1) This particular post, anyway, reads like something cheesy and preachy because it's satire. He's trying to make a point in a creative way.

2) Thing is, though, the "Magical Market" isn't a straw-man argument. It's something that we see demonstrated even today among gamers, the "gaming press," and analysts. Gamers talk about how there's "not enough core games" (which is code word for, "Give me more of what I already like! How dare you offer me something that might expand my tastes instead of my usual FPS/RPG/action game!"); the "gaming press" continually fails to understand why pseudo- or "casual" games like Wii Fit are so revolutionary; and up until very recently, analysts still predicted the PS3's resurgence.

3) Okay. So, the market analysts have access to hard data, and Malstrom doesn't. Put that aside for a moment and instead consider which one of them turned out to be right. Because it sure wasn't those hard-data-toting analysts.

4) What information, then, runs contrary to his theory in this piece?

A couple of points. First, we don't actually know whether or not he has full access to NPD data and the like. More importantly, having access to that data doesn't seem to be doing Pachter et. al. too much good, so such access is apparently not the deciding factor that it's cracked up to be. And while it's possible that all Wii buyers are composed primarily of traditional gamers, the fact that non-traditional software is selling at a record pace, that its sales are going through the roof in spite of hostility from the traditional base, and that there is a mountain of anecdotal data on this point all combine to make his point more likely to be true than not.

As to disruption, I won't claim to be an expert, but I'm 99.999999% certain that you're misunderstanding it. Price does not determine value: according to disruption, the 360 could cost half of what the Wii does and still not be disruptive. What matters is that the Wii seems to be serving customers' needs much better than the 360 does, because it offers something that the HD consoles lack but which many "overshot" customers desire (more accessible controls, software focused on their needs, etc.).

Put alternatively, a farmer looking to buy a tractor wouldn't be interested in buying a Porsche, even if it costs the same as the tractor.

As to your second point that because the PS2 shares much of the same base as the Wii, I believe you're highly misinterpreting disruption and what the data is telling us. In point of fact, I believe that may prove Malstrom's point in a lot of ways. The PS2 was "good enough" for many folks in many ways; the added features of the HD consoles are not things that the average consumer is apparently interested enough to pay for. The HD consoles thus are examples of overshooting technologies.

Now, you say that because quite a bit of the PS2 user base are also purchasing a Wii, then the Wii is not truly expanding the market. Perhaps you're right, but I'm skeptical about that as well. Apart from the anecdotal evidence (which I concede is rarely worth as much as we make it out to be) there is the fact that the Wii is outselling the PS2 during the latters' heyday, and the fact that the PS2 is still selling.

The former tells me that unless the PS2 turned millions of people into die-hard gamers that simply have to have video game consoles now, the Wii is appealing to new people in addition to those who already were interested in gaming. The latter fact tells me that people who're only interested in the PS2 expereince are sticking with the PS2; if they were satisfied with just that experience, they wouldn't also buy a Wii. Put alternatively, the Wii must be offering more than what the PS2 offers, or else folks wouldn't be double-dipping.

1. I was talking about all of his posts.

2. Straw man argument from Malstrom - HD games are failing to make a profit - Fails to mention Epic, Valve, Bungie, Insomniac etc. Also fails to seperate engine costs from development costs.

3. Market analysts had little hard data at the beginning of the generation, now that there is much more information out there, they have the advantage.

4. I don't need to shoot holes through this one it falls flat on its own.

I like many of his articles, but for the points Played_Out mentioned, this one is really bad. Unless he is secretly planning a complete reversal of thought to say that the analysts were right all along, he is making himself look stupid using this literary analogy.

I see the misunderstanding continues for many. It's not what you say, or how you say it, it's what it does to the reader that counts. The most epic tale ever told would be a waste of effort if it were told poorly, while a story about a three-legged kitten going to Mars could move audiences to tears if it were told well. Maelstrom understands that, I believe, which is why his style is so off-the-wall and entertaining. He knows that he's doing specific jobs with his writing, so he makes it do those jobs well.

As for the content, he has an important point he's making there. The self-proclaimed "industry insiders" cannot keep denying the Wii and its full impact forever. Eventually, they must accept that the market is changed, and they too must change with it.

A loud outcry from the land of the setting Cinematic sun had drawn the stranger back once more to see what was wrong. There, he found a hardcore gamer, once again ranting and raving. Glancing curiously at the subject of his ire, the stranger noticed that the hardcore had been reading the latest post to Malstrom's blog.

