D(etermining) L(udic) C(ommerce)

Ah, downloadable content and microtransactions. Two harbingers of modern gaming, aren’t they?

Image result for harbinger mass effect
Video game villain pun

So I’m a little late to this party. A long time ago, Falcon Game Reviews wrote a fantastic article about all the things wrong with the way the gaming industry handles DLC and microtransactions, putting a number of aspects of modern gaming in his crosshairs. Likewise, iplayedthegame wrote a fantastic breakdown of some pretty pervasive issues with modern gaming, including the recent DLC and microtransaction culture that has gained steam recently.

Now that I have another great excuse to do chime in (*cough* Battlefront II, Shadow of War, Assassin’s Creed: Black Flag, Mass Effect: Andromeda *cough*), I thought I’d capitalize and ask you for two cents to give you my opinion. I mean, what?

The Cost of Gaming

Recently, Daniel from True Video Games has questioned whether or not video games are actually worth USD60, and even major news outlets have gotten in on the action, with organizations like CNN and Metro Gaming quoting analysts who think games should actually cost more than they already do.


Of course, I’ll be the first to admit that thoughts of microtransactions and DLC are complicated ones. I don’t think, however, that their existence is inherently evil, any more than I think that games automatically cause violence, or addiction, or any other problem. However, like with violence and addiction, how microtransactions and DLC are used can be tone-deaf at best, and harmful at worst. And unfortunately, they’ve been used very poorly as of late. Let’s take a look.


Two common complaints about DLC and microtransactions is that they are everywhere, and developers have become greedy. I can definitely see the logic in those statements, especially seeing the prices of some in-game items, and certainly in the pay-to-win elements that just seem to tilt the scales in favor of those willing to drop real money, resulting in other people feeling left out.

Image result for left out

It’s a very real possibility that DLC and microtransactions are not going away any time soon. That Pandora’s box has been opened, and unfortunately it let out all the potential good and bad that goes along with extra paid content. One one hand, DLC offers an opportunity for developers to add more story (and make a little more money) using a world that already exists and sell to a fanbase that also already exists. Most people were okay when these things were called “expansion packs,” because the game itself was whole and could stand without the pack.

So assuming that DLC and microtransactions aren’t going to completely go away anytime soon, let’s look at how DLC and microtransactions can be used poorly and actually hurt the industry, as well as a few ways they might be used in a way that is least intrusive to gamers.

Assuming Direct Control

Sometimes, discussions about DLC turn into folks being okay with them (rarely) or not. But they don’t have to be “all bad” or “all okay.” Stepping away from the sticky issue as to whether or not game publishers need to use DLC in order to reach their bottom line for a moment, I do think there are a few ways that DLC can be utilized that is the least infuriating.


The cardinal rule, if I might be so bold, of implementing DLC and microtransaction is that they should never be integral to the plot or overall game experience. My first introduction to DLC was, not surprisingly, through the Dragon Age series, and I thought those games (overall) handle DLC well. Dragon Age: Awakenings is a full expansion pack that, while it could be considered important “to the lore,” is far from necessary to play the game/series, and even ones that flirt with the line of “necessary,” like the Legacy DLC from Dragon Age II aren’t really integral to the plot. Horizon: Zero Dawn also does this well with its recent The Frozen Wilds DLC, which gives players more time with Aloy in a story that is tied to her world, but not (as I understand) to her main story. The Witcher III also does this, so it’s certainly possible.

One point that people might disagree on is the idea of paying for skins. While I’m personally a fan of being able to unlock special items through grinding and time investment (more on that in a minute), at its core I really don’t have a problem with someone wanting to pay $1.99 so a character can wear a purple dinosaur suit while punching Nazis. If that’s what you’re into, you go right ahead. I’ve heard arguments against this sort of DLC, but in the overall scheme of DLC usage, I don’t think this is incredibly harmful, with one important caveat.

Image result for video game skins

This is my third and most important point. If DLC is going to be utilized for anything other than a stand-alone expansion, the items being purchased should also be able to be earned in-game if the player is willing to invest a little time (including that purple dinosaur suit). If I recall, Assassin’s Creed: Origins tried to do this, but having not played it for myself I’m not sure whether they did this well or not. At any rate, the “special” item should be earned through a time investment that’s not too inconvenient, but just inconvenient enough that maybe $1.99 isn’t quite so bad when you know it’s going to save you four hours of grind time.

