Former Naughty Dog Community Strategist On Microtransactions: 'You should pay for good work'

Uncharted developer Naughty Dog has hit out at players that criticise in-game purchases.

Former community strategist Eric Monacelli was speaking to MCV ahead of next year's launch of Uncharted 4.

The game will be supported with post-release story DLC – a decision that Monacelli admitted would raise the ire of some fans.

“Microtransactions tend to get a sort of negative connotation in the games industry," he explained. "If you remember back in the day, people bristled when they sold horse armour [for The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion]. It's something that has always happened.

"But if it's good enough content and you want to pay for it, why not pay for it? That's what it comes down to."

[Gazondaily]

Wow.

I don't agree with his logic at all regarding the guns behind a paywall. That is a shoddy excuse.

"There were other weapons if they were a more experienced player that they could buy – it's up to them. If you're already kicking ass, you probably don't need these, but if you want 'em, have 'em. It's just a matter of personal preference."

That's ridiculous lol. Yeah here...have these weapons...if you're more experienced...just pay more.

He hasn't justified microtransactions at all.

"It's work, and you should pay for good work.”

How is it MORE work though?? You've just locked off a powerful weapon behind a paywall and in order to gain access to it, I have to pay?

MT's can be done right if approached properly; look at league of legends and perhaps Halo 5; but this is bs. Its quasi-f2p and I felt the burn with Planetside 2, having to pay 7 quid to enable me to buy a sniper rifle (or spend a SHED LOAD of time to get it otherwise).

Come up with a better excuse ND.

[DarkOcelet]

MT's in AAA games will never be acceptable. I swear to God, if The Last Of Us campaign wasnt a masterpiece, i would not have bought it because its Microtransactions in MP was disgusting.

“A lot of times I'll hear people say: 'That's just something they cut from the game so you can pay for it.' No, often it's not,"

It might not be cut but it is calculated in a way that you either grind for 10 to 20 hours or you can simply pay 3$ for it.

Also for newcomers to pay for a weapon that can be only obtained in higher levels is not fair for people who actually worked hard to get that weapon.

Why piss off the community by this BS practices? It wont end up good for you.

[Gazondaily]

MT's for cosmetic items are fine. Fair enough; its not really going to affect the game. Heck, Halo 5 has it for one game mode, but the stuff is randomly generated AND you have to earn the points to use the weapons anyway (still, could potentially be abusive although I haven't felt that YET).

We are partly to blame because we spend money on them but seriously; its getting a bit of out hand.

Make it REASONABLE to access the items in-game as opposed to compeltely locking it off behind a paywall. That is fine depending on how its executed.

edit- fun fact- this chap has now moved to Infinity Ward. They'll grace him with open arms there lol

@Dark below

Well that actually makes it a bit silly to buy loads of Gold packs anyway because there isn't a guarantee you will get the item you want. Plus you get loads of points in-game anyway so unlike me, who is more concerned with the cosmetic stuff in Gold packs, it isn't a necessity.

[DarkOcelet]

@Septic

No my friend, i don't think its fine because they could have simply made it an unlockable for free.

Also, the way Halo Req system work is not fair at all. Its all based on luck. You can get a Legendary weapon from you first gold pack and get a huge advantage over everyone else or you can open 10 Gold packs and get nothing good. How is this fair for anyone?

[Why o why]

Its a slippery slope into our rear ends that us, as gamers, have bent over for. Don't purchase it and soon enough devs may rethink their new ways. Paying for cosmetic decals and the likes is a crappy thing IF those same items cannot be acquired through play for free. Keep it like that and Ill not b*t*h.

[Genuine-User]

@Dark

I have spent more than 100 hours on TLoU MP. I've not come across a single situation where MT was recommended, necessary or even preferable.

And I can safely say the same for Halo 5 as well. I've put in more than 35 hours.

Naughty Dog has specicially clarified that none of the gameplay items will be gated behind MT's in UC4. How many times does this reiterated?

[DarkOcelet]

@Genuine-User

They should not be there my friend. Are we going to defend MT now since its Naughty Dog making it?

[Crimzon]

The sad thing about the microtransactions in The Last of Us was that you could not grind for them at all. If you didn't pay, you didn't get to use them. The fact that they were so ridiculously overpowered as well is just disgusting.

The microtransaction weapons and perks completely broke TLOU multiplayer, plain and simple. The abilities that you could buy gave an absurd advantage to people (such as smoke bomb immunity), and lets not forget how the weapons are notorious amongst the playerbase as being overpowered and open to abuse, particularly the DLC shotguns and crossbow.

As for Uncharted 4, I'll believe the lack of microtransactions when I see it because when you look at Uncharted 3 and then The Last of Us, well, it's all going in one direction, isn't it? Besides, the pre-order marketing for Uncharted 4 already let slip that there will be "Naughty Dog Points" for people to buy so yeah, it would take some hard facts to make me think otherwise.

The most frustrating thing however is that their multiplayer modes are always fun until this stuff eventually appears. The Last of Us was great until all the pay-to-win weapons and perks completely ruined the game. Absolutely disgusting of them, and it's shameful that anybody would try and defend this nonsense.

ANY developer that does this is bad. Stop giving a free pass to them just because they make an exclusive game.

[Genuine-User]

@Dark

No one is defending MT's. I'm not a dishonest person.

I'm sharing my personal experiece with the two games in question.

@Crimzon

Maybe you're inadequate in the multiplayer mode?

[DarkOcelet]

@Genuine-User

I never said you were a dishonest person nor did i imply it, if i did then i apologize but what i simply meant we need to make a stand even if it is an awesome developer like Naughty Dog.

And in personal experience with TLOU, i noticed that paid weapons were stronger than the base weapons in the game. How is that fair to anyone?

[Genuine-User]

@Dark

It's all good. Generally I would agree with you guys on the topic of MT's but I felt obliged to share my experience on TLoU and Halo 5. I never felt the need to buy an additional item.

Paid weapons might be slightly strong (I haven't noticed) but we both know that isn't necessarily what one needs to win a round of TLoU.

[Crimzon]

lol you can win with just the paid perks because they're so broken. Give me immunity to my smoke bombs and watch the world burn. Nobody can do jack because they were originally designed as a risk/reward mechanic in vanilla and ND let's you pay some cash to turn it into reward-only. It's hilarious because even something small like that completely trivializes a lot of combat encounters and there's no counter to it at all, you're literally paying to win. All the enemy team can do is pray that you get bored of repeatedly stabbing them in the face while they're stunned or watching them quit. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[badz149]

I agree with "you should pay for good work" thing because nothing beats giving money to devs that really wotked for it and deserve it. From there, ideally, they are gonna be motivated to keep delivering the stuff while gamers can expect more to come from them. So win-win.

