Support NeoGAF

[CHC]

"A clear-cut example of that is the burst rifle in The Last of Us. A lot of people thought 'Why are they charging for guns?' We did the research and noticed that a lot of players were having trouble jumping into the game for the first time, so we wanted to give people a weapon that was easily accessible and would give them a bit of a leg-up. There were other weapons if they were a more experienced player that they could buy – it's up to them. If you're already kicking ass, you probably don't need these, but if you want 'em, have 'em. It's just a matter of personal preference.

That is such a half assed spin job. It's not "a matter of preference" when it's in an online game and it's clearly a better / easier weapon. If it messes with balance its not just preference. A single player thing sure, then what he said applies, but what he's saying is just BS.

 

[Amused]

Well... That escalated quickly.

 

[Warm Machine]

What? Of course not, but do you think the artist gets paid for each DLC item sold? Of course not (or I at least don't think so). They have a salary and whether they get paid for working on the main game, dlc or another game is irrelevant. DLC or no DLC they get paid regardless.

They get paid but that goes into a specific project budget so they can keep track of profit and loss. They don't just spend money willy nilly. Also some projects may do better moving those artists around.

 

[Akhe]

Good work...ok haha

 

[DeepEnigma]

They get paid but that goes into a specific project budget so they can keep track of profit and loss. They don't just spend money willy nilly. Also some projects may do better moving those artists around.

This person knows their shit.

 

[mejin]

lol those first posts

 

[Par Score]

"A clear-cut example of that is the burst rifle in The Last of Us. A lot of people thought 'Why are they charging for guns?' We did the research and noticed that a lot of players were having trouble jumping into the game for the first time, so we wanted to give people a weapon that was easily accessible and would give them a bit of a leg-up. There were other weapons if they were a more experienced player that they could buy – it's up to them. If you're already kicking ass, you probably don't need these, but if you want 'em, have 'em. It's just a matter of personal preference.

So admitting you added Pay To Win weapons to your game is now a defence for DLC/Microtransactions? Isn't this just another example of how the scummiest Free To Play tactics are now starting to infest full priced $60 games?

I can't believe they'd admit to this, never mind try to use it as some sort of mitigation.

And it somehow deserves to be rewarded because it's "Good work". What the actual fuck?

 

[Majukun]

shaddupgimmiemoney.gif

 

[GhostOfSparta305]

Keep disappointing me, GAF.

1. Devs work 2 years on a game.
2. The game gets released and people pay 60$ for it.
3. The devs keep creating content for the game for several months.
4. Lets make them work all those months for free because we already paid the game.

And everything because your entitlement is so strong that you cant conceive a finished game with extra content.

How wrong can be your logic, people? You all talk like if suddently a dev creates content for any finished game, that game would become unfinished until the new content "completes" it.

We could argue whats worth a paid DLC, but hell, how can you be so angry at people wanting money for the work they do?

This thread is really disgusting.

QFFT.

Gabe Newell said it best. Game's aren't "products" anymore. They're services.

People continue working on them long after they ship. God forbid they want to get paid for it.

 

[mcz117chief]

They get paid but that goes into a specific project budget so they can keep track of profit and loss. They don't just spend money willy nilly. Also some projects may do better moving those artists around.

I don't understand what you are trying to say, could you please rephrase it a bit?

And who is this "they" when you say "they don't just spend money willy nilly".

QFFT.

Gabe Newell said it best. Game's aren't "products" anymore. They're services.

People continue working on them long after they ship. God forbid they want to get paid for it.

I don't believe developers are paid for individual DLC articles sold.

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

Most of these responses in this thread are already useless due to their substance but also because they don't even bother to read the op or article.

 

[Arttemis]

This article is fucking confusing. Who ever wrote this is bouncing between or conflating story DLC and multiplayer microtransactions, and they're posting them together in the same article as if they're identical.

Some people think Story DLC is withheld from the game to be sold later. That's one issue.

Multiplayer microtransactions are there for the sole purpose of giving paying players a paid advantage over those who don't or haven't yet unlocked certain upgrades. I fucking hate these.

