That is essentially why I made that reminder.

Because "I already did explain why i feel his argument is weak in another post" means that you're suggesting Rol's entire latest reply did nothing to refute what said in your previous post.

Having to ask you to explain why you don't think those were proper counterpoints will also contribute to going off topic, except it will take even longer to resolve because they're forced to make extra posts asking the other person to clarify their position.

Imagine if I say "I disagree with you that the sky is blue. It's actually red", and someone makes a thorough reply explaining why it's in fact blue.
To which I reply "Let's just leave it at that. But you're wrong. Read my previous statement again. I'm ignoring everything you said in response."

That's not a very nice way to end a discussion, right?
If you think that his response isn't properly adressing what you were saying, or you disagree with the logic, (which can certainly happen) then you should at least make an effort to explain why you think so. Or bow out of the discussion, without adding "...but your argument is weak and means nothing".

With that said though, if you're drinking then you probably should take a break from that discussion. There's no rush.

As for off topic, I don't think comparing Playstation management to Xbox/Nintendo management is neccesarily off topic in and of itself.
But if it goes off the rails and/or never ends, then a moderator may need to redirect the discussion.

I would say considering how much money Sony lost on PS3 blunder and that Series is selling almost like X1 (so the difference between X360 being a high seller and X1 and Series both not being is that PS3 didn't provide as much value for customers as PS4 and PS5) I would say that Sony got the biggest hit for a blunder than Nintendo.

Look my friend that rule was not put in place for someone replying to "someone saying a product is shitty". It was put in place "for the person saying a pruduct is shitty".

In other words if a user says to you " Your console is shit and gives an explaination why" you can reply back with "Yeah you might feel that way but your argument is weak and i dont want to get into it with you its off topic etc" the is no rule against a response like that. And that was simply what my response was.

Also nice of you to snip out the rest of my reply once again explaining my reply to him....

He added nothing new in his reply i dont even know why you feel the need for me to explain this. You can see his original post you can see my reply back to him and than you can see my reply to why i think his post is weak. Why does this need to keep going???

I was saying you didn't in this post:

You mentioned "many differences", but not which, and how/why that affects his counterpoints.

If you feel that you've properly explained that comment since then, that's fine. But that post of yours I initially responded to wasn't proper.
Regarding the substance rule, we've discussed it several times in modchat. It's not just there for the specific example that was given. 

Not if it gets reported, or a moderator sees it. Then they will be instructed to explain their position, and the Substance rule may get referenced.
We've done that many times, in order to avoid situations such as you and I described, or people copping out of discussions while still declaring 'victory', etc.

If you have any futher inquaries regarding the rules, please contact a moderator through PM. CGI, me, or whoever you wish.

Im just going to reply to the bolded and than honestly im done.

In my reply to you, i repeated what i already said in my reply to another user to him also about how he is leaving out how xbox still have not had most of their heavy hitters, how covid also had an effect on devs and hardware etc etc.

I honestly dont understand how you are ignoring them points. and i have to keep explaining this while you seem to be snipping them points out of the discussion and making it look like i never even replied back to him proper in the first place when i did and my 2nd reply was just me backing out.

I honestly dont need to take up the rules with CGI or you or whatever i honestly dont have a problem here so i dont know why one is being made out of nothing.

Because you didn't specify that in the post of yours that I initially responded to.

If that post had said "Your counterpoints X, Z and Y don't change my argument, because it is leaving out A, B and C, which I mentioned in another post", then your post would have been perfectly fine.

It's not just "backing out" when you also throw in a "...but your argument is weak and means nothing", without adding the above.

The Switch still benefited a lot from the WiiU. WiiU games did very well on the Switch, providing a good software library from the start without the usual launch drought. The PS3 also provided plenty remasters for the PS4 yet the Switch had a bigger boost from the WiiU library still looking great on Switch.
https://nintendo.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Wii_U_games_ported_to_the_Nintendo_Switch_system
You could say the Switch benefited a lot from the WiiU selling poorly.

Nintendo also lost money on the WiiU yet in the hundreds on millions while Sony lost Billions on the ps3.

Sony lost more money because they needed to keep the console going on for years. A garbage console that costed them insane 800 USD to manufacture. The irony is: With such cost per united produced PS3 would generate massive losses even if the launch was a huge success. How has it ever passed for C level still beyond me. But anyways...

