The Microtransaction Dilemma

     Microtransactions are highly prevalent in today's gaming industry, with Triple A titles coming equipped with in-game shops and free-to-play games making their money through the purchase of in-game goodies. Unfortunately, the vast majority of these microtransactions involve pay to win elements, allowing players to purchase an advantage over non-paying users in the form of better items or exclusive equipment. This was already a common thing with free to play games that wanted to give players an incentive to spend money by giving them an edge for doing so. More recently, however, we see paid titles offering the same thing. It can almost be excused for free games, but a full-priced title that also attempts to milk the wallets of players by making those with the deepest pockets the strongest? That is unacceptable and any company that tries this greedy scheme should be ashamed of themselves.
     Microtransactions have become so tainted in the eyes of the gaming community that the mere mention of them being included is enough to deter a lot of potential buyers. And who can blame them? With companies like EA and Ubisoft at the helm, it makes sense that microtransactions have become synonymous with the very worst of the industry. But is there a way to do microtransactions that is acceptable, even when in a paid title?

     The short answer? Yes.

     Contrary to popular belief, there is no reason why companies shouldn't be allowed to make money after the launch of their game. None. The issue here is that few companies realize that there is a right and wrong way to do microtransactions. The wrong way is obvious: pay to win. If a microtransaction shop offers and advantage over other players who do not pay, such as a weapon that deals more damage than any weapon that can be earned for free, then the company is trying to bait players in to paying money with the promise of being superior over their peers. This is greed, this is unacceptable, and games that do this should be avoided. Then there is the right way: offering players the ability to support the developers by purchasing items that don't affect gameplay, or do so in purely convenience-oriented ways that don't provide an advantage. Take Elite: Dangerous for example. This game is a paid experience with a cash-shop. Except that the cash shop is exclusively paint jobs for ships, and little bobble heads you can put on your dashboard. It offers nothing that affects actual gameplay. Sure, a fancy paint job on that neat little all-purpose fighter you have may come off as a symbol of status, but a player in a fully decked-out end-game ship with no paintjob will still be able to smear you across time and space. Also, games that offer extra content via expansions. Skyrim for example was a paid triple a title that allowed players to purchase expansions that added to the base game as well as providing many hours more of additional gameplay, with the Dragonborn expansion in particular adding an entire new island to explore filled with quests and dungeons and new enemies and story.
     Now, there is a gray area I believe. Halo 5: Guardians is a perfect example of a gray area when asking "are these microtransactions acceptable or not?". Halo 5 Requisition (Req) Packs can be earned by playing multiplayer matches and purchased with Req Points, or you can purchase them with real cash. These req packs contain cosmetics such as armor pieces, icons, stances, and assassination animations, among other things. However, they also contain weapons for use in the Warzone game mode. These weapons can alter gameplay greatly, especially if a player is lucky enough to have a legendary-tier weapon available for use. This might be considered unacceptable pay-to-win but consider this: it's all based on chance. There's no guarantee that you'll get anything of any real value no matter how many you buy with real money. Anybody can get the packs, it just takes more time to do it for free. Anybody who has actually played the game knows that nobody (and I mean NOBODY) uses legendary items because 1) they're so rare that you might never see another one if you use it and 2) anybody with the starting pistol and a lucky position can kill you and take it from you before you even get to use it. You can be damn sure I'm never using my Prophet's Bane, and that's exactly what nearly every other player thinks. Also, the weapons can only be used in Warzone. The competitive Arena modes that have ranked systems don't allow for the use of req cards aside from xp/rp boosters that don't affect the actual game. And plus, people buying req packs pays for map packs and other new content. Halo 5 offers game-play altering content for pay, yes. But it's highly situational, and the money made from it goes in to the production of free content updates that everybody gets to enjoy regardless of the ability to pay. So this remains a gray area.
   
     In the end, microtransactions are not going anywhere for a while, and companies will continue to use cash shops to continue to make money after the launch of their game. What people need to learn is to stop immediately assuming a cash shop is going to make the game pay to win. Look at what exactly is being offered for real money before you judge a game based on the presence of a cash shop.