The Last of Us Part 2 multiplayer details have emerged, and if it's anything like the original, gamers have nothing to worry about. The Last of Us handled the multiplayer microtransactions well enough, and was good enough, to get away with it.
Guessing itll just be like U4, where its just gonna be for cosmetics like in U4
LOL you clearly haven't played last of us 1 if you think it's just cosmetics
Thats why he said it would be like U4, foo.
I don't know why your getting downvoted. TLoU1 MP did have MT's that were not just cosmetic. They sold guns and weapons.
@Cornor you know why lol it's a defense mechanism ,
@corn @Move While he’s not wrong about the 1st game, the reason he brought up UC4 MP which obviously came out after TLOUS. People got vocal for the Multiplayer, which played an influence in the MT for Uncharted 4. No doubt they won’t continue the trend, otherwise they have another dead MP killed off by dlc that separates its community
@ Nitrowolf Thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't aware that's what happened for U4 to be cosmetic only. That probably would have gotten his point across much better if he had mentioned any of that in his original comment instead of getting smart with people who were wondering what he meant.
"So What if The Last of Us Part 2 Multiplayer Has Microtransactions?" So what if you just STFU and let them do their thing first?
If rumors are frowned upon here then what about straight "what if" articles? Just throwing it out there.
I agree it wasn't a good system in TLoU, and that Uncharted has always been better balanced. But honestly, it didn't bother me. My loadout only ever included the pistol as my weapon, and I consistenly dominated in that game.
Uncharted 4 had dlc weapons though.
no it doesn't... https://store.playstation.c... EDIT: in case you're wondering, that's the "All DLC" page for U4
Coming from someone who still plays UC4 MP, from Day 1, all of the weapons, DLC guns included, can all be unlocked in-game. No P2W in Uncharted 4 MP.
Honestly it better not have DLC weapons like Tlou1. Because the online was amazing, but the DLC guns completely ruined the balancing, that one shotgun was so ridiculously overpowered. Which was a shame because I think the multiplayer in that game was severely underrated, truly one of the best MP's i've ever played.
Did you not play The Last of Us 1 multiplayer? It had MT's that were certainly not just cosmetic. It had guns also.
yeah, and then people lashed back, and in U4 they didn't do that, so im guessing they learned their lesson, and will be more like U4, like i said in my comment, TWICE
Correct, which was prior to U4. The practice has been trashed.
Wasn't it TLoU that had "quicker"access to an OP weapon via MTX? That's definitely in the realm of P2W, Honestly, if it is not just cosmetics, I'm not for it in game modes that rely on balance.
"Guessing itll just be like U4, where its just gonna be for cosmetics like in U4" Show me where this comment says any of the things you just explained. It doesn't. All this says is that you think it will be like U4 and be cosmetic only. It doesn't say anything about WHY you think that, or that fan backlash caused U4 to be cosmetic only. Does it? I mean it's only one poorly written sentence so I'm pretty sure you didn't mention any of that stuff even ONCE. Much less TWICE. So instead of getting upset with people questioning your comments maybe do a better job of explaining yourself rather than posting some one sentence comment that doesn't explain anything you mean.
who says im upset? im chill as hell, just having a healthy argument here. when i said "TWICE" was referring to the fact that i was talking about/addressing U4, the last game ND made, the one that didn't use MTs in a P2W because they got backlash from dipping into P2W with TLOU. Everyone keeps bringing up TLOU like that's the only and last MP they did. I'm here saying wouldn't the last MP they did be a better indicator of what they'd do now?
https://www.christianpost.c... The official blog post is gone, but here are the major snippets “This means that the Uncharted 4 Multiplayer community won't be fragmented by different types of DLC, and that those who are loyal in participating in the community will be rewarded," Robert Cogburn, lead game designer, said in a post at the PlayStation Blog. And this is the Major Part that indicates it’s a going forward thing "Our DLC release approach will represent an entirely new direction for Naughty Dog, and we are confident it will have a hugely positive impact and keep the Uncharted 4 Multiplayer community thriving." While the post doesn’t directly state it was from the backlash, anyone who’s been rooted from the MP since UC2, knows that UC4, least when it came to their Dlc approach was a major change up as all their previous games required purchases of map packs and such. TLOUS part 1 was just the worse they have ever done. It’s clear they’ve learned and It would be silly of them to do anything else otherwise they sure as heck can expect some backlash. I’m gonna wait before I say it’s only Cosmetics cause you never know, but there’s a good suggestion it will be.
