I mean, this is exactly how card games work. People don't seem to have an issue buying into expensive Magic decks. You don't NEED to have the best though, no shame in drafting and pauper decks.
People are a lot more willing to dump money on a physical good that they provably own (because it's literally in their possession in their home) than on digital goods.
Artifact uses the microtransaction model to the very extreme, to the point where it costs real money to play a ranked game (not even to get new stuff, just to play a game). This has understandably turned off a huge number of people. With AAA games that have microtransactions, at least your initial outlay is buying a lot, and you don't have to continue putting in money just to play it.
I think this is the key thing. The problem isn't that Valve charged too much. The problem is that people thought Valve was charging too much. Why did they think that? It is because the pricing was too "in your face" and prevented you from actually playing the game. People will spend a lot [0] so long as they feel like they aren't being forced into it.
> The problem isn't that Valve charged too much. The problem is that people thought Valve was charging too much.
I don't think this is a meaningful distinction. The correct price is determined in large part by whatever people are willing to pay. The vast majority of the addressable customer base deciding that a price is too high means that it effectively is too high. Valve certainly hasn't maximized their profit at the current price level. And since the marginal cost of offering more product on digital goods is effectively zero, they have a wide range of options in addressing the problem, unlike manufacturers of physical goods who have a base price level of the cost of manufacture.
But what I am saying is that Valve could have kept the game effectively the same price and avoided the criticism by changing how they charged the player.
Microtransactions exist because people continue to dump a ton of money into them. They wouldn't otherwise. Magic has digital game people don't see to have any issue buying into. The problem is that Valve implemented them in a way that wasn't very player friendly.
Lots of people have an issue buying expensive Magic decks and respond by choosing not to play competitive Magic. Drafting isn't everyone's thing and pauper is both super restrictive and harder to find events for.
Physical Magic cards hold their value really well, and, in general, increase in value.
In comparison, MTG Arena costs less overall, but there is no way to cash out. I have nothing of value. Just an account with digital cards. I could sell the account, but I'm sure that's against the TOS. That's how most digital card games work. I didn't play Artifact but it seems like a huge ripoff.
Artifact uses the microtransaction model to the very extreme, to the point where it costs real money to play a ranked game (not even to get new stuff, just to play a game). This has understandably turned off a huge number of people. With AAA games that have microtransactions, at least your initial outlay is buying a lot, and you don't have to continue putting in money just to play it.