YES

by iZac, Shanghai, Tuesday, March 05, 2013, 19:47 (4284 days ago) @ Cody Miller

The problem is you're equating intentionally crippling with any and all forms of microtransactions. That is simply wrong.

In the rare case of a developer intentionally crippling a game and pushing the fix to microtransactions, then yes, I'd wager you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks that's a Good Idea.

Every instance of microtransaction use intentionally cripples the game.

1- Items only available through purchase. Intentionally crippled by not including them in the base game. Ask yourself if it would be better with everything available without having to purchase it. The answer is always yes. Intentionally crippled.

2- Items available through purchase and play. Players paying for items are paying not to play, and this means that aspects of the game are unpleasant enough to pay to avoid. Irrespective of player tastes, when a developer creates something under this type of micro transaction, they are admitting that a non trivial amount of players would want to or be tempted to avoid playing the respective part of the game. If they did not think this, it would be pointless to spend the time to implement the microtransaction. They know lots of players will find the part of the game unpleasant. They are counting on it because that is the only reason someone would pay to not play. Therefore, they are intentionally crippling the game.

I am both disappointed and angry when something that by its very nature ruins games is not only not criticized, but EMBRACED. Gaming stockholm syndrome. Dammit people.

I guess one of the biggest issue of the micro transactions is the continued development post-release. Say EA is an evil corporation (yes yes, I know) and they define in the dev cycle that there should be an extra $10 of DLC / micro transactions to go on top of the game after release – fine, release a GOTY edition 9 months later with all the content included - everyone’s happy.

But what if they have an unexpected hit on their hands and the suits order another $20 worth of DLC to trickle out over the year and keep the minions playing. Is it better if it’s map packs / missions / fresh content? What if it’s just a pack of over powered guns? I know there’s a world of difference between a bag full of digital money and an extended player environment, but do people oppose any and all types of extra content? I think as many mention it’s more about how devs implement this rather than it being so black and white.

One would hope (and this is a foolishly optimistic view) that positive response to good games with well implemented extra content will trump cashing-in with gun packs and fun bucks, because players will vote with their wallets?