Platinum Games Final Platinum 4 Announcement 'Isn’t Too Far Away' - News

You think they're hyping a delay announcement?

They can show some gameplay along with the release date being pushed to next year. By all means - if you have any other interpretation of a "doozy" announcement - do tell. I suppose they could use it in a positive sense, but the phrasing is a bit weird.

They are pretty heavily promoting this announcement. They have been talking up the four announcements, and made a website to promote them. The idea that they would hype all of these announcements and finish it off with announcing a delay would be one of the most bizarre marketing decisions imaginable.

Eh, game companies have done worse and spun it in a positive light. What I mean is - they could announce adding more features to the game, which is the reason for the delay, or something similar. Plus from the way the article was written I thought that the 3rd announcement would be the doozy one.

When gaming companies have to give bad news, they try to put it in a positive light. But I can't think of a situation where they went out of their way to draw attention to the news. Assuming they're not run by idiots, that would be odd.

Well, the Wonderful 101 Remaster news is a great example for this. The news of the game's existence is great, but launching a Kickstarter for an already completed port after taking Tencent is rather scummy.

Regardless of your opinion, the reaction to that news was overwhelmingly positive. Not the same situation at all.

@JWeinCom So suddenly this comparison and my opinion don't matter now because you used an argument from popularity fallacy, huh? Interesting. So if the reaction to a Bayonetta 3 gameplay and feature announcement + delay is overwhelmingly positive as well, would that make your above posts wrong according to your own standards?

Ugh. No, this is not an argument by popularity fallacy. Argument from popularity fallacy means that I'm saying the argument is right because a lot of people agree with the argument itself. Pointing out the popularity of something to support an argument is not an argument from popularity fallacy, assuming it's relevant to what you're trying to prove.

For example....

Animal Crossing's release will boost Switch sales because everyone on VGChartz thinks it will = argument from popularity fallacy.

Animal Crossing will boost switch sales because Animal Crossing is a very popular series, and releases in popular series tend to boost hardware sales =/= argument from authority fallacy.

Obviously, Platinum thought that announcing W101 would be well received, and well received enough that people would give them money. Based on that, it made sense that they would hype the announcement. In fact, they were correct.

Delaying games is, in every circumstance I can think of, poorly received. Hyping up an announcement that you believe will be poorly received is insanely stupid, so it stands to reason that Platinum would not do so.

If they do actually announce a delay (potentially with some other stuff) and people are really stoked about it, then yeah, I was clearly wrong. But, delays are pretty much always met with negativity. In fact, you said that you believed it might be a delay because you thought "doozy" implied the announcement would be negative.

So, do you actually believe that Platinum announcing a delay and this delay being met with a positive response is a likely scenario?

Said argument from authority when I meant argument from popularity. Wish I could edit that, but alas.

Oh, you absolutely made an argument from popularity despite your subsequent apologetics and deflections. You said that my opinion doesn't matter since the reaction was overwhelmingly positive. So you used a majority reaction to good news combined with the shady practices to dismiss the latter. That's pretty much the definition of it.

Further down in your post you continue to ignore the inconvenient parts of what I was saying. They wouldn't be hyping up the delay in my hypothetical scenario, but rather the gameplay reveal and extra features used to mask the bad news.

So even if they announced a delay, which you believe is a bad thing, you'd say that you were wrong about the delay being a bad thing, because most of the people ignored it in favour of the good news? Well, at least you are committed to that argument from popularity fallacy.

"So, do you actually believe that Platinum announcing a delay and this delay being met with a positive response is a likely scenario?" - no, in fact I already answered this in my second post, which you continue to ignore. They can combine it with some positive news to mask the delay, much like they did for the Kickstarter campaign. This could be new features or porting the game to different platforms.

I misunderstood you. That said, you'[re still entirely wrong.

If I said you're wrong about the W101 announcement being bad because people disagreed, then that'd potentially be an argument from popularity fallacy. However, that wasn't what I was saying. I was saying that your opinion was entirely irrelevant to the point.

