Close
Are you sure? Are you sure you want to report this comment? I understand, report it. Cancel

Pachter: Activision to buy Take-Two, Nintendo becoming "completely irrelevant"

Pachter: Activision to buy Take-Two, Nintendo becoming "completely irrelevant"

Thu 06 Dec 2012 7:51pm GMT / 2:51pm EST / 11:51am PST
Business

At Game Monetization Summit analyst also says Call of Duty is a “failure”, Zynga is a “train wreck”, and more

The inimitable Michael Pachter, research analyst at Wedbush Securities, gave the opening talk at the Digital Game Monetization Summit in San Francisco. Pachter, who follows a number of video game companies as well as other firms like Best Buy and Pandora, is often quoted by media outlets like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. He often appears on CNBC to provide more detailed analysis of the companies and industries he follows. Pachter admitted he didn't know much about the mechanics of game monetization, so he updated the audience on the state of the game market and his predictions for the future. As usual, Pachter provided a mix of frank assessments, arguable assertions, and stark predictions.

“We're going to see non-traditional forms of gaming proliferate, as they have been for the last ten years,” said Pachter. He noted that in 2008, the market for packaged games in the US was $22.6 billion with $3 billion in digital revenue. By 2011, packaged goods revenue had fallen to $18.4 billion, and he's projecting a total of about $16 billion for 2012, with $12 billion in digital revenue. “Overall the game industry is really healthy,” Pachter said. He sees the market continuing to expand, both by platforms and in total audience.

Digital distribution will continue to grow, and the day is coming when it will be ubiquitous, according to the analyst. “What I'm waiting for is the day when every single game is offered day and date digitally as well as on disc,” Pachter said. “I think probably within three years every game made will be offered as a digital download.”

"I think you're going to see now with the Wii U, notwithstanding its early launch support, nobody's going to support it"

Michael Pachter

Pachter had some harsh words for the Wii U and its future. “I think you're going to see now with the Wii U, notwithstanding its early launch support, nobody's going to support it,” Pachter claimed. “I don't think we're going to see every game on the Wii U next year. I think when next-gen consoles come out they're going to be better than the Wii U. Call of Duty is amazing on the Wii U this year. The problem with playing Call of Duty online is it's a community and if there's only four people playing it on the Wii U it's no fun. Nobody in their right mind would buy a Wii U and say 'I'm going to play Call of Duty.' That's like saying 'I gave up Facebook, and it's Google+ now'.”

1

While many in the console business are looking to DLC to make up for lower sales of most titles, Pachter threw cold water on the idea. “Everybody loves DLC, but it's tied to packaged goods sales,” Pachter explained. “You can't download something unless you've bought the underlying game. It's between 10-15 percent supplement of revenues to packaged goods, for the games that have it.” That's all well and good; it's an extra $150 million if you sell a billion dollars worth of Call of Duty, but that's not enough to make up for a number of console titles that don't make a profit.

While Pachter is not sanguine about the Wii U's chances, he is more positive about next-gen consoles coming from Sony and Microsoft. He's predicting they will have plenty of storage in order to make it more convenient for users to buy plenty of digital content. “Next-generation consoles are going to have big hard drives, they're also going to have disc drives,” predicted Pachter. “I would guess that the PS4 and the Xbox 720 will have 2 TB hard drives. That pretty much means you can download anything you want and never get rid of anything. You'll have room for a couple of hundred games, no problem.”

Pachter also presented an interesting view of Activision's iconic console franchise. “Call of Duty, I'm calling it a failure,” said Pachter; a surprising statement about a game which generated $500 million on its first day at retail and over $1 billion in just 15 days. “I know the game sells billions of dollars. Activision did a bad thing with Call of Duty from a profit perspective. They trained gamers that you can buy a game and play it all year, ten hours a week, forever, and you never have to pay again. You just wait for the next Call of Duty. I promise you there are plenty of people, numbering in the millions, who play one game, which is Call of Duty, and they never stop. That's just like the people who play World of Warcraft and never stop, yet the World of Warcraft guys are paying $180 a year, and the Call of Duty guys are paying $60. So who's got a better model? This multiplayer thing being free was a mistake. I don't think anybody ever envisioned it would be this big. It's a mistake because it keeps those people from buying and playing other games.”

