Indeed, the points you make are definitely valid, but you're inferring that they are the points he was making. Going with the competitor because of issues that are of no relevance to you, he said he doesn't buy used games and his internet connection is stable, doesn't actually fall under throwing good money after bad or influencing the market towards "good". If these new features don't impact you, then how exactly are they bad?FalloutJack said:The point, which you missed, is that he knows how to shift the economy and make a statement. You lead by example so that others might learn to follow. You don't throw good money after bad. You influence the market towards good. What, do you think companies have really taken a loss because 'the market isn't strong'? Hah. Please, don't talk to us of tantrums. That was rude and the comment attached aggressively-stanced supposition. Please do not do that again.
I can't comment as to profits/losses of companies because I don't know, I just like good games and it doesn't matter much to me who makes then. What I do know is that when I used to go into stores and buy a new game the sales person would, most of the time, try to sell me a second-hand version instead. Which is just about the retailer getting all the money for the used game instead of anyone else, so by logical extension of this if people are convinced to save $5-$10 dollars then the publisher has lost any profit from the sale.
As for my comment about tantrums, yes it was condescending but gettng worked up about something that, by his own admission, isn't going to affect him is pretty much a tantrum.