I see comparisons between a full price (singleplayer) game, and a more mmo type game that needs money in the long run to sustain the developer/server costs. I just think that's a unfair comparison, and the discussion should be about, do you want to pay for DLC's/expansions/subscription fee's or a micro-transaction model or…
Some of games are totally worth spending money. Usually I'm trying to find the best deal. For example I bought Bioshock Infinite for 24.90 (at http://www.go2arena.com/bioshock.html) when at the other stores it cost much more.
And just to give an older example, I was about ready to put cash into "Simpsons: Tapped Out" at one point. I decided to hold out, and ended up selling off my iPad. EA's not put out a compatible version for Android, so my money would've been wasted until I got another Apple device.
The only money I've put into ftp games is for tf2. Partly for stuff where I know who made the model or christmas gifts when I played with the cgtalk peeps, but mostly just because my drop-rate for anything I'd actually want is pretty abysmal. I've been playing since release and never had a single hat drop for example.
It seems like you're essentially describing "paying for stuff" as "people withholding stuff from me unless I pay". You could just as easily say that developers who sell games for an upfront fee are withholding the entire game from you. Why does the payment model even need to improve the game? If it's implementation is…
I guess for me its really hard, even if I really like the game and developer (Offensive Combat/u4ia as an example). These games are constantly changing, so that weapon you bought two months ago might be overshadowed by something newer. Or the hair piece gets bought by so many, you can no longer distinguish your avatar in a…