can anyone explain the technical implementation of micro transactions..?
i mean how the call is made from client side and how it approaches to third party money transactional and how the objective is done..

plz anyone post on this. i am really looking forward on this..

rays

Interesting watch -> http://www.escapistm...crotransactions

Question: What type of game are you making the micro transaction system for? Different types of games requires different mods of micro transaction.


Types of Micro Transactions
In MMOs, cash shops usually sell those things you mentioned in your post (Accelerators, Boosters, Premiums, De-handicaps). They also sell vanity items, small blocks of "game time" (the type where 1 time card = a few hours of play), character-transfer-service, extra character slots and Mounts.

For single player games, instant unlocks (you get all the game content without playing to unlock them), DLCs, map-packs and "Project Ten Dollar" comes to mind with regards to Micro Transactions (Yes, I do consider Project Ten Dollar as MT).

And then you have those donation-based system where you buy some tokens as donation to show your appreciation for the game and the game developers (Kongregate Kreds System immediately comes to mind). I think its fair to consider these as micro transactions as well, although the players do not obtain any benefit from donating (donating, not buying some in-game stuff with the Kreds), other than to simply show their support for the developers. The reason I see these as micro transaction is because the player's donations encourages the developers to work on and release a sequel if their games are popular. Think of it as payment made for the next installment of the game series.



Paying For Games in General
I notice a number of posters saying "games should not make players pay to play it". "Why not?" pops up in my head immediately. Game makers are people too, just like you and me. They need money to survive, and ultimately to make more games. If we as players are not giving them what they need (money), how are they suppose to live? That in itself is self-contradictory. On one hand you as a player wants to play that game. On another, you don't want to pay for the game (which is fine). And then you(s) went on and say "No, this and that should not be included because I can't obtain them without paying". What makes you non-paying players so special that you get to determine what should and should not be included in a game's cash shop? You are not paying for the game in the first place AND you are not buying things from the cash shop. What happen to "customer is always right"? If players (the paying-customers) wants a Pay2Win shop, I'll gladly give them the shop if it makes money and allow the developers to continue development on the game.

These remarks in particular irks me most:

[color="#1C2837"]"You're buying the game rather than playing it". If you don't have time to play it, make time, don't buy extra stuff and say you played it. It's not worth it. Games are supposed to be for fun or relaxation, not ... paying money. They're made to be played.[/quote]
and

[color="#1C2837"]They're blocked out from part of the game's content and most of them, such as myself, will always be blocked out because they aren't foolish enough to pay money for it.[/quote]
Pray tell, what is wrong with buying the game? Especially if you enjoyed it? If you hated it, fair enough, leave and move on to some other game. But why dissuade other people who wants to buy the game? Just because you do not like it, that does not mean that others might not enjoy it.

With regards to blocking out content, they have every right to do so. If blocking content and making players pay for said content makes money, I'm all for it.


Pay-2-Win
The thing you said about booster packs for MTG is equivalent to what the MMO community call "Pay2Win" games. Players with the most cash have the best decks (replace "decks" with "gears" for MMOs) out there. Somehow Pay2Win seems like a bad thing in an MMO when the exact same model is accepted by TCG/CCG/OCG players. Why is this? What makes Pay2Win a bad thing? I for one echo the views in this thread that says Pay2Win = money for developers = good.

In my opinion I think Pay2Win is actually a good thing. It promotes competition between players and hopefully encourage players to spend more money on your game every time they lose to another player. Its a vicious cycle, but the cycle results in profit. Also, when implementing micro transactions as your business model, you as a developer is faced with a small pool of paying players vs a large pool of non-playing players (Assuming your game is F2P). It is in your best interest to squeeze as much money as possible from the paying players to support the game. Pay2Win encourages the "Elites" in the game to fight against each other, purchasing more and more power-ups to best the other "Elites" in the game.

Perhaps the biggest detractors and naysayers of the Pay2Win models are against said model because they can "see" that paying = winning. If you could somehow place a "blind" on the players to hide the paying = winning view, perhaps the Pay2Win model could be more acceptable. They don't know whether a person did or did not pay to win, and wouldn't be as sour when they lose to a player with deeper pockets because they don't know the winner has deep pockets and has been paying real cash for all his uber-gears.

