Analyst Reverses Course On Bully Sequel, Says "Sorry" to Take Two
Analyst Reverses Course On Bully Sequel, Says "Sorry" to Take Two
January 15, 2007
Say what you want, Michael Pachter is a stand-up guy.In a recent, widely-quoted story, the Wedbush-Morgan analyst told GamePolitics that he did not expect sales numbers for Rockstar's Bully to merit a sequel. Newly-released figures from the NPD Group, however, now show strong Bully sales during the holiday season. Based on those numbers, Pachter has done a public 180 on his opinion of the controversial game:
(Bully) sold over double my expectations in December, and Take Two told me the game is selling slightly better in Europe. That means it's probably over one million units, with a few more to go.
Given the very high rating that the game received and its potential for expansion to other platforms, it is realistic to think a sequel could generate two million units in sales. That is generally suffucient to justify a sequel. I'm not competent to discuss whether it can be built using the GTA 4 engine, so it's premature to guess how much a sequel would cost, but if the company thinks it can sell two million units of Bully 2, it will probably produce a sequel.
Please make sure you print my apology to Take Two - I have been consistently wrong about this title. I thought it would be stupid, and it was fun; I thought it would get poor reviews, and it got solid 90s; and I thought it would bomb, while it now appears to be a million unit seller. As a result, I did not expect a sequel, while now I have to acknowledge that a sequel is a possibility. I never hesitate to take credit when I'm right, and I never hide from my mistakes.
GP: We originally ran this on Saturday, January 13th, but we're bumping it into the weekday coverage because we think it is an important story.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGIN / REGISTER
Crispy Gamer
GamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:07pm
JDKJ: No, I did you the favor and said it for you.
JDKJ: No, I did you the favor and said it for you.
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:06pm
Valdearg: What I said was while I may have implied long term accuraccy, and that might have been incorrect, my greater point that the CBO report calculated reduced deficits, expanded coverage, and lower costs is still 100% accurate. :D
Valdearg: What I said was while I may have implied long term accuraccy, and that might have been incorrect, my greater point that the CBO report calculated reduced deficits, expanded coverage, and lower costs is still 100% accurate. :D
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:06pm
Valdearg: Like any good politician, I don't believe I said "I was incorrect." :P
Valdearg: Like any good politician, I don't believe I said "I was incorrect." :P
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:02pm
JDKJ: If you'd said "I was incorrect" 10 shouts ago, I'd have quit twisting your arm to get you see the obvious 10 shouts ago.
JDKJ: If you'd said "I was incorrect" 10 shouts ago, I'd have quit twisting your arm to get you see the obvious 10 shouts ago.
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:00pm
JDKJ: You were they one assuming 100% accuracy. In all caps, no less.
JDKJ: You were they one assuming 100% accuracy. In all caps, no less.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:59am
Valdearg: Yes, my implication that the long term estimates were facts was incorrect, but the short term calculations are absolutely facts, and even the long term estimates are still useful in attempting to determine exactly what will happen with the bill.
Valdearg: Yes, my implication that the long term estimates were facts was incorrect, but the short term calculations are absolutely facts, and even the long term estimates are still useful in attempting to determine exactly what will happen with the bill.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:58am
Valdearg: I do. The Short term costs are actually calculated facts. The long term estimates aren't necessarily 100% accurate, but to assume that they can't possibly be accurate because someone said they might not be 100% accurate is also wrong.
Valdearg: I do. The Short term costs are actually calculated facts. The long term estimates aren't necessarily 100% accurate, but to assume that they can't possibly be accurate because someone said they might not be 100% accurate is also wrong.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:57am
JDKJ: When someone says, "I could be wrong but, as best as I can tell, X," X ain't a fact.
JDKJ: When someone says, "I could be wrong but, as best as I can tell, X," X ain't a fact.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:53am
JDKJ: It's too early in the morning for you to be deaf, blind, and dumb drunk. A "my best guestimate" can't be a fact. Don't you understand the difference between the two?
