What do you hate about Microtransactions?

[Frozen Burn]

I hate ALL microtransactions.  Period.  Full Stop.  If I subscribe, I get full access.  Paying for an expansion - sure, but still full access if subscribed.  Nickel and diming us to death for little things here and there - hate it and cannot stand it, and I generally do not play games that require that to get anywhere.

[BasiliskXVIII]

Because it’s unethical to sell something when the buyer has no genuine rights over what they’ve paid for. It doesn't stop a lot of companies, but that doesn't make it right.

 

...I swear, some people want to buy the cross they'll be crucified on.

Edited 11 hours ago by BasiliskXVIII

[ThatGuyCDude]

On the topic of microtransactions as an element of the game industry in general, let's take this one step at a time...

On 11/24/2025 at 9:48 PM, mechahamham said:

Lootboxes: We did that with Superpacks during the Live era. Now that they're part of the in-game economy rather than the real-world economy, I do every so often spend a sum on them simply to burn off excess influence. I don't even resell the contents. The primary source of funding of my characters comes from crafting. Some characters I want to pay their own way, so they have to craft up from 0 influence and buy their own ATOs. I wouldn't be horrified if another kind of loot box somehow arrived, but I would take it as a symptom of something very wrong happening with the game's balance.

Lootboxes are blind boxes.  Blind boxes are gambling, marketed as 'fun', 'not gambling' bonuses.  It's incredibly predatory psychology, promising players that they only have to spend a pittance to get what they want, when it's really a rigged slot machine.  Often the programmer end of the loot box does not have to adhere to fair gambling practices, either.  If I want to play slots, I'll go to Vegas: at least I have the prospect of winning real money there.
Further expanding on this point, loot boxes that grant temporary advantages are even worse: they tilt the gameplay advantage towards the player's wallet instead of their skill.
Buying game money with real money falls in this same category.  Both absolutely break the in-game economy, especially in multiplayer games (and more so if there exists a player-to-player trading system).
 

On 11/24/2025 at 9:48 PM, mechahamham said:

Costumes: This would be something that would be very difficult for me, personally, to say no to. I bought all the costume packs that came out during the live era. I don't want to go back to that, where you either had to grind for or pay for new costume pieces. I think that having all the costume pieces unlocked at character creation is a vastly good thing... but that's another discussion entirely.

Aesthetic purchases in a game are probably the only kind of micro transaction that has any semblance of merit: character appearance can vastly affect a player's enjoyment and many would be willing to part with some money to get the look they want.  Provided the purchase reflects permanent access to that asset and is NOT hidden behind a blind box, this is the best supplementary monetization scheme a multiplayer game can employ.  Players will encounter others who have a look they like, inquire as to the source, and then purchase the corresponding costume pack to replicate it.  Costume purchases have two flaws: the first is that it leads to style-biting (where one player deliberately steals another's look) and the second is the bulk package issue... it's much more bearable to buy a single costume piece for pocket change than it is to drop a larger amount on a set (many of the pieces being things the prospective buyer would never use).  Before shutdown, CoH allowed both and I much preferred the 'get this single item' approach.
Just to be clear, I'm NOT suggesting that Homecoming do this.  Again, this discussion is about the reception of micro-transactions in the gaming industry as a whole.  Purchasable cosmetics is simply the least wicked of the alternative monetization schemes, and will continue to be the most prominent as time goes on.
In another context, Aesthetic purchases could be considered downloadable content.  They don't alter the gameplay loop, only its perception.  Downloadable content serves to renew interest from an audience in a product and can be considered part of game maintenance.

 

On 11/24/2025 at 9:48 PM, mechahamham said:

Max Level/Prestige Characters:
 

<snip>

 

However, in the real world, we've seen that this is the 'last gasp' of other F2P games. It snowballs to the point to where if you make a new character, they will have absolutely no one to group with until they're max level.

 

I personally feel that if you're not enjoying that basic game loop of 'Defeat enemies in interesting ways, gain even more interesting ways to defeat enemies', you're playing the wrong game. However, I can't in good conscience tell others what parts of the game they should enjoy or not. I don't EVER want the low- and mid-level game to die out, and microtransaction characters is the surest, quickest way to make exactly that happen. That would kill CoH for me far deader than any corporate-mandated shutdown ever did.

Level boosts are bad for a lot of reasons.  In addition to what you've said, they charge players to skip playing the game.  This is even more egregious in subscription game models: "pay to play, and pay more NOT to play!"
Additionally, players who level skip don't understand fundamental game mechanics, mechanics that playing through is supposed to teach.  They're much more likely to grow frustrated at the complexity of the end game and quit, which is a short-turn return on the micro-transaction but a long-term loss for the developer... it's a means to quickly liquidate players into funds before axing development (again, a predatory tactic).
Adjacent to Level boosts is the Server Transfer micro-transaction, which charges the player base for their geographic location and for events in their life that relocate or remove friends from the game space.  Having to pay to leave if a server's culture is incompatible with your personality HURTS, and your only alternatives are to start fresh or pay for a boost on another server (or just quit).


One last flavor of micro-transactions you did not consider is the Energy Refill, the monetization scheme which punishes you for the duration of your playtime.  "Buy an Awaken?  $0.50" would be the City of Heroes context of that (again, I'm using CoH as an example of how the industry would use this tactic, this is NOT an endorsement).  Setting aside the constant fourth-wall break to pick at the player's wallet (which in itself is annoying enough), this approach is just annoying enough to siphon gobs of money out of a player's pocket because each individual ambush transaction is minuscule.  Someone shrugs off the nickels and dimes until they get their bill and realize they've spent $2000 or more on basically nothing.  The person who doesn't is again at a disadvantage compared against the 'whale' (both in single-player and multiplayer games, even if you can acquire 1/600th of the purchase equivalent through 'regular play'), and eventually quits the game out of frustration or becomes a casher.  Again, predatory psychology designed to liquidate players into funds.


None of these monetization schemes are signs of a healthy game.  Only one of them qualifies as a valid player retention strategy, similar to DLC production.  The rest are designed to snag some quick cash before the player base moves on.  THAT'S the problem with micro-transactions, they are by nature designed to liquidate a community.

Edited 1 hour ago by ThatGuyCDude
Grammar and Typos

[biostem]

It's bad enough having to appeal to some RNG for free in-game drops, but I'll be damned if I'm going to pay real money for the "privilege"...

 

Cosmetics I'm not so against paying for, but with an important caveat - if the devs intentionally make the freely available options awful looking to upsell the paid-for stuff, or if they glaringly omit certain options for free players, that is a big "middle finger" to players and a hard pass from me.  Generally, I think the best approach to take in these types of cases is to have a basic version of a cosmetic available for free, and a deluxe version as paid-for, (for instance, there's the plain Baron costume pieces and the more ornate occult variants).

 

One final no-no from me is if a game includes various "for a cause" type of paid-for content, and doesn't donate, say, more than 90% of that to said cause, (and if they don't list the amount they're donating, then definitely a pass).