One way to blind the players is to create an illusion where everything in-game seems to be obtainable by non-paying players, but requires more time and effort to do so. Paying players instantly obtain the high-end gears, skipping the grindy bit of the game. When a fair portion of the non-paying players managed to obtain those same gears, release another patch of new gears. The paying players would (hopefully) purchase the new packs to obtain all the new gears immediately while the non-paying players would begin to grind their way to the new gears (Some players actually enjoy the grinding process to obtain the next new thing). The paying players are infact Paying to Win, but you maintain the illusion that the non-paying players can obtain the same "powers" with time and effort.

Of course, introducing a Pay2Win model would enrage the non-paying players, but really, who is the customer here? The non-paying player or the paying player? When players jump from one game to another, from one new-gen MMO to the next new-gen MMO, developers have to make money in some way to survive. If you manage to retain a group of hardcore players that will sink money into your game and ensure profit for a period of time, cater to them, for they are the ones keeping you and your game alive. If they want the Pay2Win model, all the more reason to implement them as your micro transaction model.

Alternatively, gambling is also a form of Pay2Win. Granted I've never played a game where you gamble "tokens" for more "tokens", but I could see it working. People drop loads of cash into gambling knowing full well that the house wins most of the time. It'd be interesting if this method is implemented in a game, where players can gamble away their cash "tokens" in hopes of winning more "tokens".

With regards to In-Game Advertisement
I could see this working somewhat.

An MP3 store or a movie store (Netflix anyone?) advertising their products in game could work. Since these media can be stored and sold digitally, what you are doing is to provide these digital media distributors with a larger audience. Songs could be played when players enter certain areas (like the in-game tavern or inn), and movie-previews can be played on the loading screen. That way the advertised media is infused into the game without intruding on the player's game time.

To make this work, what they need to do is to allow payments to be made in "tokens" (which players buy from the cash shop or something) by the players wishing to purchase a piece of the MP3 or a movie. Once purchased, the media is downloaded onto their computers/consoles. Payment is then made out to the company that advertised the movie/mp3 by trading in the tokens they obtained from players with cash from the game company selling the tokens. Other digital media could be advertised in the same way (e-books, e-newspapers, e-magazines). That way, your game is not merely a game anymore, it becomes a "portal" that links various digital media together and make them available in one place. (You can even advertise your upcoming game within the game and allow players to pre-order it in game *wink*wink*)

When doing this, one needs to be careful not to let the advertisers destroy the game-world by filling it with unrelated advertisements. I think EVE Online is a good testing ground for this if they care to experiment with it. Why EVE and not WOW? Because these advertisements are more "compatible" with EVE's world-theme than it is to WOW's.

[color="black"][The way I made the post has meant I have covered a few points more than once so sorry about that, don’t currently have time to go over and make it more concise, also have a bit of word blindness going so sorry if there’s any glaring mistakes]

[color="black"]

Interesting watch -> http://www.escapistm...crotransactions [/quote]

[color="black"]Caught that as well, makes some good points but there’s something about the way the deliver their opinions that rubs me the wrong way.

[color="black"]

Question:What type of game are you making the micro transaction system for? Different types of games require different modes of micro transaction. [/quote]

[color="black"]This has to be the single most important question. I think you do miss out one point though,and one that was laboured in the video you linked as well, it may be best not to include such a system in the game at all. MTs work well in some games but it’s not the golden goose for every game.

[color="black"]It’s a side note somewhat but I think it may be an idea to have a general term for transactions for in-game items, micro-transactions in general have meant selling an item for a few $ ( I believe PayPal views micropayments as something under $12) which automatically excludes some DLC’s.



[color="black"]

These remarks in particular irks me most:



[color="black"]Quote

[color="black"]"You're buying the game rather than playing it". If you don't have time to play it, make time, don't buy extra stuff and say you played it. It's not worth it.Games are supposed to be for fun or relaxation, not ... paying money. They're made to be played.