Putting that aside, it's becoming ridiculous when devs start churning out barebone products, yet still charging full price and then announce a slew of DLCs even before the game lauch! Of course gamers are gonna feel cheated. Too many devs nowadays are relying on online MP to justify value for their games when in reality, MP are just recycled assets being used over and over and the fun factor totally depends on the players while the devs themselves are garnering profits with as less effort as possible!

"Hey gamers...we have this new game coming out soon but hey, look at these map packs and weapons you can buy after the game launched! Amazing values right here!"...NOT!

Not enough with that, they even put MT in these full priced games now. Like WTH?? I'm fine with cosmetics because they take nothing away from the game, but tokens, enablers, unlockables...these kind of things, they are basically moneterized cheat codes! Hacks and cheats are banned online but now devs are making them legal for those willing to pay! Seriously, leave the MT model for F2P games, full priced games shouldn't have them, PERIOD! that's just disgusting!

[Dee_Blessed]

@Crimson
No one is giving naughty dog a free pass at all. It's simply not the truth. There was never a pay to win incentive put on tlou online. You forget there are pre-made load outs with some of those weapons "behind a pay wall" already available for those who want to use them FOR FREE. So the negative image your trying to paint of naughty dog is false. Period. Knock it off. Seriously. Any time those with the intent of gathering fire and pitch forks just because everyone else is doing it, makes them appear foolish especially when they're so blinded by negativity that they miss CLEAR facts. You can dislike my post flag it, I really don't care but at least I'm being real. No I don't like microtransactions simply because it lessens the diverse array of weapons one may choose from, not because there is a particular advantage. If you're good with the weapon, you're good with a weapon. (I've seen guys go around with a pistol killing everyone) I haven't spent a dime on micros. And I still get 1st in interrogation quite often. I've tried out the weapons supposedly "locked behind a pay wall" and they aren't any better or worse. It's just user preference and I don't like them that much to even buy them. I just don't understand your rant or anyone else's especially when naughty dog made load outs for you to try out the weapons. Yall lost me with that one

[gangsta_red]

Might as well just accept this gamers. Just like paying for online play, DLC and now microtransactions. This is how developers are thinking and it's obvious that DLC and MT are now apart of triple development.

All we can do is hope people don't pay for this so it can at least calm down. But when you have EA(?) reporting that they are making millions off of extra content alone well...I don't see this type of practice going away anytime at all.

[xHeavYx]

Hence the FORMER part of the title. Funny that he went to Infinity Ward, that's where he probably got all these crazy ideas.

[Why o why]

ANY developer that does this is bad. Stop giving a free pass to them just because they make an exclusive game.

whos giving them a free pass... again an faux accusation to suit an argument

[XabiDaChosenOne]

Holy sh***t Naughty Dog lost the plot.

[Cogentleman]

Games are significantly more expensive to produce than ever, bigger and longer than ever, yet cost the least they ever have. Many industry leaders have explained how microtransactions and DLC and season passes are the only way that they keep afloat. I don't understand why so many folks don't understand that the money has to come from somewhere, and microtransactions are, for the vast majority of people, a better solution than charging everyone $100+ for games.

[Zero109]

@Genuine-User

Play one match where the entire team has "Agility" or "Bomb Expert" (+ Covert Training or Crafter 2/3 or Explosion Expert).

Watch as the entire team gets to the 2nd tool box waaay before you do or get to your side of the map and wait at a corner.

Watch as the team "constantly" throws smoke bomb after smoke bomb. You won't see it coming as they'll already be there nor will you have time to react since the explosion is almost instant (and they aren't affected by it).

Or if a team consist of Tact shotguns (2 hit down) with crossbows (2x zoom + bleeding damage + instant headshot down) and grenade launchers (2 hit down and wide area effect). With the aforementioned perks above.

"Paid weapons might be slightly strong (I haven't noticed) but we both know that isn't necessarily what one needs to win a round of TLoU."

I've won games that consist of these match ups. No one is saying they are needed (as many still use the base weapons/perks and win). But you'd have to be blind not see how much stronger the paid weapons/perks are. They offer far too many advantages and you can't even obtain them unless you spend real money. They break the balance of the game. That's the problem. Me and my friends are pretty skilled (all with K/Ds higher than 1.6) but that doesn't dismiss the unfairness paid perks/weapons give to players.

[freshslicepizza]

@xHeavYx,
"Hence the FORMER part of the title. Funny that he went to Infinity Ward, that's where he probably got all these crazy ideas."

yet he is talking about the game last of us, did you not read the article?

he said this,
"A clear-cut example of that is the burst rifle in The Last of Us. A lot of people thought 'Why are they charging for guns?'We did the research and noticed that a lot of players were having trouble jumping into the game for the first time, so we wanted to give people a weapon that was easily accessible and would give them a bit of a leg-up. There were other weapons if they were a more experienced player that they could buy – it's up to them. If you're already kicking ass, you probably don't need these, but if you want 'em, have 'em."

this is essentially making the game easier for those who do not want to put the time into the game. this is what i would call pay to win. any time you have microtransactions in multiplayer games you are asking for trouble because it divides the community. it is not fair to those who play for experience only to have some noobie come in and be just as good if not better because they paid for a more powerful or easier weapon.

[styferion]

"This article previously stated that Eric Monacelli is community strategist at Naughty Dog. He has since moved to Infinity Ward as director of communications."

Sooo... yeah.
He's not even part of development team, more like marketing?

[Christopher]

I'm fine for paying for DLC, I'm not fine for items being put behind paywalls that give people a "leg up" in competitive gameplay.

[Gazondaily]

Yeah definitely agree. That is a no-no.

Also, can I request that the headline be changed to read Former-ND dev? I know the actual article doesn't do it but its still a bit misleading.

[Christopher]

@Septic: According to his LinkedIn, he's still working for Naughty Dog. Only reason I haven't changed it.

Edit: Looks like he clarified.

[Dee_Blessed]

@christopher

There's no "leg up"advantage in any of naughty dogs multiplayers don't let these trolls and hatewagon dudes fool you. Tlou has micros. But the weapons that you can pay for they also have them for free in the form of premade loadouts.

But for the games that do do the "leg up"micros....yea that's poison to the gaming industry.

[Christopher]

@Dee_Blessed: My comment was made with no ties to any game, only ties to what the person being quoted said specifically.

[Zero109]

@Dee_Blessed

Premade loadouts are not the same as custom made ones.

No premade loadout consist of a crossbow, agility, covert training and bomb expert. Or a grenade launcher, 2nd chance, damage marker and tact shotgun. And so on.

