The irony of this sort of customization is that it's expression in the worst possible way, in the sense that you're expressing yourself through consumption rather than creation.

You think that bacon skin makes you unique? There's thousands of other people who have it too. All you have to do is spend $1. Hardly an expression of uniqueness, and is really just its own sort of conformity.

Yeah, I don't think most people are trying to be unique though honestly. For example, I don't think anyone is under the impression that the Master Chief armor they bought for their XBox Live Avatar is "unique" they just think it's cool. Buying it because people do or do not have it seems ridiculous. If you like it and have expendable money that's the reason to buy it. The main reason I've never bought something like that is because I've never thought the skins or anything are cool enough to justify the $1-$5 that various games and services charge for them. A major part of that being I think they should be unlockable in the game anyway without having to pay.

Hardly an expression of uniqueness, and is really just its own sort of conformity.

Yes well, so is spending the money on the game in the first place. But then, conformity does not always equal bad.

Not a defence of DLC, but of customization: most people don't sew their own clothes, but still manage to make an expression of personality via dress.

You want videogames to be the biggest, freeest sandbox in the universe, and there are some games trying to do that, but they can't all. It's one of the most basic rules of art: restrictions force interesting choices. On my own, I might never have come up with the awesome costume my hypothetical City of Heroes superhero wears, but because I'm restricted by what is available, I'm able to make it personal and badass using tools that somebody else made.

Eh, I can still see it going wrong.

Some randoms see you rollin, they gaming, patrolling trying to match your party.
Tryin to match your party.
Tryin to match your party.
Tryin to match your party.
Tryin to match your party.
Your DLC is so load.
You're waiting.
They hoping match your party.
They hoping match your party.
They hoping match your party.
They hoping match your party.

But it only works for a moment? because you're trying to go to a DLC zone? They get some immersion breaking UI saying "hey, you don't have the DLC to go where KidTsunami is going, goto the marketplace NOW to download it!!!"

Yeah not cool.

Best part is I typed out each line of the first chorus because I honestly got caught up in it.

CAVEAT, Just talking about how bad it could get, I'm very hopeful that it won't be like above

In a few of the very early articles the news sources said there would be no microtransactions, but I have seen no quote from Activision or Bungie on that

Are you perhaps referring to subscription fees? Activision and Bungie did make a specific point about saying there wouldn't be recurring subscription fees for Destiny.

Let's see. Since 2006 console sales have been declining (and PC sales have been going up).

1. 2006 was the beginning of the current console era
2. Do you mean PC sales, or PC game sales?
3. PC games typically feature microtransactions even more prominently than console games, especially in MMOs

So putting 2 and 2 together… is it possible that sales are slumping because people are tired of this microtransaction DLC bullshit that's common on consoles, but NOT on the PC?

You've already identified in your post that you're aware correlation does not equal causation, so I don't need to bring that up.

I think we might be arguing using different definitions. I define "microtransactions" as things like "you can buy this armor for 3000 EXP or $3.50." I define "DLC" separately as I guess kind of a "packaged experience." More single-player missions, more multi-player maps, etc. A step between a full game and a microtransaction. I'll admit console games have more DLC, but PC games have more microtransactions.

The best evidence for the success or failure of the microtransaction model would come from comparing the revenue generated by two versions of the same game, one priced traditionally and one supported by microtransactions. Since that scenario is unlikely to ever actually happen, the next-best indicator is how frequently video game companies are adopting the model, to which the answer is "very." If the microtransaction model was a dud, it would have been abandoned quickly. Instead it's only becoming more and more prevalent. You could excuse small developers for experimenting with faulty business models, but not titans like EA and Activision.

For the record, I hate microtransactions and I hope Destiny doesn't have them. But it's fairly obvious the model is a huge success.

3. What reason would they have to not include microtransactions, given it's already been proven to be an extremely successful model and it would mesh well with their selling points of weapon variety and customization options?

Let's see. Since 2006 console sales have been declining (and PC sales have been going up). I don't recall aggressive microtransactions in many, if any, games prior to 2005. People hate them.

[Bold is my emphasis]

If you are referring to the number of Computers purchased vs. that of gaming consoles you may be correct, but overall PC sales are actually going down. Desktops in particular are in decline and laptops are not fairing much better due to the popularity and versatility of tablets (not just ipads, but android and windows systems).

So putting 2 and 2 together… is it possible that sales are slumping because people are tired of this micro-transaction DLC bullshit that's common on consoles, but NOT on the PC?

It seems to me that it is not that successful from that perspective. Do they have anything to do with one another? I don't know, but it's not impossible.

