Are All Microtransactions Bad?

Microtransactions are the hot topic today in almost gaming environment. Are they all really as nefarious as we make them out to be? We believe some can actually be really good for a developer's support of a particular game. Let's discuss which are good, and which are bad.

[C-H-E-F]

GTAV has the best dlc/paid mt balance.showed b used as standard nidel

[UCForce]

I don’t think so. Remember GTA V Apocalypse UPDATE ? In free roam, you can screw people with beam cannon in GTA online. Low level players got screwed by high level player. Yeah, that’s the problem with MT in full price games.

[C-H-E-F]

low level players will always be screwed by high level players that's the perk to being high level. LMAO

*standard model* (OP)

[Army_of_Darkness]

Personally, micro transactions for me is what ruins the joys of replayability. I remember back in the days when after I cleared a game, it would give me several New skins, levels and even weapon unlocks for a new game + mode, so would I play a single player campaign again because of that?! F#*K yeah I would! But these days, you have to pay for that stuff. Utter bullshit.

[UCForce]

“low level players will always be screwed by high level players that's the perk to being high level. LMAO” But not like this.

[Belinker300]

Absolutely not,there is a ridiculous amount of grinding or buying shark cards just to purchase items such as bunkers etc just to participate in new heists and DLC content

[mastiffchild]

GTAV and its shark cards and online only dlc is not great. Rockstar promised proper free iirc single player dlc but greed prevailed, we got just theists etc for online and yet more shark card bs.

If you love gta online it's okay but it's still not great and the shark cards situation stinks.

Overall, though, mtx are fine in free to play games by and large esp done like Warframe. In a full price release though? Publishers et al need to make sure it's stuff we never used to get as part of an original game, that any extras carry value and no pay to win or gambling random reward loot boxes that create addictions.

[Belinker300]

You are pretty much locked out of any new content thru updates unless you spend big ingame cash

[C-H-E-F]

Nope i never bought a shark card and have around 800 million, i just played the game alot, and buy things that I want.

[Belinker300]

Played the game a lot is an understatement,most of us have a life outside videogames also

[chiefJohn117]

Heck no, I stopped playing GTA v mp because of the grind it takes to earn money and buy that top car for races, etc only to see a someone have 2+ million from shark cards and that top car burn you

[C-H-E-F]

How when you have to WIN races to unlock car parts to upgrade with?? having 2 million won't give you the part, lOl you sir are mis-informed.

[Rachel_Alucard]

Yeah I love spending hundreds of hours abusing car selling to just get enough to afford one limited vehicle. How about even more millions just to participate in any of the new content they add? You know its bad when people are afraid of Red dead given this track record.

[PapaBop]

This time last year I'd have agreed with you however they're actually really bad for it now. Every new content update they do involves an expensive pay wall in order to both take part in the new missions and to be able to buy the coolest new stuff. See that new awesome helicopter from past GTA games you just have to own in GTA Online? Well first you'll need to buy a hangar to store it in.. roughly 2m, want to modify your brand spanking new helicopter? That'll set you back an additional 300-500k to add a mod shop to your hangar, think your hangar is looking a little dull? We got you covered, get a special new paint job for the low low price of 200k! Oh and that helicopter you wanted, that'll be another 4m. GTA Online is a terrible example of the balance. Yeah you can definitely earn enough money to buy all this just from playing but you'll be putting in a ton of hours grinding stuff to make that sort of money.

[Z501]

I think you misspelled Warframe/

[PlayableGamez-]

Shut up

[Retroman]

If it not Automatically in the game @ 60.00 i'll play untill unlocked. FK MT scams

[UCForce]

Well, Microtranaction is not belong in full price games. MT is only acceptable in Free to Play. Now if there is MT that done right, I would have give it to Warframe and it’s free.

[Obscure_Observer]

@UCForce

No, no every microtransaction is bad and you better get used to see more and more MTs on full priced games or leave console gaming.

Did you saw the patch notes for the next Horizon Zero Dawn update? It will feature new in game menu options to buy dlc. So there you have it. Microtransactions on Horizon Zero Dawn. Welcome to Kodera´s age!

[Goldby]

Microtransaction tons aren't the same as Dlc.

Microtransaction are something already in the game normally locked behind a paywall.
Dlc normally need to be downloaded, and on top of that dlc tends to include more value than MT.

In horizons case, it's a whole. New area available, with its own story and items.