[color="black"] and



[color="black"]Quote

[color="black"]They're blocked out from part of the game's content and most of them, such as myself,will always be blocked out because they aren't foolish enough to pay money for it.



[color="black"] Pray tell, what is wrong with buying the game?Especially if you enjoyed it? If you hated it, fair enough, leave and move onto some other game. But why dissuade other people who wants to buy the game?Just because you do not like it that does not mean that others might not enjoy it. [/quote]

[color="black"][May be putting words in people’s mouths here so excuse me] The first quote is, from my understanding, saying that if the game is free to play you shouldn’t have to pay money to enjoy it. If you had to do that you might as well do the traditional way and charge £30 for the game in the first place.

[color="black"]The second quote puts the argument for making everything available in the game to either paying gamers or ones that simple play the game. It is something that you yourself put forward later in the post so I’m a tad confused as to what issues you have in with it.

[color="black"]To answer your questions though:

[color="black"]There is nothing wrong with paying for a game especially when you enjoy it, I don’t see anyone saying paying for a game outright is bad. I think the issue is when you’re told a game is free to play but it in fact isn’t; it is essentially a glorified demo under the guise of a free to play game. In this case I’m essentially being lied to, is it not understandable that I would be angered by this?

[color="black"]Personally I don’t want to dissuade people from buying a game if they want to; the idea is absurd in the least and I can’t imagine anyone thinking that. What I get annoyed at is when paying for a game allows someone to adversely affect my game play experience and put me in a position of either paying for the game or “getting the ^&*£out”. This is something I would rather not encounter in either a game I’m already paying for or in a game that was presented to me on the pretext of me not having to pay for in to enjoy it.

[color="black"]

With regards to blocking out content, they have every right to do so. If blocking content and making players pay for said content makes money, I'm all for it. [/quote]

[color="black"]They may have a right to do so but that is never a defence for anything, I have the right to make a game and sell the rights to be a GM (Games Master) to the highest bidder allowing them access to all the commands other “bonuses” GMs do.Should I do that? No not really, I’m sure some people would have fun being a GM but it would hardly be good for the game.



[color="black"]

Pay-2-Win

[color="black"] The thing you said about booster packs for MTG is equivalent to what the MMO community call "Pay2Win" games. Players with the most cash have the best decks (replace "decks" with"gears" for MMOs) out there. Somehow Pay2Win seems like a bad thing in an MMO when the exact same model is accepted by TCG/CCG/OCG players. Why is this? What makes Pay2Win a bad thing? I for one echo the views in this thread that says Pay2Win = money for developers = good. [/quote]

[color="black"]TCG/CCG/OCG are a different animal to that of MMOGs or other game genres. I did play MTG for a while when I was younger, and yes sank a lot of money into it, but any “advantage”I had over another player was hardly because of the money I spent. There was,while I was playing, no card that I could find that was “overpowered” and provided a flat out advantage against all other players, it may against some but not against all of them. If I buy gear in a MMOG I get a flat out advantage over everyone. Again this is more to do with the way those games where designed, like they said in the video, tacking on such a system to a game is where most issues arise NOT when such a system is implemented in the game from the ground up.

[color="black"]

In my opinion I think Pay2Win is actually a good thing. It promotes competition between players and hopefully encourage players to spend more money on your game every time they lose to another player. Its a vicious cycle, but the cycle results in profit. Also, when implementing micro transactions as your business model, you as a developer is faced with a small pool of paying players vs a large pool of non-playing players (Assuming your game is F2P). It is in your best interest to squeeze as much money as possible from the paying players to support the game. Pay2Win encourages the "Elites" in the game to fight against each other, purchasing more and more power-ups to best the other"Elites" in the game. [/quote]

[color="black"]Although true to some extent such an aggressive and “game breaking” approach can actually push players to leave the game. Once you start charging for an advantage then you will be tempted to charge for even bigger advantages and that can easily spiral into a position where you have gone too far. Effectively ruining the game and causing people to leave it, this is not only bad for those players who loved your game but also you the designer.

