It's completely relative. Micro-transactions can be fine. They can also be horribly destructive. It all depends on how they are used. Aesthetic add-ons and resources that you can already get in-game are fine. In that regard, the only impact they carry is to appearance and to save time and effort. Personally, I'll ignore these things, but I don't mind that they exist.

The problem will come with any game, and this will happen eventually, that endeavors to force players into purchasing items to compete and/or advance. At that point, it will be a broken model for anyone who feels that they've paid for a full experience when they bought the game. I'm not saying all games will do this, or even most, but it will happen sooner or later.

I'm not going to "boycott" games for having micro-transactions but I certainly will if I learn that a particular game is cheating customers who don't fork over additional dollars.

Of all the things that are popular to hate just because, microtransactions are one of those things that deserve all the hate they get.

Micro-transactions, as a whole, are perfectly fine. They can be used in many ways to actually aid a title. Too bad they aren't used correctly... and EA would be a prime example. This is why they are always brought up. (They purposely take things "out" of a game to charge you for them later.)

An example of good use of Micro-Transactions (well, DLC, in this case) would be if a track in MK (that wasn't made when the game came out, since no one had the idea at the time) was set up for sale. This is what I mean by "aid a game."

I'm not and I agree with you.  

Look at BF3.  People can pay to unlock later weapons if they don't have the time to unlock them.  What is wrong with that?  If that is unfair, then it is also unfair that others who play more get an advantage.

My favorite AR in the game is the AN-94, but if I have an M16, I can still kill tons of people.

The thing is the purposely make the time to unlock them longer so you feel more inclined to use $$ to unlock.

Its fine unless the game gives an advantage for paying money over non paying gamers. If its all cosmetical changes I couldn't care less.

But a game I Iike that requires me to pay or lose/fall behind is the worst.

Dota 2 has a perfect setup for microtransactions.

Also if you have micro transactions in a non free to play game, that's more than likely a dick move.

I have no problem with it on principle. Just when it's done in a bullshit way.

Kinda reminds me of Team Fortress 2.
My brother is a fan of specific servers who allow all players to have twice the health, double the ammunition within a magazine, faster running speed and so on.
But the thing is people can become "premium" members on these servers and have additional abilities such as jumping across the whole map, instant shooting (rocketlauncher, sniper, shotgun etc.).

And yet when I play on these servers with my brother, we're always on the top 2 spots, despite having to deal with these "premium members" (or cheaters).
From my experience, only noobs pay money for things that make them stronger. Because only then they have a chance of beating other players.

Do you mean to say a game was released with a playable/interactable component, then later was removed and put up for sale?

Can you give an example?