JDKJ: It's too early in the morning for you to be deaf, blind, and dumb drunk. A "my best guestimate" can't be a fact. Don't you understand the difference between the two?
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:41am
Valdearg: By how much depends on variables that can't necessarily be predicted at this point in time. And yes, those Facts are accurate only so far into the future, but those estimates can certainly be used to support this measure.
Valdearg: By how much depends on variables that can't necessarily be predicted at this point in time. And yes, those Facts are accurate only so far into the future, but those estimates can certainly be used to support this measure.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:40am
Valdearg: And I'm saying, as far as the CBO report goes, the facts that it does put forward are deficit reduction, reducing costs, and expanding costs. Those ARE facts.
Valdearg: And I'm saying, as far as the CBO report goes, the facts that it does put forward are deficit reduction, reducing costs, and expanding costs. Those ARE facts.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:30am
JDKJ: You were the one championing a qualified estimate as an indisputable fact. I'm merely pointing out that it's far from indisputable. So says the estimator.
JDKJ: You were the one championing a qualified estimate as an indisputable fact. I'm merely pointing out that it's far from indisputable. So says the estimator.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:27am
Valdearg: Or are you only breaking that argument out because the CBO says that this bill is a good thing for our deficit?
Valdearg: Or are you only breaking that argument out because the CBO says that this bill is a good thing for our deficit?
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:27am
JDKJ: The CBO says that, to the extent it is possible to accurately predict defict reduction over the long term, it is likely to reduce the deficit. That's your idea of "a fact that don't lie?"
JDKJ: The CBO says that, to the extent it is possible to accurately predict defict reduction over the long term, it is likely to reduce the deficit. That's your idea of "a fact that don't lie?"
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:26am
Valdearg: Would you be singing the same tune if the CBO came back saying that the bill will likely double the deficit in 20 years??
Valdearg: Would you be singing the same tune if the CBO came back saying that the bill will likely double the deficit in 20 years??
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:26am
Valdearg: @JDKJ: Just because there is a margin of error doesn't mean that the numbers aren't at least psudo-accurate.
Valdearg: @JDKJ: Just because there is a margin of error doesn't mean that the numbers aren't at least psudo-accurate.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:25am
Valdearg: The point is that the bill reduces costs, expands coverage, and reduces the deficit.
Valdearg: The point is that the bill reduces costs, expands coverage, and reduces the deficit.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:24am
JDKJ: So why are you off and running with "facts and numbers don't lie" when the very author of the facts and numbers is acknowledging that their facts and numbers could quite easily be wrong?
JDKJ: So why are you off and running with "facts and numbers don't lie" when the very author of the facts and numbers is acknowledging that their facts and numbers could quite easily be wrong?
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:23am
Valdearg: @JDKJ: Indeed, but the 10 year is also showing a deficit reduction, and that's more accurate.
Valdearg: @JDKJ: Indeed, but the 10 year is also showing a deficit reduction, and that's more accurate.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:19am
JDKJ: Val': Isn't the CBO saying at the same time that predicting the long term deficit reduction effect isn't anywhere near an exact science? And that its prediction should be taken with that understanding?
JDKJ: Val': Isn't the CBO saying at the same time that predicting the long term deficit reduction effect isn't anywhere near an exact science? And that its prediction should be taken with that understanding?
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
I am wrong almsot all the time ,however I got over it and merely want to converse over the subject I am talking about.
Technically a columnist for financial stuff. He *is* writing his opinion about Bully's future. Granted it's backed up by expertise and better knowledge than your average columnist, so more like an "expert columnist". ;)
We've seen people bitch and moan about games because of their violent content... only to turn out to be total disappointments (NARC, 25 to Life, 50 Cent: Bulletproof... I'm looking at you guys!)
But then I find out Bully getting a great deal of respect. Who'da thunk it?
(Then again, I thought God Hand looked like a retarded game, but whatever...)
Why can't there be more columnists like this?
But, yeah, I'll be surprised if Rockstar doesn't take advantage of the Bully series by busting out a sequel.