Try harder

[UCForce]

You didn’t play Diablo 2, did you ? That game have expansion pack. Bloodborne have expansion pack. I’m sorry but you are getting blinded here. MT and paid DLC are no innocent. But they are completely different. Like I said before, MT is a loop hole and Paid DLC is when you purchased it and can keep it.

Edit : Then where is it ? I only see Frozen Wild and Spanish language pack (free).

[notachance]

let there be known that obscure_observer thinks MT = DLC

[Goldenarmz]

MT in Free to play are fine, as that is how they tend to make their money. And it usually doesnt effect game play. That is completely Fine. Maple Story had this, most fb games have this. But when i pay 60 bucks for a game, and then 40% of the game is locked away behind MT or piecemealed out to me thats when we have issues. But MT in Free to play is a model that fits those kind of games.

[BlaqMagiq1]

Umm all of that is DLC that adds to the game not microtransactions. You look like an idiot right now.

[Kribwalker]

@goldby ucforce and blaqmagiq

If you replaced a $50 season pass with MTs and the $50 worth of DLC expansion is now free where is the problem with that?

So let it be known, These three would rather spend $50 on a season pass then have others buy MTs that don’t affect the game and get the same DLC for free.

Because that’s literally what this is. Free DLC for everyone, MTs for those that chose vs Paid DLC and segregating the player base

[Eonjay]

You don't know what you are talking about but like any internet troll you initially come off as a real person. To even explain to you would be pointless because you were wrong on purpose but don't care.

Krib, most people would rather. It have doc or passes. They want to give the devs their money and walk away. MT are insanely worse than both. This article is about Mts can we stop trying to make them good?

[Kribwalker]

@Eonjay

I’m sorry but i got 2 years of continued expansions that normally would have cost $20 each for free (because i didn’t buy any MTs) in halo 5, because of optional cosmetic MTS. I would rather have that then no Mts and Season Pass

Why would you rather chose to pay for DLC when, if they add 100% optional MTs, especially those that can be earned with in game cash, you could get all of that extra content for free.

It makes no sense. You people are saying “I’d rather buy a complete $60 then buy a $50 season pass” instead of “Ill buy my $60 game, the developers will give me the expansions for free (instead of $50 or whatever they cost) and i don’t even have to spend another dime”

$60 + optional cosmetic Mts = Free DLC and Expasions >>>>value then $60 + $50 expansions no MTs.

One of them is $60 and a complete game and extra content. One is $60 for a complete game and you have to pay for more expansions.

[Aenea]

Since when are MT's the same as DLC?

I agreed with the first part, the 2nd part is just anti-Sony drivel...

[Kribwalker]

@Ziggur

You are getting worthwhile story DLC or worthwhile Maps for free, with optional MTs.

Optional MTs you don’t have to buy.

Worthwhile DLC - Free
Worthwhile DLC- $50

which would you choose?

[Kribwalker]

No MT should be in a full price game unless it creates free DLC and Expansions. There i fixed it for you. Other wise you should be against paid DLC and expansions in games, as instead of paying for a big transaction to get DLC you get optional MTs and free dlc. Way better model for everyone.

[UCForce]

How about this ? Doing like Witcher 3 free dlc and expansion. That way better than your option. Horizon Zero Dawn have similar Witcher 3 approach. Free update and expansion pack that worth price. Again, you didn’t play Diablo 2, did you ?

[Kribwalker]

the witcher 3 and horizon zero dawn had paid expansions.

Sea of thieves won’t have paid expansions. rather optional MTs. I’d rather have optional MTs then paid expansions

[UCForce]

Did I said expansion packs are free ? No. But those are worth the price. Again, you didn’t play Diablo 2, did you ? How about this ? A microtranaction that done right, it has to be Warframe, not Sea Of Thieves. Sorry, but MT should belong to Free to Play model. Paid dlc and MT are not innocent. But here the difference, MT is loop hole and paid dlc is where you can keep it forever.

[Rachel_Alucard]

CD project flat out said they always to do something really substantial outside of the mini dlcs they were giving away for free. But ofc they have to charge for it as that's something that requires thousands of man hours to create as opposed to something you can make in a week. As I know Witcher 3 is the only game still sticking to the 1999 model of video games which is how it should be because the new way is run by pure greed, but ofc people are going to jump on the "free dlc" marketing lines these publishers want.

[ziggurcat]

@krib:

I'd rather have worthwhile story expansions than useless cosmetic MTs.

