: 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?').

I'd say making sure your game plays right and isn't plagued with problems is far more important than aesthetics, and I can say that objectively.

: 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.

I think there's a compromise. Instead of microtransactions, why not include the aesthetic changes or weapon additions with the overall DLC map pack releases? Charge a dollar more if needbe. Mass Effect 3 had plenty of free weapons releases, and that game is massive in terms of sales and actual players, so they could have easily charged for a ton of their DLC aesthetic and weapon add-ons but didn't. I'm pretty sure Halo could afford to do the same, or at the very least bundle it up with traditional map DLC.

: 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.

Agreed, but then you also have to watch the studio's trends and wonder why certain decisions are made. Forge Island, free? Then why would aesthetics all of a sudden cost money? Mass Effect weapons and skins free? Obviously not that hard to produce or implement, and it's done on a very consistent basis (or at least it was, but ME3's DLC has come to an end now I believe). When it's a blatant money grab, it's a blatant money grab.

Disguising it like trying to give to people with legitimate wants who legitimately want more in their game when it's nothing more than a money grab is just ridiculous. They can market it however they want, but it's still just a money grab if they go this route. When a Forge Island can be free, and something on that scale is massive, and if EA, the world champion of microtransactions and moneygrabs, can give these types of aesthetics on a consistent basis for free, I'm pretty sure the only reason they'd charge for it is simply to take your money and laugh all the way to the bank. If they cared about the game and what the consumer wanted, something as simple as this would be free (and in ME3, ALL of the aesthetics and weapon DLCs are free). It comes down to what benefits the consumer, and ripping them off for something that clearly is just fine and easy to implement for free with multiple DLC releases for months on end is not right.

: 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.

And I'm arguing that when it's a money grab where there are examples of massive AAA titles releasing content for free, it's a relatively messed up form of business that does more harm than good to the consumer and the industry as a whole. It already is. The new Gears of War game has microtransactions for content that's on the freaking disc and should already be available. These companies are already starting to release incomplete experiences on their games or experiences that make it so ridiculous to play certain parts to unlock said items with the hopes that people will be stupid enough to spend more money on the game they just spent full price on! They want people to spend money to unlock things they literally just paid for and are already on the disc. As Cody has said numerous times, they're literally trying to get people to pay to not play their games, and it's pretty messed up.

: 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.

They aren't inherently evil when done right. Unfortunately, they seem to be used to money grab, not to benefit the consumer or enhance an experience.