By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Nem said:
DonFerrari said:

We are jumping around.

What are you talking about? If very little users (4M) had PS+ because of the games and now 21M have because of the Multiplayer how are million paying for a few thousando to play online? Most of them are paying so they can play online, if they didn't want to play online they could stop paying for Plus.

That is the gullable pov. There is no service there that is worth a monthly fee. People pay it to have acess. They are gullable for doing so. It's a service that is super cheap to mantain. It only incurs in losses for the company if you are a hardcore online player. There is a big difference and many seem gullable enough to not see it. 

Hardcore online players should pay a fee. Casuals shouldn't. It's bad for themselves, for the health of online games for there to be a paywall and for future business practices. Those paying are beeing duped and making it worse for everyone.

If you still don't understand, save it. It's too late for you.

I don't play online and I don't need your condescending tone.

The service is very clear on how much it cost and what it offers. So by the very laws of free market the customers are deciding if the value is bigger than the cost and for at least half of the userbase it seems like it.

Seems more like you are aggravated because half the userbase disagree with you, so they must be gullible and wrong but you are the brighten one because you don't use it.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."