This type of paying for convenience could be a powerful tool. And it doesn’t even need to be as intrusive as the example above. You have 22 inventory slots? Well, for $1 you can expand that to 35. Necessary? No. Is everyone going to pay for it? Nope. But will some? Sure. And you won’t upset the people who don’t pay for it, and they won’t feel like they’re “missing out” or being penalized for opting out.

Image result for full rpg inventory
I know this situation well…

One issue behind DLC that no one is talking about and yet everyone is touching on is that games need to be able to stand by themselves, without players being forced to shell out more money. If a game/publisher wants to add monetization to their game, that’s their business (literally), but it needs to be set up in a way that players won’t feel like they are being used to dispense cash. Maybe not all the “non-DLC-buying” gamers will purchase something, but that’s why the game needs to be able to self-sustain. We’ll talk about that a bit more later, but I think this is a nice place to begin discussing just how poorly the implementation of DLC and microtransactions will go.

Directing Personally

Like I mentioned above, having full expansion packs as DLC can be an enjoyable part of playing a game, especially if it give the player more time to spend in a world they love. I mentioned the Dragon Age and Mass Effect series, so I’m going to set my sights on them again. While there are instances that DLC expansions are innocuous, there are other times, like with the Tresspasser DLC from Dragon Age: Inquisition or the From Ashes DLC from Mass Effect 3 (especially the latter), that integral parts of the stories are locked behind glorified paywalls.

And of course, Mass Effect: Andromeda shipped a game with the intent to have DLC follow it, hinting at it in the gameplay, and then dropping support, meaning that the story will be unfinished and the game will be incomplete forever.

Image result for quarians cultural center
*cough cough*

This is not how DLC should be used. Games should not ask players to pay full price for an incomplete game experience.

Image result for finger wag gif

Day One DLC and Pre-Order DLC are other pet peeves of mine, for similar reasons. Games should never punish a player for not buying a new game when a commercial tells them to. If someone shells out the full price, they should get the full game. Buggy games being shipped with the intent to fix with Day One DLC* is outside the scope of this article, and is unfortunately a more complex issue than just being able to say “ship a full game.”.

Remember how I said that paying for convenience is okay? Well, it’s second cousin, paying for power, is not okay. I’ve heard arguments that say all powers and items should be able to be picked up via grinding, and I do agree with that, but it’s a very delicate balance between making something attainable through grinding, while also delicately balancing at what point it’s “okay” to charge for the convenience of not grinding. As a blanket statement, I’d say don’t do it, but of course if done well this can be harmless.*

Speaking of things to absolutely not do, this might be a good time to bring up lootboxes, those lovely little things that created such an uproar in recent months. I’m not sure why it took so long for people to become so upset about paying for an item before you see it. There are very few times IRL that we’ll shell out money while unsure whether we’re going to actually receive the product we want. Most of the time, we call that gambling.

Image result for gambling

And if there’s one thing we all need to accept about gambling, it’s that the house always wins. Of course publishers and developers might like lootboxes for just this reason, but cheating your customers while trying to convince them they’re actually getting something great is just underhanded. Additionally, definitely do not put lootboxes in games that will be played by minors. While I hesitate to throw around the term “illegal,” I would just like to remind everyone – in a completely unrelated statement – that minors are not legally allowed to gamble.

Image result for lootbox

At the end of the day, DLC has the potential to exclude players – games are already expensive, even though some may claim they are the cheapest media entertainment available (spoiler alert: it’s not. Netflix blows games out of the water)*. Spending $60 on a game, only to be expected to shell out $20 more for an experience that probably won’t last for ⅓ of the play time of the original game is not fair to the gamers who can’t afford it.

This begins to get into another rant that is coming, about businesses making money to make games and businesses making games to make money, so that will be saved for another day.

End Because We Demand It

I mentioned before that games need to be able to self-sustain without the crutches of DLC and microtransactions. They did once, and, until recently, Nintendo showed us that shipping complete and quality games is still sustainable. But there’s one other issue that I want to mention, even though it’s far outside the scope of this article.

The players, and the culture. As Virtual Bastion mentioned a while ago, a certain culture has been carefully cultivated by game developers and publishers, so now we as a community expect more content to be released after the game is over. Let me say that again: we have come to expect it.

Image result for say it ain't so

And so, can we blame publishers for always trying to push our boundaries? To test to see where we draw a firm line?

