Pay to Play, when Paid to Own

Yes, I'm aware that in this day and age the term ownership for a game, a disc, a cart, that you purchase is just a warm pipe dream.

Apparently, dropping $60 on the counter in exchange for a game means very little, especially when. the game treats tokens like a damn arcade. Am I gaming at an arcade, where the initial cost of the machine is on the establishment and not on me? No, of course not.

Instead, I purchased the right to access a game with $60 and then get offered to by tokens that will grant me further access. Wrap your head around that. Imagine if in the old days with arcades, a player had to purchase the machine and then purchase additional access via tokens. Yeah, tokens make sense, but having to fork over money for the machine is not.

May not sound like that big of a deal, but when one considers the rising trend of micro-transactions, especially in upcoming Xbox One titles such as Forza 5, where you can purchase a "Great Value" of tokens for $99 USD. Ryse: Sone of Rome is poised to have micro-transactions to help players skip through character progression. What? Why didn't World of Warcraft have this? Because investing time for the reward of developing a virtual avatar is a reinforcer. Plopping down cash for the sake of winning is only going to hurt those in the end by ruining his or her experience. The gamers that utilize this system are the same that don't value money, the same that are too weak minded to stand up against getting nickled and dimed.

Don't agree? Then give me a compelling argument as to how it is a good practice to spend additional money on a game that you already acquired the rights to access with the initial purchase? You can practice mental gymnastics all you want. You can dwell in the pain of cognitive dissonance, but just know that you're also informing companies that these practices work.