I wouldn't have a problem with the U2 model. Especially since all the DLC maps were free of cost. A great way to not split the player base.
They brought in weapons which made things unbalanced The in game store during a match was awful and totally went against the scavenging/low supply thene of the world they were in
I´ve been telling people that fanboys whose trash talk GaaS on others platforms are in for a surprise with TLOU 2 AND Death Stranding. I can´t wait to see the hypocrites giving ND a free pass.
If it's cosmetic I'll get it, but The Last Of Us post vanilla version added some nasty pay-to-win stuff. Naughty Dog knows better than that though.
Question is, what if ND delay the MP portion of the game and release it later when all the reviews already out like GTAV and RDR2, will reviewers review the game as it is or deduct the points because they will claim it as incomplete?
So What if The Last of Us Part 2 Multiplayer Has Microtransactions? So What if The Last of Us Part 2 Multiplayer... So What if The Last of Us Part 2... So What if... So What **if it's anything like the original, gamers have nothing to worry about.** Why is this a question? Why is this an article?
https://www.destructoid.com... There would be plenty to worry about if they make it Pay To Win like they did in the previous game......
For me, i’m against MT in AAA games even they are Pay To Win or cosmetics. In my previous comments, I did said that Naughty Dog could use UC4 MT style or get rid of it(which I prefer the second option). I haven’t touch Uncharted 4 MP just as Halo 5 MP ever since.
Kribwalker, "The Frontier Rifle sits in between the Semi-Auto Rifle and the Hunting Rifle in terms of damage and fire rate; it takes two shots to down where the Semi-Auto takes three and it has a better fire rate than the Hunting Rifle." And then this was said... "There are benefits to the default weapons. The Hunting Rifle can one-hit a full health enemy with a headshot where the Frontier Rifle cannot. " And THAT is why I'm awesome at The Last of Us' multiplayer without having spent a dime on DLC. I'm pretty efficient with the hunting rifle. I'm fairly convinced that you get some kind of pleasure out of concern trolling. Are microtransactions okay? For multiplayer cosmetics, sure. For people who are eager to expedite their single player progress, fine (e.g., Devil May Cry V). For weapons that grant too many advantages, no. However, I've never felt hopelessly outmatched playing the multiplayer for The Last of Us using base gear. And the last time I played multiplayer was a couple of months ago. Had you played it or had serviceable skills, you might know that there isn't any "disadvantage" (if you want to call it that) that would be considered play-to-win or game-breaking.
I'm not worried about multi-player as I'm only going to be playing single player when the emphasis on the game is SINGLE PLAYER. An article talking about WHAT IFS. Who cares. If the online is like the last game, where's the worry? N4G is turning into ridiculous questions, rumors and opinions instead of news. Gamers should be tired of this nonsense.
Lmao pay to win, the original weapons are still the most powerful if your good at the game.
Because people get butthurt over micro penises... EDIT: Microtransactions
No one's butt is getting hurt over a micro penis
Getteing a little defensive again I see. The first game had it, it's a legit question in a time where so many are so eager to dump on others like EA even when a developer like Bioware comes out and tells everyone it won't have it. Are you seriously trying to imply Sony is untouchable because of how many good things they;ve done?
