With respect, I have always found these suppositions to be much too broad while potentially letting gaming companies off the hook. I would wonder how much DLC and microtransactions some would be willing to explain away simply as, "Well games are getting more expensive so it makes sense." My question would be, is Virtual Currency about 2K's survival and solvency? Or is it simply another money stream for a team who'd already properly budgeted before VC even came into the picture?
Further, I am unquestionably biased toward NBA legends' inclusion in the NBA 2K series. As a fan of the NBA (and of real life NBA replication and simulation) I have found classic teams to be one of the biggest breakthroughs in 2K series history. They're real teams and real players with real history. I feel they fit right in with what an NBA simulation should be all about.
Still, regarding the pay of legends, we don't really have a base upon which to stand. We don't really know how much players are being paid and what effect that monetary total has on the entire 2K brand. Is it a sizable dent in the budget? Or is it merely a blip?
Moreover, I feel there's many other aspects of 2K that'd be ripe for reduction before the inclusion of real life NBA basketball teams. To name two off hand: Euroleague teams and 2K's star-studded soundtrack. I feel as though times couldn't have been too hard if 2K was able to secure Jay-Z and all of his cohorts before VC was ever even introduced. I'd also venture to say 2K's sudden need and urge to sign mega-hit soundtrack stars as opposed to the underground angle they supported for their entire existence up until 2K12 would again suggest 2K's not necessarily fighting for survival and draping their entire product in Virtual Currency only so they may survive.