Opinion: I hate grind-based multiplayer to begin with, as it's intentionally unbalanced. I miss the days of everyone having access to the same options, then you'd play, and that was it. No grinding to unlock some advantage. Pure, even playing field or even access to a balanced selection of options. Counter Strike, Day of Defeat, Halo, Rocket League, the original Call of Duty, RtCW, BF1942, etc, etc. Fuck this Prestige culture and grind bullshit where 99% of everything is initially locked behind higher tiers.

 

[DaSorcerer7]

Their greed knows no bounds...

 

[Alucrid]

Is mcv a good site? Every article I see posted on here is shit

 

[Septic360]

Their greed knows no bounds...

By they I hope you mean the industry because this is almost an industry-wide problem for many AAA devs/titles.

MP microtransactions locking off weapons behind a paywall is absolutely SHITTY.

 

[BriareosGAF]

I don't believe developers are paid for individual DLC articles sold.

Er, why would you think this? Platform holder processes payment, they have an agreement with a publisher and/or developer on the revenue split, in the case of the publisher working with an external developer they will then have an agreement with the developer on how recoup rate and everything else is handled against costs, etc. It is completely normal for a developer to see revenue from DLC. For internal studios it will depend on revenue sharing arrangements at the company ("employees get N% of profit past some M revenue mark, to be divvied up at discretion of studio head" or whatever).

I do not speak for my employer.

 

[Warm Machine]

I don't understand what you are trying to say, could you please rephrase it a bit?

And who is this "they" when you say "they don't just spend money willy nilly".



I don't believe developers are paid for individual DLC articles sold.

Artists and dev staff are added to DLC projects with time and budget allowances. So companies can track expenses per map/per mode/per item etc.

If they just threw time and manpower against a wall they could never track how and when DLC became profitable.

This is even more important when you are a dev working for a publisher so you can see how your expenses stack up against your budget.

Oh, when you do a license deal as DLC it is usually sold or accessed separately so you can track downloads and pay out or get paid proper royalties.

 

[GhostOfSparta305]

MP microtransactions locking off weapons behind a paywall is absolutely SHITTY.

But locking off weapons behind a time-wall is totally fine?

Such logic.

 

[LordBaztion]

So, he's basically saying ND is charging for the noob stick in their MP?

 

[Brashnir]

Opinion: I hate grind-based multiplayer to begin with, as it's intentionally unbalanced. I miss the days of everyone having access to the same options, then you'd play, and that was it. No grinding to unlock some advantage. Pure, even playing field or even access to a balanced selection of options. Counter Strike, Day of Defeat, Halo, Rocket League, the original Call of Duty, RtCW, BF1942, etc, etc. Fuck this Prestige culture and grind bullshit where 99% of everything is initially locked behind higher tiers.

Unfortunately, the gaming public either doesn't realize, or doesn't care that these psychological manipulations hurt games. They just want to feel like they're "getting stuff" when they play. Just look at the reactions to any MP-focused shooter where you don't get enough stuff - people complain that there's no reason to keep playing.

Gotta fill them bars.

 

[Arttemis]

Is mcv a good site? Every article I see posted on here is shit

I think you answered your own question.

Unfortunately, the gaming public either doesn't realize, or doesn't care that these psychological manipulations hurt games. They just want to feel like they're "getting stuff" when they play. Just look at the reactions to any MP-focused shooter where you don't get enough stuff - people complain that there's no reason to keep playing.

Gotta fill them bars.

Make aesthetic unlocks! Hats, etc.

 

[Septic360]

But locking off weapons behind a time-wall is totally fine?

Such logic.

No even time-walls suck but at least you earn them to some degree. Oh here, pay extra for a weapon and go dominate on others who don't have access to it.

It breaks the balance and makes a weapon inaccessible for the base price. Its not rocket science.

