• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Do you have audio editing experience and want to help out with the Famiboards Discussion Club Podcast? If so, we're looking for help and would love to have you on the team! Just let us know in the Podcast Thread if you are interested!

Discussion What was that weird thing with Micheal Pachter and Nintendo all about?

Kreese

Kreese

Koopa
Banned
For years it seems he'd bet against Nintendo and rile the Nintendo fans up during his "industry analysis". I was puzzled not only by his job but that Nintendo fans would get so upset and take the bait. In retrospect, the whole thing was kind of strange.

I know he was betting against Switch in the early days but kind of showed a deep humbling after Animal Crossing hit.
 
Kreese said:
For years it seems he'd bet against Nintendo and rile the Nintendo fans up during his "industry analysis". I was puzzled not only by his job but that Nintendo fans would get so upset and take the bait. In retrospect, the whole thing was kind of strange.

I know he was betting against Switch in the early days but kind of showed a deep humbling after Animal Crossing hit.
Click to expand...
He still said that Nintendo should focus on the Lite alone, even after AC came out. He just doesn’t look at the numbers, if he did, he would know that the Lite isn't the sku that's on demand.
 
Its nothing about riling up Nintendo fans, he's just terrible at his job as his track record indicates
 
It's very simple, he knows getting people pissed will generate clicks. I'm sure he doesn't believe half of what he says, but people love to talk about him constantly simply because of his clickbait opinions.

Meaning, his shtick works because y'all keep falling for it every time.
 
He's awful at his market analysis job but is/was friends with some important people from the industry like Geoff Keighley who gave him a platform for his bad takes. Some people took the bait and made him into a semi-celebrity.
 
He feels like a blast from the past. Whatever gets the most clicks sticks I guess. I don't think he warrants discussion beyond that.
 
0
Here’s the thing with Patcher. He’s an analyst. And considering how long he’s been in the business, he’s probably a good one.

BUT, his area of expertise is not the video game industry All those takes on gaming and Nintendo are just that. Hot takes. His own opinions based on what he wants. In other words, poster from old site who feels they are not only developers, but business prodigies.
 
Clix said:
Here’s the thing with Patcher. He’s an analyst. And considering how long he’s been in the business, he’s probably a good one.

BUT, his area of expertise is not the video game industry All those takes on gaming and Nintendo are just that. Hot takes. His own opinions based on what he wants. In other words, poster from old site who feels they are not only developers, but business prodigies.
Click to expand...
He's about as reliable as a coin flip
 
That's a name I haven't heard in a long time 😅

From what I remember, a lot of his predictions turned out to be so untrue that he almost wrapped around to being a reliable analyst as long as you inverted what he said. Said PS3 would succeed on supply chain but Wii would fail on graphics iirc, and whelp... Wii succeeded and PS3 stumbled out of the gate. I felt like these sort of comments were common and easy to make fun of.

That said, I don't follow the guy; for all I know, all I'm quoting are just choice memeable takes.
 
Last edited:
IIRC, Pachter's "job" wasn't the shit we would see. It was like being a consultant for finances for companies which have not gone public. The video game prediction stuff was something he did on the side for fun. I could be remembering details wrong but his gaming predictions were not his job iirc.
 
Dude's just a shit stirrer who is occasionally right.
 
0
I think he used to be a person who just got things wrong but then when he realized that being wrong got him a lot of attention, he fully embraced the gimmick.
 
0
He never understood the appeal of Nintendo’s hardware and software. I think the way Nintendo runs its business is so different from what he would advise.
 
To play devil's advocate I'll say that Nintendo is just really hard to predict. In the mid-00s everyone betted against the DS and championed the PSP, because it wasn't crazy to think that Sony was going to do another PSX to Nintendo. I'm sure there are stories about Nintendo employees and DS developers being legit scared of the PSP lol.
The concept of the Vita, I think, has been validated by the Switch, because the latter shows that there is a huge demand for playing console-like games portably, the problem was that Sony did a lot of bad moves. The 3DS, on the other hand, struggled in its first year and Nintendo had to cut the price.
Nintendo was really lucky to have great games like New Leaf, FE:A, etc. on the 3DS pipeline, which differenced the handheld from the garbage-infested mobile market. I think it's important to notice that in 2011 a lot of publishers were putting quality and innovative pay-to-play mobile games like Infinity Blade, which definitely threatened Nintendo's handheld business. However this rapidly changed when F2P became popular, and I assume that this convinced a lot of mobile players to buy a 3DS / Vita in order to keep playing quality games.
I'll agree that his Switch comments were pretty dumb, but he admitted he was wrong.

