Who is Optional – A Question of Consumer Value

[RaquelleAvarosa]

Seeing as the point of games in general is to beat them then the idea of a skill wall is kinda ridiculous. No game guarantees you a victory, but it does guarantee content. You have the impression that because you payed for the game, then you deserve the end result of winning it, but no game other than ones with cheat codes I guess, gives that, it gives you the ability to challenge it's content, and as a reward also the end. Whoever buys the game get's the chance to access the end, regardless of who they are.

In this case, you are buying the game, and then are told to get other content, you must pay even more. On top of that, there isn't even a challenge, it's just handed to you... it defeats the purpose of a game.

Understand that it is your concept of the purpose of a game, this topic is about how optional is not optional because some players play the game with vanity as their core game-play, for those players, beating the game is not necessarily the purpose of the game.

Content is only content when you can access it, if content is locked behind a skill-wall that you cannot overcome and therefore cannot access, is it still content? how different is it from someone who cannot access content locked behind a pay-wall? I'm asking this in a philosophical sense, I'm of course not actually asking for items to be given away for free

I'm just saying that you cannot use the argument of different players having different core game-play styles as a reason for why micro-transactions should not exist but yet say that another's game-play style is not valid.

IMO I think that people got to be more honest with what they want and feel, all I see are players spinning arguments of noble reasons of why micro-transactions is bad for everyone whereas its actually simply that they themselves do not want micro-transactions because it is their own preference to not have it.