The leg up is when you combine the paid perks/weapons in way that gives you a (big) advantage over base players. It's even worse when an entire party has paid weapons/perks.

[Malice-Flare]

wait a sec...

"Former community strategist Eric Monacelli?"

he doesn't work for ND anymore...

and, they're pinning the quote to ND? misleading...

[ABizzel1]

Well it's time to serve a Naughty Dog dev.....Correction he isn't part of Naughty Dog anymore he's part of Infinity Ward.....figures.

People have no problem paying money for GOOD, REASONABLY PRICED, DLC.

But if you try to sell me BS, and bust my wallet at the same time, then by all means FU and your DLC. You're a con man, trying to pull one over on me, when there are plenty of other games that offer similar content for less, or more content without any of the BS.

And that's simply how it should be. You provide a full price game that's fun, enjoyable, has plenty of content. Then a few months later you drop an expansion that adds more to the game for $10 - $20, then we're good.

You sell a $60 with a 4 - 6 hour campaign (that's if it has one), and a few online modes / maps, then want to charge me $40 - $60 to add more maps, then FU, I'll spend my money elsewhere.

Yes developers should be paid for their hard work, I completely agree with that. But you developer also need to know that the consumer is the one who decides if your work is worth our $60, and if I feel it's half a$$ed, then no money is coming out of these pockets. So my message to these developers is make a full featured game that people will enjoy, and then we'll buy your DLC / expansions / etc... if it's a good value.

You can't expect us to jump for joy at an expansion that cost the price of a new game, when all the foundation work for the game is already done in the retail release, and you only add a few extra maps for multiplayer and 2 hours more content. FU.

@Septic

I know I just looked it up, when it said Former Naughty Dog Community Strategist, that is a flame title if I've ever seen one, and it needs to be changed at once.

[Gazondaily]

Actually, he isn't even part of ND anymore. He has joined Infinity Ward where he will find that he will enjoy a beautiful career with like minded people.

NOnetheless, the problems with UC3's season pass and TLOU still remain but still...it sucks.

Hopefully he doesn't reflect the current ND's view on this.

[ABizzel1]

Now for the developers ignorant messy comments.

"A clear-cut example of that is the burst rifle in The Last of Us. A lot of people thought 'Why are they charging for guns?' We did the research and noticed that a lot of players were having trouble jumping into the game for the first time, so we wanted to give people a weapon that was easily accessible and would give them a bit of a leg-up. There were other weapons if they were a more experienced player that they could buy – it's up to them. If you're already kicking ass, you probably don't need these, but if you want 'em, have 'em. It's just a matter of personal preference.

WTF kind of logic does that make, and how on earth do you think a consumer feels about this BS. Player 1 doesn't have the skill to beat player 2. ND allows player 1 to buy a gun to make it easier for him to compete with player 2. Player 2 buy the same gun and stomps player 1 again.

So what did you accomplish with this BS ignorant research, besides finding a way to give mediocre gamers hope, knowing good and well the more skilled players were going to buy the DLC as well. All you did was find a way to give false hope and sell DLC.

“There are hot debates around this all the time in the office, because everybody's got their own opinion. For me, the more thought that's put into DLC, the more you should be able to charge for it, because it's one of those things where you're creating another game unto itself – The Last of Us: Left Behind was another game. It's essentially the second Last of Us game, right?

This is the dumbest $#!t I've seen in a while from a developer. No, Left Behind wasn't another game it was an expansion of The Last of Us. You used the same tools, the same engine, the same materials, many of the same voice actors, character models, lighting, EVERYTHING from the 12 hour main game, and made a 2 hour expansion.

WTF is going on in your mind that makes you think it's okay to consider this "essentially the second Last of Us game, or worse it should be a full price or close to it, which I completely hope you're not alluding to. It sold for $15, and was eventually sold for $10 as a stand-alone experience, because that's what it was worth.

Edit:

Upon further investigation, he is no longer at Naughty Dog he is a former employee.

He now works at Infinity Ward (which the article fails to say, why even mention ND when he's not currently working there).....and makes so much more sense now.

This is the BS I'm talking about, and the future of gaming I don't want to see. Greedy @$$ developers trying to find every way they can to nickel and dime the consumer so they can get a bonus. No B!^@# ask your boss for a raise, and quit spending hundreds of millions on marketing and make good games.

[Thunder_G0d_Bane]

That sad part is somehow the Sony fanboys will still defend Naughty Dog on this one.

I'm ok with microtransactions when they're not pay to win an simply cosmetic. But if you're selling weapons or armor and the likes then you've gone too far.

[ABizzel1]

He doesn't work for them anymore, he works at Infinity Ward. The website is doing this solely for hits.

[Spotie]

The REAL sad part is how eager you and others are to rip Naughty Dog for this when the guy who said it was never a developer on the team, and isn't even WITH ND anymore.

[styferion]

The real sad part is when you fail to read the article and to realize he currently works at Infinity Ward NOT Naughty Dog, even when he's in Naughty Dog he's nowhere near any position to represent ND views at all.

How's that feel?

[gangsta_red]

Whether he's at ND or not it's pretty apparent that this will be a standard practice from most devs moving forward.

And didn't TLoU have microtransactions? Was this person there when that game came out? Could it be a possibility that he is speaking just on experience alone no matter where he currently works?

[Gamer4life13]

And you see xbots defend 343I with the microtraction for halo 5. Stop acting like xbots don't do same thing.

[IGiveHugs2NakedWomen]

The guy doesn't even work for Naughty Dog so why is Naughty Dog attached to this story?

Clickbait?

[badz149]

Ehh...recently 343i and T10 are getting the flaks by putting MT in their games...let's involve Sony's dev too even if it's misleading! Can't put all the blame on MS alone!

[freshslicepizza]

he used to work for naughty dog and he also talked about microtransaction content for the last of us that was sold. so why not counter his argument about the burst rifle available for the last of us multiplayer and tell us what you think about that?

[Takwin]

Microtransactions for 100% cosmetic items is totally fine by me, whatever the price.

Game modes and maps are different, and there better be serious value. Battlefront seemed to really screw this up. It is a $110 game, and even then, it feels empty and incomplete.

[Picnic]

If you like / are comfortable enough with something in any situation you'll pay for extras if you want them. If a game is just a generic one to you that you got for cheap just to see what it's like, you might not buy extras.

Life itself does not come with fixed content. In an internet age, nor do games. There's what's on a disc and what's not.

