>>93645290>I said twice now at least "within reason."No you only said it once, and that was when talking about the static in which case there would be no images.
And don't try and ignore the point. If you don't care the slightest about video quality, why can't we just use stick figures with nametags? It's still the same story, it's still the same characters, it's still the same action, so whats wrong?
>but a little extra fuzziness and visible pixels aren't offensive or painful in the least.Since you operate on a different level then most people, I'll tell you that it is offensive to me. It bothers me when quality is shit and I can't enjoy a show as much if it isn't higher quality. Just like I don't like random crackling noises in my music.
>because they're completely interchangeable to me.No they aren't. You said it yourself that one you can see pixels and the other you can't. Personal preference dictates that you couldn't give a shit, but for the majority of the population, they will pick one without pixels because it looks better to them.
Here I'll change it up a bit. Which would you prefer, a normal shirt, or a shirt with a gigantic stain on it.
It looks better, people like things that look nice. People enjoy higher quality things. Most people don't like low quality things.
That's the answer to you question
>Why do people like quality>Because it looks nice. 
