Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

Campaign is priced out

OP SSJagdpanther6

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 4
The campaign is $80 in Canada. I think this prices a lot of people out, especially for a 5 hour campaign when the multiplayer is completely separate. A lot of people would probably forego the campaign this time and just watch walkthroughs on YouTube for the story. This isn't just disappointing for the players but also for the single-player devs too that worked hard on the campaign but sadly won't have it enjoyed as widely as before.
You seem so worried, check it out the campaign is the only part of the game that people are paying for. With the online being completely free it makes sense the campaign will have a lot of resources poured into it.
if only games depreciated in price or went on sale in a few months..
Modod wrote:
Quote:
1. My point is that those exclusives are specifically focused on the campaign so paying 60 dollars makes sense. Halo is usually includes both so it is to be expected to have less quality in the single player campaign (especially now).
2. I think people are misinterpreting halo being an open world game cause this isn't gonna be like skyrim or fallout. It is just and i quote "a series of open and expansive levels connected together by the game's narrative." This just means each level is gonna be a circle rather then a line so if you choose just to do the campaign it will prolly be a 6 hour campaign. I also do NOT think adding side objectives in this "circle" makes the game worth 60 dollars.
3. Idk what ur saying here.

A free multiplayer makes me think half the game is missing so the game aka just the campaign shouldn't be 60 dollars.
1. No offence intended but that is just a bad counter argument. They are focused on campaign also thats why its the biggest one to date. God of war is widely touted as being the best game of the prior generation and its a linear 20 to 22 hour game with zero replay value. Halos campaigns are for the most part are considered to be some of the best the genre has to offer. Why does having mp give you the impression it has lower quality single player? Seriously doom 2016, eternal and titanfall 2 are all praised for being some of the best single player fps ever and all feature an mp element.
Titanfall 2 being praised for both elements.
Please explain the logic here because I fail to see it.
2. Nope not misinterpreting anything. I never said it was a skyrim, farcry or full open world. But it is an open world game it just has smaller open worlds instead of one large map. Mechanically its still open world. Like the outer worlds for example. The full halo package is still the same price the difference is the campaign is larger than it has been prior to infinite and it has a lower barrier for entry than ever for the multiplayer component. The optional content value is dependent on the quality and reward to dismiss them now wholesale, again is illogical. Side content can certainly add magnitudes of value done well.
3.i was saying that the fact you feel the game is more expensive is untrue. The fact is the full experience is the same price but the option to play the mp for a lower entry point. So basically instead of thinking wa they took half my game away think wow now more people will play the mp adding value and the campaign is already stated to be the largest in franchise history and it isn't a linear corridor with zero replay value. Rather its a series of open world sandboxes with inherently more variety than the vast majority of its contemporaries.

Also the dont buy it argument is valid because the price point is very clearly tied to the fact that you don't need to buy any part of the game. You want to play it its there to buy, its available on gamepass and the mp is free. The fact remains there has never been a more affordable or modular or widely accessible halo launch. It being playable on phones, 2 generation of console and pc.
kevinjs1 wrote:
I don't have a problem paying 60 dollars for the game.
even if you paid 60 dollars before to get campaign and multiplayer in halo before? Doesnt matter if your rich you are still getting ripped off. They should honestly make the campaign 30 dollars and even that may be too much.
Well the fact that the campaign is open world and also longer and bigger than h4 and h5 combined I’m pretty sure that the price is justified and also the fact it’s going to be the platform for the next 10 years.
Modod wrote:
Modod wrote:
1. No offence intended but that is just a bad counter argument. They are focused on campaign also thats why its the biggest one to date. God of war is widely touted as being the best game of the prior generation and its a linear 20 to 22 hour game with zero replay value. Halos campaigns are for the most part are considered to be some of the best the genre has to offer. Why does having mp give you the impression it has lower quality single player? Seriously doom 2016, eternal and titanfall 2 are all praised for being some of the best single player fps ever and all feature an mp element.
Titanfall 2 being praised for both elements.
Please explain the logic here because I fail to see it.
2. Nope not misinterpreting anything. I never said it was a skyrim, farcry or full open world. But it is an open world game it just has smaller open worlds instead of one large map. Mechanically its still open world. Like the outer worlds for example. The full halo package is still the same price the difference is the campaign is larger than it has been prior to infinite and it has a lower barrier for entry than ever for the multiplayer component. The optional content value is dependent on the quality and reward to dismiss them now wholesale, again is illogical. Side content can certainly add magnitudes of value done well.
3.i was saying that the fact you feel the game is more expensive is untrue. The fact is the full experience is the same price but the option to play the mp for a lower entry point. So basically instead of thinking wa they took half my game away think wow now more people will play the mp adding value and the campaign is already stated to be the largest in franchise history and it isn't a linear corridor with zero replay value. Rather its a series of open world sandboxes with inherently more variety than the vast majority of its contemporaries.

