"Microtransactions make that possible"? Was that sarcasm?

by Claude Errera @, Saturday, March 02, 2013, 15:53 (4044 days ago) @ Beckx

But I will agree that the economic defense is the only reasonable one to be mounted, while the ones attempting to defend it on a systems level (the "microtransactions make this possible" that provoked my original response) are spurious. I don't know what the future is for $100M+ AAA games. I'm not sure that it's a future that involves me as a player, though.

I don't really have a horse in this race - I'm perfectly fine with microtransactions, because there's rarely a part of the game I feel like I'm missing and need to augment with cash. (Downloadable maps are an exception, but I'm not sure $10 qualifies for the 'microtransaction' moniker anyway.)

Gun skins, armor, a mount, whatever - I can live without it, or I can earn it incidentally as I play. For me, the model's irrelevant. (I wore default armor - even in the default brown - in Reach until I had about 3 million credits. At first it was because I didn't give a damn. Later it was because the reaction that default armor got was more interesting to me than the other armor choices.)

What gets me to post in threads like this are arguments that are so short-sighted (or so single-minded) that they basically relegate the majority of players to the 'stupid' or 'blind' or 'just plain clueless' category - that really bothers me. Cody's got his vision of how games should be played - and I have to say, I don't LIKE playing games his way. (I've tried it.) And yet he comes back over and over again and presents his case as "this is the right way, and all other ways are not right." And while I understand that there's the implicit 'in my opinion' tacked onto the end, the fact that he considers other opinions WRONG instead of simply NOT HIS is something I will probably never stop trying to point out to him. ;)


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread