By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - MS CFO Tim Stuart defends throwing MTX into $70 games.

DonFerrari said:
sales2099 said:
DonFerrari said:
sales2099 said:

.

He said the content that is put on the MTX doesn't cost nearly as much as how they charge for, that when they charge 10 for a skin they are having like 4000% profit margin, and you seem to defend it. He isn't saying a company can't be profitable or keep supporting.

$10 map packs aren’t a thing anymore. The maps are given for free. This is a better system. I experienced what it was like to not play the map packs I bought due to fracturing. I support doing mtx the right way, they aren’t inherently evil. 

And I can’t stress this enough, MS is putting everything they have into growing GP, which nullifies the upfront cost. And therefore you can’t directly compare their business model to Sony. 

And charging 10USD for a skin isn't it done right anyway, nor is making most games MTX gallore that are to be played for several years but that is besides the point.

Nullifying the upfront cost to milk and dime the users is exactly what Sony fanbase have been complaining and you and some others would say that concern isn't justifiable, so now you have to change that to fit your point?

We’re talking about games that aren’t Xbox Studio titles. Xbox games with MTX aren’t the worst offenders (at least not anymore). I don’t like predatory mtx anymore then you. But like I said the business models are different but that doesn’t stop arguably misguided comparisons from happening anyway. 

Look Don, you asked me why I defend the system. I played Gears 5, a AAA, day 1, for nothing upfront. So long as I play $180 worth of GP every year, anything I play in addition is essentially free. I only spent $10 because I didn’t want to grind for certain stuff and I felt I gave this game enough of my time that I actually felt guilty not supporting a game and developer I like. And you guys complain despite spending $70 upfront because you don’t have a choice? Lol cmon. 

And therefore I 100% believe the system I’m using is objectively better. In the end I play more games then you for less money. Really hard to argue that. I also believe you guys are comparatively getting gouged so sorry if I don’t take any complaints from your side seriously regarding optional cosmetics to pay for free post launch content. 

Last edited by sales2099 - on 20 November 2020

Around the Network
Azzanation said:
DonFerrari said:

And charging 10USD for a skin isn't it done right anyway, nor is making most games MTX gallore that are to be played for several years but that is besides the point.

Nullifying the upfront cost to milk and dime the users is exactly what Sony fanbase have been complaining and you and some others would say that concern isn't justifiable, so now you have to change that to fit your point?

Don, are you comparing the methods of forcing people to pay $10 upfront to optional $10 in game content? Because its always better to have the option than to straight out not have a choice.

Development structure is the one that will change.

And you do know why so many companies changed to f2p right? Because in the end they collect even more money for less cost and people accept much lower quality on f2p game. That is a path I don't intend to travel.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

sales2099 said:
DonFerrari said:
sales2099 said:

$10 map packs aren’t a thing anymore. The maps are given for free. This is a better system. I experienced what it was like to not play the map packs I bought due to fracturing. I support doing mtx the right way, they aren’t inherently evil. 

And I can’t stress this enough, MS is putting everything they have into growing GP, which nullifies the upfront cost. And therefore you can’t directly compare their business model to Sony. 

And charging 10USD for a skin isn't it done right anyway, nor is making most games MTX gallore that are to be played for several years but that is besides the point.

Nullifying the upfront cost to milk and dime the users is exactly what Sony fanbase have been complaining and you and some others would say that concern isn't justifiable, so now you have to change that to fit your point?

We’re talking about games that aren’t Xbox Studio titles. Xbox games with MTX aren’t the worst offenders (at least not anymore). I don’t like predatory mtx anymore then you. But like I said the business models are different but that doesn’t stop arguably misguided comparisons from happening anyway. 

Look Don, you asked me why I defend the system. I played Gears 5, a AAA, day 1, for nothing upfront. So long as I play $180 worth of GP every year, anything I play in addition is essentially free. I only spent $10 because I didn’t want to grind for certain stuff and I felt I gave this game enough of my time that I actually felt guilty not supporting a game and developer I like. And you guys complain despite spending $70 upfront because you don’t have a choice? Lol cmon. 

