Uncharted developer Naughty Dog has hit out at players that criticise in-game purchases.
Former community strategist Eric Monacelli was speaking to MCV ahead of next year's launch of Uncharted 4.
The game will be supported with post-release story DLC – a decision that Monacelli admitted would raise the ire of some fans.
“Microtransactions tend to get a sort of negative connotation in the games industry," he explained. "If you remember back in the day, people bristled when they sold horse armour [for The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion]. It's something that has always happened.
"But if it's good enough content and you want to pay for it, why not pay for it? That's what it comes down to."
Update This article previously stated that Eric Monacelli is community strategist at Naughty Dog. He has since moved to Infinity Ward as director of communications.
110°
90°
Ad 
440°
350°
40°
40°
Ad 
40°
40°
40°
I don't agree with his logic at all regarding the guns behind a paywall. That is a shoddy excuse.
"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's ridiculous lol. Yeah here...have these weapons...if you're more experienced...just pay more.
He hasn't justified microtransactions at all.
"It's work, and you should pay for good work.”
How is it MORE work though?? You've just locked off a powerful weapon behind a paywall and in order to gain access to it, I have to pay?
MT's can be done right if approached properly; look at league of legends and perhaps Halo 5; but this is bs. Its quasi-f2p and I felt the burn with Planetside 2, having to pay 7 quid to enable me to buy a sniper rifle (or spend a SHED LOAD of time to get it otherwise).
Come up with a better excuse ND.
“A lot of times I'll hear people say: 'That's just something they cut from the game so you can pay for it.' No, often it's not,"
It might not be cut but it is calculated in a way that you either grind for 10 to 20 hours or you can simply pay 3$ for it.
Also for newcomers to pay for a weapon that can be only obtained in higher levels is not fair for people who actually worked hard to get that weapon.
Why piss off the community by this BS practices? It wont end up good for you.
We are partly to blame because we spend money on them but seriously; its getting a bit of out hand.
Make it REASONABLE to access the items in-game as opposed to compeltely locking it off behind a paywall. That is fine depending on how its executed.
edit- fun fact- this chap has now moved to Infinity Ward. They'll grace him with open arms there lol
@Dark below
Well that actually makes it a bit silly to buy loads of Gold packs anyway because there isn't a guarantee you will get the item you want. Plus you get loads of points in-game anyway so unlike me, who is more concerned with the cosmetic stuff in Gold packs, it isn't a necessity.
No my friend, i don't think its fine because they could have simply made it an unlockable for free.
Also, the way Halo Req system work is not fair at all. Its all based on luck. You can get a Legendary weapon from you first gold pack and get a huge advantage over everyone else or you can open 10 Gold packs and get nothing good. How is this fair for anyone?
I have spent more than 100 hours on TLoU MP. I've not come across a single situation where MT was recommended, necessary or even preferable.
And I can safely say the same for Halo 5 as well. I've put in more than 35 hours.
Naughty Dog has specicially clarified that none of the gameplay items will be gated behind MT's in UC4. How many times does this reiterated?
They should not be there my friend. Are we going to defend MT now since its Naughty Dog making it?
The microtransaction weapons and perks completely broke TLOU multiplayer, plain and simple. The abilities that you could buy gave an absurd advantage to people (such as smoke bomb immunity), and lets not forget how the weapons are notorious amongst the playerbase as being overpowered and open to abuse, particularly the DLC shotguns and crossbow.
As for Uncharted 4, I'll believe the lack of microtransactions when I see it because when you look at Uncharted 3 and then The Last of Us, well, it's all going in one direction, isn't it? Besides, the pre-order marketing for Uncharted 4 already let slip that there will be "Naughty Dog Points" for people to buy so yeah, it would take some hard facts to make me think otherwise.
The most frustrating thing however is that their multiplayer modes are always fun until this stuff eventually appears. The Last of Us was great until all the pay-to-win weapons and perks completely ruined the game. Absolutely disgusting of them, and it's shameful that anybody would try and defend this nonsense.
ANY developer that does this is bad. Stop giving a free pass to them just because they make an exclusive game.
No one is defending MT's. I'm not a dishonest person.
I'm sharing my personal experiece with the two games in question.
@Crimzon
Maybe you're inadequate in the multiplayer mode?
I never said you were a dishonest person nor did i imply it, if i did then i apologize but what i simply meant we need to make a stand even if it is an awesome developer like Naughty Dog.
And in personal experience with TLOU, i noticed that paid weapons were stronger than the base weapons in the game. How is that fair to anyone?
