I certainly disagree with number one being a blunder at all. There were no negative effects at all from that initial denial, and the alternative could have been very damaging. In fact, apart from the initial design phase, the way MS has handled the whole 360s dying thing is pretty much textbook good business practice.
I also think #7 is a bit retarded because it's mainly affected by external sources. The Sony Kotaku thing is a bit of a joke because this kind of thing happens all the time, and no one gives a shit. Pretty much before any major Apple day or whatever, they have to send out a ton of Cease and Desist letters and generally the media handles it very well unless it's completely retarded (like Apples C&D letters over terms relating to 'pod'). That doesn't make it OK in and of itself, but it reflects poorly on Kotaku when they make a huge fucking deal out if it when they are somewhat dependent on the good nature of their contacts at Sony who would probably be just as well off dealing with larger, more established, and more professional sites. When the whole thing went down I remember thinking that it was just a bunch of dick waving and collective high-fives in the games "journalism" community. A bunch of people just pumped because they had finally found an example that could be construed to make people think they were at all relevant to anyone above 17 years old. "See, I already HAVE a real job - and it comes with influence!!" This interpretation of it doesn't make me look at it any differently.
Like nothing else in recent memory, this event warned game companies that they still need the videogame media
This I find particularity interesting in light of recent inter-events. I've always wondered how these commercial blogging sites like Kotaku and such can run a buisness model that essentially is based on stealing stories and images from smaller blogs, and use it to attract high amounts of traffic. I mean, the only way Kotaku and such can work is under a model like that because of the small amount of overhead, but at the same time I'd feel like I was getting screwed if I was the one getting leached off of. Sure, they provide links to the original usually, but a lot of times it's like a trail of three links, and no one fucking clicks on them anyways because Kotaku just copies and pastes the entire article anyways.
Well, recently Kotaku got busted stealing pictures from blogs, and the angry inter-backlash had profound effects. Like nothing else in recent memory, this event warned large blog/news sites that they still need to give credit to people who actually do the work.
#2 is also retarded. The only way it makes sense as a blunder would be if Activision had actually acquired Viv./Blizzard (a merger and an acquisition are two completely different things), and they had done so for an amount of money that would appear below market value. Essentially all the article here is saying is that EA fucked up because they didn't acquire Blizzard, made some other acquisitions, and then commented that there were no good houses left to acquire. The thing is that's not what happened at all, and the two things are completely separate events.
-EA's own acquisitions have nothing to do with anything so they really shouldn't really be mentioned. It provides context for his comment, but that's it.
-The blunder that I think they mean to point out is that he put his foot in his mouth. Except he didn't:
Is it ripe (for mergers), or has it already been picked? I would argue that it's been largely picked
That doesn't mean it's done. I think there will be more consolidation to come. But let's just say a lot has already happened.
Quoted three (2 business) days before a huge merger
announcement? Maybe someone DOES have their finger on the pulse of the industry. Even if he doesn't, one (very large) merger doesn't disprove his theory. If anything, it only proves it (were you to look historically at the consolidation of modern market industry). All in all, it's just kind of a stupid and sloppy comment for NG magazine. I don't know if they're trying to compare two very different deals and EA lost out or trying to show that he put his foot in his mouth, but all they really did in both cases was make me think about how they're totally wrong on both counts.
Beyond that, to be completely fair to the guy at EA, any sort of merger or acquisition between VU and EA would have most likely been completely impossible unless it was a total hostile takeover.
