The Last of Us Sells Multiplayer Animations For 99 Cents

The Last of Us Sells Multiplayer Animations For 99 Cents

The Last of Us Remastered will get Special Execution animations the PlayStation 3's hardware can't handle. You just have to pay for them.

The Last of Us was one of the most talked about games of 2013, and its PlayStation 4 Remastered edition only enhanced the experience. Now developer Naughty Dog is rolling out new DLC addons for its Factions multiplayer mode, including one especially unusual option: $0.99 animations for each of its multiplayer weapon categories.

"Clearly our The Last of Us combat designer has a soft spot for a good takedown," Naughty Dog wrote in its announcement, "and has designed some very visceral, very lethal Special Executions across nine different weapon categories. These sets of animations are available for purchase for $0.99 each."

Animations aren't the only features Naughty Dog will be selling for The Last of Us Remastered. You can pick up a $2.99 Tactical Weapons Bundle that includes a tactical shotgun, burst pistol, frontier rifle, and crossbow. There's also a Risk Management Survival Skills Bundle providing new skills and health bonuses. You can even pick up gesture packs and sets of hats.

But the 99 cent executions seem especially bizarre, considering that animations are normally treated as free content alongside other gameplay features. It also means buying the full set costs just under $9, higher than any bundle price mentioned provided in the same announcement. On top of that, PlayStation 3 owners won't have access to the full animation list, due to memory constraints on the last-gen hardware.

What do you think? Are especially violent animations themselves something you'd be willing spend money on?

Source: Naughty Dog, via Polygon

Permalink

I mean technically its hard to see why this is different from selling custom skins right? Because it's a visual effect which has no impact on gameplay. And most multiplayer games give you some skins but then ask you to pay for more.

And equally it's fairly standard for multiplayer games to sell animations when those animations are something like "I win" or saluting or sitting down and drinking tea.

So I can't see any real reason why this is different to those situations, except that no-ones ever done this one before.

Eh, animations are generally more attractive a purchase then pure cosmetics (see TF2 taunts). I think it's a pretty good idea overall, especially for as low a price as $0.99.

This is about as strange as the blood pack dlc for Rome 2 and Shogun 2.

Here comes the horse armor!

But serious, one's paying too much even if it's everything for $.99.

The real kicker is that all the executions were censored for the PAL version of the game, so this feels like insult to injury.

The executions in the PAL version look as if they a hitting each other lightly. Or shooting bullets into the ground next to the target.

No blood or anything, just nothing.

Oh piss off, this is getting rediculas. The old joke that they'll sell the disc for $60 and everything else for $10 a piece is starting to look possible. I wish DLC's never came about, much prefered expansion packs, atleast you got your money's worth out of them.

Oh dear Naughty Dog, way to squander that goodwill.

This would seem like that free little extra you would just include with the remastered edition, like GTA5 did with the first-person mode.

Glad I never bothered with the multiplayer of this game.

Wait... there's multiplayer in movies now?

Wait, wasn't the Remastered version supposed to already have everything in it? Does this mean that about a year down the line we can expect a Revised edition that really has everything this time we swear?

Well, something entirely cosmetic for such a low price doesn't seem too bad.

Still seems a little sketchy, though.

truckspond:
Wait... there's multiplayer in movies now?

Nah, just for games that get 10/10 acclaim on Destructoid, Edge, Eurogamer, GamesRadas and IGN, and 95/100 approval on Famitsu, GameRankings, Game Informer and Metacritic.

Why is this news? Team Fortress and Warframe and others have been doing this for some time now.

People gobble up EA's DLC Quest: Fantasy Iteration and help it win awards. Now a critically praised game decides to sell cosmetics well after a game's release and people get uneasy?

meh, the multiplayer was already dead to me when they started selling perks and guns as DLC too.

Absolutionis:
Why is this news? Team Fortress and Warframe and others have been doing this for some time now.

A primary argument would be that The Last of Us isn't a free-to-play game.

Also that multi-player wasn't the central focus of the title, nor what was regularly praised about it.

People gobble up EA's DLC Quest: Fantasy Iteration and help it win awards. Now a critically praised game decides to sell cosmetics well after a game's release and people get uneasy?

While I won't be surprised in the end either way because of the previous two games, I have yet to see any ridiculous amounts of DLC announced or released for Dragon Age.

A paranoid person could also posit that this presents a slippery slope for developers to go down withholding animations from the single-player game until a pay-wall has been passed. Or that more content which has historically just been in games can be slowly removed from actual releases, to be sold as microtransactions instead.

dont see why people are complaining, games like warframe charge the same amount fot animation sets for your frame. and planetside 2 charges 5 dollars for voice packs

Hmm.
Well good thing I didn't care much about this game.
Sure, I think it deserves the rewards, and I respect it for that.
I just felt it was a little boring for my tastes.

As for this piece of news.
A little bad ... only a little. I mean it's Naughty Dog, they're not known for doing this.
Just as long as they don't turn it into abomination levels, I have no problem.
Although I'm sure that the censored PAL versions detest this.

Phrozenflame500:
Eh, animations are generally more attractive a purchase then pure cosmetics (see TF2 taunts). I think it's a pretty good idea overall, especially for as low a price as $0.99.

