This kind of stuff doesn't bother me unless the balancing of the main game is clearly driven around encouraging microtransaction.

Otherwise it's like someone paying to unlock cheatcodes. If thats how someone wants to experience the game then thats on them.

The minute it effects my game experience I will care but as of yet it doesn't. I actually like single player games, the more that succeed (outside of sonys stuff) the better, so if capcom can rake in more money without compromising the game experience then thats fine by me. 

I don't get the fuss, how is this effecting people who don't want to use it?

At the same time, earnings (generally money or exp, sometimes both often some other things, too) get slowed down to an extreme grind just to push gamers consumers to buy them to alleviate the grind - or like I say it, to not play the goddamn game!

Im not supporting this kind of garbage no matter how optional or non invasive it is. Its bad enough that they make you pay for cosmetics, now they want you to pay to not play the fucking game? Give me a break.

Not a good sign. Sure, it may be "optional" but that still raises some questions. How is locking what is essentially an easy mode behind micro-transactions justified? Will the game be designed with these "optional" micro-transactions in mind?

As long as it's optional and not in your face within the game. If there's a separate menue at start up screen that takes you too extras that's fine. The ones I hate are like destiny where it's all over your game

Wish I saw this sooner. You actually have a very excellent rebuttal, which is refreshing from other arguments I've seen for other things lately. I hate that I'm saying that though, because of this is about micro-transactions.

For the Tales of series, I never knew about that because I actually never bought a game in the series. I was actually thinking about buying Beseria before this. I'll get to this and some others toward the end.

You do have a point. Lootboxes isn't the same as micro-transactions. That was part of the reason I edited my previous post, because admittedly I was conflating them. It is important to make that distinction and doing otherwise is disingenuous to any real discussion. I brought them up as an end result problem that ended having needing to be cleared up. I wanted to point out that micro-transactions were a foundation of such practices, and that's why it spiraled to such an extent. I didn't write it in a way that didn't indicated that properly.

In terms of boycotting every game that comes up with bad practices: I am of the standpoint that if you personally feel that there is a bad practice in any game or gaming product. Yes, you absolutely should boycott it. Aside from that, as long as you are not forgiving one game for a practice and not another game for a same practice its fine generally to be ok with a practice others claim to be anti-consumer, so long as (like you're doing) are willing a good explanation as to why because at times, its all about perception.  I'm not saying that I'm not trying to change your mind, because I am. I think it is important everyone challenges each other's perceptions without really attacking or disparaging each other for said perception. So if you feel the same way at the end of this, with the way you presented your argument, I genuinely couldn't be close to upset. [I think its important to boycott every practice we see as problematic as we are at a standpoint with the industry where these companies have expectations that they make bigger profits at the expense of gamers and employees.] <- I don't want to go too far into this part because I feel this is big enough to be a topic itself and slightly deviates from our discussion, but feel more than free to respond to this.

Now, while I do understand your disdain/apathy for people willing to pay because they are simply too lazy to play through the game properly, I also feel this is the only part of your argument I think is bad. There was a time I agreed to this, but at the same time has proven that these companies don't care whether or not you're just lazy and want to make the game easier. Children that come into gaming and believe this to be normal, are very easy targets. People with some type of spending addictions may feel the need to get this. For people with addictions and the like, labels wouldn't really do anything to prevent the from buying a game or product. It may in fact, encourage them instead as it may be a means to sate an addiction. I feel your PTSD comparison isn't appropriate for that reason because trauma doesn't normally entice people to look for something that brings their trauma to them. Addictions, on the other hand, absolutely do. 

Now obviously this may not be the case in DMC 5, and yes the distinction needs to be said that things, such as gambling addictions, will not be in play. It will not be as bad as FIFA and the like, true enough. Will it be the same as DMC 4 SE? I don't think so. For the record, I can't really discuss the value of the micro-transactions because I simply can't find a video or record online about the price of orbs/moves you get at either the statue or I think at the end of the level. Its been a while since I played it, and I don't feel like downloading the game again to find out. All I could find was that the base DMC 4(the one I own) values for Nero and Dante, which came out to 51900 red orbs and 65700 proud orbs. Obviously something is very wrong with these numbers so I'm not bringing it into account, so we'll go with that everything cost $12. To me, that still does not matter. Going to a point you made earlier, yes, I would find even a penny problematic.

Granted, Both in the example of DMC 4 SE and the penny its a fixed price, making it better than most common cases. However, there was no announcements of micro-transactions for DMC 4SE like there was in DMC 5 (if there was feel free to site it. I genuinely don't think there was). Why? I think the reason is a given as now gamers are more aware so they know they can't just slip it in again. However, now they have the excuse that it was in DMC 4SE, a game, where again, they never made an announcement of. My issue here is that, they have revealed that they are willing to creep this more and more into the game. For this reason I think it will become progressively worse and normalized.

*Also we know we play as three dedicated characters of in this game. It is also suspected that the game will have multiplayer. I believe this, if true, is what Capcom's counting on to pressure people to pay money in order to catch up to others. However, that is merely conjecture I thought up when typing this.*

Now I also acknowledge the part of the argument where you note what impacts experience vs financial returns. I don't necessarily, agree but it certainly an interesting way to look at it that I think is worth looking into. I am firmly against the $60 thing, but I believe that is closer to the argument in my earlier bracket that slightly deviates from what goes into this argument. Also, before this, DMC 5 would have sold very well. I'm almost confident it would have been the best selling game in the series to date by some margin. Consumers had a lot of goodwill for Capcom recently, partially because of this game, but also because of Megaman and Monster Hunter World.

Now as for the Tales of games and other games I'm just finding out about such as the Bravely series. Yes they had micro-transactions. No, I never played them, but would go against it the same way as DMC 5? Yes and the reason is because I feel that I personally was not vocal when bad practices weren't made for games/platforms I didn't care too much about, but the minute it became a problem for what I did like, it was already too late. We've also seen this pushback recently against bad practices that ended up being effective. I just don't think personal complacency is something I want to result in negative consequences again. 

Now again, for you I honestly respect your decision. A lot more so than the people who complain yet buy it or especially those that complain and wait for a sale, because they are being complicit, self-serving, holier than thou and yet hypocritically supporting something they don't believe in. At the very least I acknowledge that you are considering micro-transactions from all angles and trying to establish a line where it doesn't negatively impact consumers whilst not hurting the company. Sorry for the very long and delayed response.

Loot boxes were a different beast and actually involve gambling and it was clear from everyones complaints that the game design was built around encouraging it with super steep xp requirements.

Its not about me, for sure. I think some people will actually prefer to pay to skip elements of grinding and streamline their experience and see everything that is to be experience, no different from cosmetic purchases which can otherwise be unlocked in-game but people want to have right away. The minute that in-game purchases seem exploitive I will condemn them and often have, including day one DLC. But the mere existence of microtransactions does not make a crime in my opinion. 

I'll buy it regardless. Looks to be the best game to release in 2019 and beyond. Microtransactions don't bother me when the game itself is a masterpiece and they don't get in the way.