I used to work at a company that sold digital goods and at one point shifted from accepting cash for those goods to selling "credits" that could then be exchanged for the goods.
In calculating the cash price per credit, and the amount of credits required to acquire the goods, the accountants did a calculation that favoured "breakage".
"Breakage" is the amount of money paid by a customer for a good they never receive. Gift cards are a good example. Someone might pay $50 for a gift card, which the recipient might use to buy, say, a $48 item. Then either a) the company gets to keep other $2 without providing value, or b) the recipient has to spend more money to access the $2 that was already handed over.
I have zero problem with micropayments and the new store is a great idea for revenue. You deserve profit for your excellent game.
However... pricing items at 499 and then pricing the smallest increments of Ancient Coin (credits) at 299 is a calculation that favours breakage. I will have to pay you $9 to get a $5 item, and I will then have $4 locked in a credit I cannot spend at your store — or rather, you will have the full $9 and will only have provided me $4 value, indefinitely. This is foul play and feels off-brand for Rare. It is 100% on-brand for Microsoft (circa 2005), when they used to employ this same style of credit/breakage system on Xbox Live. (Shots lovingly fired.)
With that said, my completely civil feedback is a request to price items/coin more plainly and let us pay even money for what we'd like to buy. Charge more per item if you like, because it will actually cost us less. If you want us to spend more at the emporium, offer $5 pets or two for $9. You'll get $4 extra dollars (for a digital good that costs you nothing to supply) and we feel have saved $1. Win-win.
ps. I vote to lock your accountants in the brig.
pps. I'm still going to buy the monkey.