There's a difference, TF2 is entirely free, it also didn't launch twice with a $60 dollar price tag.

Last of Us Remastered is a $60 remaster of a game that came out only a year or so earlier...for $60 dollars. While yes this is cosmetic and doesn't change balance or whatever- it's still pretty stupid that a remastered game still requires you to buy crap to make it look better. Wasn't that the point of having people spend the money again? That it looked and moved better? Now it's another 9x0.99 to make it slightly MORE remastered?

truckspond:
Wait... there's multiplayer in movies now?

There always have been. It's just more popular in drive-in theaters.

That looks pretty rad. But, since I play Factions on the PS3 and not on the PS4, I guess this is a no-go for me. It's a real bummer though, some of those new weapons look so boss--especially the burst pistol. :(

Snotnarok:

There's a difference, TF2 is entirely free, it also didn't launch twice with a $60 dollar price tag.

Last of Us Remastered is a $60 remaster of a game that came out only a year or so earlier...for $60 dollars. While yes this is cosmetic and doesn't change balance or whatever- it's still pretty stupid that a remastered game still requires you to buy crap to make it look better. Wasn't that the point of having people spend the money again? That it looked and moved better? Now it's another 9x0.99 to make it slightly MORE remastered?

Eh, you're not wrong. But the thing is that these animations were made after the game was already released. If this was Day 1 DLC that was clearly cut out the the full game for extra $$$ then I'd be more irritated. But since this is clearly a post-release thing I have no qualms with cosmetic DLC.

BrotherRool:
I mean technically its hard to see why this is different from selling custom skins right? Because it's a visual effect which has no impact on gameplay. And most multiplayer games give you some skins but then ask you to pay for more.

And equally it's fairly standard for multiplayer games to sell animations when those animations are something like "I win" or saluting or sitting down and drinking tea.

So I can't see any real reason why this is different to those situations, except that no-ones ever done this one before.

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.

Phrozenflame500:

Snotnarok:

There's a difference, TF2 is entirely free, it also didn't launch twice with a $60 dollar price tag.

Last of Us Remastered is a $60 remaster of a game that came out only a year or so earlier...for $60 dollars. While yes this is cosmetic and doesn't change balance or whatever- it's still pretty stupid that a remastered game still requires you to buy crap to make it look better. Wasn't that the point of having people spend the money again? That it looked and moved better? Now it's another 9x0.99 to make it slightly MORE remastered?

Eh, you're not wrong. But the thing is that these animations were made after the game was already released. If this was Day 1 DLC that was clearly cut out the the full game for extra $$$ then I'd be more irritated. But since this is clearly a post-release thing I have no qualms with cosmetic DLC.

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.
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.

Snotnarok:
snip

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.

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.

Yeah, I'd buy that - fucking loved the multiplayer and the brutality of close-quarters action.

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.

Strazdas:

BrotherRool:
I mean technically its hard to see why this is different from selling custom skins right? Because it's a visual effect which has no impact on gameplay. And most multiplayer games give you some skins but then ask you to pay for more.

And equally it's fairly standard for multiplayer games to sell animations when those animations are something like "I win" or saluting or sitting down and drinking tea.

So I can't see any real reason why this is different to those situations, except that no-ones ever done this one before.

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.

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 skins

BrotherRool:

Strazdas:

BrotherRool:
I mean technically its hard to see why this is different from selling custom skins right? Because it's a visual effect which has no impact on gameplay. And most multiplayer games give you some skins but then ask you to pay for more.

And equally it's fairly standard for multiplayer games to sell animations when those animations are something like "I win" or saluting or sitting down and drinking tea.

So I can't see any real reason why this is different to those situations, except that no-ones ever done this one before.

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.

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 skins

No, it is not standard, unless you count a few shitty games where a company only seems to be interested in getting as much money as they can out of you. and they were called out for this shitty tactics every time.

Honestly, I don't see a problem with this, it just seems like selling skins to me.

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.

seris:
dont see why people are complaining, games like warframe charge the same amount fot animation sets for your frame. and planetside 2 charges 5 dollars for voice packs

Absolutionis:
Why is this news? Team Fortress and Warframe and others have been doing this for some time now.

People gobble up EA's DLC Quest: Fantasy Iteration and help it win awards. Now a critically praised game decides to sell cosmetics well after a game's release and people get uneasy?

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?

Strazdas:

BrotherRool:

Strazdas:

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.

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 skins

No, it is not standard, unless you count a few shitty games where a company only seems to be interested in getting as much money as they can out of you. and they were called out for this shitty tactics every time.

You've just denied a literal fact :p 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.

RicoADF:
Oh piss off, this is getting rediculas. The old joke that they'll sell the disc for $60 and everything else for $10 a piece is starting to look possible. I wish DLC's never came about, much prefered expansion packs, atleast you got your money's worth out of them.

Speak for yourself. I can't wait until it costs 30 dollars for me to build a character.

...and another 30 if I want to build a character I like.

BrotherRool:

You've just denied a literal fact :p 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.

Please, by all means, do. and dont forget to mention the reception they got when the skins were anounced and compare it to this.
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.

 

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.