The evolution of the console market over time

[JWeinCom]

The_Liquid_Laser said:

JWeinCom said:

Gotta admit, I'm a bit irked. Cause this feels a bit evasive, and I feel I wasted my time in replying. 

There isn't any context I missed or misunderstood. I generally find semantic argument about labels, such as what counts as arcade or not to be incredibly dull and pointless. If two people agree on terms, then that's all that matters. So, while I understand your discussion about arcade vs accessibility, I did not respond to that part.

The question of where Switch sales likely came from is a question that can be answered with facts, data, and logic, and is one that I thought might be worth discussing. That's the point I chose to comment on. Whether the Switch sales came from the PS4 and Xbox 1 as you stated is a factual claim that stands on its own independent of any context. The Switch sales came from the PS4 or they did not, and what Rol means by "arcade evolution" is completely irrelevant to that point. Whether the Switch is as accessible as the Wii is at best tangentially related to the claim.  

I'll give the benefit of the doubt that this was not an attempt to be evasive. So, kindly answer these yes or no questions.

1. Did you say "these "new" sales the Switch is getting are not coming from the Wii. The extra sales are coming from the PS4 and XB1 crowd"?

2. Was my post responsive to this claim? I.e. did it propose reasons why we either should or should not accept that claim?

If the answer to both of these questions is yes, then you should either explain why my counterargument is not sound, or concede that the extra sales are not likely from the PS4 crowd. Alternatively, you can say "I'm not going to defend the point, and you wasted your time replying". But, don't tell me that I somehow "missed the context" when I am directly addressing a claim you made. 

"So, while I understand your discussion about arcade vs accessibility, I did not respond to that part."

By your own admission you ignored most of my post.  Now you are irked that I am ignoring your post.  You are irked that I did the same thing that you did.  

If you are ignoring most of my post then you are actually missing the point of what I am saying.  Perhaps, now you will understand why I didn't bother replying to you either.

My bad for assuming you it was an honest misunderstanding. Clearly I was wrong.

By your own admission you ignored most of my post.  Now you are irked that I am ignoring your post.  You are irked that I did the same thing that you did.  

Nope, I absolutely did not.

I responded to every part of your post to Pyroasbill about where the Switch's sales came from. I broke it down paragraph by paragraph and responded to each part (except the bit about ring fit). So, this is a lie. Anyone can go back a page and see for themselves. I'm actually very good about responding to pretty much everything a person says, or at least explaining why I don't think a particular point warrants a response, so I resent this accusation.

What I did not do was go back another page to a previous post you had made to a different user that had nothing to do with whether the Switch sales were from Wii or PS4 owners. I didn't do that because that would be absolutely ridiculous. 

The one who is literally ignoring all but one line of a post, as you've done twice, is you, so cut the hypocrisy please. 

You are irked that I did the same thing that you did.

You made a claim. I made a reply in good faith that directly addressed that claim. When someone directly addresses a claim in a good faith respectful manner, you are generally expected to respond. Because otherwise you're wasting their time, because you brought up a point you had no interest in discussing, and they spent time replying think you were interested in actually discussing it.

On the other hand, if you respond to a user's post, as I did, you are not also obligated to respond to a previous post about something completely different. I don't have to debate what Rol means by arcade evolution to discuss where the Switch's sales are coming from, and it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

If you are ignoring most of my post then you are actually missing the point of what I am saying.

Which I didn't do, but you are doing.

Perhaps, now you will understand why I didn't bother replying to you either.

Yes, I understand perfectly. You made a claim you couldn't back up, and are disingenuously avoiding it. I asked you point blank if you made a claim and if my post was directly responsive to it. You could not deny that you did and I did, so you've gone the faux outrage route to squirm out of it.

If you wish to actually respond in good faith to the points I made about where the Switch's sales are coming from I'll reply (I'm not like super jazzed about it, but when I make a claim I am generally willing to defend it), but I'm not going to waste any more time trying to get you to defend a point you clearly cannot defend. 

So, if your next post to me is not about how we can determine where Switch sales are coming from, then don't post it, cause that will be considered derailing. Yes, I am taking the last word here, but you've wasted a bunch of my time so we'll call it even. If you have a burning desire to respond, PM.  

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 02 April 2021