Its different because multiplayer games that sell skins are free to play and selling skins is how they earn money, whereas in this games case i have already paid for the entire game when i purchased it, but no turns out i got to pay more. Its the Ubisofts "turn 60 dollar paying costumer into 200 dollar paying one" strategy.BrotherRool said:
The Last of Us Sells Multiplayer Animations For 99 Cents
- Thread starter Fanghawk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Call me a PC elitist if you want but I mean if we go by the TF2 comparison, you're getting free updates 250 updates later including new weapons, hats, animations and general stuff. Many animations you don't even need to own to do, the conga dance (arguably the most popular) if 1 person has it, the entire team can join in, high five, the dance.Phrozenflame500 said:
Yes many things are for purchase but you can find them as well, I've never bought any gear in the game and I have nearly every weapon (no trades either) and there's some with unique animations.
I'm not saying you're wrong...It's just me personally I hate this cosmetic crap that costs money. Back when we'd get alternate weapon skins for beating the game or putting in a code. Now you get stuff with a code, only if you bought it at a store if you get me.
The Definitive Edition stuff alone just makes blood come out of my eyes. Cool 60 bucks for the PC version with some minor extras...That's ...just stupid.
I know, I know "don't like it, don't support it!" and I don't it bothers me that others do though since it encourages that kinda attitude that it's okay to charge more and more.
Fair enough. I generally hold single-player w/multiplayer games to different standards then fully MP games, so I'm generally ok with things like this but I can see how if you hold them to the same standard they could be seen as excessive.Snotnarok said:
The Definitive Edition is a bit more justifiable to me since the game is console-only and was clearly held back by last-gen hardware. That being said, buying it again for $60 seems kinda dumb and it's probably more for people who didn't catch the game when it came out.
Hatred of DLC like this aside, The Last of Us has a meaningful multiplayer?! I thought that was just a garbage throw away feature that no one would ever use.
I think this is a terrible thing to sell, selling animations, I mean come on!
But not unsurprising these days. Sony wanted to milk Last of Us all they could and I guess this a less offensive way to do it.
But not unsurprising these days. Sony wanted to milk Last of Us all they could and I guess this a less offensive way to do it.
No it's already standard for normal multiplayers to sell skins. Uncharted 2 and 3 did it, as did most recent shooters with additional multiplayer. I'm pretty sure the Tomb Raider multiplayer sold skinsStrazdas said:
I'm honestly not sure how to feel about this. While I'm less than fond of the current DLC treatments we get, I don't mind it so much when it is either justifiable large or some petty add-on that doesn't change game play. But this does sound pretty stupid. I get that it takes resources to create these animations, but selling them seems kind of ridiculous.
I generally prefer cosmetic DLC when it's something that doesn't strictly fit into the normal style (ie, re-texturing a gun to be bright green, or adding some kind of logos that don't fit the setting), generally something you would usually expect to be some kind of mod. But selling animations? What next? Are we going to be able to buy improved shaders? Improved textures? Ambient sounds?
Cosmetic DLC is fine by me as long as it doesn't seem like something that should be in the game from the beginning or be patched in later, and this definitely seems like something that shouldn't be sold.
I generally prefer cosmetic DLC when it's something that doesn't strictly fit into the normal style (ie, re-texturing a gun to be bright green, or adding some kind of logos that don't fit the setting), generally something you would usually expect to be some kind of mod. But selling animations? What next? Are we going to be able to buy improved shaders? Improved textures? Ambient sounds?
Cosmetic DLC is fine by me as long as it doesn't seem like something that should be in the game from the beginning or be patched in later, and this definitely seems like something that shouldn't be sold.
seris said:
Why do people always try to frame every argument as hypocritical whining by picking similar examples and assuming that the people who argue against this example absolutely must have taken the opposite stance on prior instances?Absolutionis said:
You've just denied a literal factStrazdas said:
I can pick 20 games that aren't F2P and show you them selling skins as DLC. I bet I could find 10 single-player games that sell skins as DLC.And as people in this thread have already pointed out, they aren't nickel and diming you. This is just content that some artists created well after the game was released that they charge a small amount for if you want to have it.
Thank God. I was worried that they were running out of ways to monetise games.
...and another 30 if I want to build a character I like.
Speak for yourself. I can't wait until it costs 30 dollars for me to build a character.RicoADF said:
...and another 30 if I want to build a character I like.
Please, by all means, do. and dont forget to mention the reception they got when the skins were anounced and compare it to this.BrotherRool said:You've just denied a literal fact
And as people in this thread have already pointed out, they aren't nickel and diming you. This is just content that some artists created well after the game was released that they charge a small amount for if you want to have it.
remmeber the whole Dead Space 3 items selling disaster? yeah, its that kind of thing.
and yes, they are nickel and diming you. content created afterwards is called patching and is suppsed to be free. you do this if you care about your game and want to make it live more than the first month after release. you know, kinda how you get more sales.