EDIT: ignore this post, Pachter didn't bet against the DS, 3DS and Switch
 
Last edited:
I always thought it was a "they won't buy the cow if you give the milk away for free" sort of deal. As an analyst, if he was out giving good advice or takes for free to gaming outlets, why would anyone hire him? Just read IGN for his financial advice lol. So instead he gives wild hot takes to generate clicks, and gives actual stuff to employers.
 
0
Investment Analysts don't understand and don't like Nintendo because Nintendo acts counter to what is expected of "tech" companies.
 
I always saw him as a marketing tool from the industry itself.

He had his own, prominent space, made a name for himself making wacky analysis and managed to become the voice of the AAA industry. He was part of the huge push agaisnt Nintendo and the Blue Ocean strategy, and i have always thought there are some interests behind that.

It was just too timely, too precise, and he pushed agaisnt the only company that acted differently.

Even now, when he suggested that Nintendo should focus on the Switch lite, i'm sure that wasn't a random comment
 
Yzz said:
To play devil's advocate I'll say that Nintendo is just really hard to predict. In the mid-00s everyone betted against the DS and championed the PSP, because it wasn't crazy to think that Sony was going to do another PSX to Nintendo. I'm sure there are stories about Nintendo employees and DS developers being legit scared of the PSP lol.
Click to expand...

I haven't paid any attention to Pachter's Switch comments, but surprisingly, Michael Pachter did not bet against Nintendo DS (or the 3DS).

In 2004, Pachter (rightfully) believed Nintendo DS was being marketed at adults more than children. When DS first launched, Nintendo of America and Nintendo of Europe were using sex and adult humor to sell Nintendo DS.

Pachter did not like Iwata as president of Nintendo. His beef was always more with Iwata than Nintendo (the company). It's why Pachter always defended Nintendo of America and Reggie Fils-Aime during the Wii U years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
0
Michael Pachter always struck me as the type of man who fails upwards. We all know those people in middle management who do so, and he's a dead ringer for that type.

He's also an insensitive fuck who made rude comments after Iwata's passing. He's nothing more than a old ass grown man making troll remarks, don't really care what his actual day job is, he thrives on hot takes.
 
A. G. Cook said:
He's also an insensitive fuck who made rude comments after Iwata's passing. He's nothing more than a old ass grown man making troll remarks, don't really care what his actual day job is, he thrives on hot takes.
Click to expand...

I'll admit that really bothered me. There's a time and a place for criticism.

In early 2013, I was very critical of Iwata's handling of 3DS and Wii U. Seriously, who wasn't?

But after we learned Iwata was sick, I backed off from criticizing Iwata. A person's health is more important than the success/failure of a single product.
 
0
Having followed his comments over the years, it was definitely Iwata he had an issue with, not so much the company at large. He often praises Furukawa and has apparently had several talks with him.
 
Pachter used videogames to push the Pachter brand. He was never someone who has serious insights about the games industry. He's an analyst who made deliberately provocative statements to generate headlines, and drive up his perceived value as an analyst to clients.
 
0
Zalman said:
Having followed his comments over the years, it was definitely Iwata he had an issue with, not so much the company at large. He often praises Furukawa and has apparently had several talks with him.
Click to expand...

It's not just Pachter who is a fan of Furakawa. In the past year, I've spoken privately to many business analysts and business outlets.

From what I've gathered, business analysts/business journalists prefer Furakawa's style of management over Iwata's.

The reason: Furakawa comes from a business background (accounting, economics, marketing) while Iwata came from a developer background. So there's a bit of a bias there. Business people love business people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dude's just saying crap so he can scare investors and buy low on Nintendo stock. When you don't hear from him when he's wrong, that's because he's busy selling high. Dude's a pure businessman. Best to ignore his hot takes for your sanity's sake.
 
0
Emily said:
It's not just Pachter who is a fan of Furakawa. In the past year, I've spoken privately to many business analysts and business outlets.

From what I've gathered, business analysts/business journalists prefer Furakawa's style of management over Iwata's.

The reason: Furakawa comes from a business background (accounting, economics, marketing) while Iwata came from a developer background. So there's a bit of a bias there. Business people love business people.
Click to expand...

I'm curious as to what the differences actually are. The September 2020 investor meeting was all about declaring a recommitment to the values and strategy Nintendo has already been following.

Even Furukawa's talk of making mobile an important pillar for the business(which I'm sure everyone loved) has quite blatantly been walked back.
 
From what I remember, Iwata criticized free-to-play economies for being manipulative, so it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that suits hated him with a burning passion.
 
Oregano said:
I'm curious as to what the differences actually are. The September 2020 investor meeting was all about declaring a recommitment to the values and strategy Nintendo has already been following.

