| starcraft said: Leaving aside my natural skepticism of anyone that feels the need to claim they are using logic... Both parties in this debate have cited sources. We cannot truly understand the validity of these sources. However, we can identify intent. Gamestop has a fiduciary responsibility to downplay the significance of digital sales at all costs. There is absolutely no logical reason that Microsoft would reveal internal data about digital sales to Gamestop. For all we know, this investment consortium may have investments in Microsoft, and therefore a reason to talk them up. But even then, analysts can (and should), simply recommend against purchasing a stock if they are hearing bad things about that stock. So the information available to us is equivalent in its validity (that is, unproveable). However, it is clearly Gamestop's motivations we should be skeptical of |
@bolded: we can logically assess them. and no, not both parties have sited sources. the "analyst" said his data is from his "sources". he didnt site them at all. Gamestop sited their sources, which is microsoft.
Considering Gamestop are partners with microsoft, and work together to sell both hardware and software. its only logical to think they know how know the data. specially when they flat out say that their knowledge came from discussions with microsoft.
so we are making stuff up now to try support our theories? any source what so ever that this person or the company has a stake in microsoft. or that the stake is actually big enough to warrent any sort of insider information? or that microsoft them selfs shared digital numbers with share holders? or that IF somehow that all happened, that he is free to share this data without any NDA contract holding him back?
Oh wait... we dont? but hey, lets all gobble this up as well just to try hold on to that desperate hope that Halo 5 has atleast a 50% digital attatch rate.
Maybe you have a natural skepticism of people who claim they are using logic is because you yourself arent trying to use it.
