Where Did Microtransactions Come From?

Microtransactions are the virtual equivalent of lottery tickets - a tax on the stupid and uneducated (and the more cosmetic the virtual item received the more stupid the player has to be). This is why children are the primary target of microtransactions, most are uneducated in the vicissitudes of life and the overall concept of "money", "worth" and "price".

Unfortunately, as children become more educated in the system and as society starts to give them a better education in these things the worth of these things must become greater and therefore less cosmetic and more important... so more Pay2Win is definitely on the cards and possibly the entire future of microtransactions.

I remember a time when you would pay 60-80 bucks for a 5 hour game that was almost impossible to beat, and that's if it actually worked right. Then came the time where it was 60 for a game but after 100 hours of multiplayer it started to get a little old.  There is this idea with gamers that season pass content would have been included in the old days but in the vast majority of cases that just isn't true.  I'm fine with DLC and micro transactions because they give more content to those who want it but those who don't wont have to pay for it.  It's all about getting your moneys worth out of the games and I think I do, it's rare that I feel like I don't. Pay to win is the only real exception i have to that.

Micro transactions don't bother me if they don't affect gameplay. For example, in World of Tanks I have an older premium tank that was 7-ish bucks and uses a bit different tactic, but is not overpowered in a match. I think of it as akin to buying an action figure or some other trinket, except it's okay if you blow it up. Meanwhile, a bad micro transaction, using WoT as an example again, is that a handful of newer premium heavy tanks have been buffed or just come onto the scene overpowered, and countering them tempts players to buy premium consumables. Granted, the premium ammunition *can* be bought with in-game currency, but it's expensive and the effect of the newer tanks on game balance has caused a bit of a kerfuffle as of late.

I don't think "pay to win" is as simple as "no chance" to win in higher gameplay. It's more like it gives the player higher chances of success and/or more opportunities to win.

Anyways, If I had to point to a game that did micro-transactions well, I'd go with Team Fortress 2. The purchases are pretty much entirely cosmetic or for unlocking gimmicks that don't directly affect gameplay. It's my favorite war-themed hat simulator.

I used to play one of those korean MMOs, when it was not so blatantly Pay2Win.

Stopped playing when Pay2Win took over.

These segments should be called speed-rundowns

Answer to the question:  *crickets*  

I like how Rocket League does cosmetic stuff.  Doesn't change the game just makes things look cool. 

This video is completely useless. It was just a list of things gamers know from experience. I'm really not liking the direction they are taking The Know. I hope atleast it will get them more views/money that will help their other productions.

Loot boxes are so much better than map packs, but I'll take story expansions over mutiplayer content any day. Dragon Age Awakening. ME3 Citadel. Burial at Sea. Some of the best gaming experiences I've had.

In their defense, I don't consider card games like Hearthstone as micro-transaction games. They are just digitized card games like MtG that also makes new expansions (3 per year) regularly, keeping only the most recent within 2 years as tournament legal cards. Either way, consumers have to constantly pay for new cards to stay current. Buying new cards for Hearthstone is no different than buying packs of cards at the game store.