And therefore I 100% believe the system I’m using is objectively better. In the end I play more games then you for less money. Really hard to argue that. I also believe you guys are comparatively getting gouged so sorry if I don’t take any complaints from your side seriously regarding optional cosmetics to pay for free post launch content.

Having someone doing worse isn't really a defense. Because then we could accept any bad practice from publishers because Nintendo put DLC behind Amibo so for you to get some special power or skin you need to first buy an Amibo and then the DLC, not even EA, Ubi and Acti reached that level. But still accepting profit margins that are obscenely high is against what I believe and have been complaining about Nintendo titles selling for 60USD to 30M while costing much less than most titles that reach 1-5M in sales. So MTX, lootboxes, accelarators (that are done in conjunction with obnoxous grinding), skin, packs and others that have ridiculous profit margin (come on, a full game costing 60 or 70 and you look the content, how can a couple skin or maps be charged over 10% of that) is unnaceptable to me.

I pay 20-25 USD for my PS+ and receive like 1000 worth of content a year, what does that have to do with the discussion? And see you paid to avoid grinding, that is one of the bad aspects of MTX.

I pay full price for very few games (that are also full packages with all that is needed to enjoy the game), most I would pay no more than you pay in skin. And the several times I discussed the price of games I'm not only against 70 but also 60, for me the price of the HW could/should be much higher and the SW much lower considering the HW cost can't really go much lower with production/sales (even though it end up being 50% or more cheaper by the end of the gen) and have losses while SW can scale much better in profit with sales. What I said is that the reasons given to increase price are factual, they do exist, which doesn't mean I do agree with the increases.

On playing more games I'm not sure, I play a lot of games and they are mostly 20-50h per title, and considering you love the MP games you probably play a much lower number of games than me. But that also is pointless because quality trumps quantity. It is better to have a lot of enjoyment for 12h than mild enjoyment for 60h while paying the same. Because as someone that works and have limited time, my time is so much more worth than money, you do know you can trade time for money but can't trade money for time right?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Yeah the games might be 10x more expensive then the old ones but there are millions upon millions of more gamers these day.theres no "pocklets" anymore, no expensive cartidges, huge amount of digital version sold instead.



If it isn't turnbased it isn't worth playing   (mostly)

And shepherds we shall be,

For Thee, my Lord, for Thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee And teeming with souls shall it ever be. In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritūs Sancti. -----The Boondock Saints

DonFerrari said:
Azzanation said:
DonFerrari said:

And charging 10USD for a skin isn't it done right anyway, nor is making most games MTX gallore that are to be played for several years but that is besides the point.

Nullifying the upfront cost to milk and dime the users is exactly what Sony fanbase have been complaining and you and some others would say that concern isn't justifiable, so now you have to change that to fit your point?

Don, are you comparing the methods of forcing people to pay $10 upfront to optional $10 in game content? Because its always better to have the option than to straight out not have a choice.

Development structure is the one that will change.

And you do know why so many companies changed to f2p right? Because in the end they collect even more money for less cost and people accept much lower quality on f2p game. That is a path I don't intend to travel.

You don't intend to travel the path where your perceived value of any particular product isn't influenced by cost? I would bet you already travel that path and have for years, as have all of us. There's nothing wrong with accepting lower quality on a free to play title, because it doesn't cost you anything. In a similar fashion, I'm perfectly ok with my car not performing like a Ferrari, because I didn't have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for my car. If I buy a $20-30 game, I am less critical of it than I would be a $60 title. That's just how logic works. Of course the same logic applies to a f2p title.

But again all this worry and fear mongering over something that simply is not an issue, because we as gamers can police games ourselves, and have done so for generations. The f2p titles that come out and suck or are super scummy with their pricing, don't tend to last very long. The single player games that come out with monetization and excessive DLC, typically pay the price for it. Look at how spectacularly Avengers just flopped. Glorious. That's virtually everything this thread is bitching about and look what happened.

And you should probably stop referencing cerebral's guesses on the costs of game development and skins and developer salaries, etc. It's all pulled right from his anus. He's literally admitted his frame of reference are custom game modes in various titles. I am sure you have fiddled with Gran Turismo's track editor. Do you feel this makes you qualified to speak on how much DLC for Dirt 5 should cost? I highly doubt it.