Might be a legit question, but the purpose of the article is to drive hits based on an unknown. It's drumming up discord before there is any reason to cast judgement on the game itself. Sony isn't untouchable. Everything they do is over-scrutinized by the press when some random twitter person puts a bug in their head about what might be a good story. ND announces a MP mode....not much is said about it, but the first article to have any notice about it is a question discussing if it will be like the last games. Sony's more recent history suggests that the MT may not be as big of a thing. UC4 didn't was cosmetic. GT:S was just to have a way to get cars, or livery, by paying, instead of grinding, but it's not a game that requires excessive grinding to get any one thing. Everything else I can think of off the top of my head is just story based DLC. To answer the question though....so what if it does? TLOU MP was highly praised. The MT got some flack, but ultimately the MP content was still successful. Same will happen again most likely. The Xbox fan boys will try to make it out as the worst thing ever, trying to call hypocrisy because Sony fan boys will probably try to defend it. Sadly, these discussions are so predictable, that the outcome can be known, without even being that observant. The people concerned about it now, are only concerned because they have a history of not talking well about Sony. And the Sony fans don't seem to care at this point. And there is nothing to care about yet, because nothing is known.
@rainslacker "Sony isn't untouchable. Everything they do is over-scrutinized by the press when some random twitter person puts a bug in their head about what might be a good story. ND announces a MP mode....not much is said about it, but the first article to have any notice about it is a question discussing if it will be like the last games." Over-scrutinized? Please. Stop playing victim on behalf of Sony. They lied about microtransactions on Gran Turismo. They ONLY favored Epic (money) regarding crossplay with other consoles over games like Rocket League (more popular) while they were saying that they were only protecting the children. Same BS excuse they gave for their new censorship practices. They skipped both PSX 2018 and E3 2019 leaving the fans wondering why they did it while remaning silent on every single occasion. They will only speak about issues and controversies if gamers and the media drops enough pressure over them, and you know it! Microtransactions on TLOU 2´s MP is a giving! No sure why you think ND will drop it since its present in the original game. Add this fact to Sony´s recent track record regarding Gran Turismo Sport MTs and voilá! I don´t know why fanboys are under the impression that Sony is all about SP Only games with no MP or MTs. But it´s gonna be funny to see all of their hipocrisy exposed after all that crap they said about Anthem, EA and Microsoft. You said yourself that Halo Infinite would be a MP only game based on nothing but your clueless notion regarding Microsoft business. You said Game Pass would be a free to play/GaaS playground based on nothing but your own opinion and here you are telling people how Sony is victim of biased media and clickbait articles. You know what they said: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones at other people's glass houses"
@obscure I can't think of enough games from this gen which had mt to be able to speak about if those are over scrutinized. But practically everything else they've done software wise has been over scrutinized, and even had controversy put to it which usually wasn't true. So, I'm not trying to make.sony out to be a victim, I'm just stating that Sony has a lot of unwarranted negativity thrown their way. Not usually by the press in reviews, but certainly the same people in the community who seem to think the people are being unfair towards MS. I'd say mt are probably a given in tlou2 mp. Never said otherwise. But this article, and some I this thread are over scrutinizing those mt before they even know what they'll be like, and already using the opportunity to call out hypocrisy based on an entirely hypothetical subject for now. I haven't read every comment here, but Sony's focus seems to be sp. I haven't seen anyone say they are sp only though. In fact, when people call them out for not having mp, most are able to list the mp games Sony has. But Sony's main focus isn't on such things. Having it, and focusing on it are two different things. I never said infinite would be only mp. I said I wouldn't be surprised, because the infinite moniker is sometimes used to say the game is unending, which is a tenant of GaaS, which ms was talking up a lot. But once again, good job twisting my words to mean something else. Something you always do. It's sad you even still trym
@rainslacker "But once again, good job twisting my words to mean something else. Something you always do." Nice try with your deflection card. Twisting your words you say, Hu? Let´s see... "I never said infinite would be only mp." Never? Your own words: "I EXPECT this to be MP only, MAYBE with some basic SP campaign thing ala BFV." https://n4g.com/news/217767... There´s an abyss between what would one expect and what wouldn´t one be surprised for. No offence, but, in case you have a faulty memory, i´m not to blame. At least try and be honest with yourself and move on
Microtransactions in paid games are bad. Simple as that
I don't agree. Cosmetic DLC often requires one of two things: playing to unlock or buying outright. Consider the meaning behind both actions: if you play to unlock, you will obviously need to invest time. This is fine and, if a game is fun, you will spend more time playing it and advertise the game to your friends since they can see you playing it (unless you opt to appear offline). That's good. However, if you're paying for cosmetic DLC, ask yourself, how much did you REALLY want that cowboy hat? I see paying for cosmetic DLC as a developer's way of accepting donations. When it comes to weapons that grant profound advantages and disrupt a game's balance, I'm more willing to agree with you. That is problematic, but one solution to this would be compartmentalizing lobbies for people with higher-tier gear, exceptions being when invitations and group voting are involved. Not perfect and far from ideal, but I doubt it's going anywhere.
