M'kay, I've heard similar arguments made regarding microtransactions and "free to play" elements and the one thing I've consistently been left thinking when I hear a lot of these arguments is this:
What. the FUCK. are people blathering about?!?!
Okay, now to explain what I mean. I get that people think it's stupid to pay for a single or co-op game and then be required to pay more money for special content Sometimes it's not even special content; it's -required- content to get the full experience of the game. And I agree, that's a colossal dick move by the games industry when it comes to games that don't have continual replay value and are instead a self-contained experience that will come to a definite conclusion, only to be replayed for the same reason one re-reads a book or watches a movie more than once.
But the area microtransactions tend to show up the most are in MMORPG's or online multiplayer games. These are game intended to have extended staying power and an ongoing storyline or changing game environments. But the general impression I've been left with is people lump these games in with the Dead Space 3's and condemn their microtransactions all under the same premises with the same arguments.
But this is fucking STUPID. People need to differentiate between the growing practice of encouraging gamers to pay to make a single player or co-op game easier and paying to add cosmetic or convenience features to a persistent game. Take Guild Wars 2. You do have to buy the game, but I think that for a professional-quality game, there does need to be some minimum return made to ensure it at least lasts some time past launch. It also has microtransactions for things like armor skins, special items to gather crafting materials that won't break to replace having to buy new gathering tools when the old ones wear out, and so on. Yet there are people who still ***** because a company is trying to encourage them to buy things from them. News Flash people: THAT'S WHAT COMPANIES DO. If they didn't try to encourage people to buy products they create, they'd go out of fucking business! Even in single player games, I'd call this practice "greedily catering to the lazy players" rather than "forcing you to pay more money under the illusion you have a choice." Unless the items being purchase are the sole viable way to progress in the game, nobody's got a gun to your empty skulls.
There are also people who claim that if you buy frequently enough from a game's cash shop, it negates any savings from not having a subscription fee. Yes, waste enough money and it will be more of it gone out the window. But if a player can be patient, do without a few luxuries or enjoy a game without having to have every trendy cosmetic or gimmicky feature out there, there's money to be saved with this model. Also, even if you do wind up spending as much as you would have if you'd been bled for $15 a month, at least you're spending it on features YOU WANT rather than being tossed a grab bag. With a subscription, the company takes the money from you like clockwork and whether or not you get the bang for your buck you expected each month is no concern of theirs.
In conclusion, I think microtransactions are a method of sustaining an online game that's still got some bugs to work out, but is proving viable and of potential benefit to both the company and the player. But it's a method that has no place in single or co-op games.
