NeoGAF

Give me a game that's not F2P, not Paymium either. A low cost of entry that nets you a solid mid-size game, with DLC options that can flesh it out into a AAA game.

Bargainium! Yeah, #bargainium.

Was kinda wondering at what point people would become upset by the gouging. Glad to see there are some folks stirring at least a little bit about this shit. The thing that bothers me -- and I mentioned it elsewhere regarding Bravely Default -- is it creates a temptation by publishers to have the game balanced in such a way where micro-transactions are necessary to truly enjoy the game. They always say "they're not necessary to complete the game," but they leave out the part where the game it a complete fucking drag without them. For a full-priced retail game, that is a new beast I want no part of.

Originally Posted by Sanke__

I understand the potential need for some games to have micro transactions

But micro transactions should be for items that are 100% cosmetic
Absolutely NO exception

Admittedly some games show restraint and it ends up being literally just paying to win at a otherwise normal game. Problem is it probably is too tempting to try to turn that into a viable revenue stream rather than a dirty extra on the side, so it'd be better to just avoid the gameplay microtransaction route entirely, not unless it's for little bits of new content like extra stages. I think only NSMB2 seriously did that.

Originally Posted by Sanke__

xcom enemy unknown with micro transactions would be mind blowingly awful

And that'd be one of the better ones because you still have strategy battles! Imagine this in Civilization or SimCity, at best you can argue about experimentation but then unless you're guaranteed to have X number of credit with each new game that's a damn expensive way to experiment. Even worse for KairoSoft games where there's really no deviation, you pay to win and there's simply no point but cute 16-bit style graphics to look at.

I just want to pay 60 dollars and get a game

Originally Posted by WhatRobEats

People that argue "It's a time saver" , "People have jobs and lives", ect.. Seem to forget this little thing we used to have called cheat codes.

I will not buy pay to win games. I made a mistake with NBA 2k14, moving forward I'm going to avoid them. I don't condone the practice and want to 'vote with my wallet'. I don't want this trend to become the norm like DLC did last generation. I'll probably miss out on some really good games. But I can wait and get them second hand if at all.

Exactly.

I hate to say it, but...I miss the old days. I love the advances we've made in multiplayer and internet connectivity with our games, but I miss the old "pay money for a game once" idea.

I remember when people were mad about horse armor.

It's not enough for them to say "The game can be completed without any additional purchases".

If they can honestly say "The best experience for the majority of player's will be had by those who don't spend a nickel on microtransactions", then it might be alright.

But even then, I don't want any sort of in game prompting or reminders that an 'alternate' progression system even exists.

the argument can go on forever about DLC... I once was really down on DLC but I've experienced some good things since then that have changed my mind. Mass Effect 2 is such a game.

The first time I played ME2 completely to the end my xbox 360 was not connected to the internet.. so I played the base game. Last year when I replayed the Mass Effect Trilogy, Mass Effect 2 synced up with the new content and I played an almost completely different game. I loved the new stuff so much that I actually bought most of the existing DLC for the game (new missions, completely new characters, etc). In that instance, DLC expanded the game in a positive way.. it's really simple: I loved Mass Effect 2 without the DLC... then the DLC came along (some free and some paid) and gave me more Mass Effect 2.