Nem said:
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."