It's all good. Generally I would agree with you guys on the topic of MT's but I felt obliged to share my experience on TLoU and Halo 5. I never felt the need to buy an additional item.
Paid weapons might be slightly strong (I haven't noticed) but we both know that isn't necessarily what one needs to win a round of TLoU.
Putting that aside, it's becoming ridiculous when devs start churning out barebone products, yet still charging full price and then announce a slew of DLCs even before the game lauch! Of course gamers are gonna feel cheated. Too many devs nowadays are relying on online MP to justify value for their games when in reality, MP are just recycled assets being used over and over and the fun factor totally depends on the players while the devs themselves are garnering profits with as less effort as possible!
"Hey gamers...we have this new game coming out soon but hey, look at these map packs and weapons you can buy after the game launched! Amazing values right here!"...NOT!
Not enough with that, they even put MT in these full priced games now. Like WTH?? I'm fine with cosmetics because they take nothing away from the game, but tokens, enablers, unlockables...these kind of things, they are basically moneterized cheat codes! Hacks and cheats are banned online but now devs are making them legal for those willing to pay! Seriously, leave the MT model for F2P games, full priced games shouldn't have them, PERIOD! that's just disgusting!
No one is giving naughty dog a free pass at all. It's simply not the truth. There was never a pay to win incentive put on tlou online. You forget there are pre-made load outs with some of those weapons "behind a pay wall" already available for those who want to use them FOR FREE. So the negative image your trying to paint of naughty dog is false. Period. Knock it off. Seriously. Any time those with the intent of gathering fire and pitch forks just because everyone else is doing it, makes them appear foolish especially when they're so blinded by negativity that they miss CLEAR facts. You can dislike my post flag it, I really don't care but at least I'm being real. No I don't like microtransactions simply because it lessens the diverse array of weapons one may choose from, not because there is a particular advantage. If you're good with the weapon, you're good with a weapon. (I've seen guys go around with a pistol killing everyone) I haven't spent a dime on micros. And I still get 1st in interrogation quite often. I've tried out the weapons supposedly "locked behind a pay wall" and they aren't any better or worse. It's just user preference and I don't like them that much to even buy them. I just don't understand your rant or anyone else's especially when naughty dog made load outs for you to try out the weapons. Yall lost me with that one
All we can do is hope people don't pay for this so it can at least calm down. But when you have EA(?) reporting that they are making millions off of extra content alone well...I don't see this type of practice going away anytime at all.
whos giving them a free pass... again an faux accusation to suit an argument
Play one match where the entire team has "Agility" or "Bomb Expert" (+ Covert Training or Crafter 2/3 or Explosion Expert).
Watch as the entire team gets to the 2nd tool box waaay before you do or get to your side of the map and wait at a corner.
Watch as the team "constantly" throws smoke bomb after smoke bomb. You won't see it coming as they'll already be there nor will you have time to react since the explosion is almost instant (and they aren't affected by it).
Or if a team consist of Tact shotguns (2 hit down) with crossbows (2x zoom + bleeding damage + instant headshot down) and grenade launchers (2 hit down and wide area effect). With the aforementioned perks above.
"Paid weapons might be slightly strong (I haven't noticed) but we both know that isn't necessarily what one needs to win a round of TLoU."
I've won games that consist of these match ups. No one is saying they are needed (as many still use the base weapons/perks and win). But you'd have to be blind not see how much stronger the paid weapons/perks are. They offer far too many advantages and you can't even obtain them unless you spend real money. They break the balance of the game. That's the problem. Me and my friends are pretty skilled (all with K/Ds higher than 1.6) but that doesn't dismiss the unfairness paid perks/weapons give to players.
"Hence the FORMER part of the title. Funny that he went to Infinity Ward, that's where he probably got all these crazy ideas."
yet he is talking about the game last of us, did you not read the article?
he said this,
"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."
this is essentially making the game easier for those who do not want to put the time into the game. this is what i would call pay to win. any time you have microtransactions in multiplayer games you are asking for trouble because it divides the community. it is not fair to those who play for experience only to have some noobie come in and be just as good if not better because they paid for a more powerful or easier weapon.
Sooo... yeah.
He's not even part of development team, more like marketing?
Also, can I request that the headline be changed to read Former-ND dev? I know the actual article doesn't do it but its still a bit misleading.
Edit: Looks like he clarified.
