Earlier this week we shared comments from well-known — and polarising — industry analyst Michael Pachter, which were made at the Develop conference in Brighton. Pachter stated that he was unimpressed with the Wii U concept, but most notably claimed that Activision had pressured Nintendo to produce the Wii U Pro Controller, as it may have been resistant to bringing franchises such as Call of Duty to the system without it. He said the following, as originally reported by edge-online.com:

Activision never said anything to me, but I know that [for] big games like Call Of Duty they said, 'No, we're not putting it on there if you don't give us a conventional controller'. So they gave in.

Pachter made it sound like he'd heard, from indirect sources, that Activision had essentially put the squeeze on Nintendo. In a clear act of back-peddling, he's now told venturebeat.com that he was actually making an educated guess, without any sources of any kind.

I am putting two and two together to conclude that Activision put pressure on them. I do not know this either first-hand or third-hand; nobody told me. I am merely deducing it from what we know, and it’s an educated guess.

If the Pro Controller is for multiplatform games, that means it is for third-party games. Nintendo has never done anything altruistically for third parties, so I concluded that they added the Pro Controller because of pressure from third parties. The pressure could have come from anywhere — EA with sports games, Ubisoft with Assassin’s Creed, or Take-Two with GTA — but it seems to me that the ‘prize’ that would make the Wii U legitimate as a console of choice for multiplatform games is Call of Duty.

Add to my logic that [Call of Duty: Black Ops II developer Treyarch studio head] Mark Lamia made a comment at E3 about how the Pro Controller seemed tailored for the game he is working on for release this fall, and you can see how I concluded that Activision put pressure on them.

Plenty of people speculated that Pachter was employing some guesswork in his original comments, but perhaps he should have stated that 'third-parties may have pressured Nintendo', rather than claiming to know something that isn't, actually, a fact.

[via venturebeat.com]