Alright, so I'm going to make one last post addressing the comments made after my ban, and that's going to be the end of it, and I won't be discussing it further.
RolStoppable said:
Is the highlighted part a definitive claim? |
The sentences by themselves are definitive claims, but within the context of the paragraph that they are incorporated into, they clearly are not. That's how the English language works. Let's try with an example:
"If Sony includes a PSVR 2 with every PS5 and charges $800 for it, and expects to sell as many PS5s as they sold PS4s they are out of their minds. They are throwing away the good will they garnered over the PS4's lifespan. They are taking their userbase for granted like they did with the PS3."
So, let's assume Sony does not include a PSVR2 with every PS5 and charges much less than $800 for it, then logically they would not be out of their minds, they would not be throwing away the good will they garnered over the PS4's lifespan and they would not be taking their userbase for granted like they did with the PS3. The sentences that comment on the condition presented, no matter how definitive they are, still depend on the condition, and thus become conditional.
Cerebralbore101 said:
Isn't arguing over whether or not it launches on March 3rd, or by the end of March splitting hairs? Yes it did. Online play was a part of Online Services. If I say I'm going to give you object A, and object B is a part of object A, then you can safely assume that you are going to get object B. Example: I'm going to give you a Nintendo Switch. This implies that I'm going to give you a set of joycons, because they are a part of a Nintendo Switch. |
You have the logic of this backwards. Online play is a part of Nintendo Switch Online Services, not the reverse. The problem is with the ambiguity of the term "Nintendo Switch Online Services". So let's use another example to illustrate this
Let's say that Sony announces a new service called "Playstation Platinum", which replaces Playstation Plus, includes all of the features of Playstation plus (online play, save back ups, games discounts, and two "free" games per month) but also includes a bunch of other stuff, and costs more. Sony puts out the following press release:
"Users will be able to try out Playstation Platinum for free during a trial period after launch. Then it will become a paid service beginning in the fall of 2021. We will provide additional details on this paid service and its features on our home page at a later date."
The Playstatuon 5 launches, and, while there is online play, the rest of Playstation Platinum is nowhere to be found. Playstation 5 owners can't sign up for the service, they can't make save backups, they don't have access to game discounts, they don't get any free games a month, and they don't have the bunch of other stuff. In fact, those features don't make it to the Playstation 5 until over a year afterwards.
If someone after the fact said that Playstation Platinum was available at launch because online play was available at launch, they would be incorrect, as a single part of what makes Playstation Platinum doesn't actually represent the service as a whole, and it's clear that online play was not what Sony was referring to in the press release, it was the entire service package that makes Playstation Platinum.
The same reasoning goes with Nintendo and their "Nintendo Switch Online Services" vs. online play. While online play is a part of Nintendo Switch Online Services, it doesn't actually represent the service as a whole, and online play wasn't what Nintendo was referring to in that press release, and why you have games media companies writing articles about how the Nintendo Switch Online Service finally released in Sept 2018.
---
With all that said, let me reitierate, I will not be addressing any of this further. It has literally nothing to do with Google Stadia and does not belong in this thread at all. There's no need for any more derailment.