Because some people borrow games or buy second hand, studios potentially lose a lot of revenue compared to if everyone had to buy brand new. Even brand new several months later at a reduced price would be better for them. In consumables you can't eat a whole cake, magically regurgitate the same cake in its original form and then your friend eat the same whole cake. With second hand game usage fees (a perfectly understandable policy to allow on just 1 login) being howled down, studios have less reason to enable some people to play and use every last bit of later content for free when they already played the main game for free too as far as a studio's bank balance is concerned. And it's not like ND don't give gameplay enhancing patches for free. You just have to remember that life doesn't owe you the right to every shirt accessory in a clothes shop just because you bought a shirt.

[EnigmaSG1]

Such a clickbait article using Naughty Dog at the expense to garner clicks.

It should have read, "Infinity Ward as Director of Communications", but that does not create as much buzz to trend now does it?

Sleazy tactic is sleazy.

[Gamist2dot0]

Before reading the article, I read your comment first and thought, "yeah, i hate microtransactions and disliked the quote 'It's work, and you should pay for good work' which I thought was towards advanced weapons for PvP.
But after reading the article, yeah I think it's click bait, that quote refers to Left Behind for TLOU which many people enjoyed and that is good work. Hell, I would pay another $20 for another DLC about Tommys journey to the power plant.

[spicelicka]

Seriously how to people conjure up the balls to justify this? For developers it's to be expected, since they'll make money.

But goddamn our own fellow gamers defend this crap. Like we're doing YOU a favour by speaking up, it benefits gamers as whole. If the same purchases you're making with microtransactions end up being free it only HELPS you.

Not saying it'll make much of a difference because the companies will make money if there's demand. But the least you could do is remain neutral and not say anything.

[comebackkid9891]

This guy's a moron. Fire him Naughty Dog.

[N4GGuy24]

hmm I wonder how many people will be vocal now when their competitors games get microtransactions but defend their games microtransactions ;)

[Inzo]

Its not ND that said this. However I must say the moment I buy the game I have paid for whatever work was put in. What amazes me though is, we all complain and moan about microtransactions but none of us do anything about it like not buying a game with microtransaction or refusing to pay for anything in the game, we all will still buy the game and we all will still pay-up.

[nitus10]

Oh this comment takes the cake:

"We did the research and noticed that a lot of players were having trouble jumping into the game for the first time, so we wanted to give people a weapon that was easily accessible and would give them a bit of a leg-up."

Great marketing speak.

Now let me translate. "If you suck at the game you can Pay to Win".

[Paytaa]

I don't support microtransactions of any kind be it in Halo (huge Halo fanboy), Uncharted, TLOU, Gears of War, or whatever. It's a stupid practice that happily didn't exist years ago. Games are now stripped of content or have added filler to make the player feel empowered by spending extra dough that used to be something you worked towards or used a simple cheat code.

I have the upmost respect for the work Naughty Dog has done throughout the years and have enjoyed all of their franchises but this is something that's really low even for them. Naughty Dog should be leading by example since they are one of the top "dogs" in the industry.

[Gazondaily]

Tbh, Uncharted's SP has always been the main attraction for me so this doesn't affect me that much but its MP is looking like it could be solid so I hope ND's implementation of MT's isn't too unobtrusive.

[I_am_Batman]

It doesn't affect me either but it sucks for the people affected none the less. And it potentially destroys any fair competition when there are stronger weapons that can only be unlocked by buying them with real money.

I'll buy the game for the single player anyway but statements like these make me less interessted to even try the multiplayer portion of the game at all.

[I_am_Batman]

Agreed. I have no interesst in microtransactions. My problem isn't even that I'm not willing to spend more than 60 bucks on a game. In some cases I'd happily pay more than that just don't sell the game to me in pieces.

If a developer is putting in extra work after the game is finished I have no problem with them releasing it as an expansion but if they're locking out content that is already in the game that's just a cheap trick to ask for a higher price for the full product without the consumer realising it right away.

[Rachel_Alucard]

I agree, the problem however lies in the fact that the stupid people heavily outnumber the perceptive people when it comes to MTs. For every person that decides not to buy a another gun camo you can be sure 3 more impulse spenders will take his place. I imagine this trend will eventually die out once game prices go up in the next gen (which is inevitable anyway)

[MilkMan]

cant support micro-t.
but you can thank mobile gaming for that. all these devs and all these publishers want those shinny coins.
So Naughty D caught the bug...but devs like CD P just handing out dlc for free...hmmm.

[Perjoss]

Its incredibly sad that even a studio like ND is engaging in this bs.

[LostDjinn]

Agreed. Sad $#!+ indeed. MT's in a full priced game is an example of pure greed. Nothing more. Demanding to be paid twice for something is BS.

[Majin-vegeta]

Except it's an Ex ND dev.he now works at Activision.

[Perjoss]

I guess the headline is kind of wrong then.

[ABeastNamedTariq]

UC4 still has MT, if I recall correctly

[Rookie_Monster]

Well he was talking about MT on Uncharted 4 with his time when he was part of the team at ND. So unless ND decides to do a U turn and eliminate MT, then his comment is still relavent.

[DLConspiracy]

I'm fairly sure there is still going to be microtransactions. Not sure they are going to suddendly change now that this particular guy is gone. Would certainly be nice but I have a feeling these are still in the game.

[Slevon]

TLOU has a huge amount of micro transactions, I agree it sucks but this is not the first time

[ginsunuva]

ND is leterally le Hitler now.

All hail CDJ Project Rekt.

[SpringHeeledJack]

Stop trolling, this isn't ND, he doesn't work for ND he works for infinity ward. So actually it's infinity ward who are saying this.

[Perjoss]

Headline was changed after I made my comment, It literally said that someone at ND was big on micro transactions. Too late to edit my comment now.

[Sharingan_no_Kakashi]

I don't like it but if it weren't for them then they wouldn't have been able to keep games at 60 dollars this gen.

I'm pretty much fed up with triple A game development though. It's just been nothing but let downs. The most fun I've had has been with remasters and indie games, and most of what I'm looking forward to is remasters and indie games.

[Concertoine]

I dont accept this excuse either.

There are plenty of games that dont need MT's to profit. I dont think its a necessary evil at all, i think its just easy money since there'll always be dumbasses to buy them. I mean this is a big name, Uncharted, it'll make money without MT's for sure.

And if the games are so bloated and expensive that you need MT's to profit, developers are doing something wrong.

[Why o why]

yes and no....development probably costs more this gen than last but I feel mts that cant be acquired for free is the wrong way of increasing revenue

Im glad the consensus is mts are crappy

Im proud of my fellow gamers here

[Sharingan_no_Kakashi]

It's just the natural effect of advancing technology. More powerful consoles means more detail you can add in a world. Adding more detail takes more time, and time, as we all know, is money. That plus inflation... They gotta recoup the costs somehow. Games are just becoming more and more expensive to develop.