[Kribwalker]

@ziggur

but you are getting worthwhile expansions. But you don’t have to pay for them because there are optional MTs in the game that are funding it. So you get your worthwhile expansions for free, instead of buying it.

So you would rather give away your money then not buy MTs and get everything for free. You guys I swear.

Look at overwatch. It has Loot boxes, but it has had an endless supply of content you don’t need to spend a dime on. New levels, new characters. everything. Free. Because of optional cosmetic loot boxes.
Halo 5. halo 5 has had a tonne of content more then 14 new maps added for $0

Battle of Shadow and Light was the first content update for Halo 5: Guardians. It contained four forge maps and was released on November 18, 2015.
Cartographer's Gift was the second content update for Halo 5: Guardians. It contained four maps and was released on December 16, 2015.
Infinity's Armory was the third content update for Halo 5: Guardians. It contained two maps and was released on January 26, 2016.
Hammer Storm was the fourth content update for Halo 5: Guardians. It contained one map and was released on February 24, 2016.
Ghosts of Meridian was the fifth content update for Halo 5: Guardians. It contained two maps and was released on April 6, 2016.
Memories of Reach was the sixth content update for Halo 5: Guardians. It contained one Arena map and was released on May 12, 2016
Warzone Firefight was the eighth content update for Halo 5: Guardians. It contained four maps and was released on June 29, 2016
Anvil's Legacy was the ninth content update for Halo 5: Guardians. It contained two maps and was released on September 8, 2016
Monitor's Bounty was the tenth content update for Halo 5: Guardians. It contained two Forge canvases and a customs game browser and was released on December 8, 2016

All free if you chose not to buy MTs. No player base seperation. No additional money. $60 you get the full game, MTs that can be earned in game, and more then 14 extra levels and modes. How is that bad? How is it better to have spent $50 on all that content?

[ziggurcat]

"So you would rather give away your money then not buy MTs and get everything for free. You guys I swear. "

No, krib. I said I would rather worthwhile story expansions than useless cosmetic MTs. You guys I swear.

[ziggurcat]

@krib:

again - worthwhile story expansions, not useless cosmetic MTs. Nowhere have I said anything about money.

[Aenea]

Alright, playing devil's advocate here:
Games are getting bigger every year and become more expensive to make, yet game prices are the same as 20 years ago.
MT's is one of the ways to cover those costs. Yes, if a game is successful it even will give a nice chunk of extra profits which can be used to invest into more risky (smaller and bigger) projects. Without it many a game can't be made or they wouldn't dare to make it.

Even if you think they don't need the extra income to cover game development it's still ensuring a huge chunk of money that you and your shareholders can't go without.

What would you do as a game publisher?
- make less games and only make ones that are sure hits, but with way, way less content
- up the game prices
- or something else?

[OB1Biker]

From the article:
'I think it is important to be able to tell the difference between these types of microtransactions. Consumers should not put all microtransactions under the same umbrella. Some are bad, but I believe some can be very beneficial. It seems there are two camps. Those who say “there are microtransactions, not interested.” And those who say “what’s a microtransaction?” Although holding companies accountable is important, it’s also important to understand the differences among in-game purchases. Not all are created equal.'

And its the journalists job to inform the public about FACTS and respect the readers intelligence, as opposed to disinformation and 'strong opinion' for whatever reason that we keep seeing.

[Obscure_Observer]

@OB1Biker

@OB1Biker

All IN GAME purchases are Microtransactions! Doesn´t matter if dlcs, expension packs, weapons, maps, comestics or loot boxes. So yeah, there´s a difference. Imo, some MTs are bad and some are good. I rather pay for HZD dlc than wait for a sequel to discover more about Aloy´s universe.

[porkChop]

Expansions are not microtransactions. They're expansions. Clearly you don't know what microtransactions are.

[Obscure_Observer]

@porkChop

YOU don´t know what microtransactions are! I said any aditional content behind a paywall through IN GAME, i´ll repeat: IN GAME OPTIONS, are microtransactions!

[Goldby]

Micro = small
Transaction = exchange money for something.

Microtransaction = small money for something in the game

Since when is a 20-30$ considered a small purchase?

Next thing you'll start saying is that a full fledgedigital game is a mt for the psn/Xbox live

[UCForce]

You getting blinded. Expansion packs are way different than MT. Have you played Diablo 2 before ? I thought people said that i’m hypocrites person which is true, but i’m not going too far with it. Now you are being hypocrites.

