Exactly, that's why reading anything out side of his Blue Ocean Strategy coreltation bloggin he ends up being just a classic fanatical fanboy. Except that he lives in nostalgia world instead of current consoles.

I'm just tired of him relating his content theory to actual sales.

He is obviously ignorant of the sales of the Zelda franschise, and I suspect the same of the Maio franchise.  As an engineer, it really bothers me that he is using that incorrect data to make a point.  Especially, since the correct data shows the exact opposite of his point for Zelda, and shows serious holes in the theory for Mario.  If you are going to claim you have a theory for why certain games are seeing declining or increasing sales you had better know the sales data.

I emailed him to point out that Zelda error two days ago.  I have recieved no response through email, and I have seen no change to the article.  You might think that two days is not a lot of time, but he managed to post his response to his blog after my first email within 12 hours.  You would think he would have time to change one sentence in two days when it only took him twelve hours to argue around my email without directly addressing the criticism.

I think content may be a great reason for popularity, or maybe even quality (although that is more subjective), but linking it to a perceived decline in the Mario (and Zelda) franchise, when the sales for those games show otherwise, is just wrong.

you guys do care alot about this guy's feelings.

i'll ask again.... WHO THE HELL IS HE?!? and why is he important? (comeon too much forum posts on this same kid its making me think he is nintendo fan's god or something )

You may have something there.  In my reply I just gave to liquidninja, I said that content may be a great reason for popularity, and I think that may go hand-in-hand with this idea.  A game filled with great content, may have a sustaining popularity/lasting impression that keeps it in the mind of those who play it for a long time.  Hence the nostalgia for games like SMB, SMB3, and SM64.

It just really, really bothers me when he tries to make sales generalizations about these franchises when the data doesn't support him.

Sales are a part of the theory. He wants to know what makes a game sale forever (as in become a classic).

Again, he did say that he wasn't linking content to pure sales. In his Mario and his Content post the only time he even mentions sales data is with NSMB to state why it sold 20 million. Most of the time he's talking about popularity and fan reactions. He never used sales data to prove his theory. If anything he's using popularity and fan reactions to support his theory.

"The first Star Trek movie, not a very strong showing, was emulating 2001: Space Odyssey."

What? Stanley Kubrick would be rolling in his fucking grave if he heard that.

You're telling me this guy who writes about video game business is suddenly not writing about business?  News to me.

@theRepublic

Not all business is sales statistics you know.

I think what he's doing is trying to figure out is how to make a classic game. I can't remember exactly but I think he said something along the lines of "[What would you rather make a game that sells fast or a game that sells forever?]". If Nintendo had the choice I think they'd want all their Mario games to be classic.

Malstrom? Never heard of him. I don't understand why you guys pay attention to analysts such as Malstrom and Patcher. I laugh in their face.

He was talking about success. There is critical success and commercial success. We all know that Malstrom hates the critics, so which could it be?