Who is Optional – A Question of Consumer Value

[Jacost]

How is it an equal chance if you have to pay extra money?

Because anyone can pay extra money if they choose to? You act as though paying more is somehow more difficult than playing the game itself, even as you state otherwise in the same post. It's bizzare.

[Magis]

Because anyone can pay extra money if they choose to? You act as though paying more is somehow more difficult than playing the game itself, even as you state otherwise in the same post. It's bizzare.

So RMT is a-ok? Anyone can buy it, so it's equal footing right? Heck, don't even need to go there. Do you have any issue with pay to win content? By your logic, there is no advantage done there either and SE should have no problem implement that as well!

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.

I'll reply to you in a bit.