| A_C_E said: The Switch isn't a rebranding of a previous existing console. The Switch isn't an upgrade to a console released a year ago that was replaced a year before that! The Switch is the successor to Nintendo's previous console (a console that was on market for 4 years, same as OG Xbox), not a simple upgrade or rebranding. Please tell me how these facts amount to confirmation bias. Using my logic you would find that the PS2 is the successor to the PS1 and the PS3 is the successor to PS2 and the PS4 is the successor to the PS3. These consoles having backwards compatibility has nothing to do with my arguement. Why are you giving me all this talk about backwards compatibility? I'm not even arguing that backwards compatibility defines a generation... I agree that a new generation didn't just start with the WiiU and that it started together with the PS4 and the X1. Like I have stated before, there was a 3 year gap between Dreamcast and OG Xbox. Generation 6 start with the Dreamcast and 3 other competitors entered the market at different times. The OG Xbox was only on the market for 4 years, less time than Wii U. I mean come lol, these examples that you and Don have given me did nothing to stop previous consoles in previous generations from starting or being a part of a new generation. Why the sudden change? |
Neither is the Master System but you don't see me arguing that it isn't a successor to the SG-1000 despite the clear differences in the library ...
Your logic is nothing more than cognitive dissonance when it isn't even self consistent ...
Why the sudden change you ask ? Weell maybe it's because the successor to PS4 and X1 aren't even on the horizon! Like I said before, it's not unprecedented to release a new platform in the same generation ...
Because the Master System is an actual successor to the SG-1000 and not an upgrade as evidenced by it's library it serves an example for the future generation like the Switch ...
