Shiken said:
See you are ignoring the Value. If you truly want to compare what you are saving, while also spending more on DLC than you normally would have, you need to compare the price of all those games plus the DLC to what you are paying for the DLC plus a subscription. The difference is staggering and most people would never pay that much. So while you may be spending more than you normally would have on DLC across more games, you are still saving on the base cost of those games. Most people will not have bothered with buying every game let alone the DLC on top of it. It really is a simple concept. |
Nope, you are confusing stuff. And avoiding additional cost isn't the same as saving. You can't say that you were expending 1k a month with your bills but now you are saving a lot of money by expending 1.5k but with more services. That is the opposite of saving.

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."







