The argument is the game is $50/year *AND* $15/mo or about $230/yr when we already
had/have <$50 games with free online multiplayer so not "OR $50/game".
So maybe you feel that $15 is NBD since you have it to waste but I feel it IS a waste
& an expense that not only can I do without but am steadfast against given free
alternatives. Since I never buy more than 3 games a year and scoff at >$30 prices I
do represent the polar opposite to you I guess. Same mindset prevents me paying $10
more for PS3 titles over the PC version and passing on PS3 exclusive titles which
always seem to sell for inflated prices that never drop & always charge that extra
$10 penalty.
Gmail wrote:
I do not understand that argument. $15 for on average 60+ hours of fun
a month is pretty darn cheap compared to many other firms of entertainment.
I would much rather pay that subscription than $50 for a game with 15
hours of game play and no replay value.
Or a trip to the movies.
-----------
Brian
Sent from my iPhone
On 2009-10-25, at 5:22 PM, maccrawj <[email protected]> wrote:
Only one I'd consider playing is floundering in the beta stage:
Stargate Worlds.
Guess MGM should of not frakked PTY Lmtd. and backed release of the
originally promised stand-alone SG-1 game from 2005!
Quake stated MO (not massive) play for free phenomenon the money
grubbers have polluted. I have trouble seeing the supposed value added
paying for benefits of "massive" w/ persistent save data @ $15/month
subscription + $50/year software.
<snip>
