People are speculating tsw3 may be coming soon based on a slip up "leak" by JD on last week's roadmap stream. Nothing announced properly as yet
Not only that, but JD does acknowledge that TSW3 is real in his comment I linked to. And I don't know who is suggesting it is coming "soon" - may be some in the playerbase but certainly not the generalised "people".
Hence saying "properly"... I know JD acknowledged "his mistake" but literally we have one line in a conversation that was on screen for seconds in a stream about something else. I'll wait until we get something more firm (which knowing DTG could be next year or tomorrow...)
But it does not matter whether it was one line or more, and what the chat subject was. The fact is that TSW3 being a thing was first shown in an internal communication, and has since been acknowledged by DtG to the playerbase, hence the subsequent comments on its existence by the latter cannot be "speculation". Some people may be speculating on what may come with it or when it may be arriving, but that doesn't really tell OP here that the general discussion has been about the acknowledgement of TSW3's existence. And the author of this thread does not need to wait for a further confirmation on TSW3, to be sure that it exists.
Sort of - if we take into account that probably over 70-80 percent of discussion in the linked thread is about TSW3 being a thing, not release timescales, a reply of "it has been acknowledged, but some have also speculated on it coming soon, and that is not something we have confirmation on" would be accurate.
That the generalised "people" are speculating on TSW3 coming soon - while the absolute majority of the discussion in the linked thread is comments on the internal confirmation and public acknowledgement of the existence of TSW3, not on it coming soon?
"The other thread" went from "is it a thing" to "what is that thing" very quickly as these posts tend to This specific post here queried "Is it coming soon" so the answer of "nothing's been confirmed" is valid
"What is that thing" is not answered by "we do not know if it is coming soon" though, and "nothing's been confirmed" does not reflect the reality of DtG's acknowledgement that TSW3 exists and is coming. If you decided you wanted to omit nuance and generalise "people are speculating on release dates" from something that was not that, you obviously had the right to do it, but my responses were relevant and valid in pointing out how that was not the most accurate response to the OP here.
"Thanks, everyone for noticing my *ahem* deliberate mistake. Just promise me you'll act surprised when something more official comes along. As you'll have probably guessed, I won't be providing any more information (unless another rogue Teams message shows up on stream) until any official announcements." That's the quotation from the other post where JD "confirms that TSW3 is a thing", it is the ONLY response on the subject so far How does the above confirm or deny what timeframe the release of TSW3 is in. Nobody has denied it is now something in development. Nobody bar DTG knows when it will be released. People can speculate, nothing has been confirmed, which is what I said in my first response.
Nobody here claimed that JD's post confirmed any timeframes. There were two separate replies made in response to your posts here: The original response was to your claim that "People are speculating tsw3 may be coming soon", and it said the absolute majority of the discussion in the linked thread was about TSW3 being a thing, not when it may be coming, which made the "people are doing X" an inaccurate generalisation in response to the OP's question here. The other response was to your claim that "we have one line in a conversation that was on screen for seconds in a stream about something else", and noted that JD's acknowledgement was enough for there to be no further need to wait for official confirmation on TSW3 being a thing.
Maybe I'm missing your point here, but the OP asked if it was coming soon. My responses have been in answer to that Whether it is coming or not has been "acknowledged by the back door" and that is literally all we know about it. First comment on the other post regarding timeframe is on page one, comment 17 and there've been a few like it, so yes WHEN has been discussed Depends on what you need for things to be official I guess. Personally when the person making the "unofficial announcement" says to wait for the "official announcement" I'll assume there hasn't been an official announcement yet. YMMV
The OP was not asking "I know TSW3 has been confirmed, but is it coming soon?" - they were clearly unaware of DtG acknowledging TSW3 being a thing - but let's set that aside. Even if that had been the question, the point is that your response making a generalisation about everyone speculating on timeframes was not representative of what the discussion involving the playerbase was mostly about. Nobody said the "when" question had not been discussed - the point was that when the absolute majority of the discussion in that thread was about people reacting to TSW3 being a thing, making a claim that "People are speculating tsw3 may be coming soon" was an inaccurate representation of that thread. Again, not the point. When you combine your statement of "I'll wait for official confirmation" with "we have one line in a conversation that was on screen for seconds in a stream about something else", it makes it appear to the OP that to know whether TSW3 is a thing, we need for a formal and official DtG announcement on it, which is not the case.
