The Backlash against Microtransactions: Why It's Immature and Wrong

Hola readers, if there are any that actually come here regularly. Sorry for the lack of updates in recent weeks, it's taking a very long time to write the multiplayer review for Black Ops II because I want to be as detailed and impartial as possible, leading to a lot of editing and a lot of editorial changes to the review. To placate any regular readers, which I'm sure there are none, I thought I'd write a small opinion piece on the recent furore against microtransactions following their introduction to Dead Space 3 and EA's Chief Financial Officer announcing that all their future games will include microtransactions before taking it back about a day ago. Once again, this is my opinion and for the conspiracy enthusiasts among you, I am not paid by any video game companies (although I wish it were the case) to defend them or promote their products.

A Brief Background on the Kerfuffle
Before we get to the meat of the issue, let's talk about what microtransactions are in the first place. As I understand them, microtransactions involve a system with a game, usually a free-to-play game, that allows players to purchase virtual items like weapons, vehicles, equipment or hats for real-life money. Aside from a few jabs at so-called freemium games, a portmanteau of free and premium, usually criticising the idea that players could feasibly skip the whole experience grind and just pay to get better equipment for their characters, microtransactions have been largely uncontroversial in the video game community.

The catalyst for all the hate and rage against the corporate machine stems from EA's decision to incorporate microtransactions into Dead Space 3, a full-priced retail game. Most of the criticism directed at EA involved the usual spiel of them being money-grubbing corporate leeches who were trying to drain gamers of their hard-earned cash. The more reasonable members of the gaming community pointed out that these purchases were entirely optional. The thing that infuriates me the most about this latest expression of what I like to call "gamer's entitlement" is that all the anger is directed at something that hasn't been controversial in the least in other games like Battlefield 3, Assassin's Creed III, Need for Speed, World of Warcraft, League of Legends but suddenly becomes a huge issue when a single-player game published by EA is involved? I mean, come on, even Xbox Live uses microtransactions when you want to customise your Avatar. So, gamers are okay when they can pay to win when fighting other players but get pissed when they can pay to win against AI?

Again, rather predictably, gamers are up-in-arms at EA and have been calling their brethren to boycott all EA games until they fix this travesty and remove microtransactions as a concept, damning it to the dustbin of video game history.

Why is Hating Microtransactions Immature and Wrong?
In short, because it's an optional payment. Let me put this in a way that some of the less mature gamers can understand. YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE PART IN THE MICROTRANSACTIONS TO ENJOY THE GAME. The whole point of microtransactions is that they are optional whereby people can choose to pay a small amount of money to give them a headstart in the game. If you want to go through the grind as part of your experience, then by all means, do it. Look, I'm not a fan for paying for virtual items in a game with legal tender but I genuinely couldn't give a toss if someone else decides they need cooler hats in Team Fortress 2 or more resources in Dead Space 3. The brilliant thing about video games is that people can enjoy different parts of the game or enjoy playing the game in any number of ways. To highlight how illogical all this misplaced hate is, I'll use an example. Imagine for a second, you are a person who dislikes bananas. One day, you see someone who is eating a banana. You then proceed to walk up to them, complain that bananas are the root of all evil and promptly give the banana a dressing down for being a waste of money even though you haven't spent a single dollar of your own money on it.

Actually, if you think about it, gamers should love microtransactions because they help to subsidise games and keeping them at the normal retail price of $60. Think about it. Why would companies jump on the microtransaction bandwagon unless they knew that it was a surefire way for them to make more money? If that's the case, it'd go a long way to help retail games stay at a fairly reasonable price since publishers have found a brand-new way to keep their profit margins without bumping up the prices and chasing away all their customers. If you still think that's money-grubbing and don't want to have anything to do with microtransactions, then, fine, boycott the entire catalogue of games published by EA, even if you do enjoy some of their other games. To take it further, why don't you boycott games by other publishers that use microtransactions as well? Why not boycott Ubisoft or Activision Blizzard? To use another stupid example, it'd be like boycotting a Quarter Pounder because McDonald's charges more for extra patties in a Big Mac.

Look, I'm happy for people to have their opinion regarding microtransactions. It's fine that people don't trust it and think that it shouldn't be part of video games. I respect that. What I cannot respect is the sheep-like response of the community in general who are basically painting microtransactions as the arrival of the Anti-Christ of gaming. As a nickel and dime gamer myself, I understand the desire not to have to spend extra money to play a game but why care about microtransactions if they aren't hurting you personally. Sure, someone else's wallet might take a hit but does that really affect you? If you say that in multiplayer games, it could give the p-l-ayer (pun intended) an unfair advantage, then you're dead wrong. Developers nowadays understand the need for balance and tend to balance their multiplayer games extremely well. If the things that people get from microtransactions are overpowered though, you don't have to wait long for the community outrage and the resulting patch nerfing that item. Also, don't forget that because these players have paid for the equipment, they never underwent the grind to get them which means more likely than not, they haven't picked up any new skills or improved their ability along the way.

Conclusion
Anyway, that's my two cents on the issue. If you want more in-depth discussion and detailed analysis, you can buy the Additional Information Article Pack for the low price of $5.00. Just kidding. The next article will likely be the multiplayer review of Black Ops II, to be published some time in the near future. Until then.

Renegade Sandwich, out.