: They can support their game and add to it plenty with DLC, and even include
: these armor changes and things with the map packs as opposed to adding in
: microtransactions. I'll just quote Pete: "But I'm glad this isn't
: something they are actively planning, because I would be very displeased
: to hear they're wasting time creating superficial armor instead of
: improving their matchmaking experience."

: I want games that work and play right between major releases, and when they
: have problems, I want the problems to be actively tackled with proper
: testing and fixes. I want that game you mention coming from the box to
: work mostly right from the moment I take it out of the box, and to grow
: and get even greater as time goes on. I think 343 needs to focus on the
: game part of the game before they go focusing on money grab options that
: don't impact the game itself. Once they do all that, well, I still think
: they can include such mundane and basic content with the actual DLC map
: pack releases for no additional charge, especially if they can manage a
: release like Forge Island without asking for so much as a penny.

Putting aside opinions of whether multiplayer experience or aesthetic perks are 'better', both are aspects of the game that have many fans. So who is one or the other to say that what they want is more important? Both aspects take time and money to develop. Multiplayer experience may come in the form of DLC - that you may purchase ('why not package that in from the beginning?'). Aesthetic perks may come in the form of micro-assets - that you may purchase ('why not package those in from the beginning?').

The point is, gaming is changing these days - and the ones who prefer the 'old' way of buying a game and getting everything have legitimate gripes because there is now more chance for additions to be released which you have to pay for. Whether via larger packaged DLC (which had its run through controversy when they became popular) or via micro transactions.

IF such content is developed after release, then IMO there's no reason for anyone to complain about the 'size' of the purchase in order to get it - whether larger DLC or micro perks. Both cater to different player types, and the creators decide who they wish to cater to and when and how much. In this case there may be more positive response to offset the negative by offering micro content for those who will eat them up. For those people, that's awesome. For the others who'd rather get more quality experiences they feel are more worth purchasing, it's a waste of time. IMO, both completely legitimate opinions.

I generally don't do microtransactions - I'd prefer a greater, more solid add-on experience to temporal fluff. But I can't bring myself to rail against the onset of microtransactions in gaming culture today. That's just the way things are going. And the DLC trend everyone loves used to be just as taboo ('why don't you just finish your game before releasing it instead of putting out money grabbing downloads?')

I know the arguments can go deeper than that, and I'm not defending any 'awesomeness' of microtransactions... but geez. It's a business trend which is lucrative for creators AND as long as people eat it up, and as long as people enjoy what they get, it's not going away. Consumers will support with their money - or by the withholding of it. If enough people don't latch on to these micro perks, then creators won't see it as lucrative (financially or culturally) and return to what the greater segment of their fans want, whatever that may be.

Personally, as long as I pay for a game and still get the experience of the game as a whole, then I don't care if there's DLC or microtransactions. All power to them. If they're good, I might occasionally bite. Just make sure that when I pay for my game, I get my game.

Microtransactions are not inherently Evil.