I think the issue is not the writer of the Gamasutra article was completely wrong, it's the fact that it was completely biased.
I'm fine with founded criticism. It's good cause it forces us to work even harder. 'But everyone but the most blattant haters have to admit that in quality journalism you have to show both sides of the story.
If we are wrong with Iron Man: that's too bad, but we have to accept we were wrong. BUT: why only mention our errors in that article? Why not mention our GTA 4 success, where we presented the numbers the day before Rockstar and they were virtually the same. Why not mention that our hardware numbers are always very, very good. Why not mention that we are free and the ONLY place on the internet to find loads of historical data without having to register.
Sure, we don't have the accuracy of a NPD, we don't have that kind of recources. Then again, we're usually very close, especially on the hardware. Same goes for Japan. But really, if people like Pachter and Passarella say this is good enough for SOME of their analysis I don't see why the average gamer should complain.
That's what's wrong with the article. It was more an attack than anything else. And I don't have a clue why people should hate on VGC so much. I'm perfectly fine with people only wanting the highest quality data. Sure. But that doesn't, imho, justify the scale of the negativity. Especially a serious website like Gamasutra should know better.