I said people, not everyone. If you're going to nitpick, get it right. Mostly about doesn't mean it wasn't discussed... But to say it hasn't been discussed at all is basically false, and proven to be so Even though the DTG representative stated (and I've quoted) to wait for such a confirmation? It seems like you're picking on specific points just to justify your own comments, and none of this is beneficial in any way to this post, the OPs understanding of the matter at hand, or just about anything else. Whilst I'm quite happy to pick semantics back and forth, one does wonder how this is helpful or whether the post should be stripped and closed as "answered" unless you have something actually constructive to say about whether TSW3 is coming soon or not (which you don't because it hasn't been confirmed by anyone publicly)
Yes, saying "people are doing X" is a generalisation compared to "some people did X in a thread where 80 percent of discussion has been about Y". Again - nobody said it was not discussed. Yes, an apple existing does not require official confirmation from an apple producer that has said it does have an apple. We saw DtG mentioning TSW3 being a thing in an internal exchange, and we saw DtG acknowledging it being a thing to the playerbase. When that happens, you do not need anymore to wait for an official confirmation of it being a thing, to know that it is a thing. This has nothing to do with semantics, and nobody should have to explain basic concepts like this.
So it was discussed, making my statement accurate. We know TSW3 is a thing but only an unofficial acknowledgement has been made.
Your statement would have been accurate if it had said "some people have speculated on release dates", instead of it misrepresenting the discussion that was mostly about other things. If we "know TSW3 is a thing", then comments like "we have one line in a conversation that was on screen for seconds in a stream about something else" are irrelevant.
People - more than one person. Again, you're nitpicking for zero reason No... We know this because that. Cause and effect. Stating WHY or HOW we know something is as important as saying what we know, surely?
You can use this to try and qualify any statement that generalises something that was not a general discussion, and I could do the same "definition game" by posting something like "some = being one, a part, or an unspecified number of something (such as a class or group) named or implied". The point is simple - the OP asked what the discussion was about, you said "people are speculating X", and in my first response I corrected that by saying "I don't know who is suggesting it is coming 'soon' - may be some in the playerbase but certainly not the generalised 'people'". If we agree this correction made it a more accurate response to the OP's question, we can move on. What does reasons for knowing a thing have to do with the question here? We now know TSW3 is a thing even without the future official confirmation, hence we do not need that confirmation to know that TSW3 is a thing - end of story.
Erm, all discussions on this forum end up general when more than two people are talking about things... Not sure why it would be otherwise People being generalised by you, not by me. More than one person discussed how soon such a thing may be released, that makes people not person. and if you didn't know WHO was saying something, either don't say it or do your research... Why do we have more than one respondent to any given post then? If the question is answered sufficiently to give a response to the OP then further responses have no reason. Thus the forum should be shut down? I'm sure you don't take everything on face value and certainly knowing why something is known is very valid
Yes, and when explaining that conversation to someone, you don't generalise it based on a minority of subjects from it. Which, with the addition of "some", would have made the characterisation accurate - as I did in my correction of it. What? What on earth does the number of responses to a post have to do with the absolute, common sense, basic fact that if DtG acknowledges TSW3 being a thing first in an internal conversation, and then to a playerbase, the playerbase does not need to wait for a future official confirmation to know that TSW3 is a thing?
