>>48891628>If we agree on the premises that people actively look for quality in the media they consumealready false you fucking retard
The Vietnam War happened in the 70s and prior. People needed prosthetic knees, and the only ones available at that time were capped at a certain quality. Now imagine a better prosthetic knee "comes out" in the 90s. It's objectively better in every way to the ones everyone already has, but no one's buying because it isn't worth upgrading for the marginal increase in overall product quality. No one denies, however, that the new one is a better product.
A situation can happen on the contrary, when a worse but newer product, say a pokemon game, releases on a newer console that more people happen to have due to that console's quality and the quality of other games utilizing it. A hypothetically worse newer game would still sell well. Or. let's say, the state of the global market and consumerism at the time of the game's release is great, it will sell well, ignoring quality. For example, many people agree that Pt, HGSS, and Gen 5 as a whole were great. However, they didn't sell very well, mostly because a) the DS was not the best at the time, and more importantly, 2) the recession happened.