The point is that it only makes sense to hype an announcement that you anticipate will garner a positive response. Obviously, they expected to get a positive response from W101's kickstarter, so it made sense to hype the announcement. The fact that it did receive positive reactions and $$$ doesn't mean their business practices are good, it means their choice to hype the announcement made logical sense.

On the contrary, delays pretty much always get a negative reaction. Even when devs try to couple it with something else to soften the blow. Therefore, hyping a delay announcement would make absolutely no sense. If however, Platinum did have an announcement that included a delay, and the announcement did somehow get a wildly positive response, then obviously I would be wrong . That doesn't mean delays are suddenly a good thing, it means that this particular announcement made sense.

"The fact that it did receive positive reactions and $$$ doesn't mean their business practices are good, it means their choice to hype the announcement made logical sense." - that's exactly the argument from popularity you used to dismiss my comparison. I consider both a delay and a Kickstarter to a port as bad things, which could be bundled with good news. Your argument is that because a majority of people had a positive response to the KS then my opinion and the comparison is invalid. In the same way a game having microtransactions can receive "positive reactions and $$$", but I won't consider it a good thing, regardless of how many people say so.

"On the contrary, delays pretty much always get a negative reaction." - says who? If a game has a bad beta and the developer announces a delay to improve it or to add a feature this will not have a negative reaction. It makes sense as you put it. The issue here is that you are trying to prove me wrong by misrepresenting my position (multiple times might I add). In your head my proposal to a doozy announcement wouldn't make sense, but when I gave a comparison to an actual announcement that one did make sense, which of course is your double standards adjusted for your point of view.

I'll try one more time.

A. Switch sales will increase in March because Animal Crossing is popular, and popular games cause system sales to rise.

B. Switch sales will increase in March because everyone on VGChartz says it will.

Which of these, or neither, or both, is an argument from popularity?

C. You are wrong about Kickstarter for a port being bad news because people funded it.

If that was the argument I made, then yes, that would be an argument from popularity. However, for the third time now, I'm clarifying that that's not what I said. I have expressed no opinion on whether using a kickstarter is "good" or "bad" news. I don't know how I could be any clearer on this point. What I said was that the news, whether you consider it good or bad, was well received. And what matters to a company making an announcement is how the public at large will respond to it.

The argument is simple.

P1. It makes sense to promote something that you believe will be well received.
P2. Platinum believed their W101 announcement would be well received.
Conclusion: It made sense for Platinum to hype the announcement.

What part of this argument is flawed?

Correction, not the public at large, but the target audience.

"What part of this argument is flawed?" - the part where you said that and I quote "Regardless of your opinion, the reaction to that news was overwhelmingly positive", which is dismissing my point about bundling good and bad news because it was positively received, which again is the argument from popularity fallacy.

You are also assuming what the developer would consider something to be well received. How can you possibly know that? Were you on their internal meetings? Any documents you have to definitively prove this? Nope? Last time I checked developers can't predict the future, so that can't be it. If the KS flopped would that mean that they didn't think it would be well received? Or is every announcement a developer makes thought to be well received? If that's the case why wouldn't a delay announcement have the same rule? Oh, right - I forgot about your double standards based solely on your perception.

"What part of this argument is flawed?" And you proceed to point to something outside the argument. When I specifically put the argument into a syllogism to clarify that misunderstanding. O_o...

Ok then. At any rate I trained my parrot to repeat "argument from popularity". I can just continue this conversation with him and get the same results. He also doesn't know what it means. Later.

Just because you framed your dismissal of my points "outside of the argument" doesn't make it so.

Care to address any of the questions I posed above about you presuming the developers expectations and why this doesn't apply to my framing about a delay? No? I guess it's easier to misrepresent me one more time and run away, but this sort of intellectual dishonesty is something I expected from you.

It's outside the argument, because it's literally outside the argument. The argument is the premises and the conclusion.