 

[mcz117chief]

Er, why would you think this? Platform holder processes payment, they have an agreement with a publisher and/or developer on the revenue split, in the case of the publisher working with an external developer they will then have an agreement with the developer on how recoup rate and everything else is handled against costs, etc. It is completely normal for a developer to see revenue from DLC. For internal studios it will depend on revenue sharing arrangements at the company ("employees get N% of profit past some M revenue mark, to be divvied up at discretion of studio head" or whatever).

I do not speak for my employer.

So when I buy a DLC an artist gets automatically sent 2 cents or something like that? That would actually be pretty cool and would make me appreciate DLC a whole lot more, I always thought DLC money was only for the publisher and developers were given a fixed amount regardless of how well the game sells.

Artists and dev staff are added to DLC projects with time and budget allowances. So companies can track expenses per map/per mode/per item etc.

If they just threw time and manpower against a wall they could never track how and when DLC became profitable.

This is even more important when you are a dev working for a publisher so you can see how your expenses stack up against your budget.

Oh, when you do a license deal as DLC it is usually sold or accessed separately so you can track downloads and pay out or get paid proper royalties.

So how does free DLC work or for example expansions in EVE online? They are all for free and they will be free forever. It doesn't matter if you start playing now or you are already playing for 10 years, you have access to same content as everyone else.

 

[julesodies]

I have to work to be able to pay for this stuff. When will Naughty Dogg send me a check?

 

[Ghost Slayer]

No even time-walls suck but at least you earn them to some degree. Oh here, pay extra for a weapon and go dominate on others who don't have access to it.

LOL. Did you even play TLoU Factions?

 

[Blackleg-sanji1]

LOL. Did you even play TLoU Factions?

Shh this thread is entertaining

 

[DeepEnigma]

I don't believe developers are paid for individual DLC articles sold.

So they go to work for free when they made said services to list?

Shh this thread is entertaining

The thread he ironically started and omitted key info fro to create what we had, lol.

 

[vg260]

I don't understand what you are trying to say, could you please rephrase it a bit?

And who is this "they" when you say "they don't just spend money willy nilly".

In addition to what has been said, it would not be surprising if devs have to log a time sheet on what project they're working on, as opposed to just clocking in at work, doing whatever stuff for 8 hours, then clocking out. I can't say for sure how it works in that industry, but if managing a specific project with a specific budget and time frame, that certainly seems like relevant information.

 

[Arttemis]

So they go to work for free when they made said services to list?



The thread he ironically started and omitted key info fro to create what we had, lol.

They get salary, publishers get paied for everything else.

 

[Thebeardofknowledge]

I just ignore "good work" like this.

That is the dumbest fucking reasoning I've ever heard.

Ugh, what a trash company.

They just don't give a fuck cause they'll get a pass because reasons

Man I love the games this studio makes, but that is a shit mentality to justify dlc-

That's totally fine. I have no problems with them saying this. They have a right to say 'we want money.'

That being said, they'd better be okay with people complaining about it, because I certainly won't buy it.

But Naughty Dog does no wrong. GAF told me so.

Seriously though, please ND stop.



Yeah...yeah.

Eeerrr...

That's kind of a shitty explanation. If it was cosmetic stuff no problem. But blocking gameplay elements is not a matter of personal preference.

Naughty Dog's really gone down the toilet, huh? They used to be above this.

Will wait for a GOTY edition with DLC on disc.

Sorry, but here, a polite fuck you.

P2W is the worst. Fucked up a great MP mode for me.

LOL, what the fuck ever.

I absolutely love you Naughty Dog. But go fuck yourself and your scummy tactics.

And people got so fucking defensive in the thread calling them out.

ND may make some of the best games but their MT policy is pure, smooth bullshit.

this type of shit is gross as fuck but i guess reading is too hard eh guys ?

 

[mcz117chief]

So they go to work for free when they made said services to list?

Game developers are not day labourers, they have contracts and get monthly salaries.

 

[GnawtyDog]

Same here, man - no gameplay-impacting DLC would be the best-case - it's just what they've done in the past.

If UC4 follows the pattern of their last two games (likely), the best-case scenario is a delay in game-affecting DLC like this. It would start showing up 4-6 months after release. The honeymoon period is our only chance at pure gameplay.

