| kowenicki said:
if I adopt PSN and ditch live then its free, I save money, it cost me less. However, none of my friends are there so it has no value to me. I go back to LIVE and pay because I, PERSONALLY, get more value. |
I'm not saying you or anyone shouldn't find value in Live, only that due to competitive services the line of compartive value is blurring. Not for everyone, especially those already invested in the service, but for new customers.
Value does not equal cost rather cost affects value. I'm sure you are familiar with the economics of utility and if so you should know that cost is a factor. Value and cost are not equal, but related on a slope, a slope that is not equal to all. But that slope is far different to someone who has been using Live for an extended period of time and someone who has not.
Just because PSN is free does not rule it out. If PSN was to cost a $1 a month, would it all the suddent be a contending service? The answer is no, whether it is free or not it is still a variable in determining value for the consumer. Live has an incetive to attract new customers and to retain current ones. While current customers are far less likely to leave Live for another service, new customers are not. In order to ensure the ongoing health of the Live service it needs to react to increases in value from their competitive services. Otherwise Live will appear far less valuable to new customers and potentially to existing customers.
Before the PS3 everyone was nice to me :(