There's no "leg up"advantage in any of naughty dogs multiplayers don't let these trolls and hatewagon dudes fool you. Tlou has micros. But the weapons that you can pay for they also have them for free in the form of premade loadouts.
But for the games that do do the "leg up"micros....yea that's poison to the gaming industry.
Premade loadouts are not the same as custom made ones.
No premade loadout consist of a crossbow, agility, covert training and bomb expert. Or a grenade launcher, 2nd chance, damage marker and tact shotgun. And so on.
The leg up is when you combine the paid perks/weapons in way that gives you a (big) advantage over base players. It's even worse when an entire party has paid weapons/perks.
"Former community strategist Eric Monacelli?"
he doesn't work for ND anymore...
and, they're pinning the quote to ND? misleading...
People have no problem paying money for GOOD, REASONABLY PRICED, DLC.
But if you try to sell me BS, and bust my wallet at the same time, then by all means FU and your DLC. You're a con man, trying to pull one over on me, when there are plenty of other games that offer similar content for less, or more content without any of the BS.
And that's simply how it should be. You provide a full price game that's fun, enjoyable, has plenty of content. Then a few months later you drop an expansion that adds more to the game for $10 - $20, then we're good.
You sell a $60 with a 4 - 6 hour campaign (that's if it has one), and a few online modes / maps, then want to charge me $40 - $60 to add more maps, then FU, I'll spend my money elsewhere.
Yes developers should be paid for their hard work, I completely agree with that. But you developer also need to know that the consumer is the one who decides if your work is worth our $60, and if I feel it's half a$$ed, then no money is coming out of these pockets. So my message to these developers is make a full featured game that people will enjoy, and then we'll buy your DLC / expansions / etc... if it's a good value.
You can't expect us to jump for joy at an expansion that cost the price of a new game, when all the foundation work for the game is already done in the retail release, and you only add a few extra maps for multiplayer and 2 hours more content. FU.
@Septic
I know I just looked it up, when it said Former Naughty Dog Community Strategist, that is a flame title if I've ever seen one, and it needs to be changed at once.
NOnetheless, the problems with UC3's season pass and TLOU still remain but still...it sucks.
Hopefully he doesn't reflect the current ND's view on this.
"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.
WTF kind of logic does that make, and how on earth do you think a consumer feels about this BS. Player 1 doesn't have the skill to beat player 2. ND allows player 1 to buy a gun to make it easier for him to compete with player 2. Player 2 buy the same gun and stomps player 1 again.
So what did you accomplish with this BS ignorant research, besides finding a way to give mediocre gamers hope, knowing good and well the more skilled players were going to buy the DLC as well. All you did was find a way to give false hope and sell DLC.
“There are hot debates around this all the time in the office, because everybody's got their own opinion. For me, the more thought that's put into DLC, the more you should be able to charge for it, because it's one of those things where you're creating another game unto itself – The Last of Us: Left Behind was another game. It's essentially the second Last of Us game, right?
This is the dumbest $#!t I've seen in a while from a developer. No, Left Behind wasn't another game it was an expansion of The Last of Us. You used the same tools, the same engine, the same materials, many of the same voice actors, character models, lighting, EVERYTHING from the 12 hour main game, and made a 2 hour expansion.
WTF is going on in your mind that makes you think it's okay to consider this "essentially the second Last of Us game, or worse it should be a full price or close to it, which I completely hope you're not alluding to. It sold for $15, and was eventually sold for $10 as a stand-alone experience, because that's what it was worth.
Edit:
Upon further investigation, he is no longer at Naughty Dog he is a former employee.
He now works at Infinity Ward (which the article fails to say, why even mention ND when he's not currently working there).....and makes so much more sense now.
This is the BS I'm talking about, and the future of gaming I don't want to see. Greedy @$$ developers trying to find every way they can to nickel and dime the consumer so they can get a bonus. No B!^@# ask your boss for a raise, and quit spending hundreds of millions on marketing and make good games.
I'm ok with microtransactions when they're not pay to win an simply cosmetic. But if you're selling weapons or armor and the likes then you've gone too far.
How's that feel?
And didn't TLoU have microtransactions? Was this person there when that game came out? Could it be a possibility that he is speaking just on experience alone no matter where he currently works?
Clickbait?
Game modes and maps are different, and there better be serious value. Battlefront seemed to really screw this up. It is a $110 game, and even then, it feels empty and incomplete.
Life itself does not come with fixed content. In an internet age, nor do games. There's what's on a disc and what's not.