You were misunderstanding what I was saying. Might have been my fault, and it might have been yours. But, to clear up that confusion, I broke my argument down into premises an a conclusion, to make it crystal clear what I mean to say. And when I did, you ignored it and pointed to the exact thing I was trying to clarify.

So, I don't see the point in continuing. Because despite me making it crystal clear exactly what I'm arguing, you're still insisting I'm arguing something else. If you actually address the argument I presented, I'd be happy to address your point about presumption.

"It's outside the argument, because it's literally outside the argument." - so because you said so. Brilliant reasoning. Can I say that anything you say is outside of the argument or only you get to do that? That's rather strange considering you misinterpreted what I was saying in the first place and then dismissed what I was saying. I guess this is your M.O. when talking to people.

"And when I did, you ignored it and pointed to the exact thing I was trying to clarify." - I didn't ignore your supposed clarification, I directly addressed it in the second paragraph of my post. You simply decided not to read that far since you refuse to accept that you used a logical fallacy when you dismissed my initial comparison.

"Because despite me making it crystal clear exactly what I'm arguing, you're still insisting I'm arguing something else." - I haven't done that and I even addressed your 2-point argument and I have done so multiple times in that thread already. You are basing your entire position on your own perception of what the developer thought and how something was received and not about the initial point I made about bundling good and bad news together. When you respond to someone you don't get to magically re-frame the argument to what currently resides in your head.

"If you actually address the argument I presented, I'd be happy to address your point about presumption." - given all the other times you ignored my points and direct questions, I find that hard to believe.

O_o... Yes dude, because I said so. If I'm not the one who is defining what the argument actually is, then how is it my argument? Are you saying I'm making a fallacy in someone else's argument? How does that even work?

Logical fallacies relate to validity. A fallacy means there is a problem with the argument itself. You CANNOT by definition show a fallacy by pointing to something outside of the argument.

You can use outside evidence to show that a particular premise is wrong. But, if the argument is fallacious, then the argument is defeated. If we don't agree on whether or not the argument is valid, it literally makes no sense to debate whether a particular premise is true.

So, last chance. Here is the argument I'm making.

P1. It makes sense to promote something that you believe will be well received.
P2. Platinum believed their W101 announcement would be well received.
Conclusion: It made sense for Platinum to hype the announcement.

If you can show a fallacy, then the argument is wrong. The fallacy has to be within the actual argument. That's just logic 101, so if you point to anything else, I'm not going to reply.

If the argument is invalid, then I'm wrong regardless of the premises. If you concede it's a valid argument, then we can move on to whether or not P2 is true.

"Yes dude, because I said so." - well, at least you are occasionally honest.

"If I'm not the one who is defining what the argument actually is, then how is it my argument?" - it's not. You dismissed MY argument by using the fallacy. Do I need to quote you again? I made the point about bundling news both good and bad and you dismissed it by saying that regardless of what I thought the second portion of the news was well received. You ignoring what I was saying (and continuing to do so) is the problem. Remember that you replied to MY comment, not the other way around. Let me make it simple too. What I initially said was:

A1. Developers can bundle good and bad news to cover up the bad news.
A2. Platinum did that with W101 port and KS.
A3. They can do something similar with a potential delay announcement.

You used the reception for the KS to dismiss A2 and thus claim that A3 is invalid since the A2 is not a subset of A1.

There is nothing wrong with your P1 AND P2 -> Conclusion, but this is not what you initially said. Even so as I said multiple times already you don't get to claim P2 for KS and dismiss it for delays.

I've been pretty tolerant of the constant personal attacks to this point. It's unacceptable, especially as you're the one who is intent on continuing this. I have better things to do than be insulted. I'm responding this time cause I said I would if you answered my question. Next time, you insult me I'm out.

"A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid." https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-logical-fallacy-1691259 A logical fallacy is something that has to exist within the context of an argument. It can be, as was in this case, a counter argument, which is a type of an argument.

