The con is that you think you're getting the complete game if you don't pay more - you're not. And you've been duped into paying $60 for an incomplete experience that many people will then try to convince themselves and others that it *is* complete, because otherwise they would have to admit they'd been duped, and the mental defenses spring up.irishda said:While I agree that microtransactions in already paid for games are dumb, I'm not entirely sure "psychological manipulation" is the correct term there. Saying companies are "psychologically manipulating" you is just saying "I can't control my spending habits". It completely removes any sort of responsibility on the consumer's part to not just blindly throw money every time the game say "Press X to spend more money." It's not "conning" if it says "give us this much money for this." That's just called "charging for a product", and if you feel that amount is too much (and I agree $100 is a lot of money for most anything), that still only makes it a gross example of overcharging.
I just don't understand it. The companies aren't stealing your credit card number and forcing you to buy this. They haven't kidnapped your family and threatened to off them one by one unless you buy the super expensive red rocket racer car. So why does this cross from the realm of idiocy into some sort of evil, horrific, greatest atrocity against capitalism since Stalin? Literally this giant "problem" is fixed by going, "Nah, I'm not gonna buy that."
And we aren't as adept at recognizing we're being manipulated as we think we are. That's what they're counting on.
All they need to do is inconvenience you through the gameplay and offer ways to remove that inconvenience. That is psychological manipulation, and the gameplay has suffered for it.