I completely disagree on this one. Ubisoft is giving us a 100+ hour game and he's complaining about not having access to a single option for free? The real questions he should be considering is if he's dissatisfied with the content that you get for US$60. Does the XP booster somehow break the game if it's not there? Or is it something you don't even notice if no one tells you the option is there? He also fails to address how removing the additional paid content/options would affect the game itself. Developers invest millions on games like this because they expect to make a profit, not just from the US$60 entry cost, but from the additional content that is purchased by several gamers. What he's practically saying is that he wants for the game budget to be lowered, so the developer can reduce the risk of only selling a US$60 game with no additional options for sale. That inevitably means a shorter or less polished game. You cannot simply ignore how game development costs are increasing, while at the same time the standard US$60 dollar price remains the same. So choose your poison, either we get a simpler game that generates profit at US$60 or you get a better production with the option for some gamers to purchase additional content. This is not a Black and White discussion where you can just say, additional payed content/options = bad. As long as they provide an enjoyable base experience for US$60 and don't add pay to win mechanics, I will choose to have a game where the developer invest more money so I can have a better experience.
inXile: AA development costs have went from $5-$6 million in 2012 to $15-$20 million today
https://www.resetera.com/threads/in...million-in-2012-to-15-20-million-today.81960/