Because some people borrow games or buy second hand, studios potentially lose a lot of revenue compared to if everyone had to buy brand new. Even brand new several months later at a reduced price would be better for them. In consumables you can't eat a whole cake, magically regurgitate the same cake in its original form and then your friend eat the same whole cake. With second hand game usage fees (a perfectly understandable policy to allow on just 1 login) being howled down, studios have less reason to enable some people to play and use every last bit of later content for free when they already played the main game for free too as far as a studio's bank balance is concerned. And it's not like ND don't give gameplay enhancing patches for free. You just have to remember that life doesn't owe you the right to every shirt accessory in a clothes shop just because you bought a shirt.
It should have read, "Infinity Ward as Director of Communications", but that does not create as much buzz to trend now does it?
Sleazy tactic is sleazy.
But after reading the article, yeah I think it's click bait, that quote refers to Left Behind for TLOU which many people enjoyed and that is good work. Hell, I would pay another $20 for another DLC about Tommys journey to the power plant.
But goddamn our own fellow gamers defend this crap. Like we're doing YOU a favour by speaking up, it benefits gamers as whole. If the same purchases you're making with microtransactions end up being free it only HELPS you.
Not saying it'll make much of a difference because the companies will make money if there's demand. But the least you could do is remain neutral and not say anything.
"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."
Great marketing speak.
Now let me translate. "If you suck at the game you can Pay to Win".
I have the upmost respect for the work Naughty Dog has done throughout the years and have enjoyed all of their franchises but this is something that's really low even for them. Naughty Dog should be leading by example since they are one of the top "dogs" in the industry.
I'll buy the game for the single player anyway but statements like these make me less interessted to even try the multiplayer portion of the game at all.
If a developer is putting in extra work after the game is finished I have no problem with them releasing it as an expansion but if they're locking out content that is already in the game that's just a cheap trick to ask for a higher price for the full product without the consumer realising it right away.
but you can thank mobile gaming for that. all these devs and all these publishers want those shinny coins.
So Naughty D caught the bug...but devs like CD P just handing out dlc for free...hmmm.
All hail CDJ Project Rekt.
I'm pretty much fed up with triple A game development though. It's just been nothing but let downs. The most fun I've had has been with remasters and indie games, and most of what I'm looking forward to is remasters and indie games.
There are plenty of games that dont need MT's to profit. I dont think its a necessary evil at all, i think its just easy money since there'll always be dumbasses to buy them. I mean this is a big name, Uncharted, it'll make money without MT's for sure.
And if the games are so bloated and expensive that you need MT's to profit, developers are doing something wrong.
Im glad the consensus is mts are crappy
Im proud of my fellow gamers here
Programmers make an average of 160 thousand dollars a year and artists make about 150 thousand. With a team of 150 people just doing development, plus your publisher fees, advertising (demoing the game at venues and commercials and such) It's easy to see why it costs tens of millions of dollars to make games. And even if they sell 2-3 million they might not even break even. The Tomb Raider reboot proved that.
Look at all the big devs going out of business and rebooting themselves as indie devs. The Darksiders devs are now making and indie game. A pretty fun looking one at that.
I read somewhere that development costs between the ps3 and ps4 were damn near the same. Granted this is more the cell's fault than anything, but still worth noting.
@Sharingan
I know the factors here and I understand your reasoning. All im saying is i think it is more than possible to make a good looking AAA game without MT's. Look at Nintendo for example. The rabbit hole of realism is killing developers, as they often lose sight of the creative vision when they realize they're going to have to pay these hundreds of guys bumpmapping the pavement to make it look as real as possible.
Dude dafuq are you talking about? Naughty Dog ain't done nothing to save games being at 60 dollars they would have been the same price with or without ND. You are way too far up their butt matey.
Rockstar are far better devs then ND. Red dead an gta alone kill all ND games. What would you rather be stuck on an island playing? Closed linear uncharted/last of us Or Open world GTA and Red Dead Redemption hmmm easy pick for me ☺️
But since you asked, I'd take Jak and Daxter series over GTA and Red Dead any day... Not a fan of racy or gorey content.
I'd say that Naughty Dog and Rockstar are tied for best devs in the industry. They are both the absolute best at what they do. ND has great graphics, story telling, animations and gameplay. Rockstar are the most ambitious devs out there and create the most lively worlds.
My respect for CD project Red has increased even more.
I suppose we could go the way Microsoft proposed where you require "always or nearly always on" and the end of second hand games.
Yes we all know how that panned out.