I didn't "explain a conversation". I said people had been speculating something may be coming soon. Nothing more about which conversation, how many people or anything else, only that people were speculating. That is not factually inaccurate No... "People" is not the same as "The generalised people" which is what you turned it into. People is more than one person. The people is a specific group of people. You got that one wrong If DTG only need to say something once to confirm everything, why do you need to go back again and confirm or deny it. This makes your second (and any subsequent comment) irrelevant by your own definition. If all that is required in any discussion or topic where only one answer is required to confirm a response, then no other discussion is necessary (by your definition)
The OP's question was about the general conversation, so if you were replying to it based on what you wanted to pick out from that general conversation and tell them, that was not an accurate response to the OP, which my first reply pointed out. In the context of the above conversation in the linked thread, that is exactly what it means - you either say "people are doing X" in that conversation, which generalises it, or you say "poeople are doing Y while some have done X", which is an accurate answer to the OP's question. This has nothing to do with what is being discussed, again. Nobody said anything about how many times DtG need to confirm anything. The question was, "do we know TSW3 is a thing?". The answer to that is "yes, because DtG said that in their internal discussion and acknowledged that to the playerbase". Whatever else comes in addition in a future official confirmation is irrelevant to the question of whether we, at this moment, know that TSW3 is a thing.
"People are saying a tsw3 will be comming soon?!!" "Where did they even mention the general conversation"? Your first response pointed to JD's "admission" on the other post. Your first response to me did not address the timeframe of release of TSW3, only point out to me that JDs response confirms it's existence and even acknowledges that "Some people may be speculating on what may come with it or when it may be arriving", ie exactly what I said anyway Except you have, repeatedly...
They were asking about people talking about TSW3 coming soon, not "I know TSW3 has leaked but from that general conversation about it I want to know about the discussion on release dates". When you see someone clearly not being aware of that general discussion - and the fact that they were unaware is confirmed by the fact that they did not object to my first reply that provided the link to that general discussion - the response to that that says "people are doing X" is obviously going to be perceived by that person as representing that general discussion. That is not an argument, in addition to being false - I never mentioned anything about several official confirmations. The only point I have been making is this simple fact: To which there is not, and cannot be, any rebuttal. It is the simplest, basic, common sense observation, and dragging this on with irrelevant obfuscations and changes of subject does not change this reality, only wastes people's time here.
You posted to the discussion. Your comment is moot as they already had the information FROM YOU You have repeatedly mentioned that only one confirmation is necessary. THAT is a simple fact, checkable by scrolling up Oh yes, but if you read my footer it will give you all you need to know about "wasting time"... Maybe you should have read that this morning rather than wasting your own time
Whether they had information on it from me does not change the inaccuracy of your generalisation - what if they did not open the link I provided, or only checked that specific post by JD that it links to, and did not go through that thread? Your comment misrepresented that thead's discussion to them, and I introduced nuance to it with my subsequent reply. I mentioned "acknowledgement" on TSW3 being a thing, not official formal confirmations of it. Plus, my point in the responses above is that that one acknowledgement from JD is necessary for us to know that TSW3 is a thing - which is a simple fact. Cheers then for acknowledging you had zero actual arguments coming into the thread and were just wasting people's time with posts that made no sense with their attempt to somehow counter the basic fact that if DtG acknowledges TSW3 being a thing we know it is a thing : )
haha... yup you provided them with a link to all they needed to determine whether "People are saying a tsw3 will be comming soon?!!" No, not zero ARGUMENTS. My initial statement was true no matter how you try to add words, change the subject or make talking about specific topics within a wider discussion somehow not count because it wasn't the topic of the discussion as a whole. Still happy to waste your time going on about it until it gets shut down, mainly because I'm at work so I'm getting paid by someone to spend time trotting out this rubbish. The only meaningful responses that address the actual took place before 10am this morning... the rest is just you and me going back and forth for no reason other than passing the time
Already responded to this above. I never said it was "not true" - I said it generalised something that was only a part of a wider discussion to someone who was asking about that general discussion. No thanks, there's nothing I need to add to the two basic facts noted in posts above that cannot be refuted, and anyone reading this exchange will make their minds up about who was trying to show these facts and who was here to "waste your time".
The only thing I am curious about is if TSW3 will be available for Xbox one and ps4(no not the Southern's 4-6-2 class of locomotives)
Don't know yet. That's been fairly roundly discussed on the post linked in response 2, but no confirmation either way from anyone at DTG