Agree. Competitive advantages should not be allowed. That affects the game and enjoyment of others. But harmless DLC shouldn't even be an issue. If someone wants to buy a new hat for their online character....who the hell am I to say "no you can't"? In that case, I'm the one affecting the game and enjoyment of others. And fact of the matter is that without MTs, games would not still have a base price of $60. They have been at the same price point for over ten years. So if you want game prices to rise...yeah, rant all you want about MTs.
Razzer, "And fact of the matter is that without MTs, games would not still have a base price of $60. They have been at the same price point for over ten years. So if you want game prices to rise...yeah, rant all you want about MTs." ^^This guy gets it.^^ As unpopular as my opinions can be, I frequently state that development teams are getting larger, games are getting bigger, taking more time, and--as a consequence-- are becoming more expensive to develop. I do not mind microtransactions that are innocuous; help yourself to a hat, skin, pimp cane, color swap, etc. I'm not even entirely against paying for extra weapons--the game just needs to be re-balanced to respond to that. Most fighting games do this, actually: when a new character is available, other characters in the game tend to receive nerfs or buffs to re-calibrate the experience OR the new character is designed to avoid polarizing advantages or disadvantages relative to the existing characters. I think microtransaction DLC just needs a "do no harm" policy integrated so a game's community remains stable. I think it's just easy for people to see the word "microtransactions" and freak out. I think it is quite reasonable to see cosmetic DLC as a "support us" gesture. In very many cases, one can actually get loot boxes without spending actual money and acquire gear. I don't condone the shoddier practices of developers like pay-to-win, locking single player endings behind paywalls (e.g., Prince of Persia 2008), or Street Fighter V's asinine grinding system. There is a right way to approach this, and I don't think The Last of Us has violated that. So far, I would say they operate within acceptable parameters.
Yes it is the games are bigger now argument. It is dumb because you only tell part of the story. The games market is also much bigger so it makes up for more expensive development with the many more game sales.
LamerTamer, Couple of things: First, while it is possible for developers to profit, the past few years should clue you in to the perpetual state of many developers. In some cases, developers are just one flop away from closing their doors. Second, it is grossly disingenuous to say developers can make up for it with more sales. You assume sales will keep pace with market growth. Obviously, that is not something that can be concluded so pointedly. Sure, some games do that like Call of Duty or Rockstar games, but those are exceptions, not the rule.
@LamerTamer You don't account for the entire story either. $60, adjusted for inflation, would be $49 back in 2006 when the last gen started. In reality, the amount we pay for a game has actually decreased since last gen. And saying the market has is bigger doesn't account for the increased competition in the market. People complain about game stores being flooded with games. It isn't so simple as to say the market is bigger.
It is not a good thing, no matter which company made the game. People shouldn’t defend this just because the game is made by their favourite company which could never do wrong in their eyes.