[color="black"]

Perhaps the biggest detractors and naysayers of the Pay2Win models are against said model because they can"see" that paying = winning. If you could somehow place a"blind" on the players to hide the paying = winning view, perhaps thePay2Win model could be more acceptable. They don't know whether a person did or did not pay to win, and wouldn't be as sour when they lose to a player with deeper pockets because they don't know the winner has deep pockets and has been paying real cash for all his uber-gear.

[color="black"]One way to blind the players is to create an illusion where everything in-game seems to be obtainable by non-paying players, but requires more time and effort to do so.Paying players instantly obtain the high-end gears, skipping the grindy bit of the game. When a fair portion of the non-paying players managed to obtain those same gears, release another patch of new gears. The paying players would(hopefully) purchase the new packs to obtain all the new gears immediately while the non-paying players would begin to grind their way to the new gears(Some players actually enjoy the grinding process to obtain the next new thing). The paying players are infact Paying to Win, but you maintain the illusion that the non-paying players can obtain the same "powers"with time and effort. [/quote]

[color="black"]That isn’t essentially paying to win. That is paying for convenience, depending on how it is done it can be just as bad as paying to win but for the most part is a lot more acceptable.

[color="black"]The Korean developers also pointed this out to the developers of BF Heroes, if you take this literally though it could end up blowing up in your face when players find out about it.

[color="black"]

Of course, introducing a Pay2Win model would enrage the non-paying players, but really, who is the customer here? The non-paying player or the paying player?When players jump from one game to another, from one new-gen MMO to the next new-gen MMO, developers have to make money in some way to survive. If you manage to retain a group of hardcore players that will sink money into your game and ensure profit for a period of time, cater to them, for they are the ones keeping you and your game alive. If they want the Pay2Win model, all the more reason to implement them as your micro transaction model. [/quote]

[color="black"]They are both your customers, just because they don’t pay for anything in your game now doesn’t mean they won’t in the future. Yes you keep the current paying (hard-core is not really the correct word her; an otherwise casual player may sink just as much money into your game as a hard-core player does) players happy but you’re not adding anyone else to that pool and those people currently in that pool will eventually stop playing.

[color="black"]Also there will always be someone who will pay for an advantage in the game, that doesn’t mean you should necessarily cater to them. This is especially true when catering to their desires will have a potentially huge impact on your other players. I admit I am being a bit extreme here and you will eventually have to pick a side to cater to or not please anyone but MTs are one of the few examples of a position where catering to one group, those who will pay to win, will greatly affect the enjoyment of those other paying customers, say those who pay for vanity items.

[color="black"]Another point is that if you end up with a game where everyone “pays to win” no one in fact ends up paying to win. This will then cause you as a developer to lose those players who you’re catering to. Since paying no longer means they will have an advantage over another player.

[color="black"]

Alternatively, gambling is also a form of Pay2Win. Granted I've never played a game where you gamble "tokens" for more "tokens", but I could see it working. People drop loads of cash into gambling knowing full well that the house wins most of the time. It'd be interesting if this method is implemented in a game, where players can gamble away their cash"tokens" in hopes of winning more "tokens". [/quote]

[color="black"]An interesting idea and one that could generate a huge amount of money, take all those online poker games for example. It is something that will automatically limit your player base though (you can’t have anyone under X age playing the game or be liable to some kind of lawsuit).

[color="black"]Advertisements do seem the best way to generate money from those non-paying players allowing you to generate money from everyone playing your game.

The second quote puts the argument for making everything available in the game to either paying gamers or ones that simple play the game. It is something that you yourself put forward later in the post so I’m a tad confused as to what issues you have in with it.[/quote]
Just realized I created a somewhat confusing argument. Sorting it out now:
What I meant with my suggestion about letting non-paying players obtain those gears through grinding is that the grind itself should work as a filter to limit (restrict? reduce?) the number of non-paying players obtaining said gears to a low minimum. It is possible for non-paying players to obtain said gear but it would take a disproportionate effort to do so. In the practical sense it should achieve two things: (1) It would mean the paying players will enjoy those cash shop gears alot longer than non-paying customers; (2) Since you can track how many non-paying players have already obtained said gear, you can choose when to release a new set to the players.

