[Splines]

It angers me to see this same logic applied to video games. From a business perspective it might make sense, but playing a video game that functions this way (like FarmVille et al), leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

I've tried a few of them, universally dislike the idea, and have yet to pay for any.

If a game offers IAP, I look to see if it's some sort of virtual currency. If it is, the developers go on my shitlist and I try to never give them my business again.

I've seen developers publish awesome fun games with little to no DLC, and it saddens me when I see their next release to turn out to be a farmville-ish rehash.

[gte910h]

There is plenty of IAP currency that is far far far from farmvilles "annoy you to death if you don't pay" idea.

For instance, look at League of Legends as an example of a far more positive type of currency:

You can unlock new characters by playing, or more quickly by by paying. You can unlock cosmetic skins purely by paying. You can temporarily enhance the speed at which you unlock players by paying.

You can never play a dollar and play at the top level of the game.

Some people certainly pay hundreds of dollars to play the game, but many pay $0. Many people who are busy pay some money and then are able to gather the characters that time rich and cash poor players then spend their time to achieve.

As to more generic DLC that isn't currency based (A la Mass Effect), I love that stuff. Video games have cost $40-60 bucks for all time. They cost that in 1981, and they cost that in 2011. By putting DLC in, they can not raise that price yet actually make more money only off the people who really like the game and wish to go deep into it.

For instance, I have bought the DLC for Oblivion, as I loved that game (it added about 20 hours of quests in another world). However, I've largely avoided the DLC in lots of other games that I've bought the other game. Therefore, I pay more for games I enjoy more, and pay less for games I enjoy less. Sounds like perfection in pricing to me.

Many people who don't like the more normal type of DLC wouldn't like the game costing $15 bucks more either. But that's the alternative really, or scaling back the base game.

[Splines]

Don't get me wrong, I do love DLC that adds to the game world and extends the life of the game. I've bought DLC like this in the past, except they were called "expansion packs".

Having never played LoL I can't really say one way or another if I agree with their approach. As long as it's possible to play the game without restriction, I'm usually ok with it. What bothers me is the "You've run out of energy, pay $X to continue playing" business model.

Cosmetics, even cheats are fine by me.

It's troubling that what I find abhorrent in game design is succeeding in the marketplace. All the best to the guys doing well, I certainly don't begrudge their success [1], except that I will personally take no part in it.

[1] ok, maybe a teeny bit, but what I say isn't going to affect their bottom line