I don't wanna live in a world where one customer can make the difference. However, if one customer is greatly dissatisfied, you can be sure that he's not alone and that more people are voting with their wallets whether they are aware of it or not. That affects the decision making of every company there is, they need to satisfy their customers to stay in business.

If that didn't make a difference, the market would look drastically different.

I only spend money on games I think I'll want to play - almost entirely single-player games, heavy on the RPG and point-n-click genres. And even the online multiplayer games that I did buy (Minecraft), I've never spent a dime on microtransactions.

Does this mean online multiplayer games and microtransactions have now gone away due to my lack of support? No!

But, I don't feel my choices are in vain. More quality games of the types I love are made now than ever before in my lifetime. I have more choices, not less. Grim Dawn, Darkest Dungeon, Pillars of Eternity... on and on.

The goal of voting with my wallet is for me to be able to get the things I like. That is happening.

Wasn't it always just the thing to say if one was annoyed by some one else complaining?

- WTF? Extra Horse Armor for Oblivion and payed demi-official fan mods for Neverwinter Nights which require permanent online connection? That sets a dangerous precedent!

- yeah... vote with your wallet.

- I did!

- Now feel empowered and shut the fuck up.

It was never enough to just vote with the wallet. The important part was to drag the nasty stuff out in to the bright daylight kicking and screaming for all to see.

I mean when did you heard someone get a "vote with your wallet" thrown at his head for being positively exited and fanboyish about a game? And if you did how was the positive/negative context percentage ratio?

+1
Pretty much this. Nobody cares you're not spending money on their games because somebody will. You're just locking yourself out of content.

No they can't because gamers still have only a certain amount of money to spend on gaming. Most "microtransactions" games fail, they don't become moneymaking machines.

If what you say was true, then no one would have been making anything but microtransactions free-to-play games for a decade or so. Proof is in the pudding, lots of games is being made all the time that are nothing like that.

Normal person = member of majority/many.
Yes, I agree. Except that in many cases I don't need their content.

Withholding money is always relevant and will always be relevant to people who want that money, whether it's a game purchase, a DLC or a microtransaction. But you have to let the publisher know why you're doing it, otherwise they'll draw their own conclusions.

Of course voting with your wallet is relevant. It wont undo what others have voted for, but if you vote for (ie spend money on) what you find to have good value, then there will be a (slightly) bigger market for that thing, whatever it is. Whenever we spend money on anything based on free choice, we're voting with our wallets. When all these small decisions come together it leads to the big consequences we see in the market place, whether it's the success of Fortnite (people sure have "voted" for that) or the revival of the Infinity Engine style games, or what have you.

When it comes to games, unfortunately nobody does. I once read what a developer who used to work at EA wrote about this, and he said the obvious, that if anyone wants bad business practices to stop, you have to vote with your wallet. Nothing else will work or as effectively (except for laws, but that brings about another slippery slope if you were to depend on legality too much).

I definitely vote with my wallet. Although it's easier for me, as the game genres/variety that engage in the worst business practices tend not to be the kind of games that wildly attract my attention, so in no way or shape do I have the kind of excited urge to get them.

Buy the games that you like. Buy the games that you'll play. It's that simple. And that is how I see "voting with your wallet."

There are literally more good games in the world than you can play in your lifetime. Even if your preferred genre is dead right now, it'll come around again. Just play what you like.

She folks like microtransactions. Some don't. Some like subscriptions, some like disks, some like small games and others large. The market is now large enough for all of us. Candy Crush's existence doesn't ruin THI4F or Tomb Raider, it just adds. So embrace the bad games. It provides revenue and practice for the games you love.

"Vote with your vallet" is just a way of shutting down critical opinions.

Do people even have wallets today? I just have my plastic card that pays for what I want. No need for a wallet. But I buy what I want and reject what I don't want. It's no more complicated than that. Gamers take gaming way too seriously some times. It's just a hobby and plastic and stuff.

That's debatable. That's BS. Spending money on microtransactions is the same "wallet vote" as buyng a game. That's BS too. Amount of people who can (and are willing) to spend thousands of dollars is very limited. And if someone've already spent that amount of money on one game, that doesn't mean this person will spend another thousand on another game. Bottom line - there will be still devs who need "vote" of an average consumer.