the reader understands because you listen to me.
2. He has a propensity for creating straw man arguments to caricature people like analysts/journalists/publishers/console developers etc and then defeating them.
3. He is an "intuitive type" but without hard data that analysts have access to, he may as well sit in the lotus position and smoke his bong for all the understanding it will give him of the "market"
4. His bias is extremely evident in everything he writes. He appears to only accept information that supports his world view. In mathematics class if I get lucky and give the right answer but the method to get that answer was completely wrong, giving the correct answer doesn't matter because I still fail.

 

 

1) This particular post, anyway, reads like something cheesy and preachy because it's satire. He's trying to make a point in a creative way.

2) Thing is, though, the "Magical Market" isn't a straw-man argument. It's something that we see demonstrated even today among gamers, the "gaming press," and analysts. Gamers talk about how there's "not enough core games" (which is code word for, "Give me more of what I already like! How dare you offer me something that might expand my tastes instead of my usual FPS/RPG/action game!"); the "gaming press" continually fails to understand why pseudo- or "casual" games like Wii Fit are so revolutionary; and up until very recently, analysts still predicted the PS3's resurgence.

3) Okay. So, the market analysts have access to hard data, and Malstrom doesn't. Put that aside for a moment and instead consider which one of them turned out to be right. Because it sure wasn't those hard-data-toting analysts.

4) What information, then, runs contrary to his theory in this piece?