Nintendo dropped the Wii U rather quickly. Courtesy of PSVita bombing, which gave a lot of leeway for launching their hybrid console aligned with the moment where 3DS was starting to lose steam

If PS Vita was as popular as PSP 3DS market share would be eroded and Japan market would not turn into Nintendo playground. This alone would have impacted Switch launch, negatively 

I sometimes wonder whether Nintendo would follow Sony path and keep eating losses for many years to delay Switch until the right moment (enough top tier games ready for launching, as well as hardware development completely well done) or if they would accelerate a 3DS successor at risky of failing to deliver their best games at launch. 

Regardless, I wouldn't say market punished Sony, because honestly there wasn't much to punish. PS3 was a very good platform and with most of the genre defining games amd the high sales are just a reflection of its library. We can't say the same of Wii U, it was a very week console all around 

Launch price was detrimental but majority of people simply don't buy at launch. At the middle of its life PS3 was more affordable thus it was viewed as a normal console.  

A similar comparison to be made should be 3DS. The launch price was big but once it got a price cut things were already sorted out 

Garbage console? It had better games than the ps4 imo. And I still use it as one of the best blu-ray players that actually remembers where you left off without the need to see all the warning screens again. It's still the best media center supporting the most formats.

The console was anything but garbage, but indeed very expensive to make thanks to blue laser diode shortages when the console came out. It was already expensive because of adding blu-ray, yet the shortages and need to launch quickly to combat HD-DVD, and the 360 already being out for a year, drove the price up a lot.

PS3 added otherOS to make it a bit less expensive for consumers as it could pass as more than just for entertainment (lower import taxes on general purpose computers) however that backfired. They never intended the ps3 to subsidize server farms, for example
https://phys.org/news/2010-12-air-playstation-3s-supercomputer.html
About the 33rd largest supercomputer in the world right now is the US Air Force Research Laboratory's (AFRL) newest system, which has a core made of 1,760 Sony PlayStation 3 (PS3) consoles.
At a reported loss of $240 per ps3 sold at the time, Sony basically subsidized the US Air force with over $422 thousand dollars. And that's just one of many of these ps3 clusters. https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/3/20984028/playstation-supercomputer-ps3-umass-dartmouth-astrophysics-25th-anniversary

However Sony couldn't afford to lose nor drag out the Blu-ray HD-DVD war and PS3 did quickly turn the tides in that. But I have no clue whether the investment in the Cell processor paid off. It was hard to program for and with the 360 having the early lead it was a pita to port games to the cell. Sony's first party turned out great looking games later in the generation and the Cell even led to some new AA techniques, yet the PS3 always trailed behind in multi platform titles. Those late gen great first party games did give the momentum to ps4. 360 started great, then MS killed its momentum with Kinect and TV TV TV :/

Sony also eventually managed to turn the losses around and by 2010 started to make money on PS3
https://www.pcworld.com/article/512740/article-4244.html
So it would have been a bad decision to kill ps3 early! Instead ps3 was still produced until 2016 and made money back for the PS4 R&D.



Meanwhile Nintendo played it wonderfully, delaying BotW to come out day 1 with the launch of the Switch. It was perfect timing, just a year after Sony and MS launched their pro consoles which kinda failed to deliver, here comes the Switch hybrid console with the biggest console seller ever.

WiiU wasn't weak, it was poorly marketed and the fickle blue ocean had their fill of Wii Sports etc. The WiiU had great games, full BC with Wii yet to the general consumer it looked like a peripheral to the Wii. Low sales meant 3rd parties losing interest and Nintendo not getting their returns on software sales.
The WiiU still lasted 5 years (same as GameCube and just a year less than Wii), not the shortest console generation. Original XBox only lasted 4 years!

SONY continued to look for ways to make the PS3 a more attractive machine because it could bank on third parties to support it despite its troubled infancy and the much expensive game dev costs, their bet paid off. MS can and have made similar bets that also paid off, at least the PS3 made some strides with its exclusive lineup later on and PSN was a much better value thanks to the PSN+ collection. Xbox1 library continued to be abysmal for the entirety of its lifespan, a story that continued well into 2023, yet third parties offered it more support than they have offered the Switch. 

Nintendo couldn't possibly be that incompetent and still be rewarded.

Anyhow, I was just zooming out and looking at a bigger timeline here because of @chakkra points about testing customers loyalty, if you actually zoom out and apply their own exact metrics for what is considered loyalty tests on a bigger snapshot, Jim is in no way the worst offender. Not that I think these metrics matter, personally.