Programmers make an average of 160 thousand dollars a year and artists make about 150 thousand. With a team of 150 people just doing development, plus your publisher fees, advertising (demoing the game at venues and commercials and such) It's easy to see why it costs tens of millions of dollars to make games. And even if they sell 2-3 million they might not even break even. The Tomb Raider reboot proved that.

Look at all the big devs going out of business and rebooting themselves as indie devs. The Darksiders devs are now making and indie game. A pretty fun looking one at that.

[Concertoine]

@why o why

I read somewhere that development costs between the ps3 and ps4 were damn near the same. Granted this is more the cell's fault than anything, but still worth noting.

@Sharingan

I know the factors here and I understand your reasoning. All im saying is i think it is more than possible to make a good looking AAA game without MT's. Look at Nintendo for example. The rabbit hole of realism is killing developers, as they often lose sight of the creative vision when they realize they're going to have to pay these hundreds of guys bumpmapping the pavement to make it look as real as possible.

[Thunder_G0d_Bane]

'I don't like it but if it weren't for them then they wouldn't have been able to keep games at 60 dollars this gen'

Dude dafuq are you talking about? Naughty Dog ain't done nothing to save games being at 60 dollars they would have been the same price with or without ND. You are way too far up their butt matey.

Rockstar are far better devs then ND. Red dead an gta alone kill all ND games. What would you rather be stuck on an island playing? Closed linear uncharted/last of us Or Open world GTA and Red Dead Redemption hmmm easy pick for me ☺️

[Sharingan_no_Kakashi]

I wasn't talking about Naughty Dog specifically but game developers in general.

But since you asked, I'd take Jak and Daxter series over GTA and Red Dead any day... Not a fan of racy or gorey content.

I'd say that Naughty Dog and Rockstar are tied for best devs in the industry. They are both the absolute best at what they do. ND has great graphics, story telling, animations and gameplay. Rockstar are the most ambitious devs out there and create the most lively worlds.

[BlackTar187]

LOL Thunder calm down it's obvious you have an agenda.

[PhucSeeker]

Yeah, just make a new official price for god's sake. I'm Ok with a full 80$ game + 20$ season pass, and that should be it, no microstransaction.

[Sharingan_no_Kakashi]

But a lot of people wouldn't pay 80 dollars just for a game plus 20 for a season pass. At least with micro transactions you get the option of paying for the content if you want it or not.

[BlackTar187]

people tend to forget that SNES games cost $60 20yrs ago. The gaming community is not willing to budge in price on games.

[Nyxus]

The problem is that people pay for them. If that wasn't the case, they wouldn't even exist.

[Gatsu]

That's so true Nyx.

[PR_FROM_OHIO]

I'm afraid SONY is forcing this BS on Naughty Dog! ND knows better but there owned and controlled by SONY which sucks smh But to be fair this opinion is just of 1 person's from ND not the entire team but of course the headline won't say lol

[TwoForce]

Even this guy is former ND, He's not working with them. But it's still BS thing he said that.

[ChronicPsycho]

Sorry ND but you are talking bollocks here. Shame on you.
My respect for CD project Red has increased even more.

[ABizzel1]

He's not even a Naughty Dog employee anymore, the title of this article is complete BS. He works for Infinity Ward now.

[mike32UK]

Is the £50 we pay for the game not enough already?! Jeeez

[Picnic]

Problem is, some people pay zero to borrow the game or pay to buy 2nd hand which Naughty Dog gets none of. It'd be good if your console gave you free downloadable content if you were the 1st person to have registered that disc to any console.

[mike32UK]

Hmm I didn't think of it like that, that's a very fair point.

[nitus10]

Why is that a problem?

I suppose we could go the way Microsoft proposed where you require "always or nearly always on" and the end of second hand games.

Yes we all know how that panned out.

Basically if a game is good then people buy it and if it isn't then people don't buy it.

[BlackTar187]

people also forget that games cost $50 and $60 to buy 20yrs ago yet the price is still very much the same yet the budget and scope of these games is like 1000000x times what it used to be.

The only thing offsetting that is the amount of people who play games now. I'm not sure the amount of users off set the inflation of the dollar since SNES or ever ps1 for that matter. Even movies are like $60 to go see with you wife now and that's 2 hrs worth of enjoyment.

[Kyosuke_Sanada]

I thought that was what the 59.99 before tax was for......Ill wait for GOTY edition.

[no_more_heroes]

I guess $59.99 doesn't go as far as it used to...

[Fro_xoxo]

lmao!

all I could do was laugh when I read that headline.

So, buying the game isn't good enough anymore. *sigh*

although it is optional, it can be unfair when you're grinding to get extra gear whilst someone else just buys it. ^^

[FasterThanFTL1]

Naughty Dog are infallible. So they must be right, we are all wrong about micro-transactions in $60 AAA games.

[Lighter9]

"Greed (and fear) is the path to the dark side. Greed leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

[NotAFanboyyy]

I shouldn't have to do anything. I never support microtransactions and won't buy them in UC4 just like I won't touch REQ packs in Halo 5.

[donwel]

You know what Naughty Dog, I agree that we should pay for good work.
Which is why we pay nearly £60 for new games.

[RogueStatus28]

"A lot of people thought 'Why are they charging for guns?' We did the research and noticed that a lot of players were having trouble jumping into the game for the first time, so we wanted to give people a weapon that was easily accessible and would give them a bit of a leg-up."

What ever happened to letting those players get better in skill the more they played?
That's a pretty bad excuse. To succeed later on, you must fail at the start.

[DillyDilly]

Microtransactions confirmed for future Naughty Dog games with Multiplayer. Or what Naughty Dog will do is instead of earning upgrades in Single Player games. You buy them instead of earning them as the game goes on

[M-M]

Business 101. Of course they're not going to come out and straight up say it, but they're doing it solely for the purpose of increasing revenue. Just because Naughty Dog is looked upon as one of the best developers doesn't mean they can just side with this business model and expect everyone to magically change their opinions. It's a horrible business practice for the consumer. Their response on the matter was just a mask to the truth.

[Iceman_Nightmare]

BOYCOTT

[PR_FROM_OHIO]

Won't work sorry ND knows there game will sell millions of copies!! Trust me there not worried about that lol

[JMaine518]

This guy doesn't even work for Naughty Dog anymore. On his quotes, I couldn't disagree more.

[ninsigma]

The guy doesn't work at ND anymore so it's not ND saying this. Just putting that out there.