"Call of Duty, I'm calling it a failure... This multiplayer thing being free was a mistake"

Michael Pachter

Activision has already tried to generate recurring revenue for the franchise with Call of Duty Elite, but after running it that way for several months, the company decided to make it free for all Call of Duty players, and return to selling the DLC separately rather than providing it as part of the subscription. That doesn't mean that Activision is done with the idea of recurring revenue for console games, though, according to Pachter. “Prediction: The next Bungie game will be single-player only; the multiplayer aspect of that game will be subscription only,” Pachter asserted. “Activision's going to try it, because they're greedy pigs, and they're bold.”

Pachter also had some zingers for Zynga, shaking his head at the company's rapid fall. “Zynga lacked profitability,” Pachter said by way of explaining the company's share price meltdown. “I have never seen anything like this; like watching a train wreck. The darling of Wall Street, the best company ever, in the course of about two months became the worst company ever, completely hated by Wall Street. Zynga launched at $10, rose to $15, and sank to $2. They have $2 per share in cash. The equity value, the value of the business, is 25 cents per share. The company was worth $12 billion, down to $250 million; that's how far it dropped.”

2

Pachter compared Zynga's stock to Nintendo's. “Nintendo's trading at about $3 billion of equity value; it was trading at about $80 billion,” he said, noting the huge loss of shareholder value. “The market hates business models that start to show losses, and start to fail. Crappy little Riot Games, doing $150 million in revenue and wildly profitable, is worth a buttload more than Zynga, doing $1.1 billion and not making money.” Pachter said the lesson to draw from that is the market is more concerned now with profitability than just posting great revenue numbers.

Pachter wasn't finished with his assessment of Nintendo's future in the next few years. “I think Nintendo becomes completely irrelevant,” Pachter claimed. “They have their niche, Nintendo's first-party content is great content, and hardcore people will keep buying their consoles, but they're not going to only play with Nintendo consoles.”

"Zynga lacked profitability. I have never seen anything like this; like watching a train wreck"

Michael Pachter

Pachter predicted that Activision would be making some acquisitions in the future to expand more into the digital product areas, but the path ahead would not be easy. “Vivendi's going to screw up Activision for the next couple of years, because they're going to cause them to borrow money and buy back stock,” said Pachter. “I think the first thing Activision buys is Take-Two, because that fits in very nicely. Activision should buy Zynga - I just don't think Mark Pincus is a seller. I think Zynga has great assets, they have really good franchises, they have a ton of revenue, and I think run more efficiently they'd make a ton of money.” Is the world really ready for a company containing both Mark Pincus and Bobby Kotick?

Investors have generally abandoned the game industry for now, with most game company stocks not moving much outside of a narrow range for the last several years. When will investors come back to game stocks, and who are they going to buy? Pachter provided some insights. “THQ is not investable. Activision and EA make tons of money, so they are interesting investments. Take-Two doesn't make very much money but they have really great assets, so I think they remain attractive. Ubisoft has great assets and pretty good management. I think those are the four that have a really great shot. The non-traditional guys, Gree and DeNA and Tencent, they have a lot of value; Nexon has a lot of value. All those guys are going to get bid up.”

Pachter gave the technical explanation for his share price prediction. “Game companies used to trade at a premium of about 50 percent to the S&P 500. That just means that the S&P 500 average stock traded at about 16 times earnings, and game companies used to trade at about 25 times. Game companies trade at 8 times earnings now. I think they're all going to trade up around the same as the average stock; they're all going to double. It won't happen until packaged goods come back, or until there's a reliable way to measure digital product revenues. The guys who don't participate in digital have a real problem.”

43 Comments

Kevin Patterson
musician

181 93 0.5
One point I'd have to disagree with is the HD size for the next gen. If the HD that comes with the next gen is larger than 1TB I will be very very surprised. I imagine MS and Sony will allow for external USB 3.0 storage and use a 250GB to 750GB internal HD drive. It seems silly to increase the manufacture cost with a 2TB drive, when you can just let the consumer eat the cost if they really need that much space, which most will not. They could offer a premium model with larger storage as well, for a decent markup, like the Arcade vs pro vs elite.

He is right regarding COD, at least in that there are many gamers that really just play the multiplayer and ignore the singleplayer, and barely buy other games. I know quite a few younger gamers that do just that. I myself spent 1 year of my life absorbed in WOW and in that time I barely played any other games. I don't know if I would call it a failure, as he mentioned, no one guessed it would be that huge. Good luck to Activision and Bungie requiring a subscription to play their next game if its true, I personally would not pay a monthly fee for any multiplayer game like that. With a MMO, I received constant updates and changes and that is different than a shooter. Maybe the planetside-tribes FTP idea would work better? Im sure hardcore fans would pay the fee, but most people who love Halo and COD dont really care about the studios behind the games, its the game itself, and a new IP doing that would be hard sell. It would have to be an extremely impressive game.

