I mean, there’s also nothing to gain for the developer by continuing development. Most f2p games only survive so long because of those microtransactions. Think about how long these games are supported, how much new content they get constantly. The “good old games” were one and done. If you got lucky, they might patch some bugs, but often that was left to the community.
So in the end, there’s zero principle involved here, and it’s all just picking and choosing which DLC YOU happen to think is totally fine. For reference, what you just described is like 90% of the day one DLC ever. Some basic skins, some inconsequential ingame items/things, maybe some art or music.
This all would be fine, but it’s the insane vitriol everyone else is throwing at microtransactions AND the mightier than thou attitude of the game devs that makes this horrendously hypocritical. I don’t have a problem with this DAY ONE DLC FOR BG3, but I’m also sane enough to not pretend that all microtransactions are evil, categorically.
Considering that everyone in this thread is acting like ANY kind of microtransaction is the spawn of Satan, I really don’t think it’s a wrong equivalence.
The obvious, boring answer on both sides is, of course, nuance. Microtransactions and DLCs are not categorically evil. And also, this little bit of launch DLC ain’t gonna kill anyone (just like 99% of launch DLC). It’s always just some small, inconsequential cosmetic or truly mediocre micro-mini-sidequest.
This is just demonstrably false. Half of the most played games might not even exist (anymore) if they were pay to play. Especially for multiplayer games, the barrier to entry means less people playing, which can mean the death of a game. The funding also means longer lasting updates, and the business model means the developers actually have a good reason to keep the game alive.
The prime example of a f2p game is Dota 2. No characters to buy, just cosmetics. Cosmetics you can get randomly by just playing, AND you can buy and sell on the second hand market for super cheap. That money has meant that the game kept getting updates and changes, all of which cost a fuckton of money.
Now, are many f2p concepts predatory? Sure, but so are trading card games marketed towards children, and nobody cared. And again, most games simply wouldn’t exist without F2P, DLC and/or microtransactions. People pretend like games “back in the day” lived forever without any DLC. That’s just not true.
It’s absolutely true in practice. CEOs have gotten sued for not acting in the shareholders best interests.
And in relation to the original comment I replied to, are you truly saying that companies, esp. public companies, are not, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, beholden to making money for the shareholders? Any “nice” company will make less money, will not compete well, will then fail or be bought out by the less nice, more profitable company.