When I say part of the game...sure there maybe parts of the game I might enjoy but after a while it generally tends to turn into more hate. Look at the Crash team racing for example...it's well done except the 'grind' to unlock anything has sort of made me hate part of the game's unlock system and I still sort of enjoy it for playing it sometimes but eventually I'm going to get sick of it due to how tedious the grind is, just like what happened with Halo 5....though with Halo 5 I do have more complaints with the game design overall but it's ok to a degree, yet the micro-transactions are tolerated to a degree but after I reached 152 I decided I had enough.
So when you mention that you start hating "part of the game", would you mean by that you still might see some aspects of the game as enjoyable even?
If so, thats what my view sort of is. What I mean by that microtransactions might not ruin the entire game is that some aspects of the game can still be great, be it unique setting, enjoyable gameplay, engaging story or sorts.
Obviously I think such games would be better without microtransactions but I think that microtransactions don't outweight every other aspect of the game in all cases.
Though that still is up to the type of microtransaction & how it's used in the game.
And ratio of people actually using money for microtransactions is right now in such shape that it encourages inclusion of microtransactions in games but that can change. Even some studios exclude microtransactions from their games but bigger franchises seem to push the microtransactions.
Though for new studio, excluding microtransactions might be something to boost the image of the studio where increased publicity outweights the potential sales from microtransactions created by smaller playerbase but in case of known publishers it's currently flipped.
And I believe that outweight ratio can be flipped if enough people truly want to get rid of the microtransactions.
That could mean "bad years" for sales in gaming & even bit of quiet time by new releases but overall it would be (relatively) moments sacrifice to purify the industry from microtransactions, as long as the mistake of letting microtransactions to gradually increase wouldn't be repeated.
So, you dont need to make the company to care about the playerbase, you just need to keep them caring about the money by having popularity gained by excluding microtransactions outweight the sales from microtransactions. This act though, requires the support of big part of playerbases. Optimally, microtransaction sales wouldnt even go over the cost of developing them though that is pretty much utopistic.
Sure I love story in games but the thing about micro-transactions...outweighing...I guess that depends on the game but for me I feel like it's generally made games worse and I've avoided many new IP's just because there included.
Not sure the ratio will ever be flipping over since there's too many stubborn people out there, I know some them that just don't care how there effecting the industry, which is probably why the mobile market ended being plagued with them.
Of course we need the company to care about the playerbase since if they don't then they could end up having the same issues that SWB2 had.
So if I got that right, you can find occasional enjoyment in a product even when it contains microtransactions & that excluding microtransactions can better bring out the potential of the product that betters the game.
If so, It's pretty much in line with my view.
So given that phrasing Im guessing you agree that it's a possibility that microtransactions can be outweighed with other aspects being great but simultaneously thinking the overall experience could be better with microtransactions being excluded & that such scensrios are rarer occasions.
If so, It's in line with my views yet again.
As for avoiding games because they include microtransactions, I see that as extremely situational, sometimes games could be deemed overall avoidable but occasionally I see that a game with original ideas or other favorable aspects could be purchased but no exceptions in the rule of not spending money on microtransactions as it would be encouraging the wrong aspect of a game.
Obviously that is just my view & as such it's just one among the others.
As for the possibility of a flip, it could be possible with enough support from playerbase, not saying it's even likely but just saying it's a possibility among others while being one of the better case scenarios.
Other means to get to a place where microtransactions are no more would be some legal changes that are resulted by gaming becoming more & more mainstream but not going more in-depth with that in this site.
And having companies to care about playerbases seems like unrealistic scenario given it consists of growing amount of different people.
Generally I would see effecting the business itself as more effective & realistic opinion. It would basically be an attempt to effect a business with making favorable decisions (for playerbase) becoming the business solution that makes more sense.
Meaning money for business people that are against microtransactions & microtransaction-free games for playerbases in optimal scenario.
Unrealistic as in I would see appealing to multiple various sides being more effective than trying to make, for example, a money driven person to care about things they dont.
Some care about the product, some care about profits & so on.
So I would see that making some behaviour more profitable as all around more pleasing to various sides rather than thought policing.
Though if I missed something, could you enlighten how exactly would the physical action of making people care about the product itself happen?
I just don't see how I could change the nature of a human being though I could definitely be misunderstanding the text itself.