Regarding changing money for time, so long as sales buying something in a competitive MP title doesn't give him an inherent advantage, why should any of us care? You go on to admit you play less MP titles, if I want to spend $100 a year buying skins in a MP title that I play and I put more time in than you put into all of your single player titles that cost multiple times my $100, what's wrong here?



Around the Network
LudicrousSpeed said:
DonFerrari said:
Azzanation said:

Don, are you comparing the methods of forcing people to pay $10 upfront to optional $10 in game content? Because its always better to have the option than to straight out not have a choice.

Development structure is the one that will change.

And you do know why so many companies changed to f2p right? Because in the end they collect even more money for less cost and people accept much lower quality on f2p game. That is a path I don't intend to travel.

You don't intend to travel the path where your perceived value of any particular product isn't influenced by cost? I would bet you already travel that path and have for years, as have all of us. There's nothing wrong with accepting lower quality on a free to play title, because it doesn't cost you anything. In a similar fashion, I'm perfectly ok with my car not performing like a Ferrari, because I didn't have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for my car. If I buy a $20-30 game, I am less critical of it than I would be a $60 title. That's just how logic works. Of course the same logic applies to a f2p title.

But again all this worry and fear mongering over something that simply is not an issue, because we as gamers can police games ourselves, and have done so for generations. The f2p titles that come out and suck or are super scummy with their pricing, don't tend to last very long. The single player games that come out with monetization and excessive DLC, typically pay the price for it. Look at how spectacularly Avengers just flopped. Glorious. That's virtually everything this thread is bitching about and look what happened.

And you should probably stop referencing cerebral's guesses on the costs of game development and skins and developer salaries, etc. It's all pulled right from his anus. He's literally admitted his frame of reference are custom game modes in various titles. I am sure you have fiddled with Gran Turismo's track editor. Do you feel this makes you qualified to speak on how much DLC for Dirt 5 should cost? I highly doubt it.

Regarding changing money for time, so long as sales buying something in a competitive MP title doesn't give him an inherent advantage, why should any of us care? You go on to admit you play less MP titles, if I want to spend $100 a year buying skins in a MP title that I play and I put more time in than you put into all of your single player titles that cost multiple times my $100, what's wrong here?

I don't remember a single product I buy that have 4000% profit margin. But way to distort it. Same for the f2p, I said people accept lower quality stuff because it is a f2p (even if they end up paying more than the price of a full game), what I said is that I don't want more games following that.

No need to reference cerebral. You can use the direct reference that I said myself. You buy a full game for 60 USD so how would a skin for 10USD makes any sense? Even if it was a pack of 10 skins? Or same for the map or anything like that. Even at a low attach ratio for DLC/MTX on the titles several of those revenue higher than the full price of the game, but if you think that is good ok.

Have I said there is anything wrong with he buying his stuff on the MP games? Nope, although he wanted to brag about the superiority of his expenditure. And you kinda reversed my point. My point is that my time is more worth than the price of the game, so for me it is more important the quality of the time I expended with the game than how much I saved by the sub (pointing I buy most games at a cheap enough price and well most of the free games I get on Plus I don't even play because again I consider my time more valuable than the economy in getting that specific game for free). Myself I don't care if people expende 100 or even 1000 in DLC, even more if that make the product I buy cheaper because of it (and said so before in the thread), that doesn't change the fact that it is a bad practice.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
DonFerrari said:
Azzanation said:

Don, are you comparing the methods of forcing people to pay $10 upfront to optional $10 in game content? Because its always better to have the option than to straight out not have a choice.

Development structure is the one that will change.

And you do know why so many companies changed to f2p right? Because in the end they collect even more money for less cost and people accept much lower quality on f2p game. That is a path I don't intend to travel.

You don't intend to travel the path where your perceived value of any particular product isn't influenced by cost? I would bet you already travel that path and have for years, as have all of us. There's nothing wrong with accepting lower quality on a free to play title, because it doesn't cost you anything. In a similar fashion, I'm perfectly ok with my car not performing like a Ferrari, because I didn't have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for my car. If I buy a $20-30 game, I am less critical of it than I would be a $60 title. That's just how logic works. Of course the same logic applies to a f2p title.