[Rachel_Alucard]

@Obscure

The term Microtransaction wasn't even a word until Microsoft made it a thing when they cut up expansion content and sold bits and pieces of it in small fees to make more money when Xbox live launched. They passed this strategy on to other big publishers and here we are today. We've had expansions since the 80's in games. How out of touch are you with everything?

[Aenea]

DLC doesn't cost a small amount therefor the name MICRO transactions already is a false way to describe them.

Plus, we all know, except you apparently, that DLC aren't the same thing as MT's.

And what's with the "in game options"? thing? Every. single. DLC. in. existence has been behind a pay wall in game! Ok, some maybe not, but what the heck of a difference does it make if the game shows you there is an expansion or not when it's exactly the same thing???

Because it seems that is what you're saying: if a game mentions there's an expansion in it's UI and can guide you to the online store than you count it as an MT and when the game doesn't mention it anywhere it suddenly is not an MT, right? That's an absurd way of thinking...

-------------

Also, I know the definition of 'content' can indeed cover skins or any other cosmetic item in a game (for most people), but to me that just doesn't sound right. Additional content for me is content that you can play, new levels/areas, etc. not a cosmetic item.

In that way there's also a huge difference between MT's and DLC....

[StifflerK]

MT's have no place in full priced games.
But MT's in Free To Play is fine.

It's true some types of MT are worse than others, but that's no justification for their inclusion, and still - people shouldn't have to pay extra just to enjoy a game they already payed full price for.

Same with cosmetic MT's , it wasn't so long ago that features like that were unlockable in-game at no extra cost - so why do we have to pay for it now???

Publishers are trying to make MT's the norm, don't let them.

[Kribwalker]

so what are your thoughts on DLC? because DLCnwill cost you $20-50 to continue to enjoy the game.

[UCForce]

I don’t like it of course. But I prefer business model like Witcher 3 and Horizon Zero Dawn. Both games give us a free update and free dlc and an expansion packs that worth price. So I choose my third option. A free dlc and expansion pack.

[DJStotty]

i would rather have full paid expansions for games over MT's any day of the week

[StifflerK]

For DLC - I'm okay with it so long as:
- it isn't content cut from the base game,
- it's optional,
- it's worth the price they're asking for it.

I prefer expansion packs rather than the 'games as a service ' model.

[MrVux000]

-There should be no microtransactions in full-priced-games, but we have our selves to thank for making that happen.
-Cosmetic-only-type-microtran sactions in Free-to-Play games are justifiable.
-P2W-type-microtransactions in both full-priced and free-to-play games are absolutely not justifiable.

[XiNatsuDragnel]

They are always bad in a 60 dollar put them in a free to play

[UCForce]

I have to agree with you.

[Juvia]

Juvia agrees!!

[XiNatsuDragnel]

Juvia I guess nudist beach is doing a mission without his shirt-___-.

[Paid_Vacation]

Yes, put them in F2P games that has the potential to have a gamer spend more than $60 100x over.

I love this way of narrow thinking. Paying for MTs is okay for F2p games that are designed and made to syphon as much money from a gamer as much as possible. But for a $60 game where the MTs are designed as optional it's a bad thing.

[PhoenixUp]

Name a good microtranaction

[NotoriousWhiz]

Cosmetic only. I'm also okay with one of the Magic the gathering ones where you could pay to unlock the decks instead of going through single player. I think each deck was ~$2

I'm also okay with the micro transactions in Street fighter V.

[sprinterboy]

I have 1, oh wait

[lptmg]

I find buying music in Rock Band as something acceptable. A new song for a bit more than a dollar. Fine by me.

[sprinterboy]

True story, bought over £200 worth of singstar songs over the course of 5yrs for the kids at Xmas on the ps3 to only find I Cound not use a vast minority of them songs on ps4 singstar. Sony customer service said it was due to some kind of music rights, never played or returned to singstar ever since. Shameful imo.

[Belinker300]

Monster Hunter World is a great example where micro transactions are only for cosmetic or gesture items

[Kribwalker]

just like sea of thieves, overwatch, halo 5 and gears 4

[Rachel_Alucard]

Show me where I can pay money to buy what I want outright instead of having to dice roll for it in a pool of hundreds of items in those games.

[Kribwalker]

Sea of thieves is no loot boxes. It’s straight cosmetics for your character you want to buy, some of it can be bought with in Game money.
http://www.gamerevolution.c...

things like pets will be able to be bought. And expansions will be free then.

