Makes you wonder if any of those guys that look to his advice otherwise afterwards also look at forum reactions to said advice to get a more balance view of things.  I think most of them just take his words as gospel and then go invest in stuff (even if what is said, by pachter looks weird, to us).

Its the same with that EA head, going "DA veilguard failed (to make money) because it was not a GaaS game".
(who are these people kidding.... and they get away with saying things like that)

They won't say it was because it alienated franchise loyals, by not being party turn-based dark theme story based game,
center around meaningfull choices...  ei. a RPG.

Instead its a action-game with bland everything, poor writing, and divisive social political messaging aim'ed at "the modern audience" (who are few, and don't buy games, but are journalists or activist on twitter. You pick them over gamers, and your game doesn't sell).

It comes off as very dishonest... . or a crazy take/wrong lesson learnt.

Like there are big hit AAA rpgs out there, that I assume did really well, profit wise.
Like The Witcher, and BG3. I bet Avowed does so too... like I think it looks fine, and will likely sell well.
(much better than DA-Veilguard, while costing a fraction to develope).

This "it needs to be a GaaS to make money" take is just.... sad.

resetera:
https://www.resetera.com/threads/ea-ceo-andrew-wilson-dragon-age-veilguard-was-a-high-quality-launch-it-failed-because-players-want-shared-world-features-and-deeper-engagement.1100508/

Neogaf thread:
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/ea-ceo-implies-dragon-age-veilguard-failed-due-to-not-being-a-live-service.1680458/

Gamingbolt:
https://gamingbolt.com/dragon-age-the-veilguard-underperformed-due-to-lack-of-shared-world-features-ea-ceo-suggests

Pachter definitely had some crazy views.

Pachter predicted the Switch would fail....
Pachter said Ubisoft needs to jump on the Gaas train to survive.....

100 million subscriptions? Not a chance. People tight for money play Free to Play games, cheaper indies or wait for a price cut.

The attachment rate for a console is around 8-9 games. That comes down to an average of 1-2 games a year. Let say 2 for $60 as example. People that have the budget of $120 a year to own games, are not going for a $200 subscription to own nothing. That is madness.

I think on xbox series s/x the attach rate is like ~3 games instead (because how much gamepass effects buying habbits).

On the PS4 it was over 12 games. From leaks it appears for its time on the market, the PS5 is selling as much software or more,
than the PS4 was at this time in its life (PS5 is obviously not there yet, its still early/mid in its life cycle).

Switch is nearing 10 games pr console I think?

It varies from console to console.

"People that have the budget of $120 a year to own games, are not going for a $200 subscription to own nothing. That is madness."

^ very much agree. Gamepass doesn't make sense for everyone.

"Pachter predicted the Switch would fail...."

^ He did? wow.... Even when I was really pessimistic about the switch before its launch, I think the worst I thought was like "it'll do 40m".
Time proved me wrong. Hell I got one... and today I think its going over 160m (its the new #1 console).