Even Furukawa's talk of making mobile an important pillar for the business(which I'm sure everyone loved) has quite blatantly been walked back.
Click to expand...

The mobile market is such boom or bust. Like there's obviously a ton of money to be made there but a lot of that money is only going to be the top few games. I feel like most successful mobile devs have only 1 or 2 big titles and the rest are duds. And often there doesn't seem to much rhyme or reason why certain games become mega hits while others don't. Square Enix has a throw out everything and see what sticks approach. They announce and shutdown mobile games on a yearly basis.

Pokemon Go and Fire Emblem Heroes have been successful but Nintendo's other mobile games have been less so. Not sure how big Mario Kart is though. But I think the assumption was that any mobile game Nintendo made would bring in billions of dollars and that's simply not the case. I can see why they would pull back on mobile and focus on markets which they are very successful in.
 
0
Yzz said:
From what I remember, Iwata criticized free-to-play economies for being manipulative, so it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that suits hated him with a burning passion.
Click to expand...
Iwata:

Screen_Shot_2017-11-06_at_12.41.31_PM.jpg
 
Oregano said:
I'm curious as to what the differences actually are. The September 2020 investor meeting was all about declaring a recommitment to the values and strategy Nintendo has already been following.

Even Furukawa's talk of making mobile an important pillar for the business(which I'm sure everyone loved) has quite blatantly been walked back.
Click to expand...
Yzz said:
From what I remember, Iwata criticized free-to-play economies for being manipulative, so it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that suits hated him with a burning passion.
Click to expand...

Here's the biggest difference between the two management styles. (Iwata and Furukawa)

Furukawa doesn't have a monopolizing presence over Nintendo's management like Iwata did.

During the Iwata era, Satoru Iwata assumed the role of being Nintendo's equivalent to Steve Jobs. Every tiny aspect of the company had to be tailored around Iwata's vision of what the company should be.
  • In 2013, Iwata made himself Nintendo of America's CEO.
  • All project/product proposals had to go through Iwata.
  • All marketing proposals had to go through him.
  • He made himself the host of all the Nintendo Directs.
  • He named an entire feature (Iwata Asks) after himself.
  • He had to appear at all of the live E3 press conferences. (From 2002 to 2014)

Shuntaro Furakawa takes a more hands-off approach with his management style. He's less controlling (less micro-managing) over the vision of the company. You don't see Furakawa making himself the CEO of Nintendo of America. He's also more open to ideas like mobile gaming, online gaming, and cloud gaming.

Also, some analysts and investors didn't like how Iwata made himself a celebrity executive. Many business people are happy that Shuntaro Furakawa stays out of the public limelight. They're happy that Furukawa is not the host of Nintendo Directs. They're happy Furakawa isn't doing side projects like "Iwata Asks". They prefer a CEO that is more private and quiet because it can affect the price of Nintendo's stock.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He's probably just saying shit. If he was as bad at his job as his predictions indicated he was, and he advertised that fact publicly to boot, I can't imagine anyone would still wanna work with him. At least I hope that's what it is
 
0
Emily said:
Here's the biggest difference between the two management styles. (Iwata and Furukawa)

Furukawa doesn't have a monopolizing presence over Nintendo's management like Iwata did.

During the Iwata era, Satoru Iwata assumed the role of being Nintendo's equivalent to Steve Jobs. Every tiny aspect of the company had to be tailored around Iwata's vision of what the company should be.
  • In 2013, Iwata made himself Nintendo of America's CEO.
  • All project/product proposals had to go through Iwata.
  • All marketing proposals had to go through him.
  • He made himself the host of all the Nintendo Directs.
  • He named an entire feature (Iwata Asks) after himself.
  • He had to appear at all of the live E3 press conferences. (From 2002 to 2014)

Shuntaro Furakawa takes a more hands-off approach with his management style. He's less controlling (less micro-managing) over the vision of the company. You don't see Furakawa making himself the CEO of Nintendo of America. He's also more open to ideas like mobile gaming, online gaming, and cloud gaming.

Also, some analysts and investors didn't like how Iwata made himself a celebrity executive. Many business people are happy that Shuntaro Furakawa stays out of the public limelight. They're happy that Furukawa is not the host of Nintendo Directs. They're happy Furakawa isn't doing side projects like "Iwata Asks". They prefer a CEO that is more private and quiet because it can affect the price of Nintendo's stock.
Click to expand...

I think the bolded remains to be seen to be honest. As I said mobile gaming seems to have taken a step back despite Furukawa's previous comment, and Ubitus was already providing cloud solutions on the 3DS(Dragon Quest X was the first Cloud based console release). Even NSO was put into motion whilst Kimishima was CEO.

