True.
But that doesn't change the fact that someone who pays, let's say, a $1000 for literally a crap on a stick is a moron.
My standpoint is that I would pay to have horses in Skyrim be closer to what I want them to be. I don't use them at all at the moment because they force me into 3rd person, and they are too aggressive, getting in my way and messing up my enjoyment of combat. So would I pay $20? Yes. Here's the logic to it:
There are probably more people playing Skyrim who are like you and wouldn't pay for it, so if there was to be developer energy put into it the equation goes like this: the fewer people who want it, the more they have to pay for it, to cover the cost of making it.
Here's an extreme example:
A bunch of Paris Hilton types would like to see a handbag DLC. Very few other players want to even know there's a handbag DLC, and certainly wouldn't pay for it. So the Paris Hilton types need to pay $100 for the handbag DLC so that it would be worth it for Beth to do it. But the Paris Hilton types can afford the $100, so it's all good. Of course, in reality, Beth's time and creative energy are worth much more than
any handbag DLC, so the Paris Hilton types will have to svck it up. But as for horses, I think 'fixing' them would improve the game.
You say "someone who pays $1000 for crap on a stick is a moron", but money is a symbol, and it's value will always be relative. What $1000 means to you, may not be what it means to me.