Top
600°

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."

Update:

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

The story is too old to be commented.
Septic1095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

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.

DarkOcelet1095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

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.

Septic1095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

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.

DarkOcelet1095d ago

@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 why1095d ago

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-User1095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

@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?

DarkOcelet1095d ago

@Genuine-User

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

Crimzon1095d ago

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-User1095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

@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?

DarkOcelet1095d ago

@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-User1095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

@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.

Crimzon1095d ago

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.

badz1491095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

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_Blessed1095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

@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_red1095d ago

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.

xHeavYx1095d ago

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 why1095d ago

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

XabiDaChosenOne1095d ago

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

Cogentleman1095d ago

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.

Zero1091095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

@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.

freshslicepizza1095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

@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.

+ Show (16) more repliesLast reply 1095d ago
styferion1095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

"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?

Dark111095d ago ShowReplies(4)
Christopher1095d ago

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.

Septic1095d ago

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.

Christopher1095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

@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_Blessed1095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

@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.

Christopher1095d ago

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

Zero1091095d ago

@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.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1095d ago
Malice-Flare1095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

wait a sec...

"Former community strategist Eric Monacelli?"

he doesn't work for ND anymore...

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

ABizzel11095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

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.

Septic1095d ago

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.

ABizzel11095d ago

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_Bane1095d ago

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.

ABizzel11095d ago

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

Spotie1095d ago

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.

styferion1095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

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_red1095d ago

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?

Gamer4life131095d ago

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

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1095d ago
IGiveHugs2NakedWomen1095d ago

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

Clickbait?

badz1491095d ago

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!

freshslicepizza1095d ago

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?

Takwin1095d ago

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.

Picnic1095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

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.

EnigmaSG11095d ago

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.

Gamist2dot01095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

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.

spicelicka1095d ago

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.

comebackkid98911095d ago

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

N4GGuy241095d ago

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

Inzo1095d ago

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.

nitus101095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

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".

+ Show (14) more repliesLast reply 1095d ago
Paytaa1095d ago

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.

Septic1095d ago

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_Batman1095d ago

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_Batman1095d ago

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_Alucard1095d ago

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)

MilkMan1095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

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.

1095d ago
Perjoss1095d ago

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

LostDjinn1095d ago

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-vegeta1095d ago

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

Perjoss1095d ago

I guess the headline is kind of wrong then.

ABeastNamedTariq1095d ago

UC4 still has MT, if I recall correctly

Rookie_Monster1095d ago

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.

DLConspiracy1095d ago

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.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1095d ago
Slevon1095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

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

ginsunuva1095d ago

ND is leterally le Hitler now.

All hail CDJ Project Rekt.

SpringHeeledJack1095d ago

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.

Perjoss1095d ago

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.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1095d ago
Sharingan_no_Kakashi1095d ago

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.

Concertoine1095d ago (Edited 1095d ago )

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.