If you agree that the argument I presented (Premises and conclusion) does not contain an argument from popularity fallacy, then good you agree. You can either accept that that's what I meant the whole time, and we can move on, or you can just keep on insisting that I'm a liar, instead of acknowledging the possibility that there was a misunderstanding.

As I said then, I'll address premise 2. Platinum used a kickstarter, which is asking people for money. If they thought that their announcement was going to be received negatively, this would be completely illogical. I wasn't at the board meeting, but I'm sure it didn't go like this. "Hey, let's make an announcement people are going to hate, and then ask them for money".

Platinum clearly has been developing this for at least a few months. And obviously, they did not need to do a kickstarter for actual funding. If they thought people would generally hate the kickstarter, then it wouldn't make sense to do it at all, as it would hurt the port they were already working on, and could complete without kickstarter. They thought the kickstarter would help build hype, not destroy it.

And we also have the general trend of kickstarter announcements. While there are definitely people who don't like it, public opinion for kickstarter campaigns have been pretty positive as demonstrated by the continued successful funding of high profile projects. Platinum's situation doesn't seem all that different to me than other campaigns that were effective.

The situation with Bayonetta 3 is different because gaming history shows us that delays are almost always poorly received. As I've repeatedly acknowledged it is theoretically possible that it can be paired with other news that is so amazing that the overall announcement would be perceived as positive. In practice, I can't think of anything they could announce alongside a delay that not only would cause the announcement to be received positively, but so positively that it would justify the massive amount of build up.

As for your argument... I dismissed premise 2 because it was completely irrelevant. And your attempt at a syllogism makes that more clear.

"A1. Developers can bundle good and bad news to cover up the bad news.
A2. Platinum did that with W101 port and KS.
A3. They can do something similar with a potential delay announcement."

A1 and A3 are completely redundant. A1 is saying that developers can bundle good news and bad news. A3 is saying that Platinum in particular can do this. But, since Platinum is a developer, then if A1 is accepted then A3 is implied.

A2 is completely unproven. You're asserting that the KS port was "bad news". You've done nothing to prove that to be the case aside from saying you think it is. More importantly though. Let's just throw that premise in the garbage. If we do, does that mean that Platinum can't deliver a combination of good news and bad news? No, of course not. As A1 estblishes, any developer could do that. A2 contributes nothing to the argument. Honestly, you should have just really stopped with A1.

But, the major flaw is that your argument doesn't prove anything useful. Did anyone say that Platinum can't announce a Bayonetta 3 delay with or without good news to offset it? Of course not. What I said was that going through all of this hype building effort to lead to such an announcement would be fucking stupid.

Ugh. I typed out a longer response but it didn't go through. I'll just bullet point it.

1. Stop with the insults. Especially since you're the one intent on dragging this out. Do it again, and I'm out.
   

2. A logical fallacy is literally a flaw in an argument. That argument can be a counter argument as in this case.
   

3. If you agree that my argument (P1,P2, C) was not an argument from popularity, then good. In that case, either we can move on, or you could just insist I'm lying instead of acknowledging that maybe there was a misunderstanding.
   

4. If they made a kickstarter, then platinum obviously expected people to give them money. This only makes sense if they thought the announcement as a whole would be well received. I wasn't at the board meeting but I'm sure it didn't go like "Hey let's make an announcement people are going to hate, then hit them up for money!"
   
   Moreover, they had the port ready to go, and based on the low funding threshhold, they could have easily put out at least the Switch port with no kickstarter. If people hated the kickstarter, that would fuck up the prospects for the port that they'd already partially or maybe completely made. They clearly didn't think think that would happen.
   

5. A2 is completely unproven. Come up with some criteria for bad news besides you don't like it, then prove the kickstarter announcement counts.
   

6. Actually, scratch that, don't. Because as I said before it's completely irrelevant. Regardless of anything to do with W101, Platinum can obviously announce whatever they want, good, bad, or whatever. If that's what you're trying to prove then... duh?
   

