The "If XXX console came out at $yyy.yy price argument", and why its WRONG.

[Final-Fan]

Smashchu said:

fkusumot said:

Smashchu said:

Sqrl said:

Smashchu said:
While topic doesn't fail, it's not right either.

You can't really call it stupid. The idea is you say "IF XXX was YYY$". If is subjunctive, meaning your talking hypothetically, or, outside the limits of the real world. "If I had 1million dollars, I'd buy a lot of crack". Sure, I don't, or many never will, have 1million dollars, but that's the point. I'm talking in "What if" statements. Which is why your argument is wrong. You are trying to add truth where there is none.

While, yes, some consoles would lose a lot with price changes, but the idea is to argue what if. Truth is, PS3 would be winning if it was 400$ rather then 600$.

Did you bother to read the thread?

Yes I did. And the point stands, that you truth to a faulty statement. "If" statements aren't truth. Your mad becuase people say "If XXX was YYY$" becuase it's not logical (changing the price effects what the console has) but "What if" statements aren't logical top begin with. They are subjunctive. In the imaginary. Thats why I say it's not wrong for someone to say this becuase it weasn't true to begin with.

So if I say:

"What if" Smashchu had read the thread... then Smashchu would understand that Smashchu made a joke post.

Then it is not wrong for me to say this because it wasn't true to begin with? Wow. Have you been brushing up on your Tractatus?

 

That doesn't even come close to making a bit of sence. You missed the point me thinks.

Idea is people are saying "If the PS3 was 400$, it would sell better". Is that true? Yes. Is it probable? No. There you go.

 

As it turns out, you did NOT in fact read the thread -- or perhaps you simply didn't comprehend what Sqrl was saying.

Your "If the PS3 was $400, it would sell better" (different from the earlier "sell best"), combined with your comment about it being "probable", leads me to the conclusion that you are really asking "What if the PS3's price DROPPED to $400", which is not the kind of thing that Sqrl was denouncing AT ALL.

He gave 2 examples: one in which the PS3 was $300 and the Wii $500 -- clearly a fantasyland argument with no real-world value or predictive qualities at all; and another in which the PS3 was stripped down until it cost 'the same as a DS', which doesn't even make sense because there wouldn't be enough left to compare to the existing PS3 -- it'd be less powerful, by a large margin, than the Wii!

Are you really comparing your own hypothetical scenario to the ones Sqrl is crusading against?