[QUOTE="yoyo462001"]
[QUOTE="dachase"]
No one values live at that price, they pay that price because that is what M$ charges, it's got nothing to do with how the customer values it, its that they have no other alternative to play the 360 online. I've paid for Live to play Battlefield and i didnt think the price was justified, i now play it on PSN and there is no difference in the service. If silver accounts had free online gaming, do you think people would still value paying for a gold account? i highly doubt it.
Heres a scenario; If you wanted a drink of water and there was a drinking fountain next to a bottled water machine, you'd value paying for that water because the big flashy sign says its better? thats all M$ is doing, telling the Live community that they're paying because its a better service and that the money is going towards improving said service when in reality its really not that much better in terms of $ value. Just think, the billions of $$ you all gave M$ just paid for facebook, twitter and avatar pets (but you still have to pay for them) sounds like good value LMFAO
dachase
Unfortunately your analogy just makes your point weaker, ten of millions of people drink bottled water instead of 'tap water' do you go around telling them that there stupid? im sorry but i cant take what any of you are saying serious because you have either no economic sense or very little. The fact you dont even understand any kind of utilty theory shows your basic knowlegde of the subject. I will say what i said again.'Your basis is that because YOU dont not value live at that price hence EVERYONE who buys live also does not not value it at that price, so in conclusion live isnt worth it. i suppose if someone accepts that you decide what is valuable for the entire world then logically the conclusion fits, but anyone with decent intelligence wouldnt accept that. 'buyer remorse' on the scale of millions, thats funny.'
Unless you feel like prove the whole of demand and supply economic theory wrong i suggest you stop making yourself look foolish. no offence but your a poster whos projecting his views onto the entire world whilst i am showing you what economics says about this. imo Economics thoery >>>> what you think. Can someone who is arguing against please show me compelling arguments against Economic theory of utility and demand and supply, if you cant, your just spouting out non-sense/ your opinion which is fine, but hatt makes any point you think was valid, totally invalid.
get off your high horse "i cant take what any of you are saying serious because you have either no economic sense or very little" typical disgruntled nerd attitude.
This is about M$ charging for online gaming, which with most multiplats, use the same p2p servers that everyone else gets for free so tell me oh mighty economic studies keyboard warrior do you think the way M$ handle Live is acceptable because it fits in with the economic demand and supply theory? Do you think Sony are stupid because they dont charge people to play online?
M$ is telling the Live community that they're paying because its a better service, but should a dollar amount be put on said service when the competition can do exactly the same for free?
'Your basis is that because YOU value live at that price hence EVERYONE who buys live also values it at that price, so in conclusion live is worth it. i suppose if someone accepts that you decide what is valuable for the entire world then logically the conclusion fits, but anyone with decent intelligence wouldnt accept that.
edited to reflect your solo M$ love campaign, everyone else would rather have online play for free.
The problem with that altered version is that ive never put my opinion in on this thread, i have never assumed everyone values live, i have never said it is worth it as a general statement, so that was a bit of a fail for you. I have stated again and again that those that buy live value it at that price and are willing to pay it, those who dont value it dont pay for it. Im not on my high horse or anything i am just showing you how economics describes consumer behavior but for some reason you feel you, a SW poster, can offer a better explanation for why people buy XBL at 40 dollars a year.I do no love Ms nor do i care if you love PSN i am reflecting no opinion in my posts i am clearly showing you and at this point educating you on how a simple market works, maybe buy yourself an basic economics book and maybe then youll see how stupid your argument is.
You still have not shown me any evidence proving Economics doesnt explain consumer behavior in this instant, apart from your opinion which i imagine has no statistical or theoretical evidence to back it up. Once again XBL =/= PSN, Sony and MS are not selling the same product they are not homogeneous, this quite frankly stupid assumption is probably why your continuing to argue this point. The same product is like me buying a game from one shop and going across the road to buy it from another, there is no difference in the game i bought. When you boot up PSN do you see the same live interface? No, so why would you assume they were the same product.
At this rate im just making you look more foolish so before you post again maybe read up on some basic supply demand theory/ utility then re-evaluate your point.
Log in to comment