Exactly. My point was how spending real money for a virtual social life was somehow looked down upon while people are also spending real money on virtual cars (one particular Sim I immediately can point out). Honestly I feel if you spend Real money on ANY virtual item in any game DLC or not( Cars, planes, weapons, costumes, etc), you're really in no position to question who's spending money on anything virtual.
I believe one of those is already available, its called the Move
I think that there is somewhat of a difference, and I think I may be missing the point. Spending real money on virtual cars adds replayability to a game as apposed to spending real money on a virtual social life adds very little to your actual life. I think investors have a term for it called "rate of return". It means that for every dollar that you invest something into, you expect a service, or money back in return.
Most DLC gives you a very reasonable rate of return because the content would add replayability to the game, and that would expand the game's life span. Take for example, Call of Duty. They release map packs four times a year to expand the game's lifespan, however, it is their multiplayer that expands the lifespan naturally. So if you invested $60 on the game, and $60 in the packs, that would amount to a $120 investment. Now we would have to look at the community. Do they upgrade from year to year, or from release to release? Yes and no. While they do buy the latest release, most Call of Duty fans have a preferred game that they play. That means that even if a game in the franchise is no longer supported by publishers, that doesn't mean that the fans are willing to run away the instant the support stops, and that is the sign of a dedicated fan base. So if you do have a $120 investment in a game, do you expect longevity in return? In the case of the Call of Duty franchise, the answer is yes.
Now let's look into spending money into social services. No, we are not going to be talking about taxes, we are going to be talking about Playstation Home. Sony's initial idea about Home is that you spend real money to acquire virtual objects to make your pad look like it is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Anyone who has played The Sims(an apt reference) can cross reference Home with that game. There are microtransactions galore, and if you even dare say that EA caught the bug first, you should be checked into a nut ward because this was the program, though ahead of its time, started the microtransaction craze.
Now I won't go into specifics as to what you can buy in Home, but what I will say is that all transactions used in Home involve real money.
Now will it give a rate of return? Considering the amount of money that you would spend to get a decent space in Home, you would be better off spending it elsewhere, like a couple of games off PSN, or maybe their vast superior PS+.
Again, I may be off tangent, and if I am, I'm sorry.
