I know this was implemented in the Special Edition of DMC4. My point was that the implementation of these micro transactions didn't seem to affect the game's design. Which is what a lot of people seem to be mainly concerned about when it comes to these things. That's why I addressed it.
And DMC4: SE is just one of many examples of this. The Tales series have had these things for at least since 2010 to my knowledge, in Tales of Graces F (Japanese release date).
It continued in 2012's Tales of Xillia:
And it's in 2016's Tales of Berseria. Etc.
At no point have I experienced that they adjusted the grind in the game to encourage you to open your wallet compared to previous entries dating back to PS2 and PS1.
I just want to make that clear because you brought up games like Battlefront 2, where this clearly wasn't the case. Grinding 40 hours to unlock a character like Vader was not the norm that people were used to in previous entries of the series, which is one of the main reasons people got so pissed off about that game. That's a case where numbers in the game have been tweeked specifically because of the implementation of micro-transactions. That's probably not what's going on here. And it's important to at least make that distinction first.
Now, I see that to you it doesn't matter whether or not these things change anything in the game. You're concerned about people getting exploited, and in particular people who are especially prone to these kind of things.
However, the extent at which a game is designed to encourage you to spend money is directly correlated to both of these things. And that matters. I don't think anyone would be concerned if this was about a grand total of 1 cent. If we had to boycott every game or console where there's a business decision or practice that could potentially exploit or be otherwise harmful to some consumers, even when it's not intentionally trying to do this, the list of games/consoles would make for an incredibly long discussion.
My point of view is that when a game is designed to induce emotions associated with the rush of gambling, or is intentionally designed to frustrate the player with slow progression to make them open up their wallet, that's when I don't want to give them my money.
I cannot however be too concerned with what people throw their money at when they're being unreasonably lazy, or simply have more dispensable income than they do free time.
Just like I can't say "I won't buy any game that includes alcohol because there are recovering alcoholics who may be playing". There are warning labels on games for these things that people chose to ignore. And there are usually "in game purchase" labels to be found for games that offer them.
If you have a specific problem with something, whether it is the sight of guns due to your PTSD, or you can't stop yourself from spending money on game progression, then I suggest you read all the relevant labels before you buy a game, and stay away from it if you think it could be a problem.
However, with DMC5, if it's anything like DMC4, the amount of money Capcom stand to gain from a single player with these type of microtransactions seem pretty miniscule.
Chasing Messi and Ronaldo in card packs in FIFA can set you back thousands of dollars.
While a pack of 300,000 red orbs in DMC4 cost you $2.
And 200,000 Proud Souls cost $3.
From what I gather, you needed just under 300 000 Proud Souls and over 1 million Red Orbs to max out and buy everything in DMC4.
That's about $12 bucks. And that's in a worst case scenario for the rare player that wants to max out everything by paying for it, and not pick up a single orb in the game.
And if there are such players, and at the same time don't have the disposable income to fund their behavior, then I'm sure natural selection will take care of them sooner or later.
I have sympathy for the induced gambling addictions in games like FIFA. Little to no sympathy for someone who doesn't want to level up in a game like DMC and spend 12 bucks they don't have.
Should there be free items/orbs/mode for these players instead? There have been items that increase drop rates in various games for decades, long before micro-transactions were even possible. And they have also deliberately been kept out of many of those games at the time. Mainly because people tend to make use of all the tools they have available, which can lead to a diminished experience for those who didn't need those enhancements. And game developers and publishers are still at the mercy of the satisfaction of their customers, and to some extent the opinions of reviewers, etc.
Now, Capcom are letting people bypass their judgement to not offer us free orbs, if you pay them money. That is indeed scummy in some ways.
I say 'some ways' because it can potentially be helpful to some in a proper way without negatively impacting their experience, or causing them problems financially.
And at the same time, it's one way they can make a bit of extra revenue on a game that may very well not sell as much as they would need it to sell, and a game that potentially shouldn't have retailed for as little as $60 to begin with due to how much it cost to develop. But I digress.
These are some of the reasons why it matters to me whether or not the microtransactions affect the gameplay in a negative way or not, and just how much they're able to squeeze out of someone in a worst case scenario.
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.