Imagine if they had a no-DLC playlist would fix all the issues

There is no need to do so. Absolutely no need. They get enough revenue out of hats and cosmetics, hec even maps if they decide to sell map packs. No need for the bad press and constantly dealing with PR for it. Also again, weapons are not going to be behind a paywall, loadout customization will (if it so happens to be the same thing as TLOU). It's still as shitty, but should not be billed as the same thing. Cause obviously, you can literally play with the weapons for free on preset classes.

It's hard to say who pushed for this or came up with the idea inside ND. They obviously gave it some thought to make the weapons free, yet restrict something (loadout customization) as so to induce purchase to extract revenue. My advice is to stay to harmless DLC true and tried, hats, cosmetics, and map packs (provided there is a significant amount on disc day one). Arne should give an answer to this and put it to bed once and for all. They're deep enough in the dev cycle to know. Hopefully some journalist actually asks the question at PSX since ND will be there in full force during the BETA period.

 

[GhostOfSparta305]

No even time-walls suck but at least you earn them to some degree. Oh here, pay extra for a weapon and go dominate on others who don't have access to it.

It breaks the balance and makes a weapon inaccessible for the base price. Its not rocket science.

Right, because you don't "earn" the money you're paying...?

Also, a tip about balance: a weapon doesn't remain "the best" if everyone has access to it. If you're going to use the term "base price," at least think about what that means.

 

[TeddyShardik]

I think the biggest Problem with dlc is how it is sold to people. When I have a game that feels complete and I have a blast with it I will gladly go back to it when your dlc comes around half a year or more later. Best example from my experience would be Dark Souls.

If on the other hand the announcement of the dlc comes (in the worst case) before I even know what your game is about I'm gonna feel ripped off, warranted or not.

I'm aware publishers want to hit certain time windows to maximize profits of said dlc but most people I know wouldn't even think about buying that if the base game already feels like a 60€ (69€ or even 75€ often enough these days) Plattform for more dlc.

tl;dr: "Hating" DLC is not always a strictly factual thing. Sometimes people just feel ripped off even if that was not the intention.

 

[DeepEnigma]

They get salary, publishers get paied for everything else.

Game developers are not day labourers, they have contracts and get monthly salaries.

LOL, you do not need to explain this to me. You missed my point, not even worth explaining further.

You are arguing with personal opinions on DLC service content, not logic of fact.

 

[#1 defender]

Yes, one of the absolute worst ever.

Hardly. The only bad thing about it was that the final "map pack" turned out to be a co-op adventure and they then resorted to semantics about how it can still be considered a map pack. Playing a co-op mission as villains was a fun novelty, but i really wanted another set of brand new maps to cap off the season pass. And i wouldn't even have minded it, if they had been more upfront about it. Otherwise i got exactly what i expected out of it. To call it one of the worst season passes ever is hyperbole.

 

[Freeman]

Keep disappointing me, GAF.

1. Devs work 2 years on a game.
2. The game gets released and people pay 60$ for it.
3. The devs keep creating content for the game for several months.
4. Lets make them work all those months for free because we already paid the game.

And everything because your entitlement is so strong that you cant conceive a finished game with extra content.

How wrong can be your logic, people? You all talk like if suddently a dev creates content for any finished game, that game would become unfinished until the new content "completes" it.

We could argue whats worth a paid DLC, but hell, how can you be so angry at people wanting money for the work they do?

This thread is really disgusting.

Theses goddamn entitled people and their "opinions". How dare they not like convenient monetization strategies that best suit us? Its not only about the passion the devs poured in this content, there is also a whole lot of people working behind the scenes to make this all possible, publishers, marketing, PR, HR, etc. Honestly the behavior of some of you disgust me, the world doesn't revolve around you, if a dev choses to create more content, you better not only be thankful but also find withing yourself the minimal human decency to support them.

 

[Kolx]

Naughty Dog are really good at making a great multiplayer and then ruining it. They just killed one of the best MP available on last and current gen with this shit for many people.

