Had this thought the other day after seeing Baldur's Gate 3 doesn't have any form of micro transactions or anything and it being compared to other games, and that since the chance of more games taking the route of not putting in some form of monetization methods is pretty slim, I started thinking of what I find to be okay and what's not when it comes to that stuff for me.
Generally, I'm fine if all of the stuff is cosmetic only and has no impact on gameplay. Path of Exile 2 for example is only doing cosmetic stuff that you have to pay for, and the devs emphasize nothing that asks for money will have any gameplay impact.
There's only been one instance of cosmetics bothering me in a game and that was Uncharted 3, because Naughty Dog were adamant that a character called Rika Raja could not be added to the multiplayer because she didn't fit the universe (despite the fact they made her in the first place for a comic...) yet there was cosmetic items that were utterly ridiculous and didn't remotely fit in with the game at all and apparently those were just fine. If they weren't a way of showing the hypocrisy of the reason to not put Rika Raja in the game I wouldn't be bothered by them, but I can never view them as anything but proof Naughty Dog was full of shit in this instance.
I'm with you; purely cosmetic items should be the only things you can pay for. At most, with mobile games, pay to progress quicker is another thing that's fine. As long as you can play the game without the features and still have a good time, including them is no big deal. You essentially just monetize the impatient people.
Yeah any free to play game that wants to put in shortcuts without making them feel compulsory is fine for me. I understand they need to make money since the game itself is free but don't make the game free and then punish people for trying to play it for free, that's bullshit.
I also don't think items have to be only cosmetic either though. Dead By Daylight has cosmetics as well as survivors/killers all as paid items but I don't mind it because for survivors the characters are just cosmetic really, it's the perks that matter and you don't have to buy a character to get the perks. Killers on the other hand actually have gameplay differences though so you are missing out on a lot more with those being paid items compared to survivors, but I don't really play killer to know if that bothers me or not. Even then, you can buy anything in the game with in-game currency and that's how I've bought anything I wanted in the game, which is usually just a survivor who has multiple good perks and it works out cheaper to buy the whole character than get their perks individually. The game in general also just doesn't feel like you need to have certain perks or killers to have a chance in matches, so despite killers having actual mechanics locked behind a paywall I'd only want them because I want to use them and not because I feel like I have to have them to actually do well.
Honestly? If a game is free-to-play, I'm willing to put up with a lot of things being for sale, up to and including competitive equipment that actually changes stats and the like. It's just that if it's clear that you cannot play the game without spending money (and I'm looking DIRECTLY at World of Tanks, here. I'll explain in a moment.), then I start calling you greedy. But if you can play it without dumping money in, then we cool, and if I like the game, I'll throw some cash its way.
Now, I singled out World of Tanks, so let me explain why I did so. See, when you first start playing, everything is fine. You can get enough Silver (in-game currency used to interact with free-to-play stuff) assuming you actually play the game. You need this silver to repair your tank, replenish your ammo, and refill your consumables. Fair enough. Then, you hit about tier 7, and the economy changes such that turning a profit is very, VERY difficult! You have to rack up a HELL of a cricket score to turn a profit, and I have had games where an 8-kill match (8/15 total btw) has cost me money. Instead, you have to either buy premium time (which is basically a sub) to increase your credit turnaround by 50%, or buy a Tier 8 Premium vehicle that has such a ludicrously high credit multiplier that making a profit in them is a joke. And those Tier 8s can go for upwards of 60 bucks! And this is JUST to pay for your normal grind!
Ignore the fact that I have over 150 250 premium vehicles on Console, making me a filthy hypocrit; this has been a known issue for YEARS and Wargaming had done nothing to change it because it makes them money! And that's BEFORE you get into things like the Object 252U, which is so blatantly overpowered that complete scrubs can manage a 60% winrate with them. Like...I like the game, but let's just say I absolutely understand why my friends tuned out of it.
Games that are pay-to-play shouldn't have additional monetization through microtransactions and the like, though. That's just a load of crap. DLC is one thing, because it's a "one and done" purchase. But recurring purchases? No. That was the big reason I didn't play games like Final Fantasy 14 for so long; you have to sub for a game you paid money for, and that's not kosher to me.
TBH, I'm fine with just about anything, as long as the base game is still enjoyable on its own.
If it's completely cosmetic things that don't affect the gameplay at all, then, that's probably fine in 99% of cases. If it's an additional faction with a different playstyle, then that's probably fine too (as long as this faction isn't so overpowered that it leaves free players with no chance of beating them). Or if it's "Pay to progress quicker", then, that's fine as long as the base game isn't a tedious grind (a "Pay to not have to grind" option is one thing that'll likely make me give up on a game altogether, TBH)
Well, as pretty much everyone here knows, I play multiple gacha games and I have no problem spending money on them, sometimes big money, so obviously that would mean I'm okay with a lot of monetization. Granted none of the gacha games I play require you to spend on them to be able to clear content (though it definitely helps clear the hardest end-game content for Aether Gazer compared to being F2P or a light spender). I'm definitely okay spending on them if it's just for optional things that I want -- skins, pulling for multiple copies of a character to unlock their bonuses, packs that come with a lot of resources and such.
If I do encounter a gacha game that pretty much hard walls your progress unless you spend, then I'll likely drop it. I don't remember the name of it, but I remember trying one game that was pretty fun, but the progression for F2P players halted extremely badly at one point. Like, we're talking taking several months to get over that wall, compared to a whale who could just spend some money and get over it in a day. That's the kind of situation where I go, "Yeah, this one isn't it."
Genshin is a good example of a game that doesn't require spending, but spending makes things a little easier/faster. F2P players can easily clear the hardest content in the game (Floor 12 of the Spiral Abyss). The difference between a whale and a F2P player there is just time. While a F2P player might have to spend a few hours trying to 3* each chamber of Floor 12, a whale can usually do it in 20-30 minutes at most (I know because that's what I can do kek). So while whaling does save some time and makes accomplishing the goal easier, it's not an impossible task for the F2P/light spender (often referred to as Dolphins) to accomplish either. That's the kind of way I like to see games do it. Give spenders an edge while not punishing the non-spenders.