What might add to my original suggestion is making those cash-shop gears/items "seasonal" and increase the price when the "season" ends. By "seasonal" I mean those items are rotated out of the cash-shop once the month (or whatever the time limit is, really) is over, to be replaced with a new set of toys. That also means removing the quest/method for non-paying players to obtain those same gears. When something "good" is limited by the time factor, everyone wants a piece of that "seasonal" item/gear. Once the "seasonal" promotion is over, customers would have to pay a premium to obtain the same items. That would encourage more spending by the players per month, but wouldn't prevent new paying players from obtaining gears/items that they want from previous "seasons".

On a side note, which relates to the advertising bit, I would also say that the non-paying player obtaining those "seasonal" items/gears might actually advertise said item/gear and influence more players to get it. Once the "season" is over, those items are still around in the market acting, and the players who owns said items then becomes advertisers for those items.

There is nothing wrong with paying for a game especially when you enjoy it, I don’t see anyone saying paying for a game outright is bad. I think the issue is when you’re told a game is free to play but it in fact isn’t; it is essentially a glorified demo under the guise of a free to play game. In this case I’m essentially being lied to, is it not understandable that I would be angered by this?
Personally I don’t want to dissuade people from buying a game if they want to; the idea is absurd in the least and I can’t imagine anyone thinking that. What I get annoyed at is when paying for a game allows someone to adversely affect my game play experience and put me in a position of either paying for the game or “getting the ^&*£out”. This is something I would rather not encounter in either a game I’m already paying for or in a game that was presented to me on the pretext of me not having to pay for in to enjoy it.[/quote]


Perhaps I might be reading abit too much into the statements, but the way it was said sounds like (to me anyways) "Don't use the cash shop, its not worth it cause I don't need it and you should not need it as well. If you buy from the cash shop to play you shouldn't be playing in the first place since you don't have time. And even if its fun you still don't pay for it. Its still not worth paying for". Anyways, moving on.

Here's the thing: How do you differentiate a F2P game and a glorified demo? If they told you its a free game, and in fact you could actually play it without spending a single cent, are they still lying to you? Enjoyment is a vague and subjective word. Arguably they never guaranteed that you will enjoy the game without paying anything. The whole F2P game experience itself is made in such a way as to hook you in and encourage you to spend money in their game. If their game fails to do that, then their business model has just gone out the window, hasn't it?

I'm gonna use WoW as an example here. They've introduced a (relatively) new "introduction scheme" to entice players. What the scheme does is basically let you play and level a character for free until said character reaches Level 20. From Level 1 until Level 20 you don't have to pay a single dime and you are granted access to substantial features of the game. Would you call this a glorified demo? Every game must have some sort of ways to make money, even the F2P ones. WoW's "Free to Play" mode screws you over once you hit Level 20 unless you decide to pay for it. WoW's "Free to play" scheme literally tells you, as a player, to pay for the game or "get the !@#% out". Did you enjoy WoW's "free" game?

They may have a right to do so but that is never a defence for anything, I have the right to make a game and sell the rights to be a GM (Games Master) to the highest bidder allowing them access to all the commands other “bonuses” GMs do.Should I do that? No not really, I’m sure some people would have fun being a GM but it would hardly be good for the game. [/quote]

No, but who exactly are they defending from? Or rather, who should they be defending from? So long as money is made, whatever rants directed at them can be completely ignored. This is even more so if the ranting player didn't pay for anything. They are unlikely to "unlock" it just because of a complain. There are some invisible border that should not be crossed by any game, but that border is slowly being explored as developers experiment with what lines should and should not be crossed. With that said, selling a GM account doesn't sound so bad if done right.

