Let's see if you can spot the difference between these three quotes:
"Let's assume that the price of a console will probably be between $400-$500 for discussions sake"
"We know the price of a console will be between $400 and $500"
"We know the price of a console will be between $400 and $500, will have an annual online pass at a cost of $80 a year, will get a mid-generation upgrade that hasn't been announced with a price between $400-$500 to compete with a Google Stadia mid-generation upgrade that hasn't even been announced yet within a defined time period that doesn't comport with the time current time span between consoles, and based off of all of this we can factual comparisons of the costs playing on each platform over a six year span."
If you can't spot the difference then get back to me when you can.
When you take everything I've said and you distill that to "I think its unreasonable to say the consoles will be roughly $400-$500, and I just don't want to say it" I just don't know how to go on from there. It just doesn't add up at all.
With your resistance to the basic ideas that the PS5 and Scarlett will likely cost between $400-500 as well as the paywall for online multiplayer continuing to exist for the PS5 and Scarlett, you've clearly entered the territory where you are willing to throw out any unreasonable argument for the sake of arguing, because not even you yourself believe in the ideas you present. You've done the same thing multiple times in the past.
Again, my resistance has never been with the idea that PS5 or Scarlett will likely cost between $400 and $500. What do you call it when someone claims another person made an argument they never actually made and proceeds to argue against that argument?
What unreasonable argument did I throw out? Where have I done this multiple times in the past?