It's known as the silent majority.

Seriously? 99% of this stuff has zero effect on gameplay. It's all mostly for show. Naughty Dog only does because a lot of people buy it. Don't blame them because they make such amazing games that are popular.

Yeah, everyone just loves that co-op in 2D platformers (it affects gameplay for the worst btw). Better perks and weapons ruin the online for people who don't want to pay for it. So it's ten times worse. Adding a co-op mode doesn't ruin the experience for other people who don't buy it. But yeah, as far as amiibo unlocked content goes, it's garbage.

Also, at least you get a cool looking figurine for that $15.

Not that I would buy anything SK related mind you.

$7 for a couple of hats is just crazy expensive when I bought the Metroid Prime Trilogy for $10.

Assassin's Creed 2 (or one of its sequels, cannot remember exactly) cut two chapters from the main game and sold them as DLC. So in the main game you go from chapter 11 directly to chapter 14, and can purchase chapters 12 and 13 separately.

Ill agree with the OP in that theres something inherently offensive about the idea of essentially paying for the game twice by getting a season pass and still not receiving the DLC, some of which affects actual gameplay.

I really don't always mind the giant list of dlc. For instance, a couple of my favorite franchises (Europa Universalis and Crusader Kings) release a ton of DLC, which keeps people employed between large projects and can enhance the experience. The difference, of course, is they're almost entirely aesthetics and soundtracks (outside of expansions) and they don't have a "season pass". The expansions, meanwhile, are priced according to how substantial they are, and most of the core changes within them are made available whether they purchase it or not to everyone via patches to allow multiplayer between all players.

I suppose everyone has their own line that dlc should not cross... I don't mind it as, again, it can add a lot for those who want it (I get everything Paradox makes lol) and it does allow otherwise superfluous employees in between major projects to continue to work.

This Naughty Dog example, though, is perhaps the worst I've yet come across. The very idea of the "season pass" offends the hell out of me as I inreasingly find many modern games and shooters are a $100+ investment to play online (looking at you, CoD, Battlefield, and soon to be Battlefront), but that you'd still not get the DLC they release in the meantime? That's absurd.

That's very naughty of Naughty Dog. They should be more than a little bit ashamed about this, it cheapens them considerably, and they are a highly regarded studio. Reading the original post, makes me feel they are overrated. Certainly not Naughty "gods" as some people call them, not with this amount of microtransaction stupidity.

Yea, i bought the season pass for Uncharted 3 and then all of this other stuff showed up after. I think one of the only time i got a season pass and then figured out that it doesn't mean all the digital ad-ons.

I didn't even know about all this lol. I mostly just play the single player in ND games but spend a little time on the MP. As long as the DLC doesn't give anyone an advantage then I'm ok with it.

Capcom did it on a few games last gen too didn't they? That really stoked the controversy.

To be fair, the fans were burned BY ND. As is my understanding, they followed up the season pass right after the PS4 version launched by releasing more premium, non-microtransaction content that WASN'T included in the pass. The only other company that did this was WB/Netherrealm, who are known for being scammy as all hell. Not very good company. 

So on one front maybe they're trying to make sure they gain the trust back from fans they burned.