"Pah! Pathetic! Look at that article's content! It's too wordy, and it's not professional at all! Who writes like that?!" the hardcore shouted angrily.

"Many people do. And what," the stranger asked bemusedly, "does professionalism count for? Is there some hidden value in it that will make people appreciate it more than they would an amusing anecdote?"

"What are you, stupid?!" the hardcore yelled, "Everybody knows professionalism is a must! You can't write an article without it! Without professionalism, it's...! It's...! It's a non-article!"

The stranger nodded, smiling. "Yes, I suppose it is. And maybe that's why it's so good."

"Never!" screeched the hardcore frantically.

"Why not?" asked the stranger, "Maybe most people want to read something funny and interesting, and not read yet another predictable article that reads like every other article out there. Perhaps some want variety, amusement, even insight into the fact that entertainment is not tied to a formula."

"Well *I* don't want that!" declared the hardcore huffily, "And anyway, it hardly matters! Malstrom writes like a viral marketer! He doesn't know anything, he doesn't cite any sources, he just says stuff without research!"

The stranger smiled again. "I suppose you haven't read most of his articles, then. Most of them are quite heavy with source citations, more than most 'professional' articles have in fact. Or is it that you don't believe in Blue Ocean Strategy and Innovator's Dilemma?"

"Get-rich-quick scheme books!" the hardcore spat, "I don't need to read such trash! Give me numbers and statistics to crunch!"

The stranger sighed. "Judging the book by its cover, I see. The classic excuse, I don't have to do the research because I know I'm right... Well, I cannot stop that, sadly, but I can at least tell you that you should not pass judgment on something you have no first-hand experience with. And incidentally, this current dalliance by Malstrom isn't meant to be informative so much as elucidating of the situation at large, don't you suppose?"

"Hah! As if!" the hardcore said angrily, "Why would anybody write something like that?!"

The stranger shrugged. "Why does anybody write anything? To please the audience. If the audience is not pleased, what have you accomplished?"

The hardcore stopped. "Well I'm not pleased!" he countered.

"No, I can see that. But perhaps you aren't the author's target market."

"Why wouldn't I be?!" the hardcore asked, angrier than ever. "If he can't write for me, he can't write for anybody!"

"So you are the only authority on writing quality now, then? Be realistic. There are many things you don't enjoy to read, I'm sure, but does that make them bad?"

"Yes!" yelled the hardcore, irate at such blatant ignorance.

The stranger shook his head. "I suppose I cannot help you. Come back to me when you have accepted that people have different tastes, and when you've done your homework." And with that, he departed into the sunrise once more, leaving the raving hardcore to his futile rantings.

Should be re-named "Pro Wii Blog".

Malstrom's cheerleading does get on my nerves sometimes, but over the past two years the man's proven to have a firmer grasp on the video game market than all the professional analysts that have talked to the media (I'm pretty sure the competent ones keep their advice to themselves, seeing as how selling their thoughts is how they make a living...).

But if you're actually interested in hearing some insights on the industry, you'll wade through the bad times to get to the many gems.

Alternatively, you could just stop visiting threads about him...

"Market analysts had little hard data at the beginning of the generation, now that there is much more information out there, they have the advantage"

 I was preparing a much more longer post but this sentence really put me out !

We are talking business here, please...

What is the purpose of market analysts ? It is to predict future. What are their real clients expecting from them ? They PAY them to give them an insight on the directions the industry will go to put money in it. Present is of no interest to them.

 May i also say that explaining present is not difficult ?

On Topic : Nintendo will generate (probably) tens of billions $ of profit during DS / Wii era. In the meantime, Sony and Microsoft will have major difficulties just to balance ! I agree with Mal' on the fact that from a business standpoint there is something worthy to analyse, something that goes a little further that the current "non-view" of so-called analyst. I find really amusing the comparisons between "industry insiders" (Patcher first) and Malstrom ... Some of them try to correlate value to appeal, others deal with currency fluctuation and new SKUs ...

The purpose of Maelstrom's blog is not to be pro- or anti-anything gaming-specific. His main goal is to observe a market trend in action, and to note the side-effects of that change. It's pointless, as a result, to take what he says personally; the goal for him is to learn what it means to successfully put out a disruptive product and make a blue ocean market. Who the teams involved are matters little in that analysis. He could have just as easily analyzed a different market in the midst of such a change, if there were any others so early in the process available for study.

The short of it: don't read it as pro-Nintendo, read it as pro-Blue Ocean and pro-disruption. Because that's what it is.