The truth about Nintendo

[Final-Fan]

Please forgive me if this comes out broken.  [edit:  seems OK except for lots of whitespace which I deleted.]  The page with the post I'm trying to reply to is broken somehow (even @ 10 posts per page) and I am copy/pasting the source code to see if it will work.
ZOD95 SAID:

Final-Fan said:

Zod95 said:

Final-Fan said:

1.  No, I said, essentially, 'yes, they may emulate real fighting techniques, but they also have ridiculous crap like Ivy's chain sword etc.', which segues into a more general point about the relative levels of realism in both games.  But even concentrating on just the fighting techniques, I ADDRESSED YOUR POINTS, and you just dismissed it. 

As for the MDM challenge:  "Nintendo has made more profit off of games than Sony or Microsoft." 

I also have a bonus challenge in mind, but it's only for after you're completely done fulfilling your challenge on the above statement.  "The fact that Nintendo is completely reliant on video game sales as a company suggests it has more at stake concerning the well-being and future of the video game industry than either Microsoft or Sony, and therefore more reason to care about it."

Nice! Let me try:

1st - No, that's a blatant lie. Nintendo has made more money while depreciating some intangible assets like the goodwill of gamers to buy their products, which is now very low and that's why Wii U doesn't sell. Therefore, Nintendo has made less profit than Sony, which continues to have acceptance among gamers.

2nd - That's also a blatant lie. First, Nintendo has been selling many hardware peripherals, which are only videogame sales in your opinion. Second, even if that was true, Sony's and Microsoft's other divisions are also reliant on videogames. How will PC Windows sell when there is no games? How will Bravia TVs sell when there is no consoles? Third, Sony and Microsoft have not yet recovered everything they have invested on videogaming and thus they have more at stake regarding the future of this market than Nintendo, which has already segregated huge amounts of wealth into a safe place.

It's so easy to be on this side of the fence

Final-Fan said:

2b.  I didn't base that assertion on my opinion of those types of music, but rather logic.  Consider: 
–Since I+V music is, in fact, I PLUS V, doesn't it stand to reason that if you take out all the complexity in the V part, the I-only remains will be likely to be less complex than I-only music that still has all of its complexity and was DESIGNED to be complete by itself while the I-minus-V music wasn't? 
–Doesn't it stand to reason that the more components are in something, the more complexity can be achieved?  Nintendo's orchestral music would therefore have much more potential complexity than a rock band with less than a dozen people in it (including the singer).

You are disregarding the fact that some music tracks may be, in essence, more complex than others and therefore the "designed to be complete" may not make much sense to apply. What is "complete" to an artist may not be to another. Instrumental-only music may be, in general, more empty than vocal music. To claim it isn't it's just your opinion unless to present evidence.

1a.  I presume by "1st" you are addressing the first challenge, as I requested.  Therefore, you didn't really address at all the very fact Nintendo has made that $32 billion you were complaining about when you began this thread.  In order to question that statement you basically have to contradict your own earlier position.  But instead you just spouted irrelevant nonsense.  [edit:  deleted an irrelevant argument of my own]

1b.  "2nd" OK, I admit Nintendo also makes video game hardware, and that video game hardware can be a source of business by [edit:  both direct profit and] getting royalties from third parties publishing their games on it.  But it is well known that Nintendo hardware has not attracted enough business to their home consoles to be particularly successful in this way for over a decade now.  So yes, they are reliant on video game sales.  Their hardware depends on their software, not the other way around; if no one bought Nintendo games, the hardware would soon follow. 

Your analogies are—I'm going to be blunt here—idiotic.  People buy TVs to watch TV even more than to play video games.  People buy computers for business, the Internet, email, and a thousand things other than video games.  When the PS3 launched in 2006 you could use it as a Linux computer, but let's be honest here, it would never succeed if there were no PS3 games.  If there were no computer games, computers would still be successful, even if the market took a hit and some individual businesses would be in trouble. 

Saying MS and Sony have more "at stake" because they have not recovered the money they've spent sounds a lot like the "sunk costs" fallacy.  It's nonsense.  If they think they can make money somehow by investing in games (even if they make money on TVs people buy to make their games look better or because Sony fanboys like Sony TVs better or something), then they will stay in it.  If they think that investing in games would lose them money overall, then they will walk to the door, no matter how much money they've sunk, because as a business they don't want to sink even more with no expectation of ever getting it back. 

2.  So if some music is just inherently more complex than other music, then the implication is that how complex a piece of music is depends on how it was composed rather than simply whether it has vocals in it, which is very sensible, and destroys your entire argument.

1: You can't expect me to be honest on this challenge. This doesn't reveal my true opinion and I don't need to be coherent or reasonable, just logical (that's why it is so easy). It's just to show you that it's totally possible to raise issues on any fact and argue forever in order to make it look like an opinion that's not even shared by everyone and thus it can be called a blatant lie when someone tries to put it as a fact. That's essencially what has been happening here with the OP.

Are you convinced yet or do you want me to continue the challenge?

2: As I said several times before to other people, voice in music is just an indicator, so it doesn't destroy my argument at all.

MY REPLY:
1.
The original challenge you proposed was, "Ultimately (and we've already got there), anything can be viewed as an opinion, not a fact. You can think about any general statement you could make regarding Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft. Take the time you need. Pick the one that you think to be undeniable. I can say in advance (without knowing what it is) that it's an opinion, not a fact. And, using the same "argumentative weapons" as people here have been using, I can show it."

My submission to your challenge was, "Nintendo has made more profit off of games than Sony or Microsoft."

I don't know what you think you're accomplishing by blithering about stuff that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but as far as I can see you are failing the challenge so far (to show that that sentence is NOT a fact but nothing more than an opinion). If what you're trying to do is say, "Yes, I am just spouting irrelevant nonsense, but that is the same thing you are doing," well, all I can do to that is shake my head.

Actually, wait. I just noticed how you might not be spouting irrelevant nonsense, merely nonsense. You said, "Nintendo has made more money depreciating some intangible assets like the goodwill of gamers to buy their products [...] Therefore, Nintendo has made less profit than Sony, which continues to have acceptance among gamers." But remember, your $32 billion figure covers the ENTIRE history of Nintendo's involvement in video games. Before that, they had no goodwill among video gamers! In fact, the whole industry at the time had been discredited by a market crash (Atari). So even if we agree that Nintendo has been "cashing in" its reputation (I disagree), that doesn't count against their $32 billion since it was made in the same time period we're talking about. They just turned one type of profit (goodwill) into another (money).

2. It destroys your ARGUMENT that it should be USED AS AN INDICATOR in your other argument. In other words, I didn't destroy your larger argument by showing that your thing about vocal/instrumental music shouldn't be used to support it—but the fact remains that you can't support your other argument with the vocal/instrumental "indicator" because the indicator is crap, for reasons previously explained by both myself and others.