So, your argument is, in a nutshell, their argument is irrelevant because they're stupid? If your aim is to convince such people to change, I suggest you refrain from the most insulting of fallacies.
IamSofaKingRaw said:
They are when they are the only ones paying for the ability to play a game online where PC and/or PS3 people pay nothing.
In the case of the PS3 you have a reduced feature set. You also have a service with a better feature set that costs money and even then the enhanced feature set has been strangely unappealing to the masses. On the PC front the service and the expectations vary from game to game. There are plenty of games that require a recurring access fee. There are plenty more that are supported through micro-transactions. Then there are also games that are free. There is no unified platform, no standard for service on offer there.
IamSofaKingRaw said:
There are very few true 360 exclusives (meaning no PC too)so the reason why you pay for it really gets pricey when you look at it that way.
Since this is a question about Live, we must examine precisely what the service in question gives me. To put it very simply, it allows me to play a game with other people. Given the cost of maintaining several gaming platforms at once, people often choose a single platform for games these days. This means if a game is available on the PC, PS3 and 360, the debated point lies in their online infrastructure.
To put my logic simply, I value playing with friends more highly than I value playing with strangers. This extends so far that I rarely play a game online unless a friend is present. Thus, we find that I have a bias towards purchasing a game on the system where a friend is most likely going to join me in the game. Given that, of my friends, only a portion of us own PS3's or gaming worth 360's, this generally means I will choose to play on the 360 rather than on the other options.
If it is a game that I will not likely play with friends for whatever reason, my next choice would be the PC. My PS3, as a platform, is only a choice in instances where the game is an exclusive to said platform.
So, if my logic relies on using the 360 because of the presence of friends, the pertinent question might be why so many of my peers chose that particular platform. To put it simply, those of us who
could afford many platforms have made the purchase. In some cases, it was the simple result of the 360 being available earlier and, once the fantastically expensive PS3 was released, few saw a reason to make the jump. In other cases it was a result of price comparison where few saw any particular reason to spend more money when the difference in quality of product was not obviously apparent. Yes, there have been significant mechanical problems with the 360 that may, in some cases I imagine, result in someone moving to the PS3 but among my circle of peers the relative inconvenience associated with such things was easily dismissible, perhaps in large part due to the fact that we are all adults with responsibilities and other activities available and the onset of a hardware failure becomes an opportunity to do something different. I can only speak for myself with any certainty however. I didn't mind when my 360 died and I had to wait several weeks for a repair because I had a PC that was more than capable of filling the void, and scholastic and athletic activities that benefited from a sudden increase in available free time.
IamSofaKingRaw said:
The price is affordable to most, but once again its a pointless fee that went up for really no reason at all.
The fee increased because the company providing the service wanted more revenue. This may have been to increase profits, or it may have been to cover increased cost of operation. In either case, the only relevant result of such a move is simple. If the increase in cost results in an increase in revenue, even if it results in a loss of subscribers, the move was beneficial to the company. If it instead results in a loss in revenue, then the move was harmful.
IamSofaKingRaw said:
I own a small service business and have monthly customers.. you should see shit hit the fan when I try to raise my monthly service fee $2-5 a month after 7 years of same priced service. Even with the cost of chemicals I use doubling in that time AND the gas price hike, people do not like having anything raised on them and in the real world most will fire me over a price hike.
By the same token, I work for an IT firm that raised the price of our support by nearly 50%. Yes, there were complaints. Yes some customers dropped our service. But the end result was still an increase in revenue from my department. You, of all people, ought to understand the principles at play here. It is in your interest as a company to find that ideal price where you get the most revenue. That the price may alienate some is irrelevant. You charge what the market will bear.
