>>513598945
U r duh lulu.

>>718008540
I didn't ask for a "good service".
If you have 100 customers paying 10$ then lower the sub to 3$ and end up with 10.000 more customers you've increased your profit margins more than before.

There have yet to be a product or service that sells less when demand remains the same but the price drops.

>>512169437
That's some seriously circular logic Johnny.

What IS an universally considered masterpiece?
Some old thing I guess?

>>715470597
I'd agree with that. It's hard to read /v/ nowadays because most posts come off like anons are just jaded cynics yearning for their childhood and unwilling to give anything new a fair chance. I'm completely confident many old games that get praised on here would be shit on if they released today.

People on /v/ also act like they're just being real and that it's the only place where people give actual criticism but anons are absolutely dogshit critics. Part of being a good critic is being able to tell what something does well or at least point out ideas you liked and how they could be improved but /v/irgins are usually incapable of doing that without, at best, turning it into a backhanded insult. As a result, this place is merely the opposite end of fanboyism and just as dull.

>if buying isn't owning then piracy isn't stealing
Why do people sling this around like it means much at all here? You can't pirate an always-online game, that's kind of the point of the movement. The game's born and lives on life support. When they pull the plug, it's gone. You can't pirate it while it's alive. You can't pirate it when it's dead unless someone reverse engineers a fuckload of shit and even then publishers try to shut that down quick-fast.

It sounds powerful but is absolutely meaningless here.

>>508366861
The entire thing.
It sounds like some gobbledygook out the end of a giant game of evangelical telephone.