thx1139 said:
My belief is simple and it is I believe there is a huge cross over between people that have purchased a Wii U for Mario Kart and the people that must have Smash Brothers. My point is that I believe that Mario Kart (Also Super Mario 3D World, New Super Mario World U) have already made most of them make the plunge. I just dont believe there are many people that mush have Smash Brothers left that havent already picked up a Wii U. You may believe otherwise. The beauty is we will see it playout over the next couple of weeks. If I am wrong we will see soon enough.
|
I'm honestly struggling to put into words how incorrect your assertion is. Your belief cannot be proven because it fails to account the subjectivity of buyer motives which are virtually infinite.
Luckily we don't have to wait to know that your belief is wrong. We already know it is now.
Not to mention the bounds you've set up are essentially ephemeral, yet making unfounded implications based on pure speculation. Tell me what do you define as huge, many, most, those words are as meaningless as "nearly".
So instead lets do an excercise:
Reconstructing your "claim" in first order logic. Getting rid of those annoying "beliefs" and ambigous "Manys"
My belief is simple and it is I believe there is a huge cross over between people that have purchased a Wii U for Mario Kart and the people that must have Smash Brothers.
∃S s.t S⊂M ∧ |S|= A (There exists set S[Purchasers of Smash] such that it is a subset of set M[Purchasers of Mario Kart] and the amount of members of that set is A)
A > ? (A is greater than undefined)
A being the amount of fans in the overlap which you describe as huge but never define as having a maximal bound.
My point is that I believe that Mario Kart (Also Super Mario 3D World, New Super Mario World U) have already made most of them make the plunge. I just dont believe there are many people that mush have Smash Brothers left that havent already picked up a Wii U.
|M-S|= B (The amount of members in the Set M without the Set S is B)
B < ? (B is less than undefined)
B being the remaining fans who would buy a Wii U for smash alone is "the least of them" but never defined.
The beauty is we will see it playout over the next couple of weeks. If I am wrong we will see soon enough.
The only purchases that we're made for Smash on the Wii U where those made at least date. Because nobody buys a system in anticipation for a game.
Look, I do not care if you're using this validation to claim that the system selling potential of Smash 4 is not as great as it seems. The issue is that this method of validation is simply incorrect, it is essentially confusing cause an effect, assuming that p impies q also means q implies p when this is not correct either.
There are more valid and believable pieces of evidence such as the 3DS.