@Whoever the mod is collapsing relevant comments:
The author's history becomes relevant in discussing the author's opinion. Just as it would be absurd to expect us not to bring up the author's history if Mark Cerny wrote and submitted an "opinion" article about how PS4 beats Xbox in some area that is not supported by objective evidence. If you're going to allow the article, allow the comments.
Speaking to the article, the reliance ...
Whatever effort you put into this would have been better spent making an honest appeal for those who already own an Xbox to go buy Forza 6, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Sunset Overdrive, etc. That might actually get Xbox something, whereas this click bait isn't winning you anything.
So, Rookie... About that above excerpt you broke down in response to CernaML... Where in there did you "use 'fact' and 'opinion' in the same sentence"? Yeah. That's not the sentence from your post CernaML was talking about. Back to the drawing board you go.
"So which part of 'Again, that is just my own assessment so anyone can have theirs' are you not understanding?"
The part where you desperately and hilariously try to present your opinion as fact within one sentence to support a delusional conclusion:
"IMO Xbox One did in fact beat PS4 three holidays on a row."
And the part where you confuse presenting opinion with presenting evidence.
But, hey, ...
"The sheer hypocrisy is astounding."
Seems like you're pretty upset about an opinion of your opinion. "Sheer hypocrisy" indeed.
"So something being the best is based on a popularity contest now? "
No, but when the only measure you're using to determine the best is having an opinion, well, so does everyone else, and you had best find some other way to overcome that if you're in the minority.
"No, in a world where other people are entitled to different opinions."
Were you denied that opinion, or was it that someone had an opinion of your opinion? Can't have your cake and eat it, too, making a fanboy article with a headline stating your opinion as fact, hiding behind the opinion dodge to deflect criticism, then getting upset when someone offers their opinion of it all.
@Griever nailed it. What measure is Septic using beyond just minority opinion to determine that? What makes this worthy of both an article and linking to on N4G? Because if the only measure is opinion Septic's minority opinion loses out to the majority, in which case this comes off as a bit narcissistic.
You wrote that?! I thought you just submitted it. Wow, you really have given up all pretense. I clicked on this page (not the article) trying to figure out how they got NPD data for December and if I somehow imagined PS4 winning November.
But come on, guy. You've been around long enough to know full well how N4G is setup and works. Yet, you still ran with a headline masquerading your opinion as fact. You don't get to dodge criticism because y...
Moldy is having a hard time letting go after I exposed him/her in the other thread, but that was also about PS+ releases, so I guess in a strange way it's kind of, sort of related to the topic.
But to your point, I have yet to see anyone justify having those titles released as PS+ games beyond them being "AAA" titles.
Still smarting over our last encounter? Your problem is you don't know how to leave well enough alone. Mind you this is VGChartz, but they don't exactly have a rep for overestimating PS sales. They have The Order at 1.42 million. Pretty good support for a game that was not received well by critics and fans (63 and 6.7 respectively).
Agreed. It seems a bit of a stretch and I credit the dev with enough intelligence not to pick that fight.
"What a weak month. 2 more indies on PS4?"
Can you articulate why this month is weak and you'd prefer KZ:SF over what is being offered?
Don't you think one of the reasons PS+ gets as many indies as it does is because PS4 gamers can be relied on to actually buy the AAA releases on the system, especially the ones marketed as exclusives?
(continued from previous comment)
"that's fine and i was almost convinced that the rumors were true sony only wants games of a certain metacritic rating. so please explain hamsterball?"
Look through my comment history. I've never once promulgated that rumor, so your response is simply a petulant response to being bested and a desperately apparent attempt to deflect.
"the bottom line is a game like knack fits perfectly ...
"you already conceded defeat because your own reply was to buy the game if you want it. could the same not be said of most ps+ games being offered?"
1) What does that have to do with what you quoted?
2) Give the arguing a break until you learn how the basics of arguing. You have to respond to what I said, not what you wish I had said.
3) Nowhere in my comments did I concede defeat. Do I need to link to a dictionary? That's your...
Good point. I'm going to start posing that challenge to people who try to play like PS+ isn't worth the price.
"I had plus on PS3 before they even had free games and now folks think they deserve big budget games."
Same here. But it's funny how they're trying to paint us as not really part of the PS community. We have the most perspective when it comes to the value and evolution of PS+.
@KwietStorm @Rayven @FattyBoy3D
Do you completely lack self-awareness?
"That's just how it is. You can't even constructively criticize PlayStation without getting eaten alive by our own community."
Maybe you should just get to the "constructive criticism" without launching into an attack on the community if you're going to turn around and whine about your comments not being well received. Seriously. You're...
"you're right, that spot was reserved for super meat boy. how dare anyone mention a game they didn't really want to buy but try."
If you want to engage in a straw-man argument, just go the whole way, flip a few letters around from my handle, and make a spoof LeCreuset account so you can go back and forth creating and defeating your own arguments.
Or you can approach the conversation with some maturity. Your call...
I'm probably more qualified to explain how you link things together in your speech than you are. But you really don't need any semantics experience to understand your error of conflating your opinion for fact, within a single clause.
You also do some conflating of opinion and fact in your example you tried to break down in defense of yourself. So let's just focus on what you initially screwed up on lest we fall down the rabbit hole...