But again all this worry and fear mongering over something that simply is not an issue, because we as gamers can police games ourselves, and have done so for generations. The f2p titles that come out and suck or are super scummy with their pricing, don't tend to last very long. The single player games that come out with monetization and excessive DLC, typically pay the price for it. Look at how spectacularly Avengers just flopped. Glorious. That's virtually everything this thread is bitching about and look what happened.

And you should probably stop referencing cerebral's guesses on the costs of game development and skins and developer salaries, etc. It's all pulled right from his anus. He's literally admitted his frame of reference are custom game modes in various titles. I am sure you have fiddled with Gran Turismo's track editor. Do you feel this makes you qualified to speak on how much DLC for Dirt 5 should cost? I highly doubt it.

Regarding changing money for time, so long as sales buying something in a competitive MP title doesn't give him an inherent advantage, why should any of us care? You go on to admit you play less MP titles, if I want to spend $100 a year buying skins in a MP title that I play and I put more time in than you put into all of your single player titles that cost multiple times my $100, what's wrong here?

I don't remember a single product I buy that have 4000% profit margin. But way to distort it. Same for the f2p, I said people accept lower quality stuff because it is a f2p (even if they end up paying more than the price of a full game), what I said is that I don't want more games following that.

No need to reference cerebral. You can use the direct reference that I said myself. You buy a full game for 60 USD so how would a skin for 10USD makes any sense? Even if it was a pack of 10 skins? Or same for the map or anything like that. Even at a low attach ratio for DLC/MTX on the titles several of those revenue higher than the full price of the game, but if you think that is good ok.

Have I said there is anything wrong with he buying his stuff on the MP games? Nope, although he wanted to brag about the superiority of his expenditure. And you kinda reversed my point. My point is that my time is more worth than the price of the game, so for me it is more important the quality of the time I expended with the game than how much I saved by the sub (pointing I buy most games at a cheap enough price and well most of the free games I get on Plus I don't even play because again I consider my time more valuable than the economy in getting that specific game for free). Myself I don't care if people expende 100 or even 1000 in DLC, even more if that make the product I buy cheaper because of it (and said so before in the thread), that doesn't change the fact that it is a bad practice.

What is this 4000% profit margin nonsense? Is this some of the OP busted math based on his experience in WCW/nWo Revenge Create-A-Wrestler? lol

Spending $10 on a skin in a $60 title makes sense if you play the game enough that the $10 investment is warranted. It doesn't really matter how much a game costs, if you enjoy it and the developer puts out a skin you think looks good, then buy it or don't. There's nothing wrong with either scenario at face value. Sales mentioned it in Gears 5, a full featured title that already comes with loads of skins and content. So yeah, that's not an issue. However, a game like Evolve launching with little content and barely any skins charging money for extra skins, yeah that's an issue, and gamers collectively told 2k Games to fuck off there. It's not black and white.

You said sales is getting nickle and dimed. That's a negative, don't try to spin or backpedal out of that comment. Your belief that he is being nickle and dimed is surely irrelevant to him and comes from a position of pure ignorance on your end, because you don't know how much he has played Gears 5 or how much money he has. You see it as a person playing a game with microtransactions spending money while you're sitting there with your 12 hour or whatever you said SP game that you bought on sale and you thumb your nose up at him but there's nothing wrong with it.

I'm glad you value your time over money, idk who doesn't. And no, it isn't a bad practice, lol. People can spend their money however they want. If a game can keep someone interested for years and the devs keep releasing content that people support, how in the world can that be a bad thing lol.



LudicrousSpeed said:
DonFerrari said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

You don't intend to travel the path where your perceived value of any particular product isn't influenced by cost? I would bet you already travel that path and have for years, as have all of us. There's nothing wrong with accepting lower quality on a free to play title, because it doesn't cost you anything. In a similar fashion, I'm perfectly ok with my car not performing like a Ferrari, because I didn't have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for my car. If I buy a $20-30 game, I am less critical of it than I would be a $60 title. That's just how logic works. Of course the same logic applies to a f2p title.

