Twice I heavily derail the conversation when people attribute arguments to me I did not make. They then disagree with their own opinions saying that I was one one holding those opinions. I attribute arguments to them they did not make to show how dumb it is to put up a straw-man.
One of them cites MSN as a source, rather than peer-reviewed literature. The other merely states they are correct, retard.
Both miss that I was deliberately using their own debate tactic to show how dumb it is.
One then states that two things are not the same in spite of the fact that they, themselves, "proved" they where. (That is correct the both stated they where the same thing and that they where not the same thing.)
They then continually edit over half my comments out and only respond to the part of my comments where I exaggerate their own dumb logic instead of to the actual points I made. I am now editing out their post rather than responding. Like they have to me this entire thread.
That you can't keep a track of what others or even yourself say? That you cannot make a relevant and valid argument?
That you put words into others' mouth and then argue about it?
Narwrynn said: That WE made. We are in this together you and I.
Yeah, my mistake was engaging in a discussion with you since you are not capable of any...
We're not capable. Both of us. Together. Forever.
This whole conversation is probably one of the dumbest things I have had the displeasure of ever reading on these boards. Also, Gdemami did prove his point. You're just narrow sighted and wanted to knit pick what was said. Here, lets rephrase for you.
Consumers will buy all sorts of products. However, only the best products gain huge financial success. Therefore, if you look at it from the perspective of best product will make more money then the lessor product.
With this in mind the product making more money can then spend more money on said product continuing to improve it even further. Where as the product making less money will continue without improvement.
Hence more money equates to better product. It's pretty cut and dry really.
we are still arguing whether "good" is subjective?
Obviously it is. Otherwise, why would some here say UO is a "good" game, and I think it is terrible?
Nope, according to Gdemami there's nothing subjective about "good", because a game cannot be "good" if it doesn't earn a lot of money. If it makes heaps of money, it is automatically a "good" game.
So, by that definition, UO would only qualify as "good" because the money it made in it's day was quite reasonable, but by modern revenue levels (even after adjusting for inflation), it's obvious that UO wasn't actually as "good" as our modern MMO's...
Narwrynn said: That WE made. We are in this together you and I.
Yeah, my mistake was engaging in a discussion with you since you are not capable of any...
We're not capable. Both of us. Together. Forever.
This whole conversation is probably one of the dumbest things I have had the displeasure of ever reading on these boards. Also, Gdemami did prove his point. You're just narrow sighted and wanted to knit pick what was said. Here, lets rephrase for you.
Consumers will buy all sorts of products. However, only the best products gain huge financial success. Therefore, if you look at it from the perspective of best product will make more money then the lessor product.
With this in mind the product making more money can then spend more money on said product continuing to improve it even further. Where as the product making less money will continue without improvement.
Hence more money equates to better product. It's pretty cut and dry really.
Oh good! Another bite. Another attack of an argument I NEVER made.
Go back and read my very first post in this thread. I actually argue the same thing that if all you know about a game is the sales it made, you would likely be better off picking a game that had higher sales than another. Here is the direct quote:
I'd argue that the sales numbers of a game is a decent indication of its quality assuming you knew noting else about the game. I rather play the game that sold $40 million worth of copies than $30k. I'm likely to get a triple A release with the former and a buggy, short indie game with the ladder. Most AAA games are at least enjoyable to play if you happen to like the genre. Most indie games are trash.
I also paraphrased that statement in my first post to him.
However, the game is not good because it is successful. It is successful because it is good.
Read that line about 10 times before responding. Make sure you know my actual stance that I have made clear over, and over again in this thread. Here is his first reply to me:
Other guy: But is "making the most money" a measure of "good?" Me: I don't think anyone has ever made that argument in a serious manner. Gde: I will make that argument any day and in all seriousness.
I'm using sales and popularity to determine that there may be a game I find good here. He is saying the game must be good, not just in his opinion, but factually, because it is "making the most money."
-> Factually good -> Factually -> An opinion
Again he said he would make that argument all day in all seriousness.
Everything past my "I'm out" post has been complete parody of him editing my post, taking my statements out of context and attributing opinions to me I do not hold.
Anything past that point should not be taken seriously.
Also :
However, only the best products gain huge financial success.
Prove that statement.
Him merely stating people do not spend money on products that are not worthwhile is an assertion, not proof.
Hence more money equates to better product. It's pretty cut and dry really.
Not really. Just look at the format wars. VHS vs BETA is a good example.
Base technology behind the two placed Beta far ahead of VHS. Due to other reasons/marketing VHS eventually won out.