[UCForce]

Not those games. That credit should go to Warframe. A game is free and done MT right.

[Stogz]

Halo 5 MT's are not cosmetic, they are cards for war zone. Stop making things up to fit your agenda.

[Belinker300]

I'm guessing your an Xbox fanboy

[Paid_Vacation]

@ucforce

Warframe does MT right? No, straight up no! You pay for everything in that game and to get things for free, the grind is ridiculous!

[AnubisG]

All microtransactions are bad, m'kay?

[bigmalky]

In free to play games, yes, they can be fine. Warframe comes to mind.

In full priced games, no. Maybe if the game has a lengthy story mode that doesn't utilise MTs with a tagged on multiplayer that is worth it, like GTA V and Uncharted 4.

I got my money's worth out of the solo player on those games and had a mess about with online, then moved on.

[MetroidFREAK21]

I hate lootboxes because everything is random and you run the risk of getting duplicates. I understand why they do lootboxes, because if you don't get what you want, you're more than likely to buy more... If you could straight up buy what you want for a flat rate, I would have no problem with MTX... If I want say a gun in CoD, sell it to me for $2-3 and I'll buy it and give you the extra $2-3 you charged from the already $60 game... 💁 it's that simple... When games make it so entwined into progression (like Star Wars Battlefront 2) then that's when it becomes a problem

[Rachel_Alucard]

The worst part of this is they got you in their web because you think the old Microsoft way of doing DLC is better then the new way. So even if they went back to it they still win.

[MetroidFREAK21]

Well I said "if" but that's just the way I like purchasing additional content if I so decide to do. Find it to be the least scummy way to do it. I mean I have no intention to buy any, but if I ever do, then that's the way I would buy MTX... If I know what I am buying

[nibblo]

They are fine if they are cosmetic but if they affect gameplay in any way they are not - simple.

[BlaqMagiq1]

In full priced games yes. ALL of them.

[DialgaMarine]

No. It’s all about their content. If it’s purely cosmetic, or can be directly earned through payments with in-game currency (UC4 MP), then they’re fine. Honestly, I don’t mind loot boxes. Going for cool cosmetic items in CoD WW2 has been pretty fun. Pulling some crap BF2 and NFS Payback, and putting progression through loot boxes is where there is a thick line.

[ocelot07]

Not all microtransactions are bad. For example Rainbow Six Siege. The game cost £40 at launch. Yes their is a season pass every year but this is not needed. As all new DLC maps are free. Characters can be unlocked instantly with the season pass or bought using in game credits that you have earned.

I think this is fair as I don't think any of the operators are OP or unfair to use against new players.

So in all to do microtransactions fairly in paid for titles is. Free DLC for all so the player community is not split. Only things available to buy with real money are skins and characters (providing they don't give an advantage). Also don't lock content behind a paywall. So if their is a super cool skin you want. You should be able to earn it in game. Or buy it in game using in game earned points. Or buy it when ever you want with real money.

[Bladesfist]

Yup, cosmetic microtransactions that stop the playerbase from being split into those who have the new content and those that don't is a win for everyone IMO. I don't mind games offering cosmetics or pay to skip options (like rainbow six or warframe) if it means everyone gets important new content for free and can continue to play with everybody else. I agree with your definition of fair 100%.

I think focusing on the initial cost of the product when defining when it is okay or not is fine as long as you don't expect any continued support. Games like Overwatch, Rainbow Six or Warframe would not have the same level of ongoing support and interest from the developers if they included no microtransactions regardless of the initial cost of entry.

[ocelot07]

Even the likes of EA and Battlefield can do something like the way Ubisoft do it with Rainbow Six. Maps are free to all. But if you want to use them in a rented server or simply want to play a dlc map via the search function. Then you must buy the season pass. If not you can play them via random map rotation.

Same for skins you can unlock them in game. Or if you want it now pay a small fee. But no it's EA they won't do that.

[MetalGearAlex]

Yes

[Tross]

No, but MTs in games we have to pay for are.

[xX1NORM1Xx]

No of course not they are only bad when i pay £50-£55 and dont get all the content if i paid nothing then fair play have as many microtransactions as you like although people wont stick around if you take it too far

[Zeldafan64]

Most are. Not all.

