| Goodnightmoon said: Oh yeah, I did broke all your arguments, read again, you have been moving the goalpost all this time, from absolute sales that doesn´t count the consoles that you are not interested on because they break your trends, to marketshares that makes the wii look like barely a success, from counting only homeconsoles to prove that Nintendo hardware has always being declining to combine handhelds and homeconsoles just to prove that NX will continue that trend despite not being a single trend at all of combined hardware sales declining in the whole history of Nintendo, to finally just deny the generations every handheld console is part of just to take them out of the list. You are the master of moving the goalpost. |
Such cognitive dissonance. It's impressive. Let me break down the arguments I've made:
I started by saying with the exception of the Wii and DS, every single home console and handheld as sold less then the one before it. This caused you to lose it, arguing against me dismissing the success of the WIi and 3DS even though there is no indication that Nintendo has managed to carry any of that success into the next generation of each device. Amonst those of us with a common sense, that would indicate that the success of the Wii and DS are outliers, or exceptions to an otherwise consistent trend. You argued against such reasion, and amonst your argument, you acutally said that the N64 isn't really a failure because it sold more than the Sega Genesis, and would have won if that was what it was competing against, as if that is relevant, and mentioned changing markets as a reason why selling less isn't an indication of less success, which is obviously moving the goalposts.
So I broke down how Nintendo looks even worse from a marketshare perspective (which absolutely makes sense since your argument shifted to changing markets). Then you moved the goalposts again, by arguing Nintendo is actually doing alright, because it has "won" three of the six console generations, as if selling the most in a generation is a solid measurement of success. I posted specific examples of how obviously useless that statistic is. This did not deter you from insisting that "winning a generation" is a far better measurment of success because it totally masks the obliteration Nintendo has recieved in the PS1, PS2, and now PS4 eras, and lets you prop up the success of Nintendo from over 20 years ago when Nintendo's only real competition is Sega, because this clearly makes Nintendo look less bad.
You then questioned if I would view the NX as a success if it sold more than the Wii U. I said that it would only be fair to compare the sales of the NX home to the Wii U, and apparently I made the mistake of mentioning that if the NX sales are combined, as it is predicted to be a unified platform with two specifications, and replacing both the Wii U and 3DS simultaneously, so to compare it fairly you would have to compare the success of the NX to the success of both of the Wii U and 3DS. That was when you moved the goalposts yet again, and decided to combine console and handheld sales for every generation based on where you decided each one aligned with what, and presented as a definitive "Nintendo has pretty much sold the same generation to generation when you combine them this way or whatever". Then when I pointed out the flaws in that, you decided you had "broke all my arguments", and are now taking your ball and declaring yourself a winner.
So, fantastic job on the cognitive dissonance. You keep buying every game Nintendo publishes, they do need your support after all.
