fatslob-:O on 11 February 2018
| flashfire926 said:
Well, doesn't this just prove my point even more? It's not as if the PS3 was unaffected by it. And if you're point is right, why was ps2 replaced in six years when it doing amazing numbers? |
The ignoratio elenchi fallacy is really getting annoying on these boards ... (How about you guys actually start showing how the opposition's argument will further yours ? That shouldn't be too hard from now on, right ?)
What you say about PS2 doing "amazing" numbers isn't true either considering the system peaked in it's second year. PS3 replaced PS2 earlier because the latter was reaching a plateau in it's main market and had hardly any further room for growth ... (just before the launch of the PS3, PS2 was selling for $129)
