Friday Update, February 10, 2012

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Force10

So if you took that $50 and spent it at the movie theatre for you and your kids and the film broke 1/3rd of the way through the movie, you wouldn't complain? You wouldn't ask for your money back?

Your missing my point..

With regards to the 'degree' of complaining

If the film broke 1/3rd of the way into the movie, On my way out of the theater I would more than likely ask for my money back..

But..

When doing so I would NOT portray the situation as dire!

That is to say I would NOT portray myself as some sort of victim who will now have to choose between feeding my children tonight or paying to see another movie should the theater choose not to give me my money back

Why?

Because anyone would see that for what it is.. An disingenuous hyping of the situation

Now with regards to another analogy someone else provided

If my new car died 1/3 of a mile after leaving the dealership.. Than there is a good chance my kids would be eating top roman for a few weeks should the car dealer choose not to give me my money back.. And thus I would not be hyping the situation when I walk back to the car dealership and 'made a sceen' about it

See the difference?

If so than you can see why some like Hood who say the 'cost of something is irrelevant' is a silly argument

Granted the amount of disposable income is realitive

That is to say there is a chance that for some out there the cost of the $50 game to them equates to the cost of a 40,000 car to others

But if that was true, and the chance of you living on the street tonight depended on the outcome of a $50 game you bought this year..

Chances are you don't have a $2500 PC to play this or any other game on in the first place.

So again, a silly argument to say cost is irrelevant IMHO.

Put another way, some will pick up a quarter if they drop it, some wont pick up a penny if they drop it

Cost is relevant