Listen, nothing I am going to say about Monster Hunter Wilds will stop it from making a whole bunch of money. It has achieved more than 1 million players on Steam in its first few hours of availability. Its numbers have boosted Capcom's stock price. So I do have to wonder. All are the microtransactions even necessary?
The system for editing your main character's appearance as well as your Palico's appearance (an in-game catlike creature that accompanies your character) requires vouchers. Yes, you need vouchers to change your character's clothes. A pack of three vouchers is $6.99. Anybody remember when it was free to change your character's clothes in a game? Somewhere, whoever came up with Oblivion's "horse armor" is smiling proudly. That stunt formed the foundation for most of the microtransactions we see today.
Players do get one free voucher for their character and Palico from their $70 game purchase. Some players are complaining in Steam reviews, forums, and comment sections. But they're being drowned out by what is a largely positive reaction to Capcom's latest hit.
Game companies continue doing this because it works. Items such as DLC and microtransactions now account for more revenue than the sales of the game themselves. RPGs such as Monster Hunter can't take advantage of the Ultimate Team method, so we get charges for character changes.
I'm in the vocal minority that wonders how much is too much. I'm also part of the problem because I will occasionally pay to get a point guard with slightly higher three-point rating than the one I'm using. My cousin once defended a Fortnite skin purchase to his wife by explainin that it's important to look like you know what you're doing. I laughed, but remembered how many times I've heard somebody refer to a skin or a golden gun in a game as proof that player was good before they had fired a shot.