 

[Coll1der]

Well, sounds like an MBA guy alright. Investors and Business Development will be happy to hear it.

 

[PFD]

If it's quality DLC like the Witcher 3 expansion, I'll gladly pay for it.

If it's guns, no thanks

 

[Oersted]

This does not read like someone who should be hired as communication manager.

 

[DeepEnigma]

This does not read like someone who should be hired as communication manager.

Pete Hines gets away with much worse, lol.

 

[Soren01]

And for bad work?

 

[TheSeks]

lol that Burst Rifle is the best gun in the game when it was introduced (dunno if nerfed) though. Why wouldn't veterans buy it to shit on people that are new and have bought it to try to be "on the level with veterans?"

Poor phrasing.

Naughty Dog are really good at making a great multiplayer and then ruining it. They just killed one of the best MP available on last and current gen with this shit for many people.

Welcome to Uncharted 2's fans pain. It's why I did the bare minimum for Uncharted 3 to get the platinum. Same going into Uncharted 4.

 

[Strangelove77]

Oh Gaf overreacted. The train still arrives on time.
Go on.

 

[Septic360]

Right, because you don't "earn" the money you're paying...?

Also, a tip about balance: a weapon doesn't remain "the best" if everyone has access to it. If you're going to use the term "base price," at least think about what that means.

Eh??

So two people buy the same game. Both people play just as much as each other. Person X gets access to potentially better weapon by paying extra for it day one. Person Y doesn't. Should person Y be penalised for it?

It strikes at the heart of competitive play surely?

 

[0ptimusPayne]

Lmao that mob in the first few pages..In the context of the quote I was happy to pay for good work such as "Left Behind" and look forward to whatever they can think of next for the sequel.

 

[Chola]

Welcome to Uncharted 2's fans pain. It's why I did the bare minimum for Uncharted 3 to get the platinum. Same going into Uncharted 4.

yep, that is one positive from ND when it comes to MP. I don't have time to deal with their weapon DLC bullshit

 

[Radical Edward]

Has it been pointed out that everyone does have access to the dlc weapons in tlou? Also, none of the dlc guns are pay to win, they just require different tactics to combat and not everone has played long enough to develop straegies against different teams and playnstyles. Also, it is key to have a good team in tlou. A good team on mics is the most opthing in the game.

I only play survivors so I can't comment on supply raid.

Edit: I agree that we should pay for good, extra content. I will have no problem picking up the Bloodborne dlc when it drops.

 

[privitsan02]

Keep disappointing me, GAF.

1. Devs work 2 years on a game.
2. The game gets released and people pay 60$ for it.
3. The devs keep creating content for the game for several months.
4. Lets make them work all those months for free because we already paid the game.

And everything because your entitlement is so strong that you cant conceive a finished game with extra content.

How wrong can be your logic, people? You all talk like if suddently a dev creates content for any finished game, that game would become unfinished until the new content "completes" it.

We could argue whats worth a paid DLC, but hell, how can you be so angry at people wanting money for the work they do?

This thread is really disgusting.

I agree with this. I'm not against MT or DLC as long as it doesn't fracture the community in multiplayer games. I'm all for single player content, but when it comes to multiplayer, keep it cosmetic only for MT. I'm opposed to map packs as it fractures the community but more importantly, with cases like Battlefield Hardline, you paid a lot of money for the map packs yet no one plays them. Just make the maps available for everyone to make people come back constantly. Not every games needs to be Call of Duty.

I think that's the main concern people have with this. ND went ahead and let people buy the FAL, M9 rapid fire and etc in Uncharted 3's multiplayer instead of unlocking them. They also released DLC only weapons that broke the balance in The Last of Us' multiplayer where if a skilled player used it, its death, after death.

ND also have a bad track record of nerfing a lot of things because people complain too much and usually these stem from people abusing the MT and then the stuff you actually paid for because of their unfair advantage, is now a waste of money. It's just an overall shitty system that makes no one but ND happy. Keep it cosmetic and simple.

Best wishes.