Posted:A year ago

#1
“The market hates business models that start to show losses, and start to fail. Crappy little Riot Games, doing $150 million in revenue and wildly profitable, is worth a buttload more than Zynga, doing $1.1 billion and not making money.”
I normally dislike some of the predictions coming out by patcher, but this is just ace. spot on!

Posted:A year ago

#2

Jim Webb
Executive Editor/Community Director

2,210 2,049 0.9
Popular Comment
Pachter makes my head hurt. Either he is painfully obvious or so far off the mark the indicator needle broke.

Posted:A year ago

#3

Paul Jace
Merchandiser

768 1,001 1.3
"The problem with playing Call of Duty online is it's a community and if there's only four people playing it on the Wii U it's no fun. Nobody in their right mind would buy a Wii U and say 'I'm going to play Call of Duty.' That's like saying 'I gave up Facebook, and it's Google+ now'.”

I have to admit that made me laugh. Pachter and his wacky quotes. But it's true though. People who are seriously into online multiplayer shooters would not be getting a Wii U specifically to play them. They would most likely get them on the 360, PC or PS3. That doesn't mean that the Wii U version won't sell at all (atleast more than the four people Pachter quoted) but the COD community isn't likely to gravitate there in mass.

Posted:A year ago

#4

David Radd
Senior Editor

360 77 0.2
Rumor has it that the organizers of the Digital Game Monetization Summit brought Mr. Pachter a physical pot for him to stir.

Posted:A year ago

#5

Oliver Birch
Director of Marketing

17 0 0.0
@David I think it was a digital pot not a physical one

Posted:A year ago

#6

Oliver Birch
Director of Marketing

17 0 0.0
@David I think it was a digital pot not a physical one

Posted:A year ago

#7

Bruce Everiss
Marketing Consultant

1,716 598 0.3

Posted:A year ago

#8

Peter Dwyer
Games Designer/Developer

458 254 0.6
His understanding of profit suprised me. A lot of people on here don't get that a company making 1.1 billion but, actually generating no profit or a small loss is worth very little. They actually have a failed business model. Because somewhere down the line they lost more than 1.1 billion. That's not something you would ever want to invest in!

Posted:A year ago

#9

Nick Parker
Consultant

264 124 0.5
Michael Pachter is know for his headline grabbing sound bites. I was at the San Francisco Cloud Games event in September, organised by the same company who set up this event and Pachter said he didn't believe in the free to play model. He even went on to answer a question from a European CEO who asked what about the South Koreans and the popularity of f2p there and the European browser based MMOs, with a "who cares about the Koreans" snipe. He says what some of us think sometimes and gets it right a lot of the time but, in so doing, can't resist flying in the face of sound analytics and integrity. Furthermore I wish he'd try to appreciate gaming cultures beyond USA shores.

On hard drive storage - we won't be needing much more than a few GB if streaming becomes viable by 2020 and that is the bet of Sony and Microsoft.

Posted:A year ago

#10

Roberto Bruno
Journalist

94 61 0.6
@Peter Dwyer:
That's... really not hard to understand at all. It's essentially the most basic principle in economy.

On the opposite, what's hard to understand is how often the opposite seems true for investors, even if it's absolutely counter-intuitive.
Apparently companies spending big and moving a lot of cash are perceived as more interesting even if at loss, while small companies widely profitable are seen as barely worthy of any attention.
I never got why that's the case.

Posted:A year ago

#11
Only thing to say is streaming can only be a viability if alot of countries have broadband. Some countries have broadband, but its not even any good and variable, certainly not enough for consistent streaming...:(

Posted:A year ago

#12

Daniel Hughes
Studying PhD Literary Modernism

410 455 1.1
Somebody's hit the Christmas booze a little bit early...

Posted:A year ago

#13

Matthew Hill
Head of Recruitment

76 26 0.3
Popular Comment
He's saying very little that's new or insightful, but grabs all the headlines. Depressing. Lets focus on the quality people providing sound analysis, there's a good number around who are far more worthy of coverage

Posted:A year ago

#14

Roberto Bruno
Journalist

94 61 0.6
@Dr Wong: Which is a real issue, as even with the optimal setup streaming is a less than idea solution for gaming, let alone when your broad band is unreliable.