In regards to stuff like Nintendo Directs I think it's safe to say that format wouldn't have existed without Iwata, and whilst that kind of streamed presentation is commonplace now it was when Nintendo introduced it. The fact that the format has persisted post-Iwata and even been imitated speaks to the strength of his vision.

I guess it makes sense that they like a more behind the scenes figure but Furukawa is really the odd one out there. Jim Ryan and Phil Spencer are both constantly out there making their presence known.
 
0
Emily said:
Also, some analysts and investors didn't like how Iwata made himself a celebrity executive. Many business people are happy that Shuntaro Furakawa stays out of the public limelight. They're happy that Furukawa is not the host of Nintendo Directs. They're happy Furakawa isn't doing side projects like "Iwata Asks". They prefer a CEO that is more private and quiet because it can affect the price of Nintendo's stock.
Click to expand...

This honestly saddens me, because while it's true that a celebrity CEO can cause stock prices to drop on a bad day (hello, Elon Musk), they can also be a source of strong messaging and leadership that helps stock prices stay strong. One of Steve Jobs' main defining characteristics was that no matter what the product was, he would be out on stage selling it as part of the Apple vision come hell or high water.

Iwata wasn't a salesman in the way Jobs was, but I think it's true to say that his out-front style of leadership gave Wii U and 3DS owners reason to pay attention when it would have been easy for them to just drop the hardware and move on to something else after their respective false starts. Granted, the Wii U never recovered from its dismal showing, but Iwata's initiatives with Directs at least meant Wii U owners knew there were upcoming games to play, and I don't think you'd have seen MK8 or Smash 4 being the successes they were on the platform without that.

Separate to this, I'm just sad anyone would try and poo-poo Iwata Asks - That was a really rare opportunity for a president with actual development knowledge to ask illuminating and entertaining questions with other developers. There's a reason the series was so beloved, and that's because Iwata's insight into development and own personal history led to the sort of interviews you rarely get in games journalism.
 
0
Thank you Emily for your insight. It is interesting to see the differences in management styles laid out like that. Much as I admired Iwata and applaud a lot of his decisions (and felt he worked well as the face of Nintendo), I do feel that he was a bit rigid and inflexible, and some of his decisions - such as the aforementioned unwillingness to fund third party games or to all but abandon Nintendo's western development scene in favour of Japan - came to haunt Nintendo in the Wii U era in particular. It is important for a company to be flexible in the current climate and I feel Furukawa is better in that regard in allowing Nintendo to adapt where necessecary.

Regarding Pachter, I can sort of see where he comes from with regards to recommending Nintendo utilise their strong IPs to become more of a multimedia company (which is what Sony seem to be doing), but he does seem oddly obsessed with the idea Nintendo would make more money publishing their games on other consoles. Which when you look at Nintendo's financials, seems a fairly baffling take.
 
evilmonkey said:
Yes and it was at a shareholder meeting.
Click to expand...

Iwata's theory of third-party support describes how Switch found success with indies: 1st party games build momentum -> customers prefer the platform's unique value for multi-platform titles -> publishers release more games.

But has Nintendo's approach on money actually changed under Kimishima/Furukawa? Wii U still received Bayonetta, Monster Hunter, Zombi U, Shovel Knight and Sonic under similar circumstances as Switch secured Bayonetta, Monster Hunter, Mario + Rabbids, Golf Story and Shin Megami Tensai V.
 
I wouldn't say that their third party strategy has changed massively over the past decade or so, but I think Nintendo realised that there's no way they have the internal development teams to support their consoles on their own (even with teams as big and numerous as theirs). I believe Iwata wanted Nintendo to be self sufficient and not reliant on third parties in the way Sony were, for instance. Which is an admirable goal, but as evidenced by the Wii U's terrible first couple of years, not really achievable given the pressures of modern game development.

Their current strategy of being more relaxed in allowing external partners to develop using their IPs (Ubisoft, Koei-Tecmo, indie devs like WayForward) is definitely a more solid strategy because it pads out the Switch's library and places less stress on their own teams to get games out. That did kinda start under Iwata in fairness, but it's paid dividends in the Switch era and was absolutely the right call.
 
I remember him saying that Nintendo could sell a cardboard box and it would sell, so... Guess he wasn't always in the wrong!
 
I've watched a few of his youtube series episodes here and there (been a while tho, not sure if its still going).
He does not strike me as an "anti-Nintendo Questor" tbh. More a dude who has specific views on platform strategy and market tastes that proves sometimes right, sometimes wrong (I dont know what the "hit" rate on his takes are). His views seem to stem from his own gaming preferences which I think skew towards AAA console experiences.