So when I ask, “Is there a solution?” it almost seems hyperbolic. In this culture that has been developed and nurtured by the people who create games, it seems like there is not way to convince enough people to stop buying DLC. I ran a recent Twitter poll, and at time of writing, most people seemed okay with some form of DLC or another. Maybe there isn’t a way to stop gamers from purchasing DLC, especially if it’s in a game or seires they love.

So is there a solution?

Related image

Well, yes. Of course there is. Moderation.

I mean that quite literally. We need to find a middle ground. To quote a favorite game of mine, “Shut one’s eyes tight or open one’s eyes wide, either way you are a fool.” And in this case, that’s true. Complete rejection and complete acceptance helps no one. But we can push back when publishers go too far. When we all speak together, they do hear us. They do change. We need to not be complacent, draw our lines, and defend them.

Which we do.

What do you think? Is DLC okay when used correctly? Where is your personal “line” for purchasing DLC/using microtransactions, or do you not pay to play? Let me know in the comments!

Thanks for stopping by, and I’ll see you soon,
~ Athena
**This article has some extra content available on Patreon** 

But, like good DLC, it’s not integral to the plot. It’s just some extra goodies if you want to continue talking about this topic.

Related image

What’s next? You can like, subscribe, and support if you like what you’ve seen!

– Support us on Patreon, become a revered Aegis of AmbiGaming, and access extra content!

– Say hello on FacebookTwitter, and even Google+!
– Check out our Let’s Plays if you’re really adventurous!


  1. I agree, moderation is key. We as a community have a voice and we should use that voice to express that developers be moderate with content and find a sweet spot to satisfy both the players and their price point.

    I think FFXV was a good example of that – their DLC packs added a few insights on what happened to characters at certain points of the game, but they weren’t pivotal to the overall plot ie: even if you didn’t purchase it, it wouldn’t affect the overall story and gameplay. One thing I didn’t like was the fact that you needed to download a day one DLC to play the game, but at least they provided it for free.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Moderation solves a lot of issues, to be sure!

      That’s really neat that FFXV seems to have found a nice balance. That’s what I’m talking about – not necessary, but a full little “extra” if folks want to throw a couple more dollars the game’s way.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. It’s interesting your reference to cosmetics as acceptable DLC. To an extent I don’t mind that so much; it’s the loot box “try your luck” approach that I find egregious. I don’t mind buying what I want, I utterly object to buying a CHANCE to get what I want.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. That’s the line for me, too. And there’s nothing to do after it’s open, as far as I know – no trading or re-selling or anything, so it really is a gamble. Don’t get me wrong, I think paying for a new outfit is stupid, personally, but if that’s what someone wants to spend their money on, I don’t see any harm in it, as long as, like you said, it doesn’t affect the gameplay.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. “And you won’t upset the people who don’t pay for it, and they won’t feel like they’re “missing out” or being penalized for opting out.”

    My experience with gaming communities over the last decade is that it doesn’t matter what you offer players, be it an extra 13 inventory slots for $1 or a funny hat, people always feel like they are missing out and penalized for opting out.

    “There are very few times IRL that we’ll shell out money while unsure whether we’re going to actually receive the product we want. Most of the time, we call that gambling.”

    I’m not sure I’d ever call that gambling. Maybe I am showing my age here but loot boxes are to me akin to baseball card packs or Magic card packs. I pay for something with the expectation of getting something in return. What I get may be random and maybe I won’t like it but I would be getting something in return for my money. When I gamble, be it at a craps table, blackjack table, slot machine, lottery ticket, what have you, there is no guarantee of me winning anything. I am literally putting money down on a chance to win something on that bet. With loot boxes, you are putting money down with a chance to get a random thing back. Now maybe you are personally gambling with your money by purchasing loot boxes with the hope of getting one particular thing but the seller of the loot boxes has told you what you should expect and what you are purchasing. I’m not opposed to companies revealing what the odds are on their loot boxes though, this is somewhat common practice for card packs that have varying degrees of rarity.

    “This begins to get into another rant that is coming, about businesses making money to make games and businesses making games to make money, so that will be saved for another day.”

    I’d love to hear your take on this because I often think that people forget that companies like Activision, EA, Ubisoft, etc… are very much the latter. They are business in the business of making games to make money. They are beholden to their shareholders to continuously grow their business or else those shareholders will either abandon ship by selling their stock, or will demand major changes from the company. If we want full artistic experiences in games, we need to look away from AAA gaming and into independent gaming. That’s not to say that great things can’t come out of AAA studios but those companies first and foremost are structured to make money.

