By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - "Naughty Dog's greed is out of control"

mornelithe on 03 September 2015
fireburn95 said:
Umm... Don't buy from it then.

The games are 100% playable without spending an extra penny. Paid cosmetics are for those who really don't care if they spend a couple of bucks on a hat.

It's not a cash grab if the consumer has the option to buy it. If you think they are unreasonable, don't spend a penny extra.

Exactly.  I don't blame companies for trying to make money, I blame consumers for buying into silly revenue stream ideas.



Around the Network
DerNebel on 03 September 2015

Also to all the people saying that they are doing it because people are willing to pay: Great...so?

It seems that a lot of people here don't play ND games in multiplayer, so you don't seem to be aware of that shit, but to my knowledge especially TLOU later on locked the best weapons behind a paywall. Am I, as an avid ND multiplayer gamer just supposed to sit here and accept that because people are willing to pay? I'm not willing to pay for something like that, so I should just accept being put at a disadvantage for not wanting to shell out more than the already 60€ that I paid initially to get the game? Seriously?



DerNebel on 03 September 2015
Samus Aran said:
DerNebel said:

If that is all you have to add here, then just leave the thread.

The reactions in this thread more than prove my statement.

But hey, enjoy that hat bundle at $7.

Weren't you upset that co-op was locked behind a $15 amiibo in Shovel Knight? I guess pay-to-win online multiplayer is better?

Read my own thoughts on the topic before posting bullshit that tries to portrait my opinion in the complete opposite way of what I presented in this thread.

But if all you wanna do in here is turn this into another console war then try that somewhere else.

Also the purely cosmetic DLC doesn't bug me, if I can completely avoid it without being hindered in gameplay then they can sell whatever the fuck they want as microtransactions for all I care.



Teeqoz on 03 September 2015
pokoko said:

Skins, hats, whatever, I don't give a fig about those.  They can sell those for $10 a piece, for all I care, and more power to the rich kids who can afford them.

 However, if there are skills, weapons, or perks for sale that can only be attained with an extra purchase, and those items are irrefutably superior to anything available in the base game, then I will not be playing your multi-player.


Agreed. Skins etc. I don't give a damn about, but P2W pisses me off.



Guitarguy on 03 September 2015

These trends in gaming(Nintendo, MS and Sony are all guilty of it) are half the reason why I've gone back to retro gaming...



Around the Network
AEGRO on 03 September 2015
Samus Aran said:
It's ok when Naughty Dog does it. UC4 will still get 95%+ on metacritic even though every other developer would get slammed for this.

What score would Super Mario Maker have gotten if it had micro-transactions to purchase additional enemies, power-ups, etc.?


Lower than Devils Third bro!



mornelithe on 03 September 2015
DerNebel said:
Also to all the people saying that they are doing it because people are willing to pay: Great...so?

It seems that a lot of people here don't play ND games in multiplayer, so you don't seem to be aware of that shit, but to my knowledge especially TLOU later on locked the best weapons behind a paywall. Am I, as an avid ND multiplayer gamer just supposed to sit here and accept that because people are willing to pay? I'm not willing to pay for something like that, so I should just accept being put at a disadvantage for not wanting to shell out more than the already 60€ that I paid initially to get the game? Seriously?

Well, it sucks, but, the fact is other people are buying it.  Blaming companies for trying to make money, is a pretty sad way of shirking responsibility.  And yes, you personally may not have bought into it, but many people have.   Consumers are the ONLY stop gap against businesses trying to make money, and Consumers failed this test, miserably.

But yeah, it sucks that it impacts your online experience.  And no, I don't play online on console much.



Conina on 03 September 2015
Samus Aran said:
It's ok when Naughty Dog does it. UC4 will still get 95%+ on metacritic even though every other developer would get slammed for this.

What score would Super Mario Maker have gotten if it had micro-transactions to purchase additional enemies, power-ups, etc.?

The DLC-heavy Fire Emblem: Awakening got a great score:



Samus Aran on 03 September 2015
Conina said:
Samus Aran said:
It's ok when Naughty Dog does it. UC4 will still get 95%+ on metacritic even though every other developer would get slammed for this.

What score would Super Mario Maker have gotten if it had micro-transactions to purchase additional enemies, power-ups, etc.?

The DLC-heavy Fire Emblem: Awakening got a great score:

I agree, it's an overrated game. It's good, but nowhere near 92%.



vivster on 03 September 2015

One might think that's Sony's and not ND's doing.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.