Posted:A year ago

#15
Maybe when we get access to a zero point type energy source, streaming/communications will be easy. But probably by that end point, we'll become a Type 1 civilization. By that point, we may have created a super AI /human hybrid at which point, our bodies probably dont mean much.

Hmm, so maybe on balance, streaming and cloud shouldnt come so soon :)

Posted:A year ago

#16

Doug Paras

117 61 0.5
I can't even stream HD movies and I live in Canada, whats that say about streaming video games? If I had to pay a weekly fee for CoD like mister Pachter suggests why wouldn't I just turn to BF3 since its still free after you buy the game?

Posted:A year ago

#17

Jim Webb
Executive Editor/Community Director

2,210 2,049 0.9
“Activision's going to try it, because they're greedy pigs...."

“Call of Duty, I'm calling it a failure...They trained gamers that you can buy a game and play it all year, ten hours a week, forever, and you never have to pay again."
They are greedy pigs, as you call them, yet you are calling them out for not being even greedier pigs? My head hurts again.


Bruce, did you even read the entire article you linked to? Something tells me you read only the headline.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Jim Webb on 7th December 2012 1:04pm

Posted:A year ago

#18

Tom Keresztes
Programmer

632 223 0.4
Popular Comment
I've only had to read "Pachter says" and "Nintendo is irrelevant" in one sentence to know Nintendo is going to around for a long, long while.

Posted:A year ago

#19

Stephen Woollard
Online Infrastructure Specialist

146 71 0.5
"Those who can, do. Those who can't, become analysts". I spent many years working for and with some of the biggest companies in the world and I've yet to meet an analyst who really knows what they're talking about, and yet stock markets hang on their every word.

It's clear Mr Pachter really doesn't understand the gaming world, especially his comments regarding subscriptions in multiplayer and the F2P model. Gamers are used to having their online gaming for free in FPS titles, and any publisher who tries to charge for it is in for a bad time. Microsoft wanted to charge for GFWL, but rapidly realised PC gamers wouldn't stand for it the same way they would for XBL. Activision tried it and rapidly realised players on all platforms wouldn't stand for it and now MMOs are going F2P because people generally won't stand for it. The only subscription game that still really stands out is WoW, and anyone with a brain can see WoW isn't a game, it's a phenomenon. I doubt even Blizzard could replicate that feat again. When games like Guild Wars 2 can give the experience they do with no subscription, I can't see how any company can even contemplate attempting the subscription model again.

The only thing he says that I agree with is the growth of digital content, but even then he doesn't really get it. The reason digital content works is in large part down to the F2P model - this is precisely why Riot are doing so well; they have a great game, but more importantly they have hit a near perfect balance with their MTX model. You can play LoL and never pay a single penny if you want to, and even if you put money in it's primarily for "fluff" items like skins; there is no way to "pay to win". The same can be said of GW2 - again you have a great game and plenty of ways to spend money without giving an unfair advantage.

Without going into too much detail (it's not my place to do so) and at the risk of sounding like a "company man", one of the reasons EA is doing well is because we've fully embraced the digital age, and the revenue from this side of the business is going through the roof. We had a visit from Peter Moore in our Guildford office a short while ago and he went through all the figures with us and it's amazing to see the growth in this area.

The simple fact is that digital content is the future for the games industry, and anyone not ready for it will really feel the pain in the next couple of years. The problem is that the industry sees this, but it's taking too long for the analysts and the stock markets to realise it because they still function purely on short term gains and not long term stability and growth. That right there is the greed that is doing the damage - not just to our industry but to business in general.

/rantoff

Posted:A year ago

#20

Peter Dwyer
Games Designer/Developer

458 254 0.6
@Roberto

You'll be suprised how often you'll see people on here defending large companies that are spending millions and making chump change profits. Zynga was a prime example of that. The sane people here always argued that Zynga's business model was totally broken yet very few could actually see it until it was too late.

Posted:A year ago

#21

Daniel Hughes
Studying PhD Literary Modernism

410 455 1.1
@ Stephen, a-men. For any investors Nintendo are irrelevant and Call of Duty has failed--because they haven't shown short-term potential for growth and higher profit margins, which is what many investors want: maximum return for minimum investment as quickly as possible. In the long-term, both Call of Duty and Nintendo will be stable, profitable enterprises. Nintendo in particular are run with a view to maintaining their long-term position rather than turning a short-term profit.