[Diesel888]

Gaming industry needs to learn from the Witcher 3 developers. Full game should be ton of content, DLC should be free and acquired by playing the game, unlocked by doing challenges etc, this will prolong the game and get the community involved. Additional transaction should only be for full on expansions with a ton more meaningful content. Consumers are not stupid any more and developers should understand this. If developers want to introduce a Micro-transaction heavy game then the game should be free to play like Warframe. MTs were not that big of a deal before but now it is totally getting abused by greedy publishers and its taking the gaming industry down a dark path. No one likes to keep getting scammed like how EA is scamming gamers with FIFA Ultimate team. EA is showing other publishers how much extra money they are making from scamming gamers and other publishers want a piece of the action. They are forgetting that scams will only hurt their brand in the end...Look at Battlefront 2.

[TheOttomatic91]

If publishers are the ones enforcing them then yes

[blacktiger]

League of Legend is good. You can eventually earn all champion in less than 6 month or pay tons of money, thats not bad

[DimensionalSound]

Unless the game is free to play, Yes. No exceptions. Here's a good policy for gamers to start adopting in order to fight it:

1. If possible, start refusing to buy any game if it contains microtransaction or sells itself as a "live service." If you're looking for a new experience, dig into the past: I guarantee you there's a sea of games you've missed out from in this generation or past generations. At the very, very least, check to see if a game you're about to buy has microtransactions and think twice before spending your earned money; ask yourself: Do you really want to continue to support this practice in gaming? Remember that it didn't used to be this way.

2. If there is a series or two you can't live without that have microtransactions, make that exception for that series ONLY, and refuse all other games.

3. Continue to play games you've already purchased that have microtransactions, but don't ever spend any money on these items--if it's essential to the experience, don't play that game.

4. Only purchase microtransactions in free to play games since that is their only monetization platform.

[NickAwesome]

Are all bad? In free to play games NO, in 60 bucks game YES, if we absolutely have to have them at least make them cosmetic only

[Mr Marvel]

I'll pay for DLC if it's worth it, just to prolong a game I really want more of, but I'll never pay for crap like loot crates, etc.

If companies want more money out of me for a game then they need to create some top quality DLC as we've seen in Horizon: Zero Dawn and The Witcher III. These two games are still the best examples of DLC done right imo.

[sprinterboy]

I prefer dlc tbh, as long as its done right, witcher, hzd and sniper elite to name a few have many hrs of gameplay in them continuing the story. Having said that dlc like cod maps etc should be free.

As for microtransactions for cosmetics like Delorean in rl is fine with a price of £1,99 so that's a option for the player adding no advantage in the game.

Now microtransactions in a full priced game for weapons, clubs, houses etc is disgusting adding p2w into the equation; example everybody's golf, I couldn't even play mp until after I'd played for about 20hrs cause all the players in mp bought all the club upgrades.

[CrimsonWing69]

Let’s just get back to the good ol’ days before mobile gaming reared this ugly business model.

I say leave it with mobile games or make every console game that has them free to play.

[DJStotty]

Paid games - yes
free to play - no

[BlahFlahNo]

Yes.

[yomfweeee]

Cosmetic MTs that have no game-play effect is completely acceptable to me. Better to let morons spend their money on that stuff than to charge $80 for a base game.

[Kumakai]

No. That’s like saying “is getting options on your base car bad?”

[S2Killinit]

Simple. YES! Microtransactions ARE bad in ANY game that is paid for, with one exception:
If the game offers such longevity and value that the Microtransactions are ceated AFTER release in reaction to demad. The developers decision must be made AFTER the game has provided full value to consumers.

The only game that comes to mind is if Skyrim developer added MT after 3 years from release.

[OoglyBoogly]

What's with all the typos and errors in these comments? Seems way higher than normal.

[happy2b]

Are all news articles clickbait

[Retroman]

Well, well i'll be. someone figure it out. that include EVERY!!! media nationwide,all are clickbait to drum up "FAKE" news.

[InTheZoneAC]

simple answer - yes, but as long as they're restricted to cosmetics it doesn't bother me. In MP I have no issue unlocking a cosmetic by getting it in a random rewards box(loot box) or by earning credits that allow to me purchase that item specifically, as long as the time it takes to get those amount of credits is within reach for a normal persons playtime and doesn't need some ridiculous ungodly amount of hours.

[jacksmith56]

YES THEY ARE ALL A CANCER

[Segata]

Yes. End of.

[BadElf]

To answer the question....No.

[lellkay]

Full priced game, no MT's.

We pay full price, we should get a full game. Then if you want more money, build worthwhile Expansions for us to pay for.

[Psychotica]

Well if I was somehow receiving the money then no..otherwise yes :)