Basically if a game is good then people buy it and if it isn't then people don't buy it.
The only thing offsetting that is the amount of people who play games now. I'm not sure the amount of users off set the inflation of the dollar since SNES or ever ps1 for that matter. Even movies are like $60 to go see with you wife now and that's 2 hrs worth of enjoyment.
I criticized MTs in halo 5, forza 6 and now I am gonna criticize you as well.
all I could do was laugh when I read that headline.
So, buying the game isn't good enough anymore. *sigh*
although it is optional, it can be unfair when you're grinding to get extra gear whilst someone else just buys it. ^^
@below
Glad to know mate. :)
I must distribute the criticism to create balance in the world.......
xoxo
1) you can earn them with in game currency
2) and most importantly they are not charging for DLC, all map packs are going to be free (15 maps they said) so they would not split the player base up into haves and have nots.
I'd rather have MT and free DLC since I wouldn't spend money on MT anyways, but still MTs are stupid
Kribwalker...
You mention Halo V and its free DLC packs and all of that has been done before like Killzone did the same thing, DriveClub did alot of that and some other games etc.... Again the devs may have a voice but ultimately the publishers decide what micro transactions are put in and DLC, if any at all. Some games have free DLC because they really are selling us games incomplete and know better, others because publishers and companies know they have to also give gamers certain things to keep sales up. They stiff us in certain games with tons of micro transactions and cut content masked as dlc and on others they decide to make it seem as if they are the greatest company and give us allegedly free DLC which 9 times out of 10 turns out to be content that would have been there if they didnt have a deadline to make. That free DLC bs is just that PR spin. It isnt a good gesture by the devs most of the time, its companies playing chess with us and Jedi mind tricks.
Which is why we pay nearly £60 for new games.
What ever happened to letting those players get better in skill the more they played?
That's a pretty bad excuse. To succeed later on, you must fail at the start.
UH NO you shouldn't have ot PAY for a DLC that is iIMO part of the orignal game. For if there wasn't a game (TLOU) then the DLC ( Left Behind) wouldn't make any sense so it is NOT a game unto itself !
Microtransactions are just another way for the gaming compaines to squeeze every penny from gamers they can and the ONLY way WE as gamers can put an end tpo it is to NOT buy them period EVER ! If we can do that then it will become not worth their time to include them.
Having said that, ND MTs are pretty bad. Putting good gear behind pay walls isn't cool one bit. Especially when you've got a fan base that has put a lot of time into your game and then newbies can come along pay some money (probably their parents money) and suddenly have better gear than you. I find MTs and dlc in general to be a double edged sword. I find anything cosmetic or new story missions made after release that are sold as MTs/dlc is perfectly fine. It's a way of extending game play and the devs can get some extra cash from people who want to waste money on useless items. But then you have the pay wall keeping people from advantageous gear which like I said is really not cool. I've never bought a MT gun or armour before and I never will (in fact I've never paid for any MTs full stop). I'm on wasting my money on such things but just because some kids with their parents wallets buy this stuff, I have worse gear than others.
Microtransactions on weaponry or on items that benefit the one paying and put the one who doesn't pay at a disadvantage, not cool.
His reasoning by the way is incredibly weak. While everything has a value, gamers can smell the bs surrounding content that's factored in or cut out.
"We spent an hour thinking about this gun so like, $3.99, it'll help you out, but you know, it's optional." <- basically sums it up.
Disappointing. I expect better from ND.
1) I am a big Sony and ND fan but micro transactions and post launch DLC (yes im lumping them together) shouldn't be excused using the narrative "you should be paying for good work" that is plain dumb! We already pay 60 "for good work" and games this day and age even make more money then movies. The reason i lump DLC in their is because in many circumstances it has been found out that alot of DLC was in game content just cut out at launch to later be sold as DLC. Now if DLC is indeed an after thought and the base game isnt gimped DLC ends up being beautiful thing.
2) This is a widely used practice just to increase profit. Trust me the devs nor the publishers really have gamers in mind, they have their bottom line in mind. It use to make me laugh when certain ppl would say "Nintendo would never do this" fast forward and their in the game too and even going beyond that with Amiibos locking certain content out.
3) For the majority of the micro transactions decisions to have it at all is the decision of the Publisher, not the developer. The developer is working for the Publisher so you should point the finer not at ND but at Sony! But if you point at them you would have to point a finger at every publisher because they all push for it. True not all games have it but it all depends on Publisher and what they want.
By the way &uck Micro transactions!