Man, I hope so. How are boosters gonna work? Also, source for the mounts etc being skins? Not that I'm not happy to believe you if you've seen it said, but it would put my mind at rest a bit
We do not know how exactly they will work, if you skim back you will find the devs stating how it could potentially work. As for the "mounts" being skins that would also fall in the category of not knowing. Yet we have stated very well in the Founders thread that even if we buy the actual pack we dont want to buy power, so i doubt Founders "mounts" will be in any way more powerful than anything ingame that takes their role as well.
One time purchase with microtransactions CAN work really great if done right and if devs don't get greedy GW2 works great and last I checked it lives on, just like WoW, TF2, Planetside 2 and so forth Changes should be only cosmetic with a lot of customization options since people very much enjoy personalisation and fulfilling individual requirements. It shouldn't be a requirement though or something that is next to impossible to purchase with ingame currency. Most importantly, Buy 2 Play prevents the game from being a chore
What about Plants vs. Zombies: Garden Warfare? You pay for it up front ($30 XB360 and $40 XB1), and all of the updates are free. They've added new characters, new weapons, new maps, new abilities, new upgrades, new customizations, and they've all been free so far.
I am sorry, but GW2 way is bad. I have play GW2 when it get out and managed a guild there sometimes. I resented a lot that there was microtransaction. And worse, there was the black lion chest! So basically GW2 is F2P that you need to play for. I believe it is a very bad design. If the Dev go B2P then they need to make few microtransaction. The biggest NO NO for me is the chest you can only open by buying a key from the cash shop. I hate that in F2P so I will just loath that in a B2P like I did in GW2. It really damaged my experience there. So I cannot let you say that what GW2 did is the good thing. I have been very happy for a long time on GW1 because it was really a B2P game, with no or minimal micro-transaction (in the end). So the model is GW1 (though it has other flaws). Best regards, Skanvak Drakken de la Maison des Drakkens
I dont like the randomized chests just as the next guy, yet i place before you the same question i did before. What was contained in the Black Lion chests that made your overall experience worse? That thing was filled with crap, and any higher tier drops from it were again something purchasable with gold (and again even they were crap). What was contained in the cash shop that made your overall experience worse?
I agree about the chests, I hated it. But it's only one aspect which hardly fails the game as a whole
The key word being 'so far'. And I'm not just being cynical here, they only promised not to include microtransactions at launch. Meanwhile, EA have been shoehorning microtransactions into as many games as humanly possible in recent years, and Popcap is their most successful studio in terms of generating volumes of players - so I'd watch this space.
Mass Effect 3 was EA's test ground for their approach to microtransactions, and I thought it was a pretty fair approach. The content updates for the multiplayer was free, and you could unlock all of it without paying, but you could pay $1 - $3 at a time if you wanted a boost. I think EA made the right call, there. Their microtransaction model forced Bioware to create a system that could be purchased with microtransactions in the first place. That system led to an RPG progression that really made the ME3 multiplayer last longer than it might have otherwise.
