They give him 4 out of 5 stars! The days when many people had to try many times the hardest exams before passing them must have long gone, if getting such rating in a real life matter harder than any single university exam has become so easy.    
Anyway, he made public his portfolio only, we don't know what investments he suggests to his paying customers, but I guess that both for his own and his customers' investments he must be very careful to avoid SEC and other countries market authorities consider his most outlandish public analyses market manipulation.

Thanks for sharing this! That's not just bad performance, it's also unethical for him to push his portfolio as it is not based on making people money (which is what you imply by sharing this information publicly: It sends the message of "hey, I'm an expert! Copy my portfolio!"), but promoting what his clients want him to promote. I work in the investment industry and we help average people with asset generation / wealth building. As VideoGameAccountant pointed out, you could do better by investing in simple Index Funds, which is like the lowest bar to cross - I would have already quit my job if investing in index funds made people more money (karma and stuff... it would be highly unethical).

I think what people have to understand about Pachter is that he is not stupid. He is placing these statements intentionally because he is paid by his clients to influence the gaming industry (if only ever so slightly). Pachter's clients obviously think they can make more money in an environment where Nintendo doesn't thrive. So whenever Nintendo does something right, Pachter tries to argue it is the wrong move. Whenever Nintendo does something wrong, Pachter applauds them for it. If Pachter was simply guessing, you'd expect him to be right 50% of the time on easy success/failure questions. But his track record is so absurdly bad because he intentionally spreads bad analysis. He's basically an industry influencer (at least publicly). 

"Gaming community should get rid of the useless analysts and have only the useful ones"

I avoided posting in this thread but I feel I need to point out his biggest flaw, it isn't downplaying nintendo. It is downplaying Netflix to the point that investors want him to shut up. 

"This Netflix Analyst Has Cost Investors a 2,000% Return"

"On Nov. 30, 2011, Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter said Netflix was a broken company, and he saw no way to fix it. Pachter advised his clients to sell the stock, and estimated its value at $6 a share."

"Anyone who followed Pachter’s advice missed out on one of the greatest stock market runs in modern history, a return of more than 2,000% over the last decade. Netflix is now worth 250 billion and trades at about $565 a share. Had you invested just $1,000 when Pachter said to sell, you’d have turned that into more than $20,000."

And most of all his opinion hasn't exactly changed much on the fact he believes you should sell. 

"Pachter believes Netflix will remain the dominant player in streaming for years, commanding 30% of the market. And yet, he still has a sell rating. He’s increased his price target all the way from $6 in 2011 to more than $300 today. But that’s about $200 below where they are trading."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2021-01-24/this-netflix-analyst-has-cost-investors-a-2-000-return

Never even heard of Onlive.

That prediction was by far the dumbest one I have ever heard. Incredible. Pachter should seriously be ashamed of himself. Completely illogical bs.

To play devil's advocate here....

Assuming the stat given elsewhere in this thread - that he has an average return per prediction of 7.9% - if you take out the Netflix call, he would have a much higher average return.  

Also note that essentially nobody is able to outperform the market in the long-term with common stock.  So, if you take out the Netflix call and his average return goes up to something like 20%, that's pretty good. 

I have no idea what his average return would ve without Netflix though, because I'm not gonna go do the math.  But, I do know that it would be a lot higher, if he has in fact missed Netflix by 2000%.

That analyst profile says it is a 7.9% return for the last year.  You can't take out something that happened a decade ago.

That's not what it says.  

It says right in the graphic, "Each rating is measured over a 1 year period".