That's a dumb argument. I asked you why you would spend $50 for shit like Angry Birds, as the context of the initial comment was:
Put more than 2 hours of content in your game. Your game sucks. Sell your game for $2 and lobby Skype to not refund games costing less than $2 or something.
I suggested a low price for low-content games, and you come back talking about
So, because you prefer an epic gaming experience, all other gaming forms should be ignored?
Would you pay $50 for shit like Angry Birds?
Angry Birds *is* 1/10 the price of what I said. Would you pay $50 for it?
Then maybe these fly-by-night, valueless, contentless game providers should sell their games for $5 and not $50, instead of expecting us to pay $50 for shit like Angry Birds.
Your entire line of argument has been stupidity, up to and including ignoring a propositional question ("Would you pay $50 for shit like Angry Birds?") and instead treating it as a declaration ("Angry Birds is like $50, why would you pay that much for something with so little content?").