7. Which is why I never tried to invalidate A3 at all. It's a completely trivial point, but it's correct. They can do that if they want to. The issue is whether or not they would put all of this effort into promoting such an announcement. Based on how much gamers like game delays (about as much as they like rusty nails shoved down their shaft) I don't see anything they could announce with it that would not only make the overall announcement go down well, but go down so well that it would justify this whole "Platinum 4" initiative. They could, but why the fuck would they?

3 should read.

3. If you agree that my argument (P1,P2, C) was not an argument from popularity, then good. In that case, either you can accept that's what I meant the whole time, and we can move on, or you could just insist I'm lying instead of acknowledging that maybe there was a misunderstanding

Your response did come through, but I'll also use the numbering for convenience.

1. "I've been pretty tolerant of the constant personal attacks to this point." - what personal attacks have I made that are worse than your parrot comparison? Isn't that slightly hypocritical, huh? I don't particularly care if you leave the conversation or not - this is entirely up to you. Oh, and since you are all about policing speech - you are the only one here using profanity in their posts - just something to consider.
   

2. You didn't made a counter argument. You simply dismissed what I said and you did it again in your longer response.
   

3. I agree that (P1, P2, C) is not an argument from popularity, but that is not what you said upon your dismissal. In fact my theory about a bundled delay announcement could very well fit into P2, but you ignored it based on your own perception, which was quite dishonest.
   

4. Speculation on your part, so I'm completely dismissing it. You don't get to speak for went was Platinum's thought process without any real evidence.
   

5. Having a KS for an already completed port is anti-consumer, which is why it's bad news in my book. The fact that's is positively received as you argued in your longer response is the argument from popularity you keep using. Here's yet another quote proving that - "While there are definitely people who don't like it, public opinion for kickstarter campaigns have been pretty positive".
   

6. Great, so despite me proving it's bad news, you'll ignore it, again, because it's inconvenient to your little narrative. How nice.
   

7. Now it's your turn to prove that gamers hate delays regardless of the reason.
   
   "I don't see anything they could announce with it that would not only make the overall announcement go down well" - ah, the classic argument from personal incredulity. Another logical fallacy to add under your belt. I guess you can't imagine a situation where this would happen, so you don't need to prove anything. Peachy.

1. Fair point on the parrot comment. My bad. Cursing is fine. I like it, and it doesn't violate any rules. Fuck fuckity fuck fuck.
2. Not worth debating.
3. So you're going to go with the continue to accuse me of lying route. Ok then.

4. That's a ridiculous burden of proof. That's the level of proof we require for murder trials. I think a reasonable person would look at those inferences and say "yeah it makes sense to believe that Platinum thought that." But, whatever. If that's what kind of proof you require I can't provide it. I'll just move on with my life.
   

5. No... dude, it's just not.
   
   Mentioning that something is popular is not an argument from popularity fallacy. A fallacy occurs when the premises of an argument do not lead to the conclusion. If something being popular actually DOES lead to the conclusion, then it's perfectly valid. For exampel,
   
   Ms. Johnson's concert in this 500 seat venue will probably sell out because she's the most popular singer in the world- Not argument from popularity fallacy, because if Ms. Johnson is in fact the most popular singer in the world, then the concert would likely sell out.
   
   It is only a fallacy if the popularity is not relevant to the conclusion. For example,
   
   McDonald's burgers are the best tasting because they're the most popular burgers in the world.- That is an argument from popularity fallacy because even if McDonald's burgers are the most popular, that wouldn't prove that they're the best tasting.
   
   If I was arguing that using kickstarter to fund games is good for the industry because kickstarter is popular, then that would be a fallacy. As I've repeatedly pointed out though, that's not what I'm arguing.
   
   What I am arguing in this case is that Platinum had reason to believe that using kickstarter would be well received because other similar kickstarter announcements have been well received. That's not a fallacy because the fact that other similar kickstarters were well received (if proven) would indeed provide a rational basis for Platinum to believe theirs would be. The premise leads to the conclusion.
   

