Whoever came up with this really didn't think it through. (1) Revenue is good, but isn't necessarily sustaining. GTAIV turned massive revenue, but didn't save TakeTwo from taking a loss that year (which really should have been a throw-in-the-towel moment for TakeTwo. If a mainline GTA game can't make you profitable, nothing can)
As for (2), it's quite mangled, first off by its implied definition of core vs implied definition of non-core, secondly for believing that these values that make the game core are what make it sell (hint: it's not)
3 just holds a fallacious view of all three industries mentioned. The best movies are good movies, the best music... maybe not, but music is a more fractured market, and certainly the top-selling music is stuff that people have poured a lot of money and effort into.
4. Call of Duty is near sports? No. Call of Duty as a cultural phenomenon in its own right? Definitely. Really the most legitimate point here so far
5 is all the more fallacious. You should focus on profitability at every level, whether it's a bigger or smaller release. Blur is a hideous example anyway, because it failed
Not very well put together
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
