Wyrdness said:
Lol it wasn't implied in anyway you've effectively admitted to making that part up even the Vita part was never said or implied either, you've admitted to fabricating a point to argue against here. 360 was anounced 3 years into the platforms life not 4 years unless you believe MS anounced it then released it the next day, MS themselves even started developing 360 2 years into the Xbox's life. You combined the total of around 7-8 consoles across 3 generations to compare to the GB the kicker is that it was a flawed attempt at rebutting the point which was about performance of the portable market and guess what 118m is on par or better than their home console counterparts performance hardly rocket science to understand. As for your quote I read back through each post and the is not what you say in any of them either you read a typo before it was corrected or you skim read each post. Again your quote not only says nothing to back your stance but also contradicts your own argument earlier when you were arguing that DS was a third pillar and not part of the GB range now you're using quotes confirming it was a GBA successor, not only that you failed to remember I already told you new platforms are always in development and to further add irony to the final part of your post you again quote something out of context because that part of the post was referring to the 3DS and ended up proving your own earlier argument wrong, congratulations you debunked yourself. |
I'm not gonna bother with the first part...
Xbox came out in November 2001; XB360 was announced in February 2005 and released November 2005.
Xbox was out about 4 full years before being replaced.
"performance of the portable market"
I analysed that same performance in two ways. In both ways the portable market was proven to not be on par with the home console market.
You then spoke about the awesome GB (or GBA... who cares) who sold more than any other home console (even when combined).
Your conclusion: the portable market was selling on par with the home console because one handheld achieved a total sales like no other console.
I tried to point out that you weren't looking at the big picture (time spent on the market) and how you "shifted" your point to be right.
No point in discussing this again.
"As for your quote I read back through each post and the is not what you say in any of them either you read a typo before it was corrected or you skim read each post."
I quoted you saying GBA better than MD+Snes combined.
Even if you corrected yorself you were still critizing me knowing perfectly well of that mistake?: "No I compared GB to SNES and MD not the GBA, this is again another example of you failing to remember the points you're arguing against I'm starting to think you're well out of your league here at this point."
What i said about the DS (dev. included):
DS was always part of their R&D plan and it was not changed because of PSP;
Nintendo has their own way of making consoles;
If Nintendo wanted to develop a competitor to PSP, they would have gone with a GBA 2.0.
What that quote showed was that they were indeed thinking about a sequel to GBA (whatever that means), but it wasn't until the former president's call, that DS came to be.
So, your idea that PSP tampered with DS development, was wrong.
DS was born out of a "request" from the late Nintendo president.
You have shown that you aren't willing to think about the things you say, to stay on topic and not change your goalposts and you are bent in denying the big picture.
There's really no point in continuing.
Thanks for the conversation.
