Is $10 really that big a deal?
- Thread starter Jedisolo75
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This is price gouging over something that only offers me online multiplayer, overpriced DLC, and other things.
But only if you buy 1 month subscriptions direct from Microsoft. In which case you deserve to lose yer money.Amphoteric said:
It's certainly not worth switching completely from PlayStaion 3 to Xbox 360, nor is the fact that PSN is free worth switching from 360 to PS3. However, considering the viewpoint of someone who has no investment in either the myriad ways in which LIVE is better than PSN make it well worth a subscription. Honestly it amazes me that PSN still doesn't have an equivalent to LIVE's party system, I probably use that more than I use my 360 for gaming.s69-5 said:
It's an inflation adjustment. If you do the math 50 2002 dollars is worth only slightly less than 60 2010 dollars.Kal El said:
No it's not people just like complaining about how they have to actually pay for something.
$60 is not that much money to spend in a year.
$60 is not that much money to spend in a year.
Where the hell are you from? Here it's $3 a pack. That is, unless you buy Dunhill which is a bit more expensive but still, $15 for a pack? That's just insane man.T0RD said:
People are going to ***** about any price increase. People ***** about raising the rent, raising taxes, or raising any other fees that they can't avoid. It's just human nature. On top of that, gamers have a huge entitlement problem where many seem to think that they deserve to get everything for free or for cheap no matter what. It might not be fair, but at least it's not taxes, you can actually choose to not pay it. It's a service and when a service is too expensive you kick it and find something better. I think the prices were already crazy before, I can't imagine paying every month for online services.
Correct me if im wrong but xbox live costs me 40 pounds a year which (goes to some currency changing website...)
and that would come to 61 dollars.
So where did this $10 (£6:49) come from?
and that would come to 61 dollars.
So where did this $10 (£6:49) come from?
As a person who is fortunate enough to not be ridiculously poor, $10 is less then the change I clean out of my car every three months. So no, it's not a big deal at all. If it is you probably should not be gaming any more because you really need a job. Badly.
And for arguments about principle, your principles are out of whack. Be more concerned about other things that eat up your money and bring you little benefit like taxes. Is ten dollars a year enough to make you switch consoles? Go for it. Microsoft employees (some of them nearly as smart as me) have figured out a good estimate of how many people will quit and it's not enough for them to lose money. Basically, every five or six gamers that stay cover the loss of each gamer that quits. People who buy the console for the first time will just be an even sweeter deal. Is it discriminatory? Yes, it discriminates against poor or cheap gamers who really don't contribute to the financial bottom line of Microsoft anyway.
And for the slippery slope argument, there is a limit to how much I will pay any company to play online each year and I won't pay for individual games. Eventually if they increase the price too much I will cheerfully switch to a PS3 that very day because I didn't become non-poor by being foolish. However, to me an extra $10 per year does not equal the investment that a new PS3 and several games would cost.
Besides, I just went out and bought a one year card to use right before November (at the old price.)
And for arguments about principle, your principles are out of whack. Be more concerned about other things that eat up your money and bring you little benefit like taxes. Is ten dollars a year enough to make you switch consoles? Go for it. Microsoft employees (some of them nearly as smart as me) have figured out a good estimate of how many people will quit and it's not enough for them to lose money. Basically, every five or six gamers that stay cover the loss of each gamer that quits. People who buy the console for the first time will just be an even sweeter deal. Is it discriminatory? Yes, it discriminates against poor or cheap gamers who really don't contribute to the financial bottom line of Microsoft anyway.
And for the slippery slope argument, there is a limit to how much I will pay any company to play online each year and I won't pay for individual games. Eventually if they increase the price too much I will cheerfully switch to a PS3 that very day because I didn't become non-poor by being foolish. However, to me an extra $10 per year does not equal the investment that a new PS3 and several games would cost.
Besides, I just went out and bought a one year card to use right before November (at the old price.)
Here's why they have struck a nice balance between making the service worth having and the price, by increasing the price they disrupt that balance and draw our wrath!
psst mate... no one likes inflation. And when companies accoutn for it... we get all pissed. Even though we see our income also incrase... that's not enough. We want 1950's prices and 2010 wages and that is a fact of life.
It's kind of stupid, I realize that.
It's kind of stupid, I realize that.
As the first one who answered to the topic said (dunno who that is, sorry, too drunk right now to check it out), it's the principle of the matter. Frankly, 10/year is NOTHING, BUT, if we allow them to ask 10$/year without saying anything this time, what's stopping them from demanding an extra 50$/year a few months from now? I'm exaggerating, obviously, it's just so I stress the point of view of some of us.
I do not own an Xbox 360, I only have the PS2, PSP, and PS3 (in order), but xx bucks per year is just ... far from outrageous, but still "overpriced", compared to the competition. If I remember correctly, this whole ordeal (from what people have told me and what I have read, it costs like 55e/year) (I live in France, so like 80$/year or whatever) is about little more than chatting and online gaming (read: online multiplayer) that we've (Playstation users) had for free for quite some time now.
To me, Microsoft's already worth more cash than the entire Universe put together, so the extra cash for multiplayer is just really greedy. Of course, they've had Halo 3, the only game in the X360's repertoire that I'm interested in, but still ... Halo doesn't justify the massive RRoDs and cash per month (I'm into single player mostly ...).
It's just to say that everyone's greedy, Sony being one of the biggest _cash-hungry WHORES_ out there, but they at least offer stuff like non-80 bucks WiFi, and freely-replaceable HHDs, unlike the Microsoft whores.
I do not own an Xbox 360, I only have the PS2, PSP, and PS3 (in order), but xx bucks per year is just ... far from outrageous, but still "overpriced", compared to the competition. If I remember correctly, this whole ordeal (from what people have told me and what I have read, it costs like 55e/year) (I live in France, so like 80$/year or whatever) is about little more than chatting and online gaming (read: online multiplayer) that we've (Playstation users) had for free for quite some time now.
To me, Microsoft's already worth more cash than the entire Universe put together, so the extra cash for multiplayer is just really greedy. Of course, they've had Halo 3, the only game in the X360's repertoire that I'm interested in, but still ... Halo doesn't justify the massive RRoDs and cash per month (I'm into single player mostly ...).
It's just to say that everyone's greedy, Sony being one of the biggest _cash-hungry WHORES_ out there, but they at least offer stuff like non-80 bucks WiFi, and freely-replaceable HHDs, unlike the Microsoft whores.
Well this is certainly a very good post for the "don't get your panties in a twist" argument. I think it just mostly goes back to that feeling of entitlement. However, I do think some people feel like they are paying more for features they don't even use. To that, I don't think it's such a bad point. Double however though, a lot the same people would probably complain that Microsoft is taking away features but leaving the price the same, so what are you gonna do?Treeinthewoods said:
That last thought was, of course, based on nothing.