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"

Personally, this doesn't bother me, but I will say that if people are going to complain about micro transactions in stuff like MGSV, they should be complaining about this as well.



Around the Network

I don't know why people complain so much about microtransactions or actual P2W games.
It's and industry and not a cake sale. The only reason why these exist is because people buy them. Even the OP weapons are on sale just because there are a few assholes out there that would pay an arm just to have an extra mm on their e-penis. Companies are answering demand, as much as some of us may hate it.



DivinePaladin said:
The comments to this thread pretty much show the big double standard. EA does it, fuck them, but our Lord and savior Naughty Dog (or Nintendo, or whoever it may be) does it? Oh well. This is a company that released a season pass that was supposed to contain all the DLC map content om top of the single player add ons, and we got MORE DLC after the pass ended.

I agree, very much a double standard. And while I think the costumes aren't that bad (a rip off but inconsequential) the fact that they sell guns is very greedy and simply definately borders on 'pay to win'. Especially the tactical shotgun was considered to be overpowered.

Destructoid actually wrote an article on this some time ago http://www.destructoid.com/the-last-of-us-multiplayer-dlc-is-not-okay-290010.phtml



Spending warm summer days indoors   

Writing frightening verse

To a buck-toothed girl in Luxembourg

NES, SNES, N64, GC, Wii, WiiU, GB, GBC, GBA, DS, 3DS, Mega Drive, Game Gear, PS1, PS2, PSP, XBOX 360, Atari Lynx

Oh btw. completely forgot, here's the link to the Gaf thread in case you wanna check that one out:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1106189



I don't mind microtransactions in multiplayer modes as long it's just skins etc which don't affect gameplay like gears of war. Pay to win is garbage.



Around the Network

As long they are just cosmetic, I'm fine with them. The moment it turns to p2w, #fuck(insert company here).



Let's try and keep this thread civil please. If you have an opinion on the topic or the OP's opinion of it, by all means express it, but try to be constructive about how you do so. Any comments past this one that the mod team decides are baiting, flaming, or off-topic will be moderated. Consider this a universal first warning. If you see any posts you think go against this warning, just report them.

Thanks!



..... never mind. It's Naughty Dog



 

 

We reap what we sow

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?


I'm an experienced TLOU online player (level 400). From the new weapons, the best one is the tactical shotgun. It is good for medium range. The DLC purchasable weapons aren't good, mainly because the only 2 purchaseable weapons (purchasable are the ones that you must get with points during the match, not DLC ones) that are worth are the regular shotgun and the military sniper. You could argue that the El Diablo also is a good weapon and that the flamethrower has its uses.

I don't get pissed off with these guns because they simply are on par with all the others. The best gun on the game and the only one that's a bit OP is the hunting rifle, because the heavy aim assist makes it deadly with training. The semi auto is an amazing all arounder and the burst rifle (my choice) is basically unbeatable at close quarters. The bow is a good weapon (range and silent + it has more ammo) and the shorty is good if upgraded to the max. Basically, the other weapons aren't relevant because they are aren't effective.

In TLOU, each weapon costs points in your loadout. So:

- A purchaseable weapon must be invencible in what it does. The crossbow is DLC but it's useless because it is a long range weapon that loses to the MS and even to the hunting rifle. At long range, military sniper always wins. At short range, shotgun always wins. At medium range, specter (DLC) and assault rifle would be good, but they simply use to much ammo.

- A regular weapon must be either (compared with other regular weapons):

--> Best in class: hunting rifle. It has a lot fo ammo and downs with one headshot. Burst rifle. Always wins at close range.

--> All arounder: semi auto. Effective at all ranges. Revolver. This guy is greaty. It packs quite a punch and, if upgraded, can save you when you run out of ammo.

It's funny that people always talk about the DLC guns while most of them are just on par with all the others. The only one that really shines is the Enforce, because it's a great side weapon.

Anyone who think that these guns are better is the same guy that thinks that flamethrower is OP (shotgun + shot his legs and guy is dead). The OP gun is the hunting rifle. If you dominate it, you win. If your team has 3 guys that dominate it, you will almost ALWAYS win. Best guns are the huntung rifle, burst rifle, semi auto, revolver, bow, shorty and Enforcer. Best purchaseable are shotgun, military sniper and flamethrower.



BraLoD said:
Hahaha.
Optional micro-transations in the multplayer mode of a heavily single player acclaimed game should desqualify the game from being able to hit a 95+ score. No matter that it doesn't even affect the actual game or the game actual value and top quality work put on it.

You read such funny things in the internet.


"No matter that it doesn't even affect the actual game or the game actual value"

 

you do understand that "value" is subjective right?

i don't see the value in playing single player over and over like some people, in fact to me its absurd to do so

multiplayer to me gives a game longevity so when multiplayer starts to be compromised because of bullshit it then that drops the value of the game to me