Having said that, ND MTs are pretty bad. Putting good gear behind pay walls isn't cool one bit. Especially when you've got a fan base that has put a lot of time into your game and then newbies can come along pay some money (probably their parents money) and suddenly have better gear than you. I find MTs and dlc in general to be a double edged sword. I find anything cosmetic or new story missions made after release that are sold as MTs/dlc is perfectly fine. It's a way of extending game play and the devs can get some extra cash from people who want to waste money on useless items. But then you have the pay wall keeping people from advantageous gear which like I said is really not cool. I've never bought a MT gun or armour before and I never will (in fact I've never paid for any MTs full stop). I'm on wasting my money on such things but just because some kids with their parents wallets buy this stuff, I have worse gear than others.

[Chaosdreams]

Cosmetic microtransactions, sure, go ahead.

Microtransactions on weaponry or on items that benefit the one paying and put the one who doesn't pay at a disadvantage, not cool.

His reasoning by the way is incredibly weak. While everything has a value, gamers can smell the bs surrounding content that's factored in or cut out.

"We spent an hour thinking about this gun so like, $3.99, it'll help you out, but you know, it's optional." <- basically sums it up.

[TwoForce]

This is why i hate Microtransaction so much. No matter how good or bad is it. This thing ruin everything. I just don't get it why many developers and publishers defend this thing. Sony and Microsoft should have not follow these routes. I'm just sick of it. Ugh.

[SweatyFlorida]

Well, hopefully that's one of the reasons he's a FORMER strategist...

[BrianOBlivion]

And now he's a PR @sshole.
Disappointing. I expect better from ND.

[Ristul]

I think that's a pretty bad excuse, now I'm nervous for U4.

[Master-H]

The microtransactions in The Last Of Us mp are annoying as shit. If this guy came up with this "strategy" he should be fired.

[vanity29]

*FORMER ND employee.

[Wallstreet37]

First of all lets put things in perspective!

1) I am a big Sony and ND fan but micro transactions and post launch DLC (yes im lumping them together) shouldn't be excused using the narrative "you should be paying for good work" that is plain dumb! We already pay 60 "for good work" and games this day and age even make more money then movies. The reason i lump DLC in their is because in many circumstances it has been found out that alot of DLC was in game content just cut out at launch to later be sold as DLC. Now if DLC is indeed an after thought and the base game isnt gimped DLC ends up being beautiful thing.

2) This is a widely used practice just to increase profit. Trust me the devs nor the publishers really have gamers in mind, they have their bottom line in mind. It use to make me laugh when certain ppl would say "Nintendo would never do this" fast forward and their in the game too and even going beyond that with Amiibos locking certain content out.

3) For the majority of the micro transactions decisions to have it at all is the decision of the Publisher, not the developer. The developer is working for the Publisher so you should point the finer not at ND but at Sony! But if you point at them you would have to point a finger at every publisher because they all push for it. True not all games have it but it all depends on Publisher and what they want.

By the way &uck Micro transactions!

[jon_snow]

Headline is totally wrong. He said we should pay for good work done in single player DLC. Comment on single player DLC is mixed with mc to create sentimentalization. Read before complaining people.

[Articuno76]

This is the first I've heard of story-related DLC. And honestly that's the only kind I care about as I don't play multiplayer. Give us a sizeable chunk of quality game for a fair price and people will happily pay for it (which is basically what he's saying).

[bleedsoe9mm]

thats a really bad pr comment from a great dev , if a ms studio they'd be getting killed for arrogance .

[Chivas11]

But he doesn't work at ND anymore

[butchertroll]

For good game - yes! Microtransaction - i won't spend a penny.

Anyway, pretty misleading headline! Should be FORMER Naughty Dog developer.

[Tex117]

Yeah, when it comes to a pvp type thing, microtransactions are pretty bad.

When it comes to single player...meh...if you want the gun, then buy it...but if the game is perfectly playable without it, then it doesn't matter.

[FaintlyThere]

I miss the day where games were made to enjoy the game. now it's all industrialized. Companies are trying to justified why they paid a million dollars for a soundtrack composer that most people just listen to music or chat over. Better yet releasing a game and then releasing DLC for the game on the same day.

I mean more companies should follow nintendos trend. Make a simple game and overload the market with that game's main character (Mario & Pikachu) instead of charging us to by skin packs, gun packs, levels, etc. Like fuck that, I paid $25 dollars when Minecraft was in Beta mode and haven't paid a dime since and you know what? The game is as enjoyable then as it is now and Minecraft is making bank.

Quit being greedy game companies

[Tzuno]

'You should pay for good work' they know that Sony fans love ND so they acted as it should :), smart,smart,smart.

[BlackPhillip666]

I still remember a time when the millions raked in off game sales was enough for developers and the extras that came next was a thankyou to the community for the support giving in buying there product. Issue is along the way we all became blind. In certain cases like naughty dog yeah the quality did not drop but asking us for money that t one time back in the day when all this began on PC that was completely free is a joke imo.

[Enigma_2099]

Funny, I thought that was what people were doing when they paid $60 for your f***in' game!!!!

Yet another publisher that I somewhat respected putting their foot in their mouth.

[Chivas11]

The guy doesn't work at ND anymore, he now works at Activision

[NotanotherReboot]

RIP the good Naughty Dog. I guess 343 are the new king...

[Angerfist]

So this is like the Batman Games now. With them I also boycotted the regular Release and waited for a GOTY Edition cause who knows what will be missing from the game. And like Batman, they probably will sell that DLC a month later. If its like a 5 hour Expansion 6 months later there would be no bitching but im sure they will Follow the Arkham Route.

[ChuckTheIceMan]

Why not make "Good Work" built into the initial game, I'll pay for it and then you can start working on your next game?

*edit: Oh right because there are no new ideas and you would rather try to milk every last penny out of gamers and then release a game of the year edition, and then a remastered edition. Then the remastered complete collection edition. Companies like this make me sick!!!! I'm glad I've never purchased a naughty dog game brand new, nor will I ever now!

[SynestheticRoar]

Microtransactions suck regardless who makes them. Naughty Dog included.

[Kalebninja]

If they suck why are people buying them?

[alti]

charging for a gun you don't need isn't the end of the world lol.

And offering DLC in the form of a new story that is totally independent of the main narrative is also something that is welcomed as DLC.

What should never be DLC is content that cripples other gamers competitively, or exists only to shroud special items. I did not read any of that here, and, even if I did, this guy has no place speaking on behalf of ND.

