| Dodece said: @jay520 I didn't say Sony was blameless. Sony themselves were the spin masters. Sony isn't any kind of victim. They wanted people to both misinterpret, and misrepresent their statements. Their being factually correct. Doesn't mean they were not intentionally constructed to mislead people. In this case they wanted to deceive people into believing that they had an intent that they really didn't have. Let me put it to you in a hypothetical form. Lets say you and I were friends, and one night I ran into you on the street. I look you dead in the eyes with a smile on my face, and tell you don't go to that party, it is off the chain. You might assume that I just wasn't giving you credit for how cool you really are. So you decide that you will go to the party. You go to the front door, and hear the music blaring so you let yourself in, and close the door behind you. Before you even recognize that the room is a bloodbath, and that not three feet in front of you is a large rabid dog with the word IT branded into its forehead. You might have a second to realize that I am a supreme dick of a person before that animal rips your throat out. Would I be innocent of your death. I didn't actually lie to you did I. Hell I wasn't the one who ripped your throat out. I must be as innocent as say Sony is innocent. The answer of coarse is no. Sure some lawyer may be able to twist it all into not being my fault at a trial, and if that lawyer was like the best lawyer ever he might get me off with that kind of logic. Out in the real world though that shit just doesn't fly. I did lie to you. It was just a lie of omission. I would have also been guilty of the intent to cause you real harm. Sony is guilty in the same way. Firstly they didn't want people to interpret them correctly. Secondly their intent was to do actual harm. In my thought experiment my intent could have been anything from revenge to just being a total psychopathic bastard, but for Sony their intent was to steal money from customers by getting them to believe in false promises. The fact that they are used lies of omission to get what they wanted doesn't make them any cleaner. It just makes them more nefarious. I will tell you something else most effective advertising is still word of mouth. The fanatic isn't locked in a cage in some dank dark basement. Only able to touch the world through online forums. These people have lives, friends, coworkers, take part in other mediums other then forums. Their footprint is greater then you imagine, and they sold this story to friends, family, and acquaintances. Who do you think those people are going to blame if they feel like they were lied to. I will give you a hit it wont be their friend. They will assume that Sony just lied to them too. I don't know if those who feel victimized by this are legion, or even if we will hear their voice on this forum. It is kind of doubtful we will. They would almost instantly be victims of blind hate, and get shouted down as being the lowest fucking vermin. I do think that this combined with other perceived promises that weren't honored will probably see a rather large number of current platform owners not coming around for another go on the not so merry go round, and the fact that Sony isn't going to support those customers after the new platform comes out. Isn't exactly going to make them feel all fuzzy about Sony. |
You are changing your argument. First you said people would be mislead because Sony fanatics were giving fabricated information. Now you are saying Sony themselves are the ones who are intentionally giving the fabricated information.
Two problems with that. Firstly, you would have to prove that Sony meant tens years of strong first party support when they said the PS3 would have a ten-year life cycle. Provide me with some reasoning that logically means a ten-year life cycle likely implies ten years of strong first party support. Otherwise you're just touting your conjecture as fact. Not only is your assertion unprovable, but it's most likely false. Sony themselves has stated the ten-year life cycle in reference to their past consoles. So if you really want to spectate on what Sony means by ten-year life cycle, it likely means a life cycle similar to the PS2 & PSone. In which case, Sony hasn't decieved anyone because those consoles didn't have ten years of strong first party support.
The term "ten-year life cycle" is a term already with a definition by Sony (a life cycle similar to the PS2 & PSone). It's also a term which they've used a lot in reference to past consoles, so it's meaning isn't a mystery to anyone. This is different from your analogy. The phrase "it is off the chain" has a connotation different from what the speaker meant. Therefore the speaker did mislead the person. However, the phrase "ten-year life cycle", as used when applied to past Sony consoles, has only been used to mean ten years of general support and ten years of availability, since that's the most specific we can get looking at the PS2 & PSone. So there's no reason to believe someone would misinterpret that phrase, and certainly not with enough confidence to base their console purchase on it.
It looks like your latter paragraphs are changing your argument again. Now you're agreeing that fanatics are the one spreading the nonsense that Sony plans for ten years of strong first party support. Great, so what's the problem? What, some people may place their trust utterly in the word of these fanatics and will buy a console based off it? So what? Will they be disappointed with Sony? Maybe, but that's not what you were arguing in the beginning. You were arguing that Sony intentionally mislead and abandoned their fans. The fact that people trusted some fanatics does not support this point; Sony has no obligation to satisfy what its extreme fanatics says, especially if those fanatics deliberately twisted the meaning of Sony's words.
