It seems like at this point you just can't admit you were wrong ... I mean, we have been over this. We weren't talking about the graph. You made a comparison of 24 months. And I already went over in my first or second reply why it was ridiculous for you to say two years. It wasn't due to the fact that I was just being a fact nazi. I don't expect you to say the precise amount of days. The reason why it was ridiculous was because you made a comment about how the Switch hadn't even been out for two years, when in fact it has already been closer to it's 2nd year anniversary than the PS4 was when it got a price cut. Making your entire point invalid. 

Half of his comment was a factually incorrect statement, the other half was his argument. You corrected the factually inaccurate part, but made an inaccurate counter-argument when you were arguing against the 2nd part of his comment. I only argued against half of your comment, but I was at least arguing against a point you were making, not the factual correction. If you're going to say I'm nitpicking when I'm literally replying to an argument you're making ... then I don't think you're using that term correctly. If your entire point wasn't centered on which system has gone on the longest without a price cut, you'd be correct that it was a nitpick. Unfortunately, the part I replied to WAS about that. 

You are starting to twist the discussion into a post-factual one. You basically already admitted I was right earlier when you said that you didn't have any grievances with what I was saying, except that it was a minuscule point that I was focusing too much on. So what is it? Was it a wrong point, or a correct one that just frustrated you because it focused on something "minuscule"? And let me just say again, it wasn't a minuscule point. It was literally the only argument you brought up against Mandalore. Correcting someone isn't an argument in and of itself in that context. Mandalore's comment would have been better had he not said there was two price cuts, but his point still stands even when corrected. It's a little bit more ridiculous, sure, but that's it. Whereas the entire argument you brought up against him crumbles under the correction that the Switch has already gone on longer than the PS4 did with a price cut.

And this is just getting a tad ridiculous. No matter how much you shift discussion to the graph, it doesn't change what you said. I only replied to what you said, that's it. No matter how minuscule it was to you or no matter how much it doesn't relate to the graph, you aren't giving a valid argument against my reply to something you said. You are just shifting focus. If it didn't relate to the OP well .. maybe don't say it in the first place then? There's nothing wrong with having an incorrect counter-argument, we've all made them. But defending it on and on isn't doing any favors. 

Peace  

Actually your point is wrong. Had your point simply been "oh, the Switch hasn't been out for two years", you would have been correct. But that was just a supporting point you were making. What you were actually trying to get across with your comparison was that the PS4 got it's first official price cut when it had been out for two years, and that the Switch has not even been out for two years, so Mandalore's comparison is flawed because you can't say that the Switch is still selling at it's original price as a supporting point for the console when it hasn't even been out as long as the PS4 was when it got it's first price cut.

But this isn't correct. The Switch has already gone on longer than the PS4 did when it got it's first price cut. Unless you were making a different objection with the 2nd half of your comment to Mandalore's, what that objection could be I can't figure out in the slightest. At this point you should agree with Mandalore's overall point, the only thing he really got wrong was saying that the PS4 up to this point had two official price cuts, but that was only half of your reply.

Hope you get what I mean. 

OOF. Now you're basically asking me to give a lifetime prediction xD 

Well ... errhmmm .... 

I can't give one! I keep going back in forth in my head. If they release a Switch lite this year, then I think it should be pretty easy to predict where the console goes in terms of lifetime sales after this fiscal year is over. 

Not sure how anyone can look at what Wii did in the first 3-4 years and not call that impressive. But I digress

Sorry if seemed like that. You don't need to, I put mine because I wanted.

Don't worry, Sony <100~M flop, others >30M success, you just have to accept people expectations.

Because no one have to praise all systems at all posts... and achieving 4 times instead of once is quite impressive.

2 Official price cuts? Where did you get that from?

PS4's first official price cut was on the 9th October 2015. 2 years after launch. The switch hasn't even been out for 2 years.

The Switch will be 2 years old in less than a month. The PS4 was a month and a week away from being two years old when it got an official price cut. So you made an error in your correction. 

But I get what you mean. There wasn't two official price cuts to my knowledge. Maybe he confused it with a deal? Harmless miscalculation if so.

Don't worry, Sony <100~M flop, others >30M success, you just have to accept people expectations.

When referring to the PS3 as a failure, it is very important to look at the context of what is being discussed.  It is very easy to say, how can 86 million units be considered a failure?  But, when you look at the bigger picture, it very definitely was.  In the 6th console generation, Sony sold nearly 158 million consoles and controlled 74% of the home console gaming market.  By the end of the 7th console generation, Sony had lost over 70 million customers, and had ceded 42% of the console gaming market back to its competitors.  This was despite Kaz Hirai stating in 2008 that the PS3 would go on to sell 150 million units by 2015.  Even worse than these precipitous drops was the fact that the PS3 cost Sony over $3.3 billion in losses.  The amount was so staggering in fact, that the PS3 losses completely negated all of the profits Sony had made in the previous gen on the 158 million PS2's that they had sold.  That's why the PS3 is considered a failure.  70 million lost customers, 42% of marketshare lost, and $3.3 billion+ lost that wiped out all profit from previous gen.  There is no good way to spin that trifecta.  The reason why 22 million Gamecube's sold isn't looked at in the same way, is because Nintendo didn't lose $3.3 billion while selling them.  Nintendo was profitable during that gen.  Same for Wii U.  Nintendo posted losses early in the gen, but had returned to profitability prior to the launch of the Switch.  It's all about context.