    “What do you think? Is DLC okay when used correctly? Where is your personal “line” for purchasing DLC/using microtransactions, or do you not pay to play?”

    I’m mostly in agreement with you here, albeit not on the loot box end of things. Moderation is key, although I would maybe change it from moderation to personal responsibility. It’s on us, to decide what we will and won’t accept. If you put something in to a game that I find to predatory, I won’t partake and maybe I don’t even buy your game to begin with. If my kids (of which I have four) want a piece of DLC or a microtransaction, I’ll review it before letting them purchase (I have purchases locked to require a password on our consoles) and if I think it is too predatory, I’ll tell them no. It’s OK to tell your kids no and they should come to grips with that answer pretty early on.

    Anyway, sorry for the novella here, just thought I share my thoughts. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I think that first point is debatable. I opt out of plenty of DLC and don’t feel left out. For that to work, though, it really needs to not be of importance to the game itself. Although I will agree that the *loudest* people are the ones unhappy…

      I did think of the parallel to baseball cards, but the distinction I drew was that, with baseball cards, there was a chance you could trade them with friends if you really wanted “X” and had “Y.” So you could still get something you really wanted if you worked hard enough. The “try your luck” (as iplayedthegame said) model doesn’t give the player any way to work toward something they want; it really is all luck. Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean?

      It’s coming 🙂

      Moderation and boundaries solve most problems, you’re right!! 😀 I appreciate your thoughtful comment!


      1. I think reasonable people often opt out of things that aren’t relevant to them. There are also very loud people that aren’t happy no matter what you do though. This of course doesn’t just apply to games though, some people just live to be angry. 🙂

        No, you are correct in what I mean. That is just the trade off with going digital with anything though. Once upon a time I could buy a game and my neighbor could buy a different game and we could trade those games and get the best of both worlds. If we buy digital now, and many games are only digital, this isn’t a doable endeavor anymore so it boils down to the exact core of what you are purchasing. In the case of lootboxes, a random pack of stuff.

        My main point though is that it isn’t gambling in the legal sense (there have been a number of court cases brought against card distributors over the years and they’ve all been dismissed). When you gamble you put money down on a chance to win something but you aren’t assured of winning anything. With the way loot boxes are currently set up, you pay your money and you are assured of something even if what that something is, is random. You may not like what you get but you bought something and the seller gave you something. Of course, this doesn’t mean that we should be OK with it, although I’m not offended by it and generally abstain and make my kids abstain as well.

        And not every loot box setup is equal in predatory behavior. For instance some loot box systems do allow for players to work towards acquiring what they want by buying/selling from a user marketplace using in-game currency, Madden’s Ultimate Team model with their auction house comes to mind. Stuff like Battlefront 2, doesn’t implement such a system (probably because the card set is so limited and once received they are permanent perks to the character/class/ship they apply to as opposed to time-lapsed usage in Madden) but they do provide in game currency for duplicates (albeit arguably far too low in relation to what a loot box costs and the rarity of the card). I think there is a way forward for loot boxes to not be a tragedy it’s just finding the right model.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. It’s complicated for me and on a per-case basis, but I agree that games should actually be more expensive, and DLC is an attempt to bridge the gap between development cost increases, and the experience needed is held by expensive developers. A seasoned senior engineer who has a decade experience building games can easily run you a cool quarter million – these massive companies with hundreds of these developers still need to make money.

    The indie devs survive because they sacrifice their time for the love of the game, but at the end of the day, love doesn’t pay the bills, and video games are a hugely saturated market. Their games are also far easier to make due to generally having far less technical complexity.

    All of that being said, when I see the cost of a game $60 *or* $100 for all DLC, I immediately don’t buy that thing. It’s practically impulsive at this point. Just like seeing a commercial before a Youtube video, I mentally shut down when I see that big white text over the graphic explaining why I need to shell out an addition $40 to play it now. Nah, that’s iight. Keep your game.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’ve heard this argument before, and I agree with it on a conceptual level, but unfortunately I think people will take *a lot* of convincing to see a higher price tag on their hobby, which could be more detrimental than having paid DLC (not sure about this, though. Just typing out loud). You’re right that there is a huge budget to cover, and companies have to move a massive amount of games to break even. This was not something I talked about in the article, but good PR can go a long way, too…

      Yes, unfortunately one cannot live on love of a job alone…… haha


  5. My biggest thing is always this- Companies continue to do what they make money at. If you don’t like the DLC or loot box model don’t support it and they will stop. Companies that do what gamers want, as based on what gamers actually choose to purchase not what gamers say, grow and profit.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Yep, absolutely! This touches on a problem I’m not even going to try and solve – enough gamers still buying the products and making it worth the companies’ time to sell them. Bad PR is only a problem once it starts translating into money, unfortunately.