But again all this worry and fear mongering over something that simply is not an issue, because we as gamers can police games ourselves, and have done so for generations. The f2p titles that come out and suck or are super scummy with their pricing, don't tend to last very long. The single player games that come out with monetization and excessive DLC, typically pay the price for it. Look at how spectacularly Avengers just flopped. Glorious. That's virtually everything this thread is bitching about and look what happened.

And you should probably stop referencing cerebral's guesses on the costs of game development and skins and developer salaries, etc. It's all pulled right from his anus. He's literally admitted his frame of reference are custom game modes in various titles. I am sure you have fiddled with Gran Turismo's track editor. Do you feel this makes you qualified to speak on how much DLC for Dirt 5 should cost? I highly doubt it.

Regarding changing money for time, so long as sales buying something in a competitive MP title doesn't give him an inherent advantage, why should any of us care? You go on to admit you play less MP titles, if I want to spend $100 a year buying skins in a MP title that I play and I put more time in than you put into all of your single player titles that cost multiple times my $100, what's wrong here?

I don't remember a single product I buy that have 4000% profit margin. But way to distort it. Same for the f2p, I said people accept lower quality stuff because it is a f2p (even if they end up paying more than the price of a full game), what I said is that I don't want more games following that.

No need to reference cerebral. You can use the direct reference that I said myself. You buy a full game for 60 USD so how would a skin for 10USD makes any sense? Even if it was a pack of 10 skins? Or same for the map or anything like that. Even at a low attach ratio for DLC/MTX on the titles several of those revenue higher than the full price of the game, but if you think that is good ok.

Have I said there is anything wrong with he buying his stuff on the MP games? Nope, although he wanted to brag about the superiority of his expenditure. And you kinda reversed my point. My point is that my time is more worth than the price of the game, so for me it is more important the quality of the time I expended with the game than how much I saved by the sub (pointing I buy most games at a cheap enough price and well most of the free games I get on Plus I don't even play because again I consider my time more valuable than the economy in getting that specific game for free). Myself I don't care if people expende 100 or even 1000 in DLC, even more if that make the product I buy cheaper because of it (and said so before in the thread), that doesn't change the fact that it is a bad practice.

What is this 4000% profit margin nonsense? Is this some of the OP busted math based on his experience in WCW/nWo Revenge Create-A-Wrestler? lol

Spending $10 on a skin in a $60 title makes sense if you play the game enough that the $10 investment is warranted. It doesn't really matter how much a game costs, if you enjoy it and the developer puts out a skin you think looks good, then buy it or don't. There's nothing wrong with either scenario at face value. Sales mentioned it in Gears 5, a full featured title that already comes with loads of skins and content. So yeah, that's not an issue. However, a game like Evolve launching with little content and barely any skins charging money for extra skins, yeah that's an issue, and gamers collectively told 2k Games to fuck off there. It's not black and white.

You said sales is getting nickle and dimed. That's a negative, don't try to spin or backpedal out of that comment. Your belief that he is being nickle and dimed is surely irrelevant to him and comes from a position of pure ignorance on your end, because you don't know how much he has played Gears 5 or how much money he has. You see it as a person playing a game with microtransactions spending money while you're sitting there with your 12 hour or whatever you said SP game that you bought on sale and you thumb your nose up at him but there's nothing wrong with it.

I'm glad you value your time over money, idk who doesn't. And no, it isn't a bad practice, lol. People can spend their money however they want. If a game can keep someone interested for years and the devs keep releasing content that people support, how in the world can that be a bad thing lol.

What profit margin do you want to use? Please give us one that is sourced since you are mocking a lot the one he made from his experience.

Of course it is negative, companies doing these practices are nick and dimming customers. Sure ignore he was the one touting he having the superior experience by saving up front to attack the other point, as you always do "defend when something comes from one corner even if that was after similar came from the other".

And I'm glad you understood the point that you previously tried to put in reverse.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
Azzanation said:

Don, are you comparing the methods of forcing people to pay $10 upfront to optional $10 in game content? Because its always better to have the option than to straight out not have a choice.