Tesla vs Edison, Edison was a genius at marketing, but Tesla's ideas are way better. (AC vs DC for example) Tesla died penniless, Edison is a "household" name
Play what you Like. I like SWOTR, Have a referral to get you going! --> http://www.swtor.com/r/nBndbs <-- Several Unlocks and a few days game time to make the F2P considerably easier
Not really. Just look at the format wars. VHS vs BETA is a good example.
Base technology behind the two placed Beta far ahead of VHS. Due to other reasons/marketing VHS eventually won out.
Tesla vs Edison, Edison was a genius at marketing, but Tesla's ideas are way better. (AC vs DC for example) Tesla died penniless, Edison is a "household" name
That actually supports the statement that money is good measure for success.
The problem is your inductive reasoning - you set a premise using your own arbitrary qualifiers for "good"("Base technology behind the two placed Beta far ahead of VHS") and then look for correlation with market performance to support it.
Comments
Prove it.
People do not spend money on products they do not find worthy, thus money made is a measure how many/much people like the product.
Money made then equals good game.
Therefore, if making a lot of money is "good", then the MMO that has made the most money so far is the best MMO to date !
That was easy...
Twice I heavily derail the conversation when people attribute arguments to me I did not make.
They then disagree with their own opinions saying that I was one one holding those opinions.
I attribute arguments to them they did not make to show how dumb it is to put up a straw-man.
One of them cites MSN as a source, rather than peer-reviewed literature.
The other merely states they are correct, retard.
Both miss that I was deliberately using their own debate tactic to show how dumb it is.
One then states that two things are not the same in spite of the fact that they, themselves, "proved" they where.
(That is correct the both stated they where the same thing and that they where not the same thing.)
They then continually edit over half my comments out and only respond to the part of my comments where I exaggerate their own dumb logic instead of to the actual points I made. I am now editing out their post rather than responding. Like they have to me this entire thread.
You just restated the premise.
Prove that customer only spend their money on good products.
That you can't keep a track of what others or even yourself say?
That you cannot make a relevant and valid argument?
That you put words into others' mouth and then argue about it?
Customer do not spend money only on good products.
So there is no way the amount of money made could indicate quality.
Can't you honestly see the royal, blinding flaw in argument you just made...?
Obviously it is. Otherwise, why would some here say UO is a "good" game, and I think it is terrible?
Me and Gde have agree that they are not the same thing.
We are getting married soon.
Consumers will buy all sorts of products. However, only the best products gain huge financial success. Therefore, if you look at it from the perspective of best product will make more money then the lessor product.
With this in mind the product making more money can then spend more money on said product continuing to improve it even further. Where as the product making less money will continue without improvement.
Hence more money equates to better product. It's pretty cut and dry really.
So, by that definition, UO would only qualify as "good" because the money it made in it's day was quite reasonable, but by modern revenue levels (even after adjusting for inflation), it's obvious that UO wasn't actually as "good" as our modern MMO's...
Another attack of an argument I NEVER made.
Go back and read my very first post in this thread. I actually argue the same thing that if all you know about a game is the sales it made, you would likely be better off picking a game that had higher sales than another. Here is the direct quote:
I also paraphrased that statement in my first post to him.
However, the game is not good because it is successful. It is successful because it is good.
Read that line about 10 times before responding. Make sure you know my actual stance that I have made clear over, and over again in this thread. Here is his first reply to me:
Other guy: But is "making the most money" a measure of "good?"
Me: I don't think anyone has ever made that argument in a serious manner.
Gde: I will make that argument any day and in all seriousness.
I'm using sales and popularity to determine that there may be a game I find good here.
He is saying the game must be good, not just in his opinion, but factually, because it is "making the most money."
-> Factually good
-> Factually
-> An opinion
Again he said he would make that argument all day in all seriousness.
Everything past my "I'm out" post has been complete parody of him editing my post, taking my statements out of context and attributing opinions to me I do not hold.
Anything past that point should not be taken seriously.
Also :
Prove that statement.
Him merely stating people do not spend money on products that are not worthwhile is an assertion, not proof.
VHS vs BETA is a good example.
Base technology behind the two placed Beta far ahead of VHS. Due to other reasons/marketing VHS eventually won out.
Tesla vs Edison, Edison was a genius at marketing, but Tesla's ideas are way better. (AC vs DC for example)
Tesla died penniless, Edison is a "household" name
--> http://www.swtor.com/r/nBndbs <--
Several Unlocks and a few days game time to make the F2P considerably easier
The problem is your inductive reasoning - you set a premise using your own arbitrary qualifiers for "good"("Base technology behind the two placed Beta far ahead of VHS") and then look for correlation with market performance to support it.
Such reasoning is falacious tho...