      1. Yes, and bad enough PR can translate to lost revenue, but most gamers make the “airline ticket” claimz. If you ask people, they claim they want more leg room on flights and claim to be willing to pay more for it. However, airlines find that actual purchase behavior is different- most people will sacrifice leg room, luggage and preselected seating to pay a cheaper price. It’s the same with DLC. Most claim one thing, then go ahead and do another. I don’t like it, personally, but I understand why companies do it.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. I HATE the DLC concept with passion. It’s cool if people are okay with it, but I mostly refuse to buy it. I’d like to add that it actually pays to not buy a game on launch day. If you wait like a couple months, you’ll get an even cheaper version of said game that includes all the DLC. HZD just did this and I feel stupid for buying the game on launch day (Sorry, Aloy). I’m considering not bothering with Frozen Wilds at all now (the first DLC I ever wanted to buy), but we shall see. Oh and the copy of Dragon Age Origins I bought was $7 and it came with all the DLC, including Awakening. I also didn’t buy ANY of the DLC for Final Fantasy XIII-2 or Lightning Returns. That should say how I feel about it, haha.

    I’ve been called out on my Amiibo addiction (physical DLC in a way) and anti-DLC stance before so I’ll just add – I’m okay with cute collectible figures I can put on my shelf. I don’t buy them for their in game content at all.

    The only time I forgive micro-transactions is in freemium games since that is the developer’s sole way of making cash from the game. In my opinion, they are NEVER okay to have in games I pay full retail price for, ever!! If your game is so grindy you can charge people money to skip the grind, why the hell am I bothering to play it in the first place, huh? I need to go eat a Snickers bar…

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I really don’t like DLC either, for all my blathering. But I do think that it’s here to stay, and I also think that it is a necessary evil because of development costs of games, so I hope we as a community will be able to find a way to make them as least annoying as possible.

      I do think that’s different, and I’m not being conciliatory. If you collect figurines, that’s totally different. That’s like someone collecting watches who then only wears the same one every day; collecting something isn’t the same as thinking they all should be used all the time (or at all).

      That’s a fair point about grinding. My idea about convenience isn’t my favorite idea, but on the scale of things I find acceptable, it’s the least unacceptable one (haha). If you grab a Snickers, could you toss one my way, too?? 😀

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Ah moderation, always the sobering answer. It’s true though what Aivanther says above – companies do DLC because gamers vote with their wallets and so far have been willing to shell out. Of course, Star Wars: BF2 shows how a greedy company like EA can get it so wrong, and pay the PR price for it. HZD’s Frozen Wild expansion was great, but on the other end I also purchased the FFXV season pass and regret wasting my money on such thin content.

    I played Fractured But Whole recently, the ending is basically just saying “hey, you don’t get a real ending till you play the DLC!” That really pissed me off – I was borrowing the game, but if I had paid for it, I certainly wouldn’t throw any more money at it.

    Also, I’m guilty of buying cosmetic lootboxes during Overwatch events. Damn you, Blizzard, and your club of exclusivity!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yes, in addition to running this blog I am also a professional wet blanket 😉 Moderation and boundaries solve many problems, as I mentioned in one of the above comments. PR is important, especially once it starts hurting companies (or threatens to hurt companies) in their wallets, as we saw with EA.

      That’s ridiculous. I almost want to say it was South Park being stupid, but… I don’t even know anymore haha.

      Well… as long as it works for you!!

      Liked by 1 person

  8. I think we’re of the same mind when it comes to DLC and microtransactions. I’ve listened to my husband complain about Destiny 2’s pay for play issue for over a month now. In terms of the latter, I like how Final Fantasy: Brave Exvius does it, and I’m a little surprised at how low that game is rated on Grouvee. There really isn’t anything you can do by spending money that you can’t do without just by playing longer. While they DO encourage you to buy bundles and give rewards for such, it’s by no means necessary to play the game. Then there’s Little Nightmares, which I’ve watched, and the DLCs for that (according to the people I’ve watched) are very reasonable, being around $2 or $3 per (I think) and they’re of a decent length.