[isarai]

Sure, so long as your microtransactions stay within the realm of cosmetics, but you start putting weapons and other gameplay items behind a paywall and It's just greedy and unacceptable no matter how good the game is and actually makes me not buy anything additional for the game

[Aloy-Boyfriend]

"FORMER" Naughty Dog employee.

Haters gotta skip the first word to bash one of the best devs in gaming

[Artemidorus]

You get paid the moment I pay full retail on a disc, anything else is a bonus with the player choosing if they want more or not.

Who the hell do these people think they are? I am the consumer with a choice not a slave with no choices.

[Orionsangel]

Good work? Too bad 80% of DLC sucks! Not to mention how many games are released these days with glitches and poor performance all around. Requiring months even year of patches. Good work my ass!

[Kalebninja]

Put your money where your mouth is. Go to school, create a team, and make a game remotely on The scale of what these guys make and then let's see if you do a better job.

[Orionsangel]

Boo freakity hoo! They exist because of us. We make and break them. We expect quality for the amount of money they're charging us. Imagine buying something and it works right. What a concept! But hey it's hard work. WAAAH! Now stop defending corporations like a sucker!

[Flashback001]

Pay for good work? What a joke...

[kenshiro100]

Gotta love journalism.

Twist the words to make it sound like ND said this.

Good job./s

[ASBO-5]

If you played TLOU for the MP, you played it wrong.

[Kalebninja]

Yup

[EnigmaSG1]

Such a clickbait article using Naughty Dog at the expense to garner clicks.

It should have read, "Infinity Ward as Director of Communications", but that does not create as much buzz to trend now does it?

Sleazy tactic.

[Rhezin]

right? pretty pathetic...

[alabtrosMyster]

The stuff I would not mind being normal for single player games are extra "levels" or chapters like what ND did for the Last of Us or the Infamous:Firt Light add on for Second Son, amazing add on content and I was happy to be able to play it, The same could probably be said of BloodBorne Old Hunters.. etc.

I find what seems to go in the Multi-Player games shameful nickel and dimming and it breaks the level playing ground, it's almost like some hockey goalies would be able to wear bigger paddings on their front legs and have bigger sticks after they reach a certain number of ice time play? or again some cyclists be allowed to add small motors to their bikes in the olympics if they practiced enough :-/ it would mean you have players on the same play field playing by different rules, it legalizes cheating in a way... it's sad, but I am not the one playing these games, so this is not my battle.

[Nucler100]

This guy isn't affiliated with Naughty Dog anymore. It literally says that right in front of your eyes. How are some of you all not seeing that. No offense.

[yomfweeee]

Ya what a click bait title. Original author puts a small blip at the bottom of his article "Edit: This article previously stated that Eric Monacelli is community strategist at Naughty Dog. He has since moved to Infinity Ward as director of communications."

But they still haven't corrected the title or the part about Naughty Dog.

[NeoGamer232]

This just speaks to the state of gaming in general.

It used to be that I would buy a $50-60 and it was complete. Didn't feel obligated to spend a cent more ever.

But, then rentals, used game sales, and pirating became more popular then buying a game new. So, publishers sat down and came up with ways to make additional money from games to cover the rental, used game, and pirating market.

Well, gamers keep it up. Pretty soon every game will be free, and you will have to pay in game to get anything and everything.

[linkenski]

Why are the people who make games like that so many times?

[kotaku77]

Guys I'm tired of being treated like as****. We pay 60 bucks for an incomplete game; then they sell you another $60 on DLC and they also want Micro-transactions?
Look at halo, forza, is that the future of gaming?

No way. I'm going Indie. I freaking hate this corporate greedy talk.

[hiredhelp]

Wow so the guy moved to nfinity ward part of activision maybe money had gone to his head.
Future Gaming gowning down hill fast, anyone noticed price hikes season passes too we be paying for 2 games soon.

[retrogamer09]

Or maybe he sees how much games cost and knows that having microtransactions actually help the industry rather than hurt it. I remember when " gamers" were afraid that games might be 70 or 80 bucks this gen and they almost had heart attacks. Well guess what wait until they start coding these games for 4k capable next gen consoles and game development costs even more.

[retrogamer09]

Games cost more to develop now than they did when games were 150 bucks. People are insanely ignorant to game development. Be thankful that you have DLC and Micros that are optional than games that are 80 to 100 bucks. When next gen consoles come out and they're 4k enabled game development will rise another 10 to 30 million bucks.

[Persistantthug]

I hate Microtransactions.

I've never bought any....not even a piece of story DLC. I hope I never will.

[conanlifts]

Extra weapons, or anything giving another gamer an advantage is a bid no. I also do not understand half the dlc in the last of us. Why do people pay money for hats? Who cares what clothes your character is wearing, it's not adding armour or anything. Personally I have never played a multiplayer game and stopped to think" wow look at that skin". Of course it's my preference.

As for dlc which includes new levels, it depends. The Witcher 3 is a prime example of what I would buy. I might also get the fallout dlc if they add missions. But anything else is usually a no.

Maps in multiplayer are also annoying. Titanfall is a great example. I am am one of those players who enjoyed titanfall, so I bought the dlc. Yet I have barely played the extra maps as no one is ever online at the same time. Seriously I'm the other side of the world and whenever I tried to connect to half the modes or new maps the servers were empty and I never got to try them.

[Ch1d0r1]

There really needs to be an anti-microtransaction movement, we need to realize that these people at IGN, Gamespot, etc, do not work for the us (gamers). They have a job, the have to be nice sometimes to these publishers/developers to get access to review games, and to get previews. When i look for a game to buy i head on over to twitch and check out gameplay, etc. But even those guys now might not care about micro transactions, specially the popular ones. Why well some might get free codes from the publisher, money from donations to help promote their own stream and show more content.

I myself play LoL and that game has micro-transactions if you want to buy a certain hero. But the entire game is free and you can earn those heroes through experience, skins are pay only. Ill never spend a dime on skins.

Micro-transactions... we let it happen, might be already too late. Nothing like the good ol' days were you unlocked all these features though beating the game.

[conanlifts]

I bought gears of war ultimate and got 2 free skins. Didn't want them so i put them on ebay out of curiosity. The 2 free skins sold for almost the same as i paid for the game. I then did the same with halo 5. Now while i like that i made money off skins i also think it's sad for gaming that people are willing to do this.

[Ch1d0r1]

I like how some games do it, they let you earn them through XP or you can pay to unlock them.

[DivineAssault]

He belongs at infinity ward.. Glad he decided to get away from ND before the infection grew too large..

[Azzanation]

Micro transactions confirmed for UC4.