The issue I have with Pachter is that he phrases his arguments in ridiculous, eye-catching terms ("Nintendo not a good bet for short-term investment" is less catchy than "Nintendo is completely irrelevant", is it, now?), and when he's wrong, as in the article Bruce linked above, Pachter claims he's purely an investment analyst and anyone taking issue with him is a deluded fanboy. Yet Pachter spouts uninformed short-term 'truths' about the industry, while simultaneously using platforms within the industry, such as his own column on a games dedicated site and several avenues on Gametrailers to continue to express his advice and his agenda: despite claiming to be an investment analyst and not someone trying to address developers, journalists and fans within the games industry itself.

As others point out, his predictions are either wildly off-mark or simple common sense. If you want to dispense investment advice as an investment analyst, speak to investors, Pachter, and stop spreading your predictions around the rest of the industry. If you do that, you won't get called out as often for making such ridiculous remarks as though they are the absolute truth for everyone within the industry, and not just the investors you serve.

Posted:A year ago

#22

Andrew Goodchild
Studying development

1,199 317 0.3
1) "Pachter admitted he didn't know much about the mechanics of game monetization"
2) "Pachter said he didn't believe in the free to play model" (quoted from Nicholas Parker)
3) "Riot Games, doing $150 million in revenue and wildly profitable. "

Wow, let's give Pachterdamus money to advise us on business models.

Posted:A year ago

#23

Jim Webb
Executive Editor/Community Director

2,210 2,049 0.9
Maybe our industry is in decline because they are all getting their advice from Pachter who then shouts the word to the media which in turn makes investors nervous and our industry declines.

Posted:A year ago

#24

Nicholas Lovell
Founder

179 120 0.7
@peter Your analysis is totally wrong. Financial valuation theory focuses on "the value today of your forecast cashflow in the future". How much you have lost to date has limited impact (it actually has no mathematical impact; its impact is in sentiment). While a business making limited or no money may prove to be a failed business model in the future, it is the expectation of what it will do that drives valuation.

Posted:A year ago

#25

Aaron Brown
BA Computer Science Student

59 22 0.4
Pachter is brilliant.

Posted:A year ago

#26

Steve Peterson
West Coast Editor

96 58 0.6
Pachter's point about Nintendo was not that it's going to fail, but that whatever degree of success it has with the Wii U won't be shaping the game industry. Thus, Nintendo is irrelevant. It's certainly true we've moved from a situation twenty years ago where Nintendo and Nintendo-related revenue was one of the largest chunks of revenue in the game business, to today where the entire console game business will be less than half of game industry revenue in a few years. Certainly Activision and EA's investments in development are only driven in a minor way by Nintendo's performance. For smaller developers and indies, Nintendo is not a great development target simply due to the difficulties of working with them, regardless of the success of their platforms.

Nintendo may or may not return to profitability this year or next, but in either case its performance will not be driving the majority of game development decisions.

Posted:A year ago

#27

Peter Dwyer
Games Designer/Developer

458 254 0.6
@Nicholas

It's also this fiction that a company which is loosing money will somehow make it back again tomorrow that causes backers to loose their shirts. Zynga was valued at Billions as I recall. This was based on what exactly?

Posted:A year ago

#28

Steve Ball
Software Engineer

18 5 0.3
Why does anyone still listen to this guy? And more to the point, why does he still have a job?

Posted:A year ago

#29

Jim Webb
Executive Editor/Community Director

2,210 2,049 0.9
Steve, I've been under the impression, by personal contacts, other media and this very website, that much of the difficulty for indies working with Nintendo has been eliminated.

I also think you've misunderstood his statement.

This...
“I think Nintendo becomes completely irrelevant,” Pachter claimed. “They have their niche, Nintendo's first-party content is great content, and hardcore people will keep buying their consoles, but they're not going to only play with Nintendo consoles.”
combined with this...
"nobody's going to support it"
He doesn't seem to be speaking with any distinction between today and Nintendo's industry influence of 20 years ago but rather that developers/publishers will not put content on the platform after launch and that Nintendo is irrelevant to 3rd party development.

If he meant irrelevant in terms of directing the industry, as you suggest he does, it's still very questionable. Are we still hearing about Sony and MS working on very Wii U-like designs with regards to either internal components or interface? I believe so.
And that's beside the point. By saying they are irrelevant, as in they don't direct the industry, does that suggest they were directing the industry prior to Wii U?

Posted:A year ago

#30

James Berg
Games User Researcher

122 107 0.9
GI, please stop feeding the troll.

