| Chark said: I told you your analogy was terrible didn't I. The way I explained it is far more accurate and not misleading. It stands more firmly with the truth. It's length and complexity is testimate to its accuracy and by no means is simplification superior when it comes to conveying truth, only when manipulating others. Even if your analogy was correct or logical, it is so reduced that it withholds fact and manipulates reason due to the lack of knowledge it contains. A non curious mind can easily fail to know the truth on the subject and accept that innacuracy as their perceived truth. I did not say Live should be free because PSN is free, only that Live needs to provide enough value to justify a fee. Live's justification is waning due to PS Plus and the improvements of PSN. Value varies among people, and with the gap between Live and Plus shrinking Live needs to evolve or risk consumer acceptance. It would be great if Live adds more features or provides more features for free. Either way they need to compete, or it will stand to lose. |
The way you "explained" it was needlessly long and irrelevant. It's a great read though, hilarious. And I don't really care about what you said regarding Live, my post that you quoted was in response to this comment from someone else:
If I were an XBL user, I'd simply prefer to receive for free what's free everywhere else (basic multiplayer, etc)
So yeah, my analogy works perfectly fine, thanks. What you get from one business does not mean you automatically get the same thing from another business. It's not hard. And lol @ comparing PS+ to XBL. Also, do you have any sort of credible source regarding some "shrinking" gap between Live and PSN? And your entire post can pretty much just be trimmed down to "value varies among people" and that's all that needs to be said and has been said many times in this thread already.