Development structure is the one that will change.

And you do know why so many companies changed to f2p right? Because in the end they collect even more money for less cost and people accept much lower quality on f2p game. That is a path I don't intend to travel.

I am no fan of F2P structures either unless its F2P Multiplayer. Companies will always want an asking price for their games regardless if MTX or Lootboxes are loaded in them. The reason MTX and Lootboxes exists is to help cover the costs of very expensive games however that has been taken advantage of with companies like EA and 2K.

I am okay with MTX, they are not a new thing, they have been around for awhile, the issue is how they are being used. Someone brought up Gears 5, let me say this, Gears 5 MTXs are just what they are, optional purchases if you choose you want more. The game is a AAA budgeted title offering a decent campaign with a fully loaded Multiplayer with enough content to last you 100s of hours at $60. I have brought only 1 thing from the Gears 5 store and that was a targeting reticle which for me looked super cool. I didn't need to buy it or was force to buy it. I did it because i wanted to. To me, that's MTXs done right. I understand not all games follow suit and there are some items that are just rip offs, however again its optional, no one is making you pay $10 for a purple weapon skin.

Our biggest issue with practices like these is when companies choose to chop up their games and plan on selling them bit by bit over time. Destiny is a good example. Full price game ($60) only offering a very short campaign (5 Hours from memory) and already had 2 expansions planned which was actually part of the main story plot which was quite obviously pulled from the main game.

Another game was Marvel vs Capcon (Cant reminder which one) had a character on the actual disk locked away as DLC and the game was sold as a full price game. Those are the practices we need to fight against. Optional MTXs to me is nothing more than a little extra if you want it. I will also argue against lootboxes as its a form of gambling and should not be in video games unless their is a warning label on the box and have options to get them without using real money. Over Watch does this quite well.



LudicrousSpeed said:
DonFerrari said:
Azzanation said:
DonFerrari said:

And charging 10USD for a skin isn't it done right anyway, nor is making most games MTX gallore that are to be played for several years but that is besides the point.

Nullifying the upfront cost to milk and dime the users is exactly what Sony fanbase have been complaining and you and some others would say that concern isn't justifiable, so now you have to change that to fit your point?

Don, are you comparing the methods of forcing people to pay $10 upfront to optional $10 in game content? Because its always better to have the option than to straight out not have a choice.

Development structure is the one that will change.

And you do know why so many companies changed to f2p right? Because in the end they collect even more money for less cost and people accept much lower quality on f2p game. That is a path I don't intend to travel.

You don't intend to travel the path where your perceived value of any particular product isn't influenced by cost? I would bet you already travel that path and have for years, as have all of us. There's nothing wrong with accepting lower quality on a free to play title, because it doesn't cost you anything. In a similar fashion, I'm perfectly ok with my car not performing like a Ferrari, because I didn't have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for my car. If I buy a $20-30 game, I am less critical of it than I would be a $60 title. That's just how logic works. Of course the same logic applies to a f2p title.

But again all this worry and fear mongering over something that simply is not an issue, because we as gamers can police games ourselves, and have done so for generations. The f2p titles that come out and suck or are super scummy with their pricing, don't tend to last very long. The single player games that come out with monetization and excessive DLC, typically pay the price for it. Look at how spectacularly Avengers just flopped. Glorious. That's virtually everything this thread is bitching about and look what happened.

And you should probably stop referencing cerebral's guesses on the costs of game development and skins and developer salaries, etc. It's all pulled right from his anus. He's literally admitted his frame of reference are custom game modes in various titles. I am sure you have fiddled with Gran Turismo's track editor. Do you feel this makes you qualified to speak on how much DLC for Dirt 5 should cost? I highly doubt it.

Regarding changing money for time, so long as sales buying something in a competitive MP title doesn't give him an inherent advantage, why should any of us care? You go on to admit you play less MP titles, if I want to spend $100 a year buying skins in a MP title that I play and I put more time in than you put into all of your single player titles that cost multiple times my $100, what's wrong here?

Would you believe it you beat me to it. I was also going to use that as a recent example too.

I dont know how people like Don can look at Avengers and still say the things they are saying with a straight face.