Posted:A year ago

#31

Brandon Hofer
Editor in Chief

14 5 0.4
Why do people keep giving Pachter attention? There are times where it seems like he simply flips a coin to decide what he is going to say. Remember a few years ago when he said Red Dead Redemption wouldn't sell and it wouldn't do well because no one wants to play a game like that?

Posted:A year ago

#32

Zidaya Zenovka
Blogger, Writer

41 8 0.2
Maybe Gamesindustry.biz should change the irresponsible misleading title from 'to buy' to 'should buy', like it should be? It's really kind of unprofessional the way it is now.

Posted:A year ago

#33

Eric Leisy
Production Designer

93 72 0.8
How do I get this dudes job? What a rockstar.

Posted:A year ago

#34

Andrew Goodchild
Studying development

1,199 317 0.3
Popular Comment
So looking at the article Bruce linked, Pachter is saying that the investors who it is his job to speak to don't care how often he is wrong. So someone would pay someone for professional analysis, and not even care if it is more likely to be wrong than right?
Don't get me wrong, if I was paying an analyst, I would not expect a 100% hit rate, but I certainly would hope that the person taking my money had a track record of being right far more than 50%. If you could benchmark him against a magic 8 ball and he doesn't come out favourable, I would expect anyone paying good money to be upset if they kept losing money as a result.

Posted:A year ago

#35

James Prendergast
Research Chemist

730 410 0.6
I agree with Aaron Brown: Let's face it who else aside from Michael Pachter can do what he does? He's a machine and Wedbrush securities keep him on because he's a force of marketing/nature. He's the economist's equivalent of Mystic Meg or Russel Grant - no one really believes their tosh but, by golly, they bring in the cash like no one else!

At the end of the day, if you have any doubts, just look at this thread. The ridiculous is discussed ad infinitum! :D

@ Andrew - Yes, people would pay for "nothing". Like my analogy above, it's like people paying for football punditry or horoscope services...

Edited 1 times. Last edit by James Prendergast on 8th December 2012 4:09pm

Posted:A year ago

#36
I thought Pachter was kind of cool in regards to hearing what an investment analyst thought about the game industry. There are comments he made that make sense that investors should know about, but some of them are off the wall and I'm afraid he's leading investors astray.

His comments especially in the Destructoid article made me lose respect for him. How can he provide analysis about the game industry and not take any responsibility for them if he's wrong? He basically spouts BS at a wall and see what sticks. If none of them stick, then he just walks away and tells people that they shouldn't have listened to him? What the heck?

Posted:A year ago

#37
@Nicholas
Crass as his comment may have been, he has a point because Korean infrastructure around the internet is very different than NA's and Europe. They have internet cafes and tons of access is a relatively small country, which is awesome, but also necessary for the free to play thing to work.

I think Pachter moderates a discussion normally only shaped by CEOs associated with certain franchises and platforms. He has a business perspective, but he's not partial to any one company. So he usually makes some valid points you wouldn't hear otherwise.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Bill Garrison on 9th December 2012 2:10am

Posted:A year ago

#38

Matthew Hill
Head of Recruitment

76 26 0.3
Lets all take a moment to enjoy [link url=""]https://twitter.com/PaykelMachter[/link] sample "analysis"....

"Breaking News: Reports coming in of a rare sighting of a Vita being used in a public space. Sony's stock price surges as a result. "
"Next year will see the rise of fourth party games that are platform free and played purely in the gamer's mind."

Posted:A year ago

#39

James Wells
Gaming Contributor - digboston.com

70 29 0.4
No, not Rockstar, Take-Two...

Posted:A year ago

#40

Jace Cisnero
Games/Level Designers

16 2 0.1
I think one thing that people need to keep in mind is that a lot of the die-hard COD fans were already in the game on other consoles by the time the Wii U was actually in stores. The remaining sales were probably either really die-hards that didn't mind buying it a second time or people who only bought it because it's a launch title and they wanted to play something.

Posted:A year ago

#41

Kirill Yarovoy
Game designer / Narrative designer / Writer

41 5 0.1
Pachter will eat all the hats in the world, because his predictions always fails. I wonder how a man, who cant really analyze and realistically predict anything, can call himself an analyst?
Seriosly, how does this guy even gets his salary and from whom? I would not pay this guy a cent for such a bad analyst job he usually does.

Posted:A year ago

#42

Login or register to post

Take part in the GamesIndustry community

Register now