Yeah it is. I can perfectly understand if someone misinterpreted what I said to a certain degree. What you did, however was take snippits from different paragraphs, one from literally the middle of one, put them together and put them in a completely different context. Not understanding the bait and switch thing, I can somewhat understand if someone skimmed through what I said (especially in your case). It's not really about it being a bait and switch. Bait: getting the attention of a wider audience with the Classic. Switch: ... the Switch. As for the "no shit sherlock" thing. I basically end the post saying the same thing albiet so at this point I know you are only reconfirming that you only selectively read anything and made up your own narration. it reminds me of this: https://youtu.be/wNgJzhoqjNs?t=33s |
Did you literally take out one line of my post to accuse me of selective hearing..? If that was a joke, I like it. If not, lol.
In the beginning you're talking about how Nintendo is using the NES Classic specifically to build awareness for the Switch. Yet at the time, they had only vaguely mentioned the Switch, and weren't talking about it at all really.
Then you're talking about how they stopped mentioning the NES Classic when the Switch came out (although I'm not sure what they could have really said about it at that point anyway).
If the NES Classic was being used as a bait for the Switch, then there would have to be some kind of overlap in the marketing, some kind of connection that Nintendo was trying to draw, or some way that Nintendo was trying to upsell potential NES Classic buyers to the Switch. There would have to be some kind of link that Nintendo was forming between them. They would have to, in some capacity, be talking about both at the same time.
You are claiming that they were using the NES Classic to drive Switch sales. Pointing out that they stopped talking about the NES Classic well over a month before the Switch released completely defeats your own premise. The fact that they are from different paragraphs doesn't change that. An argument has to be logicaly coherent between paragraphs. You don't take the bait out of the water a month before you want to catch the fish.
And none of this is remotely a bait and switch. Bait and Switch is advertising one product to drive people to a store, and then having it at a higher than advertised price or trying to upsell. If Nintendo lied and said "hey we're sending out new batches of NES classics and they should be in stores on march 3rd" and then sent reps to the stores to try to convince customers that came in for the Classic to get a Switch instead, then that would be a bait and switch. A bait and switch would require them continuing to talk about the classic to drive people to stores in order to be upsold. I get that there is some poetic license, but the situation is not even relatively close to that. Trying to drive brand awareness is not a bait and switch in any way shape or form.
As for no shit sherlock, yes I know you said the same thing. That's why I used that phrase. If you're not familiar with the expression, you are being sarcastically referred to as sherlock in this expression. I summarized the gist of your post, then pointed out that your point was so plainly obvious that I can't understand the point in presenting it. It seemed so painfully obvious that I thought there was something I'm missing... or did you really make a long post just to say that Nintendo wants to sell their primary product more than a tertiary product?