[dennett316]

We do pay for good work....when we buy the game at the price you set it at.
Charging people to skip grinding has nothing to do with good work, it's cashing in on people's impatience. Even worse when you make a game more grindy in order to encourage the purchase...that's not good work, it's making your game worse.
Charging for options that used to be free? That's got little to do with good work, again, that's making your game a lesser value proposition.

You know what good work is? Expansions like Blood Dragon, like Undead Nightmare, like Ballad of Gay Tony. THAT'S good work, and they're worth the money. How about more of that please, devs and publishers? Or is that too much like hard work?

[XVision84]

Why does it say that Naughty Dog has hit out players when it's just a former developer? He doesn't share the same views as the whole company and doesn't even work there anymore.

[captainexplosion]

I don't like microtransactions and I especially hate season passes because it splits up the community. But this is what happens when people refuse to pay more than $60 for a game that costs $100+ million to make. It's stupid that all games cost $60. Games have different values. It's silly that Until Dawn, The Order, and Ryse cost the same as Witcher and Blops 3.

[InTheZoneAC]

so you want N64 pricing where some games were $80, $90 or even more than $100?

lol

Those high budget games, excluding the mega budgeting ones over $200 million, need to sell maybe around 2-3 million across all platforms combined to break even/profit.

The Witcher 3 profited $62.5 million within 6 weeks after it's release...

Skyrim sold over 23 million copies and had a $85 million budget. There is no reason for games to ever go up in price.

[spoonard]

I agree that you should pay for good work. It's additional to the game. And it's optional. You aren't forced to buy it. What if you hired a guy to build an add-on to your house? And after he finished it, awhile later he came back and said that he has a few options available to your add-on that he built. You could choose to have him build onto his previous add-on, but it would cost you labor and probably materials in this specific case, but that doesn't apply to video games. But the point is that you are not entitled to additional content just because you bought the game.

[keychanime]

I can't stand articles like these because not only did they make gamers and haters think poorly of ND, the misinformation is now out there and people will spread it like wildfire. The author/submitter has already done its harm even though they "edited" the article.

[bacrec1]

I did the first time!

[forgetmenot]

I really hope gamers will wake up before its to late its us the (gamers) vs (suits)
Who needs pr when you guys will depend practices that shouldn't exist in the first place

[AlexAdelaide]

A few thoughts - firstly I don't agree with DLC. I firmly believe that the game company should make their money from the game purchase, and if they need to charge more for content to cover costs - then it shouldn't be in the game in the first place. Making person X's game different to person Y's just because one of the two paid for extra content just ruins the balance that was designed into the game.

Secondly - when I was 11 Mortal Kombat 3 came out on SNES. I paid $133 AUD for that game 20 years ago. The equivalent money today for a game would be about $300 (AUD, sorry Americans) so the games we buy today really are bargains compared to what we used to get. And the fact that games take way longer to develop now due to higher resolutions and higher demands from gamers means I can see why profits for games might be narrower than they used to be - so the argument that game makers should get paid for their work is completely understandable.

The solution as far as I can see, is to charge different prices for different games. A crap game with a 5 hour campaign that has been mostly copied from last year's game (COD anyone??) should cost nowhere near as much as a game with a newly developed bespoke engine. I would happily pay $500 for a pokemon game because I know I am going to get the value out of it over time, but having all games cost between $50-$80 doesn't make much sense when there is such a wide disparity in effort put in by game makers.

Anyway, just my two cents.

[Henry_D]

No surprise dat mostly every studio came up with DLC system, when candy crush gains 3 billon $ per year,that is really annoyng to the game makers

[theshredded]

most overrated developer of all time, there u go!

[InTheZoneAC]

no need to troll

Uncharted and The Last of Us, easily two of the best single player games ever.

Same guys that made Crash and Jak

I don't think anyone agrees with locked dlc, but you have to be ignorant to deny their great games.

[theshredded]

Not trolling they're good but overrated imo, Uncharted 2 was really good and The Last of Us was great however U3 was horrible. If u look at the gameplay from U2 to U3, there;s nothing new except for throwing grenades while rolling and shooting while jumping I think. Now U4, look at the climbing tool, that's obviously ripped out from Tomb Raider. Their gameplay is just generic and not innovative. Played some Jak and it doesn't compare to Ratchet & Clank. I've never played Crash except for one karting game.

[InTheZoneAC]

Anything that was completed before the game hits the streets should be part of the original game. If it missed being on the game before being shipped, it should be a free patch.

We don't get charged extra for game delays, so what's the sense in paying for locked DLC?

DLC shouldn't even have the option of early unlocks, yes that's free money for businesses, but it shouldn't even exist. If you don't have time to play games and unlock everything that just means you'll enjoy and appreciate it more as you play when you finally do unlock these.

I bought battlefront, the regular edition and sometimes I buy the deluxe version of the game that gives you more future content. Well the battlefront's deluxe was literally a bunch of EARLY ACCESS weapons. That's it. Stuff that you can unlock, but pay $10 to have it now? SMDH to anyone that bought this version.

So, I will pay for good work, just not when it should be part of the initial cost. And games that simply focus on DLC more than their actual game will never be bought from me...looking at Evolve...

[GrimDragon]

Bottom line this trend ain't going away might as well accept it. Just get a second job if you can't afford micros and dlc. The aurther makes a good point good stuff ain't ever been free and it shouldn't be. It cost money to make these things. They have families to feed like us. We have steady jobs a steady income. The lives of these devs depend on the success of these games. But even the best games come and go. All it takes is one bad game to close down a developer shop. Let these dudes makes their bones as long as what they offer is good and even optional it's all good.

[InTheZoneAC]

Anything intentionally left out when the game arrives just to sell as paid DLC is a big f you. That applies to locked content within the game, early access, or day 1 dlc they want to charge when it should just be a free patch.

Now, if they want to release campaigns/MP maps/features that add to the game down the road I'm all for paying for it if it's good at a reasonable price. CoD map packs are the definition of overpriced, recycled content from previous games. I know they have zombies now, but before they didn't it was still the same price.

Battlefield season passes are worth it, because the maps are legit, new weapons, items, vehicles, etc...

But don't expect me to pay $5 for a single DLC Car in a racing game or $10 for "early access"...

[GrimDragon]

I totally get what your saying but that's just it this is the new way of extending a games lifespan that's really all it is. Instead of giving you everything in one shot and than you leaving to a new game in a few months they keep you around spending money on it for longer. Is it messed up yeah it is on one hand but I understand why they do this also. It's just business nothing personal. In the end we still have the power to justify if a game is worth it or not and if it's not the devs can just cut their losses which would be much less than giving away all the goodies in one shot. I don't like the practice but I know this won't change ever so I just learn to accept it for the sake of enjoying my favorite past time.