| Big Daddy 2007-01-30, 8:02 pm |
|
"Tomcat (Tom)" <tom_dallas31@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167249356.474190.70830@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Big Daddy wrote:
>
> If low cost means
> attractive then why not just play a PS2 instead of buying a $600
> console?
wow, great analogy there (rolls eyes). That has nothing to do with what
we're talking about.
quote:
> Is $4 a month too much to pay for a better online gaming
> experience?
Yes it is, for me. $59 for something I rarely play is too much to pay in my
case. On the other hand when Sony said "we'll give it to you for free", I
thought "wow, that's cool...I won't do it often, but it's nice to have that
ability when I do, at no extra cost to me". It was definitely an
"attractive" feature to me. If they decide in the future to charge $59 it
will likely turn "unattractive" to me and I wouldn't buy it.
quote:
> Xbox Live is so cheap that it really should just be
> considered basically free for what you get.
LOL....$59 is not "basically free". It's $59 away from being "basically
free".
Again, I get online multiplayer capabilities, demo/movie/extras download
capabilities. I get that for "completely free", not "basically ($59) free".
:-)
|