When you register and sign up for any game, there is always the EULA (which I reckon most players don't read) which you need to sign before access is granted. What if you incorporate certain rules into the EULA that prevents a person who buy and uses GM account(s) in such a way that they are not supposed to ruin another player's "fun time", and if they did they will be banned. Granted, game developers will need to implement a tracking tool against GM accounts to keep track of their actions, but really, its not that hard to do. Taking it a step further, allowing players to bid for said GM-Account might actually deter them from committing any acts that damages another player's experience. In a bid where there is no upper limit, its likely that those bidding for it would sink a large amount of dollars for such a special "class". They don't want to ruin their investment now, do they?

They are both your customers, just because they don’t pay for anything in your game now doesn't mean they won’t in the future. Yes you keep the current paying (hard-core is not really the correct word her; an otherwise casual player may sink just as much money into your game as a hard-core player does) players happy but you’re not adding anyone else to that pool and those people currently in that pool will eventually stop playing.[/quote]

I think that whether a game gets new blood or not heavily depends on their advertisements and marketing. If a game company develops a brilliant game that no one knows about, they are not really helping anyone. In the same token, a developer could make a shitty game and advertise it like crazy, and it will definitely outsell the brilliant game by leagues. That also means that a "bad game" can still get new players provided they invest (heavily perhaps) in making their game gets noticed. And if that "bad game" manage to deliver a reasonable experience to the non-paying players and convert a small percentage of them into paying-players and retain them for long periods, odds are they will survive.

If you want an example, look no further than Ultima Online. That game is old (I thinks its been around for 10+ years atleast). Alot of players can't stomach that kind of free-for-all sandbox gameplay. Despite that, the game managed to retain a sufficient number of subscribers and is still alive to date. I think that the number that matters the most is indeed your paying-players, and if you can earn their loyalty and keep them playing, the non-paying players can come and go as they wish. In this scenario, catering to the paying-players ensures your game's (and company's) survival.

[color="black"]

Also there will always be someone who will pay for an advantage in the game, that doesn’t mean you should necessarily cater to them. This is especially true when catering to their desires will have a potentially huge impact on your other players. I admit I am being a bit extreme here and you will eventually have to pick a side to cater to or not please anyone but MTs are one of the few examples of a position where catering to one group, those who will pay to win, will greatly affect the enjoyment of those other paying customers, say those who pay for vanity items.

[color="black"]Another point is that if you end up with a game where everyone “pays to win” no one in fact ends up paying to win. This will then cause you as a developer to lose those players who you’re catering to. Since paying no longer means they will have an advantage over another player.[/quote]

I beg to differ here. In this case where everyone "pays to win", the winner is the one who paid the most. Whether it leads to the game losing player is another matter. But if I am going down this path with my game, I will be damn sure to make as much money as I can while the game is still alive. I will probably release the "next new gear" more frequently and in smaller "units" of power to encourage even more spending. If the game dies I'll still have my reserve funds to make another game. Depending on how much I earned with the model, I might release the same game under a different name with different graphics and repeat the cycle all over again.

I think that developers that tried the MT model and failed are not doing enough to encourage their MT purchases. They are pulled in two different directions, and they cannot make up their mind with regards to which set of players they want (or should) to cater to. On one hand, they contemplate about cash shop item "balance" when used against the non-paying players, and on the other hand they need to encourage the paying players to spend more money by releasing newer (and arguably better) items. Allow these cash shop items/gears to be traded between players so that the non-paying players have a small chance at obtaining them by farming a large amount of in-game currency to buy it from a paying-player. Hey, thats another way to institute the illusion that those gears are indeed obtainable by non-paying players!

There was a Microtransactions thread previously (started by you in fact ) which I've set out an example from my own experience with regards to MT. It brings in alot of money if done right. That is to say, encourage competition among the paying players (PVP being one of the ways) and make them spend as much as they care to.

P/s: I do apologize for that wall of text. I didn't realize the reply was so lengthy =/

Edit: Misclicked and erased a good chunk of another point.