6. No. You didn't prove anything... you just said it. More importantly though, this is just a continuing demonstration of your blatant misunderstanding of logic. I am ignoring your point because it is not relevant. Platinum indisputably can announce good news and bad news in the same announcement regardless of whether or not W101's kickstarter is a good thing or a bad thing.
   
   If we already agree the conclusion is true, then we don't have to waste time debating about the premise. If I'm granting your conclusion, and you're arguing about the premise, then I'm sorry but you don't get how logic works. It seems like you just have an axe to grind about kickstarter being bad, and I really don't give a shit.
   

7. No thank you. I figured that'd be a point we'd agree on. If we don't, we don't. You're free to look up past announcements, see the responses, and decide for yourself. I've spent enough time on this and have no desire to jump down another rabbit hole.
   

8. No... again you just really don't understand logic. It's like you only understand the buzzwords. You know argument by popularity is a fallacy, but you don't actually know what that looks like in form. So, whenever you see a mention of popularity you think it's a fallacy. You know argument from personal incredulity is a thing, so whenever someone says they're incredulous, you think it's a fallacy.
   
   Argument from personal incredulity is only a fallacy, when the incredulity has no basis. For instance suppose I said my dog won't bite because "I've had this dog for 14 years and he's never been even slightly aggressive to anyone, so I can't imagine he'd bite someone now", that's not an argument from personal incredulity, because the incredulity is based on experience.
   
   Likewise my incredulity here is not baseless, it is based on my experience following the game industry and seeing many delay announcements that tried to soften the blow. You can argue about whether that basis is strong enough, but incredulity is not my sole basis.
   
   That's my argument. I think I've provided solid reasons why it wouldn't make sense to hype a delay (even with other stuff), and why it would make sense to hype a kickstarter campaign. If you disagree, you disagree. On the other hand, you've provided no good reason why it would make sense for Platinum to have a big hype campaign leading to a delay announcement (potentially with something else thrown in) besides the fact that they can if they wanted to.

1. Glad you acknowledged your hypocrisy, my profane friend.
   

2. Indeed you are not.
   

3. No, I accused you of being dishonest - there's a slight semantic difference.
   

4. Anything submitted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. As I said before you are not a Platinum representative.
   

5. "No... dude, it's just not." - yup, that's pretty much the level of reasoning I'd expect from you at this point.
   
   "What I am arguing in this case is that Platinum had reason to believe that using kickstarter would be well received because other similar kickstarter announcements have been well received." - again you don't speak for Platinum and if we're pedantic about it - how many Kickstarters for ports were that well received? You used Platinum's supposed expectations to counter the fact that this anti-consumer practice is not bad news due to popularity for similar projects. If they announce microtransactions in the game since GTAV made millions from MTs it will still be bad news regardless of the popularity of the practice elsewhere. I'd rather evaluate news on their merit rather than overall reception.
   

6. What specific proof do you need for that? Asking people to fund something that's already complete is rather anti-consumer. Please do tell how it isn't.
   
   You did grant the conclusion that Platinum can bundle good and bad news, but you refuse to do so for a specific theory I presented about a delay because of your own limitations.
   

7. Of course you wouldn't want to prove that. Proving your assertions is hard and you just want to dismiss what I speculated on without any basis.
   

8. I'm afraid you are the one who can't understand the logic of the statements they are making. The quote I provided is an argument from personal incredulity - whether or not it's based on your anecdotal evidence and personal experience doesn't really matter. You refused to provide any evidence for delays being universally disliked regardless of the situation in point 7, so all you are left is your own lack of imagination, which isn't a very solid basis.
   
   "On the other hand, you've provided no good reason why it would make sense for Platinum to have a big hype campaign leading to a delay announcement (potentially with something else thrown in) besides the fact that they can if they wanted to." - as I said a few posts back (and you ignored it) I thought the doozy announcement is the 3rd one. As for the reason - it could be the actual cause for the delay like adding more features or making the game multiplatform. Glad I could help expand your mind in that regard.

2. Well good. We're in agreement.