| Yakuzaice said:
If you are using the number in comparison to actual numbers, then I would say it goes beyond just an example number. You didn't say that word for word, but what exactly was "None of those games were up against a console launch, let alone two of them. As you say, 3D Land had AC:R, SR3, Halo HD, and Zelda SS all launching the same week... 3D World has every PS4 launch title launching the same week." supposed to mean? Certainly seems to be minimizing the conditions for the other releases. I'm sure you'll take umbrage with me quoting you again, but this is the reason I initially made that first post. "The point I'm making here is, it debuted at 14 because it was released at the same time as a new console launch, and a week after another new console launch. Note that Super Mario 3D Land debuted at 9th in the UK. It has now sold 8.7 million copies worldwide and 560,000 copies in the UK." You were making justifications for the placement this week while using the somewhat low placement of 3D Land as evidence that it could have a large LTD. You keep going on and on about context, yet you took such issue with my first post which was giving context to the positions of the previous three 3D Mario games. Then, when you put out your hypothetical number for 3D World I put it in context of the previous week that contained a console launch, and the week of 3D Land. Instead of addressing any of that you spent around half your post complaining that I had lost track of the argument. Let's look back at it shall we? Pavolink made a post, you quoted less than a third of it, and then only addressed about half of that third. That was Pavolink's solitary post in this thread. I really jumped into the middle of a heated debate there. Not that I think he had some doctoral thesis hidden within his post, but it seems you did the same thing you are accusing me of. At the very least you admit I addressed individual sentences. Poor Pavolink seems to have only had the "14" and "flop" portion of his post addressed. |
I didn't use it in actual comparison, I used it as an EXAMPLE. As in "if it sold this many, would it still be a flop, considering <other games that sold similar numbers at release>?" - and then provided reasoning for why it could be that many. It's called a thought experiment, performed because we can't, currently, look at real data for it.
And I never asserted that coming in 14th meant it would have a large total in the future. I used it to demonstrate that release week numbers do not strongly correlate with long-term sales numbers. A rather straightforward assertion that I then backed up with examples, speculated numbers (that were clearly marked as speculative) based on what we do know, and basic logical thought. What you then did was jump in and go "But 3D Land had these big games launching at the same day!", which simultaneously proved my point and showed a complete disregard for the discussion at hand, which was 3D World being outsold by things launching the same day.
I didn't assert some grand debate, I said you jumped into the argument. Pavolink asserted that 3D World being 14th meant it was a flop (although he did so in a far less elaborate manner than I just did). I pointed out that there is no reason to assume so, given that we don't have numbers, and even if we did, a weak first week wouldn't necessarily mean a flop.
You suggest I did the same to pavolink that you did to me... not true. Pavolink was talking about "terrible Mario sales", and called the game a flop. I pointed out that it was too early to make that declaration. I did trim the first line of his post out of my quote, but only because it wasn't necessary for the discussion - it was the theme of his post that I was responding to, with the quoted line epitomising the entire post.
You, on the other hand, quoted my entire post, but ignored the content and the context in order to argue over a completely tangential thing based on my comparison of 3D World's week 1 sales to 3D Land's week 1 sales as a demonstration for why it's too early to call it a flop. The whole POINT of that comparison was to say "it's too early to call it a flop" - not "it's going to sell better" or "it sold better than you think", but "it's too early to call it a flop" - a direct response to his ENTIRE post. The context of my post, and of his, were in complete alignment. Yours... not so much.
Now, you're probably going to complain about how I trimmed out your last paragraph. I did it because it was completely irrelevant, and an attempt by you to apply yet another logical fallacy in a misguided attempt to show me up. What I predicted last year is irrelevant to my words of "don't get ahead of yourself" now.
