Microtransactions added to The Last of Us

[DaveSimmons]

This is apparently more for multiplayer PVP not co-op or the single-player game. It does look like pay 2 win, which is a modern evil for PVP.

I'd be annoyed by single-player DLC that restored story bits they had intentionally left out, but much less for this since I rarely do PVP.

I'm still irked by EA for all the DLC for Mass Effect 1-3, and every time the games go on sale at Origin I look and say no thanks because they have no complete versions. So they get no money from me.

 

[tential]

They exist because it works.

People purchase the things. People spend hundreds if not thousands sometimes on skins. My brother plays League of Legends and has friends that have spend over $1000 on the game.
Microtransaction business model is EXTREMELY successful. Just look at SouthPark's episode on it. It's in use because it works, people will spend 2-3 here and there much more willingly than they'll spend $60 in one go.

Why would they stop doing it if people WANT it?

 

[Spungo]

http://www.naughtydog.com/site/post/the_last_of_us_deadly_new_multiplayer_add_ons/

See what happens when people support this kind of crap?

I don't really see the problem. In the world of PC gaming, these things are called mods and they're created by fans of the game. Since console games don't have fan-made content, it means someone needs to be paid to create these mods. It sucks, but that's the way she goes.

Console gaming has always been like this. Look at Contra and Super C. Super C is just an addon. It's the same engine, mostly the same guns, same monsters. It's just new levels, but the company still wants to get paid full price. PC gaming was like this before the internet. Why was Doom 2 sold as a completely separate game? It's the same game engine, only 1 gun is different, but it has new maps and monsters. It's an expansion pack but it still cost $50 or $60 at the time.

The only valid complaint is when it becomes pay to win in PVP.

 

[TeknoBug]

Why would they stop doing it if people WANT it?

Exploiting addicts isn't the same thing

 

[Subyman]

I call BS.

Last of Us came out. Most people loved it. Nobody complained that it was not a "complete game." Nobody complained that it didn't have enough content to justify it's price.

Over a year later, they add micro-transactions and suddenly it's no longer a "complete game"? Stupid.

You could release a million hour long game with content bursting at its seams and stupid gamers will complain that it's not a "complete game" just because you can buy a different outfit for the main character for $1. Stupid.

Whoa, simmer down. I was talking in general when discussing the issue with him. This is even worse than what I was talking about. Its straight-up, pay to win.

 

[Subyman]

They exist because it works.

People purchase the things. People spend hundreds if not thousands sometimes on skins. My brother plays League of Legends and has friends that have spend over $1000 on the game.
Microtransaction business model is EXTREMELY successful. Just look at SouthPark's episode on it. It's in use because it works, people will spend 2-3 here and there much more willingly than they'll spend $60 in one go.

Why would they stop doing it if people WANT it?

We are arguing toward different points. I'm saying I don't like them and I wish they weren't as prevalent. You are saying its in the business's best interest if people keep buying them. That's irrelevant to me not liking them I'm a player, not a business. I'm not going to stop complaining because they are making money.

Why people get upset is because micro transactions have the potential to completely change how we play and how we pay for our games. Obviously there is going to be push back. You can say that microtransctions are optional, but we are only a breath away from our AAA games having a mobile business model if no one complains.

 

[Bman123]

I play TLOU everyday on ps4, i didn't buy any of that stuff. No need to honestly. If you suck at the game buying a crossbow won't help you any. It still takes two shots to down someone with it and the frontier rifle.

The only people I hear complain about the content are the people getting destroyed online. I'm having no trouble

 

[artemicion]

Whoa, simmer down. I was talking in general when discussing the issue with him. This is even worse than what I was talking about. Its straight-up, pay to win.

And I wasn't disputing anything about pay to win. I was disputing your point about games not being as "complete" as they were back in the day.

Two reasons. First, the "completeness" of a game shouldn't be judged by how much the developer could have put into the game at release, it should be judged by how much content you're getting for the price you pay. Fellowship of the Ring wasn't an "incomplete" movie just because Peter Jackson filmed all three movies at once and had film for all three on hand when Fellowship was released. Nor was it "incomplete" because Peter Jackson had extra film that would later be incorporated into an extended addition if you shelled out extra cash for the DVD release. You paid $8 for a ticket to see Fellowship and you judged the film by its merits, not by how much more stuff could have been included in the package.

Second, the whole "Golden Yester-years of Gaming" argument is flawed perspective through rose colored glasses. There was TONS of crap gaming value being sold back in the day before DLC was even a theoretical possibility. People bought Wing Commander speech packs for $20. TWENTY DOLLARS. Just to replace text with speech. Talk about crap value for expansions.

I mean, good lord, remember Star Wars: Rebel Assault? People thought that game was the bomb back in the day. You could beat Rebel Assault in less than an hour, and it was on-rails with hardly any exploration. "Exploration" in the game was going left at the fork in Beggar's Canyon instead of right., and you ended up at the same place. Candy Crush has more content based on playtime than Rebel Assault. And that's supposedly a more "complete" game than the stuff we're getting, even with DLC, now?

 

[Ichinisan]

I have very little exposure to current-day games, but even I know that, in some games, some they are making parts of the experience unplayable without a one-time-use DLC code. One of the Bagman games did it. Battlefield 3 did it.

That shit's not cool. It's done deliberately to limit the resale value of your game.