White Paper review

[Tarelgeth]

NCsoft's shutdown of Paragon Studios now has an independent white paper review and investor report.  It says.. well, pretty much what you'd expect.  NCsoft is seen as not knowing what their western market is, and you guys are all awesome.

http://mecha-eng.com/308/

[emu265]

Certainly sums up why I feel the way I do.  I just can't understand NCSoft's motives, no matter how many ways I think of it.

[Paindancer]

It looks to me like a real bad job of risk management on NCSoft part.

[The-Hunter-JLJ]

Yeah, from a business perspective the whole situation just doesn't make sense. There is something going on we still haven't figured out.

[uninventive]

This site is a one-man operation.  Seems like a blog to me.

Granted, not all market analyses come from Motley Fool or Kiplinger, but an independent review from a better known source would be more useful.  Primarily, who's to say that Matthew Jane' isn't a player himself?

Just my inner skeptic talking, I do like the article... It does convey how I feel about the situation better than I can say it.

[emu265]

This site is a one-man operation.  Seems like a blog to me.

Granted, not all market analyses come from Motley Fool or Kiplinger, but an independent review from a better known source would be more useful.  Primarily, who's to say that Matthew Jane' isn't a player himself?

Just my inner skeptic talking, I do like the article... It does convey how I feel about the situation better than I can say it.

I had a few reservations about the source myself.  But it still accurately reflects how I've tried to logic my way through NCSoft's decision (you know, after the tears).  Regardless of where it came from, this definitely represents one perspective on the situation quite well.

[Victoria Victrix]

This site is a one-man operation.  Seems like a blog to me.

Granted, not all market analyses come from Motley Fool or Kiplinger, but an independent review from a better known source would be more useful.  Primarily, who's to say that Matthew Jane' isn't a player himself?

Just my inner skeptic talking, I do like the article... It does convey how I feel about the situation better than I can say it.

Player or non-player, the writer's credentials seem very impressive.

[dwturducken]

Have we not established (and even held up with no small degree of pride) that our community is worthy of its world because it is populated with such impressively credentialed individuals?  That, unlike the Juggernaut, which draws from all walks of life, we are a similarly diverse group that is not simple a bunch of basement dwelling gamers?

Healthy skepticism has its place, but perhaps a more professional, scholarly look at the math and economics of the situation, with a similar treatment of the efforts here, is what will bring this to the attention of a Motley Fool or a Kiplinger.

[Soundtrack]

[Omega Mark V]

Yeah, from a business perspective the whole situation just doesn't make sense. There is something going on we still haven't figured out.

This was my thoughts exactly.

[emu265]

[Vulpy]

I thought so as well.  While legal action had certainly crossed my mind before, I wasn't sure of exactly where we could start.  But fraud is huge, and this is definitely something worth looking into, I think.

<lights the Olantern signal>

...But while it is a professional opinion, it's still just one person's opinion. That said, it's formatted in such a way as to win over others in the business, and it codifes a great deal of the playerbase's sentiment.

[steve1967]

Yeah, he is obviously a player - one with brains to be sure, but this is not going to carry water with real investors.  He has no expertise in market investment, so this is little more than one man's opinion.

That said, it does seem to be a mostly fair assessment, and spreading some of the info around can't hurt.  Just be cautious of the blow-back if/when it is revealed that the source is a player-engineer, not an investment firm.

[Aggelakis]

Yeah, he is obviously a player - one with brains to be sure, but this is not going to carry water with real investors.  He has no expertise in market investment, so this is little more than one man's opinion.

That said, it does seem to be a mostly fair assessment, and spreading some of the info around can't hurt.  Just be cautious of the blow-back if/when it is revealed that the source is a player-engineer, not an investment firm.

It's not like he's keeping it a secret that Mecha Engineering is one dude. It's plastered all over his front page, contact page, and info page. Don't know how there can be backlash against something that no one is trying to hide.

[steve1967]

Not really what I meant - more like folks here weren't noticing that he was not a high-octane financial guru.  If you go into a debate thinking that you have Warren Buffet on your side, and it ends up being just another Joe with an opinion formatted like an investors advisory, you are going to end up embarrassed when someone points that out.

He makes good points, but it does not presage an exodus of capital from NCSoft.  At one point, what they are doing might have made sense from an investor's perspective (they are now taking avoidable damage though).

[Paindancer]

A white paper is little more than a coffee table discussion.. its extremely informal and generally surface level.  I agree, it wont hold any water.. but I think it says that in the document anyway.  Going to guess, the report was a business worded summary of the situation, or a rehash for outside eyes.

[Olantern]

Here's what I said about this on the official fora, with a couple of additions for things that have sparked discussion here:

[I quoted another player-attorney, who said, "That was an interesting article, but I think the lack of authority in support weakens its impact considerably.  Really, it could have been written by a fan of the game and it appears that it was."]

I agree.

The author's analysis appears correct to me.  For the most part, it's developed clearly.  Even the tone, for the most part, is reasonable rather than blatantly hostile, something we haven't seen enough of in the past few days.  It's a much better strategy to point out NCSoft's logical and business errors than to complain about how unjust its actions feel.  I think there's been a bit too much inclination to treat the shutdown as an offense against whatever values one holds dear and not enough time spent characterizing it as a terrible business decision that hurt NCSoft more than it helped it.  A business can ignore one customer's feelings, but it can't get around logic so easily.

However, reading from the point of view an uninvolved third party, my reaction was, "Where's the proof?"  Even some of the statements for which support was available, such as statements about the amount of negative press, didn't have citations to that support.  It may be partly my field (law) and sub-field (academics), but when I see assertions being made in every sentence, I expect every sentence to have a footnote citing some kind of supporting document.

The lack of documentary support (unfairly, in my view) calls the conclusions of the article into question.  I don't expect it to influence anyone's analysis of the situation, which is unfortunate.  Rather, I expect it to be written off by outsiders as the grumblings of a bitter fan.  This isn't a fair or correct conclusion, but that's the one I expect.

In sum, while I'm mostly pleased with the article, and it certainly can't hurt the way things stand, I think players are exaggerating its impact.  In particular, I caution players against treating the author's assertions about potential fraud suits as conclusive statements.

[steve1967]

Yep, with you Olantern.  People elsewhere on the board are referring to this as if it were impactful, and forwarding it to investment types in Korea.  That is exactly what I was warning against, because the well-intentioned writer of the white paper and the well-intentioned people who think it is worth more than it is, end up looking like doofuses to a financial professional, and it doesn't help the cause.

Rewrite the paper with authoritative sources and a non-involved editor, and then you might have something informal, but still worth sending around.

[Olantern]

Yep, with you Olantern.  People elsewhere on the board are referring to this as if it were impactful, and forwarding it to investment types in Korea.  That is exactly what I was warning against, because the well-intentioned writer of the white paper and the well-intentioned people who think it is worth more than it is, end up looking like doofuses to a financial professional, and it doesn't help the cause.

Rewrite the paper with authoritative sources and a non-involved editor, and then you might have something informal, but still worth sending around.

To be fair, I have no idea what the culture and customs of this kind of analysis are like.  It may well be customary for preliminary reports like this one to omit citations, for instance.

More importantly, I feel that passing it on to someone with investment journalism experience (Bloomberg in Korea, I read in another thread) can't hurt.  If you submitted something like this to a court, it'd be ignored, because legal culture requires extensive documentary support and very structured analysis.  But journalism is a different culture with different customs.  My hope is that whoever sees this does some independent verification on it as a matter of course, then runs with it to do his own thing.  But we'll have to wait and see.

By the way, I added a post to "legal considerations" about fraud, for those who are interested.