I agree with your reasoning, but I don't agree with the conclusion that it will result in Pay to Win models. Gamers will vote with their money on that matter and it's already clear it's not wanted.
Whether or not you agree, it's already happening. Download EA's publicly available financial statements from their last annual period and read the report. They're available at the SEC Edgar site and the notes in the report talk about "in-game purchases" in the MD&A section about revenue. Gamers have already confirmed they're okay with pay-to-win models at the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Gamers have already voted with their money and it is painstakingly clear it is wanted. Please provide some financial data to back up you claim.
There is everything wrong with pay to win models. It's not fun. You're not playing against a game. You're playing against a financial requirement. This is the only game where people invest this kind of money into a video game that can loosely be considered competitive.
No there really isn't.
I will use myself as an example. I recently took a new job as the treasurer and controller of a Private Equity Group and I am now more busy than ever IRL. My gaming time is significantly squeezed right now. However, I have still managed to play and enjoy new games AND compete at high levels. Why? Because rather than grinding for 100s of hours to attain certain in-game content, I plunked down an $50 extra bucks to upgrade my character, get some extra XP, buy some specialty items and vehicles, etc. For me, time is more valuable than money. It was a no-brainer for me, as I was not going to spend tens of hours grinding just for a few minor upgrades.
This is simply my respective play style and attitude, and I understand not everyone feels the same about spending that kind of money... but "pay-to-win" models help gamers like me. With video gaming now streaming across multiple-generations and age groups, there are many people like me out there who have no qualms what-so-ever about plunking down money to compete at high levels in a fashion that is faster than grinding for hundreds of hours.
Furthermore, from an investor perspective and seeing not just where the direction of gaming is going but the overall entertainment market, these in-game purchases / DLC / "Pay-to-Win" or whatever you want to call it, are a smart and modern way to bring in revenue and contribute in a major fashion to the bottom lines of these companies who do it. Simply because a bunch of Redditors cried and got their way on this one game does not indicate that "Pay-to-Win" is bad or dead.
Developers are cutting content from the base game pre-release. They need to balance the blockbuster video games with actual content that is fun rather than expecting a blockbuster franchise and graphics to make a game fun.
That much is true. I bought the first Battlefront game in 2005 and it was incredible in terms of content and having 60+ heroes available through unlocks. I also purchased the last Battlefront game two years ago, and after shelling out for the game and about another $40 of DLC/items, I was a little disappointed to see another game come along so quickly. I was planning to buy this one, but after playing it with friends this weekend, I am going to wait a while.
The better idea for some of these companies would be to launch a base game, and then have meaningful add-ons and DLC years down the line that would encourage you to keep playing the base game. But those types of hopes and dreams are a bit off topic.
I have never been a big fan of taking the easy route in game or life. You miss too much of the scenery you can only see by making the trip on foot.