[color=#1C2837][size=2][color=black]

TCG/CCG/OCG are a different animal to that of MMOGs or other game genres. I did play MTG for a while when I was younger, and yes sank a lot of money into it, but any “advantage”I had over another player was hardly because of the money I spent. There was,while I was playing, no card that I could find that was “overpowered” and provided a flat out advantage against all other players, it may against some but not against all of them. If I buy gear in a MMOG I get a flat out advantage over everyone. Again this is more to do with the way those games where designed, like they said in the video, tacking on such a system to a game is where most issues arise NOT when such a system is implemented in the game from the ground up.[/quote]

[color=#1C2837][size=2][color=black]

[color=#1C2837][size=2][color=black]They made a ban list to restrict broken/gamebreaking cards. I daresay if they ended up on that ban list, they are the equivalent to these "overpowered gears" in MMOs. To put it in a different perspective, a single piece of equipment does not break an entire game (or atleast, I have yet to see a game being imbalanced by one piece of equipment). More often than not, these "overpowered" equipment are being used in conjunction with other pieces of equipment (which may or may not be overpowered). It is the mish mash of the "overpowered" equipment with various other pieces that creates the imbalance. Just like deck building. One card does not make that much of a difference, but when said card is combo-ed with other cards the effect can be game breaking.
[color=#1C2837][size=2][color=black]

[color=#1C2837][size=2][color=black]How did I equate "piece of equipment" with "cards" and "Pay 2 win"? In card games, the more cards you buy, the better your deck becomes. If you give one player a $30 budget to build a deck and another player a $90 budget, the $90 player will win most of the time. Isn't that a "Pay2Win" scenario? Similarly, when both player's equipment are equal (or near equal), if Player A decides to spend real cash and purchase a piece of equipment to upgrade his set, isn't that the same thing as buying a single card to alter your deck in your favour? Both are paying to win, although in card games the effect is minimized by random shuffling and such, but the principle remains the same. Both are "Pay2Win" with varying degree of effectiveness, but somehow the MMO community looks down upon this.

My opinion on microtransactions are simply that they should offer anything and everything that does not affect the balance of the game. They should save time, they should offer conveniences, and they should offer the ability to stand out.

The most outstanding example of this model is League of Legends. The microtransactions for that game are implemented near perfectly. The game itself is hailed in the e-sports world as one of the most balanced and competitive games today. However, it implements a microtransaction system. The reason that League of Legends is so hugely successful in their business is because the game is first and foremost, well balanced. It is not perfectly balanced, and there are always changes in balance due to the metagame and whatnot, but the game is generally balanced. The reason for this is because Riot clearly implemented a tier system into their microtransactions:

Highest (First) Tier: Skins
Skins are the highest tier in terms of money bought items, and they are purchasable with money only. They offer absolutely no gameplay advantage (except maybe intimidation).

Middle (Second) Tier: Rune pages
Rune pages are the middle tier of purchases. They most accessible with money, but are purchasable with large amounts of game currency. They offer no real power, but they do offer convenience.

Lowest (Third) Tier: Champions
Champions are the lowest tier of purchases. They are extremely accessible with both money and in game currency. The best champions in the current metagame aren't always the most expensive ones, but most champions are relatively expensive (in terms of in game currency). Champions offer power.
As an additional perk, free to play champions are rotated every week, so even completely new players get to potentially experience the entire game without spending any currency. However, they cannot control when they would like to play their favorite/most effective champions.

It's easy to see why this model is successful. Any player does not feel disadvantaged when they play the game. After all, they will never lose because someone else is in a better financial situation than themselves. The game boils down to skill and gameplay, which makes a game fun for everyone. The paying players can enjoy the ego stroking when people say "cool skin, bro" or "oh shit, pro [champion name here]" (upon seeing the skin) in all chat, which is something some people would happily pay for.

The challenge in implementing such a system is to find the balance point between how hard it is to make the in game currency and how much you have to pay in real life cash. However, I believe this is truly the future of microtransaction-based games.

Since you're designing your MT for a card game, I suggest you check out how Tyrant handle their MT. (Specifically how they pack sales and single-card sales.)

With regards to Premium Upgrades for cards, have a look at this game and see how the game makes every single card stronger via their card-upgrade-system.