If you are trying to argue that gamers are flocking to high end desktops I'd have to disagree with you. While PC gaming is still popular I struggle to think of it as mainstream as consoles have become.

Lastly, if we're going to go into populations, I'd say that your attention should be pointed to the tablet and other ultra mobile platforms- that is the new booming market that is going to eat into console AND PC gaming, and that model of micro-transactions in tablet based gaming is not only popular but quite successful. "Free to play" is the new model, and buying in game items is the source of revenue. I would fully expect consoles to head that way in a few years or on a modified system.

Fear not though, for as long as there are PC gamers there will always be free lobbies for them to gather and play to look down on console and tablet pleebs. It's just not as popular as perhaps you want it to be.

PC gaming requires a lot of time and attention compared to consoles, and tablets even less so compared to them both. Your average consumer and casual gamer is not going to go into a Micro Center or FRY's like you and I would- they'd also balk at the notion of needing to upgrade their rig every year just to keep playing the latest and greatest games. With a console, they just buy the games and dlc, and maybe a peripheral now and then. With a tablet they just download the free game and buy ingame content $1 a time as they wish (being pretty general there, as it depends on the game obviously).

To each their own, Cody, but I think you need to make your peace with the fact that your average Joe consumer & casual gamer doesn't seem to mind paying for content in spurts as they want it. Yeah, in the long run they could end up blowing hundreds of dollars on in game currency or content in farmville than you would in say, (IDK, spit-balling here) Star Craft or something but thats their choice.

The consumer is going to go for whatever gives them the less sticker shock on first glance, and in that scenario the tablet and console will beat the PC. However, to your favor I would say, is that the average consumer is also an idiot and doesn't see whats wrong with paying $1 each time they want a skin or hat or smurf berry (for the game they probably paid nothing for) until they get their credit card bill and have to explain or justify why they blew $200 on something they can never tangibly hold.

Again, slice it any way you want, but it still comes down to preference and knowledge on the subject and your average casual gamer isn't as "with it" as the denizens here for example.

Vote with your wallet Cody.

Let's see. Since 2006 console sales have been declining (and PC sales have been going up). I don't recall aggressive microtransactions in many, if any, games prior to 2005. People hate them.

So putting 2 and 2 together… is it possible that sales are slumping because people are tired of this microtransaction DLC bullshit that's common on consoles, but NOT on the PC?

It seems to me that it is not that successful from that perspective. Do they have anything to do with one another? I don't know, but it's not impossible.

2006? I think your numbers are a bit off. The Wii's annual hardware sales numbers didn't peak until 2008 and the PS3 didn't peak until like 2010 and the 360 not until 2011. I haven't done the math (and I'm not including the DS or PSP here), but total annual console sales for this generation peaked in 2009. That total consoles sales are declining is perfectly normal. As I explained a few weeks ago, the console market is cyclical. The transition period from one generation to another is always a low point. New systems always start off with slow sales, then sales pick up speed, peak several years after launch (usu. 2-3; the PS3 and 360 are outliers in that they peaked 5 and 6 years after their launches), and start to decline, and then the next generation starts to renew the cycle. All told, more consoles have been sold during this past generation than in any prior generation (254 million vs. 211 million combined for all four sixth-gen consoles). Console sales are declining because nearly everyone who wants any of them has bought them. If the normal pattern holds — and it has held for every post-crash generation — console sales will start to rebound by the end of next year and reach their next peak somewhere about 2015-2016.

Given the cyclical nature of the console market, the rise of microtransaction-based DLC is obviously not a cause of the decline in sales, but it might be a symptom of it (or the two phenomena may be unrelated entirely). While DLC for console titles emerged during the sixth generation, it was the seventh generation that really saw it take off; you not only didn't see microtransactions before 2005, you didn't see much if any DLC at all for console games (the first Halo 2 map packs, which are the first notable pieces of console DLC I'm aware of, were released in April 2005). Microtransactions are just the latest evolution of DLC, and like all DLC is, at least in principle, created to generate more revenue to compensate for increased development costs and declining inflation-adjusted retail prices of software ("AAA" games can cost 100 times more to develop than their 16-bit counterparts, whereas in the past 20 years, inflation-adjusted game prices have declined by upwards of 50%). Whether said type of DLC is actually worthwhile and benefits the customer is another question altogether. We can argue the relative merits of microtransactions and other forms of DLC all day long, but it is clear that none of it is to blame for declining console sales. Console sales always start to decline several years into a generation, and the PS3 and 360 experienced steady growth long after the typical peak.