"People shouldn’t defend this just because the game is made by their favourite company which could never do wrong in their eyes." And you shouldn't assume that is the reason people defend MTs. I defended MTs back when Shadow of Mordor was released when folks went nuts about this shit. Has nothing to do about Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo. I want publishers and devs to be free to sell and gamers free to buy.
Is there anything to defend or criticize at this point? This article is a hypothetical. Some people are talking as if it's a forgone conclusion. What the last game had in it wasn't really out of the ordinary for the time. It's not even out of the ordinary now. It's just getting more significant heat over such practices, and the community in general is starting to push back against excessive MT and P2W games, with the least amount of effort put into them to make them into full games to begin with. TLOU had some of the most praised MP game play of last gen. It's MT structure got criticism. What if TLOU2 has MT? I say more is going to be made of it than it needs to be, regardless of what kind of MT they are, they'll be made into the worst thing ever, and accusations of hypocrisy will abound. This thread is already showing it.
It depends if it's cosmetics only and future DLC maps will be free then I have no issues with it. If they have the cheek to put in MT and charge for the DLC maps then ill be buying the game second hand.
exactly. The way it was implemented in Halo 5 is the perfect way to implement it. Cosmetic based MTs that can be bought with easy to earn in game currency or paid for with cash (there was a few special edition armour sets that were pay only) and a tonne of free content. I would take that over paid DLC any day of the week. Once you get in paid for advantages tho i’m not ok with
Halo was not cosmetic though. It had advantages that you could get.
A better example would be Overwatch. Its loot box microtransactions are strictly cosmetic, and obviously don't impact gameplay. It's working well for Blizzard seeing as we get free maps, free characters, and free content via patches.
I'm always opposed to microtransactions, but as long as they draw the line with cosmetics, I can live with it.
@bluefox755 Lol. Whatever you say, dude. GaaS is not a problem when it´s Sony doing it, right?
They locked guns and game play mechanics behind a paywall... on what planet is that handling things well?
What do you mean who? Naughty Dog, the multiplayer of The Last of Us 1 was basically pay to win.
I didn't know that. . . I never played the mp part. Sad times
Couldnt care less as long as the game comes out. Will be the game of the century.
MP is last of my concern about this game. I only care for the gameplay/story and ibknow that's gonna be superb
Paying extra to "even the playing field" should not be excused or diminished. The game was fantastic, yes, but adding that kind of scheme was unnecessary and exploitive by definition. ND is the best in the world, but that crap, and their "online passes" last gen were bad. UC4's MTs were a more reasonable standard, so hopefully the powers that be keep heading in that direction. If the MTs are bad, I'm still 100% certain that TLoU2 will be GOTY worthy though. If the MTs are bad, I'll complain about them, not spend money on them, but still enjoy the game. Same as most games these days. Also, I lol'd at the author's defensiveness. Defending bad MTs doesn't make you a shill. Maybe a bit of a fanboy, and maybe a bit short sighted, but we get it. MTs are in some of the best games out there. Shills and sock puppets will deflect negative news (or positive news from the other camp), question sources, and try to change the subject to one of their choosing. They're a much different problem, but easy enough to identify...
"UC4's MTs were a more reasonable standard, so hopefully the powers that be keep heading in that direction." And that's almost certainly is the direction they'll be heading, there's no reason to think otherwise, U4's cosmetic only MT's were a direct response to TLoU 1's MT's. This is a slow news day article.
No AAA title should have MTs, end of story.
Why? They are optional. Just don't buy them if you don't want them.
Back in the day everything would be unlocked for free just by playing the game. There's a chance that the same can be true for a game with MTs but in those cases devs usually make you grind 100s of hours to unlock everything.
You're showing your age IAR. . . These things were challenges that needed graft to unlock. The weaker ones are getting exploited. Back in the day we would download skin packs for free. . Mods by randoms for free. This is why I miss pc gaming. Personally I don't mind cosmetic stuff as people wanna look