I am not sure how much he touts himself to be an "industry expert" but overall comes off to me as a dude living his life, shooting from the hip, and getting a kick out of the semi-celebrity status in gaming circles.

Interesting discussion in this thread about his beefs w/ Iwata's management tho!
 
0
Sheldon said:
Iwata's theory of third-party support describes how Switch found success with indies: 1st party games build momentum -> customers prefer the platform's unique value for multi-platform titles -> publishers release more games.

But has Nintendo's approach on money actually changed under Kimishima/Furukawa? Wii U still received Bayonetta, Monster Hunter, Zombi U, Shovel Knight and Sonic under similar circumstances as Switch secured Bayonetta, Monster Hunter, Mario + Rabbids, Golf Story and Shin Megami Tensai V.
Click to expand...

Galgavias said:
I wouldn't say that their third party strategy has changed massively over the past decade or so, but I think Nintendo realised that there's no way they have the internal development teams to support their consoles on their own (even with teams as big and numerous as theirs). I believe Iwata wanted Nintendo to be self sufficient and not reliant on third parties in the way Sony were, for instance. Which is an admirable goal, but as evidenced by the Wii U's terrible first couple of years, not really achievable given the pressures of modern game development.

Their current strategy of being more relaxed in allowing external partners to develop using their IPs (Ubisoft, Koei-Tecmo, indie devs like WayForward) is definitely a more solid strategy because it pads out the Switch's library and places less stress on their own teams to get games out. That did kinda start under Iwata in fairness, but it's paid dividends in the Switch era and was absolutely the right call.
Click to expand...

There's only one difference I've seen in Nintendo's third party strategy.

Under Iwata, most of the third party titles/ports funded by Nintendo were Japanese: Ninja Gaiden 3, Devil Third, Bayonetta 2, Fatal Frame, Yakuza, The Wonderful 101. The same could be said for 3DS - most of its third party support was Japanese like Metal Gear Solid 3, Street Fighter, Monster Hunter and Resident Evil Revelations.

Under Kimishima/Furukawa, Nintendo has opened their wallets to fund more ports from western third parties.
  • Diablo 3
  • Skyrim
  • FIFA
  • Doom + Doom Eternal
  • Grand Theft Auto Trilogy
  • The Witcher 3

Fifa is a super interesting case. NCL provided EA with funding to build a brand new engine (from scratch) for Fifa Switch because they couldn't get Frostbite to work on the system at the time. EA wouldn't have bothered to create a new engine for Fifa Switch if NCL hadn't funded it.

In Iwata's defense: I'm very confident Iwata would have pushed for funding more western support on Switch after what happened with Wii U.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Emily said:
There's only one difference I've seen in Nintendo's third party strategy.

Under Iwata, most of the third party titles/ports funded by Nintendo were Japanese: Ninja Gaiden 3, Devil Third, Bayonetta 2, Fatal Frame, Yakuza, The Wonderful 101. The same could be said for 3DS - most of its third party support was Japanese like Metal Gear Solid 3, Street Fighter, Monster Hunter and Resident Evil Revelations.

Under Kimishima/Furukawa, Nintendo has opened their wallets to fund more ports from western third parties.
  • Diablo 3
  • Skyrim
  • FIFA
  • Doom + Doom Eternal
  • Grand Theft Auto Trilogy
  • The Witcher 3

Fifa is a super interesting case. NCL provided EA with funding to build a brand new engine (from scratch) for Fifa Switch because they couldn't get Frostbite to work on the system at the time. EA wouldn't have bothered to create a new engine for Fifa Switch if NCL hadn't funded it.

In Iwata's defense: I'm very confident Iwata would have pushed for funding more western support on Switch after what happened with Wii U.
Click to expand...
Yeah from the off it was clear Nintendo were doing more with Switch to appeal to Western devs, Skyrim and FIFA being front and centre of the Switch's launch year evidenced a shift on that front. Nintendo under Iwata did kinda turn their backs on the Western gaming scene during the Wii/Wii U era and it was perhaps their biggest mistake of the era, in my opinion. Though I agree with your final point, no doubt Iwata was involved in getting the likes of Skyrim and FIFA onto Switch before his passing.

Very interesting regarding FIFA, which perhaps explains why EA keep chugging Switch ports out with little effort. Curiously, I do see FIFA regularly at the top of the Switch E-shop here in the UK, so it must be doing some respectable numbers behind the scenes. There's clearly a market there, just one that likely pales in comparison to the Ultimate Team gravy train EA have prioritised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom