Microsoft to take a bite out of "consumables"
Microsoft's Xbox Live Arcade and Marketplace have been hot topics this week, especially following the announcement of XNA Game Studio Express on Monday. Speaking at Gamefest 2006, Microsoft has further clarified some of their plans to enhance their online nexus of downloadable demos and managed microtransactions, most interestingly annoucing their intention to make a meal out of Marketplace "consumables." As enticing as the prospect of downloading a slice of lemon meringue pie might be, the experience is considerably dulled when you have to watch your in-game character devour it. Items that would be considered as consumables would be ones that you could purchase multiple times and whenever you needed them, and the example cited by the 1UP article points to this being a potentially ludicrous concept. Let's say your level 54 sorcerer (call him ... Tim) is in need of a Phoenix Down, but your party doesn't have enough gold to purchase one. Solution: rather than traipsing through a dungeon and obtaining items from slain beasties (why was that dinosaur carrying a potion?), you could be hitting the Xbox Live Marketplace and buying more gold.
So, let's see if we understand how this goes. Use your real money to buy Microsoft's fake money to buy fake gold in order to buy fake potions from a fake in-game marketplace. Obviously, this is a rather extreme way of looking at consumables, but it certainly provides food for thought -- especially so should you consider the fact that by purchasing the game, you've ostensibly purchased the entire game world, marketplaces and overpriced inns included. Thankfully, just as with any marketplace transactions, it's still up to you to decide when something is worth the extra money and when it isn't (hint: equine items of protection).
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
.ed @ Aug 15th 2006 3:13PM
so... instead of actually playing the game, i can now just buy items to make it easier?
uh, am i the only one who see's this potentially ruining the game experience...?
so now you can basically use real world money to buy items that help you get achievements faster?
uhg.. i guess it was only a matter of time before the xblm let you buy your status flat out instead of playing a game and earning it.
what was wrong with PLAYING? why did they feel the need to augment that? ..i mean besides money.
Petrie @ Aug 15th 2006 3:14PM
I can see a market for this, seeing as people pay real money for WOW gold.
But that market certainly is not me. I'd much rather play the game thanks.
Ethan @ Aug 15th 2006 3:14PM
wow, just another way for microsoft to try and make more money. Pretty soon they will be selling 100% completion downloads, so that you dont even have to play the game, you can just get the gamerscore for it.
Grim @ Aug 15th 2006 3:16PM
If you could somehow buy WoW gold on the marketplace, that would be hilarious. So much money would be spent on it.
AoE @ Aug 15th 2006 3:20PM
downloadable content I like; but consumables are just... evil... that's too much of a cash grab; even if consumables are options I'm sure developers who want to take advantage of the system will make thier games monumentally difficult to beat without at least a few consumable transactions...
Ninegauger @ Aug 15th 2006 3:23PM
I can't think of one legitimate way to use this to enhance the game experience.
My armor broke... I need to actually pay to repair it?
Need more gold in the game... buy some with real money?
Jay @ Aug 15th 2006 3:24PM
Worse concept ... you actually have to buy gas for your cars in-game with real money. I doubt this idea will catch on much. People tend to like to keep the things they buy ...
Ethan @ Aug 15th 2006 3:30PM
LOL, Bill Gates probably just did this so that he could be the best at video games. "all the little kids used to pick on Billy for losing in frogger, now that he is a billionaire, its time for revenge" LOL
Jeremy Wright @ Aug 15th 2006 3:38PM
I fail to see how this is different than buying/selling "consumables" on Ebay, or with Linden dollars in Second Life.
Sure, it's a whacked economy that most folk wouldn't use. Ultimately it would be up to developers to choose how to do so anyways.
So if it happens, blame developers for making it a reality. Microsoft is only responding to pressures from the dev community, specifically EA.
KingOfGods @ Aug 15th 2006 3:40PM
"uh, am i the only one who see's this potentially ruining the game experience...?"
@.ed
How is this going to ruin YOUR experience with the game? If you are not interested in purchasing the consumables you would just play the game as normal.
My understanding is the consumables will not be necessary to complete or play the game but as an extra bonus for the user if he/she wants it.
"I can't think of one legitimate way to use this to enhance the game experience.
My armor broke... I need to actually pay to repair it?
Need more gold in the game... buy some with real money?"
This will be is for convenience....Just like people who pay a little extra for there groceries through FreshDirect.com, or pay extra to have their laundry or dry cleaning delivered.
Instead of having to backtrack halfway through a game to get an item you can easily buy it to save you time and frustration. The item is available in the game but for some it may be easier to just purchase it for a dollar.
nalgae @ Aug 15th 2006 3:40PM
This is just the natural evolution of consumer goods, really.
For example, in WoW. You need about 100 gold to get your mount at level 40. If this is your first character and you aren't in a guild with generous friends, you have two options: farm for the gold or buy it.
With current prices, I could either work 1 hour IRL and buy the gold, or work 4 hours in the game to earn it. Most people don't play WoW for the grinding experience (whether gold or xp), but rather for the new skills and items they get at every level, the rewards. In terms of efficiency and fun, it'd be easier for me to work 1 hour IRL.
Now, this would throw a couple things off. People wealthy IRL would have an advantage in game. Welcome to the rest of the world, gaming? At loss are kids who don't have their own money and gamers who want to be better than others according to time spent. At an advantage are gamers who make their own money and are middle class or higher.
That Microsoft is targetting only consumables, is very smart. Being able to buy a BGF in HL2, for example, would destroy the game. Being able to buy the best armor in WoW... well, you'd piss a lot of raiders. I'm sure they'll compensate by creating raid only armors, kind of like how Gunbound's best items are not purchasable, but really good ones are.
Regardless, purchasing virtual goods has been going on for a while. Kudos to MS for being one of the first major corporations to start regulating it.
Pip @ Aug 15th 2006 3:50PM
Two steps forward, three steps back.
Judd @ Aug 15th 2006 3:55PM
We live in a capitalist country(ok not everyone, sorry Cuban Joystiq readers), so if games are getting more and more realistic, the ultimate realism is that those with the most money have the most power.
"Pretty soon they will be selling 100% completion downloads, so that you dont even have to play the game, you can just get the gamerscore for it."
Why not? I remember reading when the 360 came out an interview on IGN asking Peter Moore if people with high Gamerscores can get any rewards, like Microsoft Points. It turns out that Gamerpoints are so popular that people don't need an incentive to get high scores. In fact, I've been waiting to see Microsoft selling Gamerscore points with Microsoft points. I'm sure people would actually pay money to increase their score. Honestly, I know a dude who would do that.
Richard Mitchell (not Tim) @ Aug 15th 2006 3:58PM
I ... am an enchanter.
Monty Python forever :)
Anonymouse Rep @ Aug 15th 2006 4:03PM
The scenario regarding Tim mentioned above is NOT mentioned in the main article. The main article only stated: "These purchases would be re-purchasable items i.e. if a game was selling 100 gold pieces, you would be able to rebuy 100 gold pieces when you needed them." And this is different from what goes on in WoW now how?
And something that is very big - which is taking eBay out of the picture - wasn't mentioned. "Another thing Microsoft intends to add to the Marketplace is the ability for vendors placed in videogames to allow gamers to buy from the Marketplace. Say, there is a vendor in an RPG selling a rare sword and that sword is available on the Marketplace, players will be able to put the sword in a checkout cart and then return to the Marketplace later to complete the download."
Now, one HUGE question that was in the actual referring article has already been answered with another game. "The IP ownership laws could make for sticky situations -- if players create a Master Chief-related piece of downloadable content, who actually owns the material: the creator or Microsoft and Bungie?" This answer to this is simple - the owner of the material in this case would be Bungie.
All of the mods created by players for Oblivion are the property of Bethesda - even if the mod is sold in a transaction by the player and was solely created by the player, it's still owned by Bethesda. Says so in the EULA, too. We've gone through that many times on TES boards.
Mr. Khan @ Aug 15th 2006 4:14PM
For all who doubt that this is a bad thing
Square Enix is having a nightmare of a time with "Gil Sellers" on Final Fantasy XI, they sell it on E-bay, and that causes in-game inflation to rise like hell. And there WILL be people who will abuse this system, then ruin it
epobirs @ Aug 15th 2006 4:36PM
I think this is being misunderstood.
Game publishers will remain as concerned about preserving game balance. Someone buying their way to rapid invincibility within a game may be a quick thrill but one more likely to lead to boredom with the genre and no future purchases.
This means of connecting to the Marketplace within a game is more a way of offering additional content and special novelty items that don't affect game balance but can add to the aesthetic experience.
First example: The publisher of epic fantasy adventure Old Parchemnt IX: Ennui wants to offer an additional chunk of geography offering additional quests and such to enhance the game beyond the main plotline. Rather than buying a download and having the new region just appear the next time the game is run, the publisher wants the access integrated into the game without breaking down the fourth wall.
So, rather than appearing on the XBLM, the game performs an automatic download and a travel agent opens shop in a well trafficed area of the game. He has adventure vacation packages for sale to an exclusive resort where brave souls can vie for fabulous treasure. Survivors, scratch that, victors needs only share a percentage of their winnings with the travel agent and pay a small transportation fee for their trip, although the boat ha never returned with any passengers so far.
So, we've got our additional content access completely integrated into the game. The player need only go to XBLM to verify his purchase. For some it may be carrying the game world too far but for many it it makes for a better experience to keep things as much as possible within the game world.
Second example: a store opens in the game world that sells custom outfits. These cannot provide any level of protection or special enhancements beyond what is already available to the character. They just look cool. Again, the transaction is kept entirely within the game world and the experience thus enhanced.
Alternately, the purchaser does give the player improved abilities but only for the purpose of reaching a previously unseen area of the game that just happens to be downloaded as a result of the purchase.
Jeff @ Aug 15th 2006 4:37PM
Great, so now the best players won't be separated by gameplay ability, but by economic and social class.
It's just like real life!
Now, why am I playing games, again?
Frowelishnu @ Aug 15th 2006 4:39PM
I really don't like the idea of players' income level affecting the experience for the rest of us "unwashed masses".
In multiplayer games the affect would be instant and horrible - this is why Blizzard tries so hard to keep this behavior out of WoW.
It would also be seen in single player games because the developers / publishers would have more incentive to make you want to buy things instead of earn them. Only then would they get their extra income.
The only way this would be kosher with me is if it made Live Gold free, in effect the dupes who buy this stuff would be subsidizing my online play.
bounchfx @ Aug 15th 2006 4:41PM
its called breaking the game.
having your real life finances directly coorelate to how good you are in the game (or how much money you have in the game itself) is stupid as hell and unfair
laserboyjc @ Aug 15th 2006 4:44PM
While I find the idea lousy...video games at home should not be consumables...you also have to shift at least part of the blame to gamers. If people didn't want to part with their money in ths manner, then there wouldn't be a market for this regardless of how Microsoft (or any other company) spins their wares. Unfortunately there are many, many people who have already been doing this, gold farmers, in different games worldwide on PCs and even board/card games.
I just hope no one comes up with the idea that your real fitness can somehow influence your character's abilities in a game, fine by me, but not so great for others.
mercatfat @ Aug 15th 2006 4:54PM
How many people are we up to at this point that are misunderstanding this as a "Pay-As-You-Go" affair rather than one that lets casual gamers enjoy the game as much as a hardcore one?
Puzzle Pirate's doubloon oceans have shown to be neither broken nor unprofitable. It works if you do it right.
cringer8 @ Aug 15th 2006 4:55PM
I can't believe you guys. Supporting this system makes you sound less like gamers and more like brown-nosers.
"Kudos to MS for being one of the first major corporations to start regulating it."
What??? Are you sniffing paint thinner? Do you honestly believe they are doing this as a means of "regulation" for your benefit? Get your head out of Bill Gate's ass for a second and you'd see the light. They want a piece of a new market. That's all they've *ever* been about.
"Microsoft is only responding to pressures from the dev community, specifically EA."
Oh, sure, and Microsoft isn't going to make a red cent off of this...hahaha. I guess grocery stores put food on their shelves at no cost to the manufacturers. Get real. Microsoft saw that MMORPG players were willing to pay for items and they wanted a piece of the pie. Plain and simple.
"My understanding is the consumables will not be necessary to complete or play the game but as an extra bonus for the user if he/she wants it."
That sounds more like "wishful thinking" than anything. It may start out that way, but greed will take over (like it always does). Be realistic.
*Bottom Line*
You are all being used as tools. Playing a video game should *never* be an ongoing expense. Developers and Microsoft would LOOOOOOVVVVVEEEE to charge $120 per game, but they know you guys wouldn't pay it. So they have found a way to stretch that extra $60 out over a period of time so you don't notice how much you spent. Mark my words; this is *not* going to be limited to just ammo and health. It will include cool items that will make the game more fun; items that should have been included in the game from the get-go. This is a bad thing for gamers, and true gamers see it for what it is.
Scott @ Aug 15th 2006 5:06PM
All I see this doing is cutting out the eBay middleman we see in various PC games.
JJ @ Aug 15th 2006 5:06PM
I just hope people are smart enought NOT to use this stuff some studios dont get the wrong idea.
Nickle and dime us gamers to death why dont ya MS?
Its bad enough we dont get free themes when we buy the corresponding games and you make us pay 150 MSpoints just to have themes to games we already paid for...but now this? Oi.
cringer8 @ Aug 15th 2006 5:21PM
Those people selling and trading items through eBay and other outlets were from *within* the gaming community.
This is different. It will be the developers selling you this stuff; the same developers that made the game. The problem comes when items are withheld from the initial release with plans to sell them separately down the road. It’s bad news.
Loque @ Aug 15th 2006 5:24PM
this can be severely abused...
...just think. The best weapons in the game need to be bought. The best areas in the game need to be bought. Stretch out citys, merchants, and spawn areas to increase the tedious run back to coax players into buying repairs and phoenix downs...
Dear lord. This could break gaming.
Jerm @ Aug 15th 2006 5:42PM
Has everyone forgot Gauntlet? You put an extra $.25 in and get more life?
It's funny how people always jump on how evil Microsoft is, when Sony said they were going to do the same thing, and paying for items in the game world have been around for years. And people are always quick to point out the evil developers that make you buy something to finish the game, when no developer has done this, or have plans to do this. Has anyone forgotten the excellent buys that Halo had (Maps) or the new GRAW downloads. They're not taking anything from the game, but if you want to play some more, or you loved the game and you want to add to that experiance, then you have the option to purchase stuff. If not, shut up and play the game you bought and don't worry about it. Every single developer has said that buying stuff on XBL won't affect your ability to play the game. Heck, you can pay $20 and get an extra 6 hours of gameplay in Half-Life 2.
If someone wants to spend real money to purchase fake money or anything else for that matter, then let them, it's called letting gamers do what they want. Some people will love this, while other people won't. I personally applaud MS for letting me have the option, and I hope Sony and Nintendo follow suit.
nalgae @ Aug 15th 2006 6:35PM
>What??? Are you sniffing paint thinner? Do you honestly believe they are doing this as a means of "regulation" for your benefit? Get your head out of Bill Gate's ass for a second and you'd see the light. They want a piece of a new market. That's all they've *ever* been about.
And that is exactly why I'm congratulating them. They're smart enough to see that this is where all the money is. Am I an evil person because I like companies who know what they're doing? Not only will they be able to regulate the virtual goods market, they'll be able to introduce more people to it.
Never did I state in my post that any of this was for the benefit of the gamer. And your whole point about stretching the cost of a game: it's called an MMORPG. Welcome to the latest trend in gaming that started years ago?
And like I said in my post, which you completely ignored, people who can afford it will win out. You'll still be having single player games like Shadows of the Collosus without online components and are beauties in of themselves, but you will also have games like Gunbound, who will use the new pay for benefits system.
You act like gaming is perfect as it is and that this will destroy gaming. Newsflash: Most of gaming already sucks. People pay $50+ a year for roster updates in their EA games. $150+ a year for their MMORPG subscriptions. Face it, most games already are crap. Some people pay for it, some don't. The same will happen with pay for benefit games. All the "hardcore" gamers will whine and moan and quit, while others will simply play and have fun. It MUST be wrong that some people have a different definition of fun from you.
This is a bad thing for gamers who can't afford extras, that aren't necessary, but seem to be necessary to completionists who want every little thing out of their game, and simply can't take the
game for what it is without the extra doodads. OMFG, The Sims 2 is charging me HOW MUCH for expansion packs? FOR CONTENT PACKS? OMG THE WORLD IS OVER. OMG OBLIVION HORSE ARMOR. Gaming is over as we know it, gentlemen.
dsub @ Aug 15th 2006 7:42PM
Ethan-
actually the proceeds would be going towards the developers, not MS...according to your logic it's MS's fault that Bethesda sold horse armor on XBOX live!. This is an option that MS is adding to live! due to the large market that has developed for something like this...in the end, whether or not it's available is the sole decision of the developer/publisher...NOT MICROSOFT.
Dision @ Aug 15th 2006 9:21PM
Those of you who defend this proposal by pointing out that paying for items would be optional are missing the point. The problem is that this system will create unlimited opportunities for abuse by making payment increasingly less optional. I hate to play the slippery slope card, but here it's appropriate.
cringer8 @ Aug 15th 2006 9:31PM
@ nalgae
I didn't ignore a single thing in your first post. I saw your comment about the "haves" will have and "have-not’s" should get a better job. It just didn't sway me. It's a nice sentiment, though (sarcasm).
And your argument that “most of gaming today sucks” was sooo compelling and thorough (sarcasm again). So Madden sucks because not much changes each year and MMORPG’s suck because there’s a subscription. That’s all you have? What else sucks about gaming today that this system is going to repair? If anything, you only strengthened my argument that this trend sucks and is only going to get worse. Thanks.
Nothing is inherently wrong with companies selling consumables, but it’s just another step in the wrong direction for us gamers. I guess you just don’t have the foresight to see that.
All companies are evil and are the adversary of the consumer. When you learn that lesson, come talk to me. Until then, keep taking it up the ass and thanking the rapist. Tool.
Moogle @ Aug 15th 2006 9:58PM
Ya know, companies are not omniscient. MS is very capable of doling out more than enough rope to accidently hang themselves and the entire video game industry.
This is why I really don't support MS in the gamer market. My fear here is that game makers are going to have to compete with MS fees and costs. Gamers will buy fewer games, worsening the problem with returns on titles, and encouraging the multi-mill sure hit games *cough*madden*cough*.
The little conspiracy theorist in the back of my head half suspects that MS is actively trying to bring about another market crash, and hoping that the sole survivor will be their fee-based subscription service. (No, I don't *really* believe it, but I don't think it's impossible either)
In reality, I just don't think MS is good for the video game market.
nalgae @ Aug 15th 2006 10:14PM
>cringer8
It's called capitalism. You are obviously one of the have-nots, or a have who tries to pretend he's looking out for the little guy.
When the hell did I say this system was going to repair anything? It's just going to make gaming fun for a certain group of people, while unfun for another group. Your argument that gaming is getting worse was not what I was arguing against. I was arguing that this is the least of gaming's troubles.
You seem to think that the gaming industry is all about the gamer, for the gamers. I am a developer. I enjoy making a living developing games. We have a publisher. They enjoy making money publishing our games. Your fun is not what matters. Money is. If fun is required to fuel this industry, so be it. I'm just stating the obvious, because you don't seem to get it. This is a great tool because it allows new ways to make money and new ways for some people to play a game.
I don't pretend this new system will make everyone happy, and I never have. What it is, is an avenue for gaming to work IN A DIFFERENT WAY. That this doesn't work out for you, well, who cares? Go on embracing the good 'ol days of gaming. The world will move on without you. As a side note, I'm actually bisexual. Go figure.
JJ @ Aug 15th 2006 11:41PM
Nalgae you may be a developer... so what? This is still a way for developers to nickle and dime people to death.
How long before they release a half finished game and make you keep paying for "updates"? How is that good for the consumer? Its not, all its gonna do is hurt the industry. and the fact that you embrace is so open heartedly is kinda... distressing.
How does it provide new ways to play a game? It just makes it more expensive to play a game is all and how is that a good thing?
and as for everything else you said... they're charging for CONTENT i.e. MORE stuff you can do, they're not charging more to essentially...PLAY the game that you bought, which is what paying for consumables is doing.
That'd be like a car company making it so you have to pay to open your door each time you get in and out of your car or something.
nalgae @ Aug 16th 2006 12:03AM
Remember how all the people crief foul when Oblivion went for the pay modules? How they removed the Orerry and added in back in for two dollars?
Now ask yourself, how many enjoyed Oblivion without the Orerry? I did. How many people enjoyed the Orerry after they bought it? Most did. The horse armor stunt was ingenious; everything after that seemed like a bargain.
People keep saying that developers will leave out necessary stuff and charge for it. WE ARE NOT THAT STUPID. We are here to make money. No one is willing to buy an incomplete game and then get charged to complete it. People ARE willing to pay for additional content, as you have said.
All this prophesying and no one has been able to point out a game that charges you to complete the game. On the other hand, I can point to Gunbound, SilkRoad Online, Oblivion, GRAW and tons of other games that sell you things you don't need so that you get more content and the developers get more money, WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH PUBLISHERS. Wonder why this idea is so popular?
Really, when you get nickel and dimed to death, I'll light a candle for you. Until then, keep ragging on an evil that doesn't exist and will never simply exist, because IT WON'T WORK.
JJ @ Aug 16th 2006 3:04AM
But nalgae once again you're missing my point. This isn't ABOUT content... ingame consumables that once you use and are GONE "Thus the term consumables" are a BAD business model. no matter how you look at it.
Paying for extra health in a game? Give me a break.
Once again paying for extra health in a game is NOT content.
nalgae @ Aug 16th 2006 10:09AM
Neither is it opening a door to get into a car.
cringer8 @ Aug 16th 2006 12:33PM
@ naglae
Clearly, you are my enemy. I am a consumer. Whether or not I can afford to pay for benefits is a non-issue. I am arguing principal here.
I am not upset with the *current* structure of paying for benefits. You're right; developers have yet to take advantage of the situation in a negative way. What I *am* upset about is the trend that has been set up and where it can lead.
You say, "no one has been able to point out a game that charges you to complete the game" and, "No one is willing to buy an incomplete game and then get charged to complete it." Those statements lack foresight. Since I am referring to the potential future, they carry no weight in this argument.
You're right again that developers aren't stupid. They know that no one is going to knowingly pay for an incomplete game. But here's the issue: do you really think a developer that decides to use that tactic is going to market the game as incomplete? When they develop the game to contain a flamethrower as a weapon and then leave it out of the initial release for later sale, it *IS* selling an incomplete game.
Using JJ's car analogy; when you buy a car, you assume that everything under the body is as it should be. But, unbeknownst to you, the manufacturer has withheld the top two gears. The gears are displayed on the shifter, but left out of the transmission.
They can argue that, "The car still runs and can get you from point A to point B (which is all a car is for). If you want to have more "fun," you can pay us a little extra for one of those gears." That's not right.
What *you're* arguing is that charging extra for a rear spoiler and moon roof is okay. And you're right, that's fine. Those are not essential components to the car. But would you say that going over 45mph is not essential?
I understand that companies exist to make money. That has been my point from the beginning. What *you* need to understand is that the consumer's goal is to not waste money. With this system, developers can *easily* make consumers' purchases less valuable.
As a gamer, I will fight this bullshit to the end. And as a developer, I hope you maintain some scruples in the distant future, or I will rally for a boycott against your products.
nalgae @ Aug 16th 2006 3:47PM
And you fail to acknowledge reality.
If the car only goes 45mph, obviously, the consumer will return the car and buy a better one if they wish to go 45mph. Now, if ALL the cars in that car's price range only went 45mph, THEN there would be a problem.
You end with a threat to boycott my products. OF COURSE YOU WOULD. I KNOW THAT. IF I was withholding a necessary feature, consumers would not buy it.
You act as if all developers will all hold out on flamethrowers. If one developer does this and another doesn't, and all other things being equal in the game, the consumer will CHOOSE the more complete game.
Do you see why this is a non-issue now? This system is here for unnecessary stuff and it will always will be that way. Unless every single developer, independent or under the EA behemoth, chooses to strangle the consumer by witholding necessary things, the consumer will always have choice.
And to the point, this is about consumables. Phoenix downs. You can either kill X monsters until it drops, or you can buy it. This is not Phoenix downs only through your cash. Like I said, look at Silk Road Online. They already sell consumables and work on a free to play, pay to buy stuff system. It already works.
Justin @ Aug 24th 2006 12:17PM
the day they charge for stuff like this is the day i mod my xbox and get games from bittorrents
Beefcube @ Sep 1st 2006 5:59PM
I think the main problem here isn't the whole incomplete game thing. It's that many MMORPGs are about getting better in comparison to other people. Being able to see yourself go up on a high score list, or the excitement of realizing you're the strongest person in an area. Because you know that you've invested more time and work into the game then they have.
But once you can buy items to make the game easier, the feeling I expect would go away some. It would be less about how much time you've spent, because you would always be wondering if certain people bought their way there. Yes, there are already programs and such that help you cheat, I just think this would make it worse.
So I think it's fine if the items don't give you an advantage, or are part of a single player game. But with items like food, it could lead to a point where people can buy their way to higher levels.