If handled properly, then basically all this is is DLC, and I've bought my share of content DLC, and would in the future too. If Bethesda released a monsters pack for 600 points tomorrow that added a dozen new enemy and monster types, I'd snap it up in a heartbeat because core Skyrim with more enemy variety would be a massive win for me. But if Fallout 4 came out with just bandits and deathclaws, and then Bethesda said it was another £3 to add Super Mutants to the game, I'd have to question them. That's taking a good thing and twisting it into something bad, greedy and desperate. I wouldn't ever expect Bethesda to do that however.
At this point I expect to hear people talk about Horse Armour, but as far as I'm concerned, that gets a pass. DLC was a new thing then, they were testing the waters on content and price to see what would work and what wouldn't, and they have learned from that, as evidenced by all their DLC since then being of an excellent cost-to-content ratio.
The real problem with this is that issue is that whilst DLC is an accepted part of the gaming machine, microtransactions are something different and are a questionable practice. Sure, f2p games work that way, and that's fine, except one day the major developers and publishers will start picking up on how well it does and move more in that direction. That is speculation of course, but this is where I refer to my favourite quote from John Ricitiello who basically said that F2P model would allow them (EA) to start charging people who play battlefield $1 for every reload. This is something he actually openly said earlier this year. Now, I don't expect that will actually come to pass, for one thing, I expect that each transaction would need a confirmation screen, which would kill any FPS game. If the game paused and popped up a confirmation screen each time you reloaded you would spend about 20 seconds shooting then 10 seconds in the confirmation process. I really don't think that will happen. BUT the fact that Ricitiello is talking about it proves that the big companies are going to deliberately look at all the ways they can utilize the F2P model, and not in a good way either. Next time any of you play a shooter, those of you going through Halo or Blops2 now, count how many times you reload in an average level, then count how many levels there are, then ask yourself how many times to plan to play it through, then do the maths. If you're reloading more than 40 times, you've already spent more money on the F2P model than you would have buying the game new. Again, I don't expect cost per reload, but the F2P model, done badly is a ludicrous rip off, and one that EA and Activision want to employ in all their games. I think I even heard EA talking recently about the future of Fifa being F2P. So how will that work? £1 per team? Seem fair right? Until you count all the teams currently in the game and it works out you're currently paying about 10p per team.
I had to vote no on this simply because whilst the principle of the microtransaction is solid (it is, after all, just DLC) in reality it will be abused, and it could kill off the biggest games in the industry. Which I can't see as being a good thing.
One. Warrior. Nation.