    Like you said, they’re not inherently evil. Some developers just use the in evil, money-grabbing ways.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It really is hit or miss with how games utilize DLC. I don’t like what I’ve heard about Destiny 2 at all, to be honest, but without playing it for myself I can’t say I know personally, like your husbands seems to… It’s nice to know that some games let the DLC just be “convenient” or provide a little extra story for a good price, though. They are, like so much else, a tool, and depending on how they are wielded makes all the difference!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I don’t like how they did Destiny 2. If FF Brave Exvius was like that I’d stop playing. It’s weird, too, because FFBE was entirely free, but they don’t require you to pay for anything. Destiny is at least $60 and you STILL have to play for DLC content and it’s pay to play when you’ve already done that.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. I hate being expected to buy DLC in order to have a complete experience. That’s really the worst for me. If the game is designed to either be missing story or be more unpleasant to play without paying extra for it, I’m just not interested. Lots of games you can play just fine without paying more for them, DLC just gives you more of that. Other games don’t. Other games carve out pieces of what should be there and hold them hostage.

    I do kind of like the way Fallout: New Vegas had its DLC integrated, though. Had a side character who got a mention or two who could have been tied in with your backstory, but really wasn’t a major part of the plot like, say, the Quarian Ark, and you could have easily gone the whole game without thinking of him. But if you get the DLC, you get to explore more of that, as well as a few other bits of backstory mentioned in the game, so it’s tied in and adds to it, but those bits aren’t so prominent that it feels like you’re missing something if you don’t.

    In any case, I don’t usually buy the DLC for things, unless I particularly like the game or I end up with a GOTY edition or find the DLC on super sale. I rarely pay a full $20 for my games, it takes something really special for me to pay that much just for part of one.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Needing DLC for a complete game is, in my book, about the worst possible DLC there could be. I’ve actually heard that New Vegas handles a lot of things (DLC included) very well. You’re right that it should just be *more* world to play in, not *integral* world.

      I’m the same way. I got the ultimate edition for Dragon Age: Origins (because of course I did), and I’ll usually wait until DLC comes on the disc rather than buy it separately, but you’re right that if it’s just more “fun” in the game, and the price is right, they can be tolerable!

      Liked by 1 person

  10. One place I didn’t expect DLC to show up in was Ghost Recon: Wildlands. It didn’t get a whole bunch of renown and was left fairly under the radar, but half of the guns in the game are only gained by purchasing extra gun packs. While I don’t mind the option to buy cosmetic (like you stated above) or speed boost type items in a single-player game, it becomes problematic when you are constantly inundated with “Oh, why don’t you use this gun? It’s the best in the game and only costs $10.00.” That kind of microtransaction exclusivity gets dangerous when a game can release with 30% of the content behind a paywall but it still lies in the “unnecessary” territory.The same kind of thing happened in Deus Ex: Mankind Divided as well where you can pay money to increase your single-player skills for one play through. I agree with all of your points above and can usually tolerate DLC and microtransactions unless they are incredibly invasive- especially to a single-player experience.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hey, thanks for commenting! I think I remember hearing something like that about Ghost Recon, but that is absolutely ridiculous and I agree that it definitely falls under a more dangerous category than simply paying for skins… Moderation is key, and as long as they’re for “extra” goodies (and not “integral” ones), they can stay around, if we have to have them!

      Thank you again for dropping by and commenting! Hopefully I’ll see you again!

      Liked by 1 person

  11. I admit that paying 60 bucks for a game is a little too absurd, but you do have to admit that developers do need to make some money off their game. Although I agree that paying a few bucks for a game is reasonable, paying 60 bucks for a game and another 5 to see your guy dress like Barnie is another thing.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Gaming is definitely an expensive hobby, and paying full price should mean getting the full game! It’s outside the scope of this article, but devs are going to need to realize that gamers aren’t made of money, so raising prices isn’t going to magically solve anything. Smaller, complete games that “sell” a player on the story or world will make it that much more enticing (and less rage inducing) for DLC to wiggle its way onto consoles.

      I think I’d like to meet this person who pays 5 real dollars for his avatar to dress as a purple dinosaur.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s