Also the dont buy it argument is valid because the price point is very clearly tied to the fact that you don't need to buy any part of the game. You want to play it its there to buy, its available on gamepass and the mp is free. The fact remains there has never been a more affordable or modular or widely accessible halo launch. It being playable on phones, 2 generation of console and pc.
1. No offence intended but that is just a bad counter argument. They are focused on campaign also thats why its the biggest one to date. God of war is widely touted as being the best game of the prior generation and its a linear 20 to 22 hour game with zero replay value. Halos campaigns are for the most part are considered to be some of the best the genre has to offer. Why does having mp give you the impression it has lower quality single player? Seriously doom 2016, eternal and titanfall 2 are all praised for being some of the best single player fps ever and all feature an mp element.
Titanfall 2 being praised for both elements.
Please explain the logic here because I fail to see it.
2. Nope not misinterpreting anything. I never said it was a skyrim, farcry or full open world. But it is an open world game it just has smaller open worlds instead of one large map. Mechanically its still open world. Like the outer worlds for example. The full halo package is still the same price the difference is the campaign is larger than it has been prior to infinite and it has a lower barrier for entry than ever for the multiplayer component. The optional content value is dependent on the quality and reward to dismiss them now wholesale, again is illogical. Side content can certainly add magnitudes of value done well.
3.i was saying that the fact you feel the game is more expensive is untrue. The fact is the full experience is the same price but the option to play the mp for a lower entry point. So basically instead of thinking wa they took half my game away think wow now more people will play the mp adding value and the campaign is already stated to be the largest in franchise history and it isn't a linear corridor with zero replay value. Rather its a series of open world sandboxes with inherently more variety than the vast majority of its contemporaries.

im just gonna say my opinion and what i think in simple terms.

1. Bigger doesn't always equal better but i believe it does in this case. I know they are focused on the campaign but what i mean to say is that the multiplayer will be more of a long term idea and is what will likely be making all the money for 343. It makes sense that they would put more focus therefore more quality into that aspect and i dont blame them for that. When you mention doom and titanfall i agree they have amazing single player campaigns and titanfall has amazing mp (doom not so much) but they cost $60 so i dont think thats a valid argument. I get your point is that games with campaigns and mp can have the same quality/focus but thats when they cost $60 that i believe it should have that quality. I will admit that we haven't seen much of what we are getting in the campaign so I cant flat out say it is not worth it and i apologize for saying it.
2. I can see your point but i think i am allowed to be suspicious because we haven't seen much. From where i stand right now it doesnt look like it has a whole lot to offer other then just the campaign. All i want is a good campaign but i have a hard time seeing any of the previous titles being worth $60 (just the campaign). I get times are changing and $60 dollars for a game like halo back then was probably worth it but we are way more advanced now so if this game doesnt have at least a 18 hour campaign instead of the typical 8-10 with just the main missions i am going to upset. This cannot be like halo 2 or 3 it HAS to be better to claim that price range. Of course if it adds modes like firefight, sparten ops, and bonus modes then sure I can accept paying that extra money for that.
3. nah we shouldn't think like that. Its how companies force us to spend more money for less...cough...cough...cod. My points from above can challenge yours but overall i think what we disagree about is that you think it being a "open world game" makes it worth $60 where as I think is doesnt. Thats fine but i 100% disagree that these halos have 0 replay value. I have replayed the CE, 2, and 3 like 10 times and i still have the urge to do it again so it definitely does have replay value.

"Also the dont buy it argument is valid because the price point is very clearly tied to the fact that you don't need to buy any part of the game" yeah you do. You need to buy the part of the game thats called the campaign to play it. I get ur point but the sentence confused me at first. I agree gamepass is an amazing service but im not gonna pay 9 dollars a month to play one game when i can just buy it and own it forever.

I honestly dont think your gonna agree with me and vice versa. I mean we definitely have different opinions on the matter but i hope this at least informs you on where i am
coming from and that it starts to sound more logical. Also if you respond tell me if you think they should add firefight/sparten ops in general im curious to see how popular it it still.

Ps: i deleted your last paragraph for space,
J0K3R 913 wrote:
They will add more campaign content so its for sure worth it. IMP
Is it confirmed or just an assumption?
Modod wrote:
Modod wrote:
1. Bigger doesn't always equal better but i believe it does in this case. I know they are focused on the campaign but what i mean to say is that the multiplayer will be more of a long term idea and is what will likely be making all the money for 343. It makes sense that they would put more focus therefore more quality into that aspect and i dont blame them for that. When you mention doom and titanfall i agree they have amazing single player campaigns and titanfall has amazing mp (doom not so much) but they cost $60 so i dont think thats a valid argument. I get your point is that games with campaigns and mp can have the same quality/focus but thats when they cost $60 that i believe it should have that quality. I will admit that we haven't seen much of what we are getting in the campaign so I cant flat out say it is not worth it and i apologize for saying it.
2. I can see your point but i think i am allowed to be suspicious because we haven't seen much. From where i stand right now it doesnt look like it has a whole lot to offer other then just the campaign. All i want is a good campaign but i have a hard time seeing any of the previous titles being worth $60 (just the campaign). I get times are changing and $60 dollars for a game like halo back then was probably worth it but we are way more advanced now so if this game doesnt have at least a 18 hour campaign instead of the typical 8-10 with just the main missions i am going to upset. This cannot be like halo 2 or 3 it HAS to be better to claim that price range. Of course if it adds modes like firefight, sparten ops, and bonus modes then sure I can accept paying that extra money for that.

3. nah we shouldn't think like that. Its how companies force us to spend more money for less...cough...cough...cod.
(3.5)My points from above can challenge yours but overall i think what we disagree about is that you think it being a "open world game" makes it worth $60 where as I think is doesnt. Thats fine but i 100% disagree that these halos have 0 replay value. I have replayed the CE, 2, and 3 like 10 times and i still have the urge to do it again so it definitely does have replay value.

"Also the dont buy it argument is valid because the price point is very clearly tied to the fact that you don't need to buy any part of the game" yeah you do. You need to buy the part of the game thats called the campaign to play it. I get ur point but the sentence confused me at first. I agree gamepass is an amazing service but im not gonna pay 9 dollars a month to play one game when i can just buy it and own it forever.

I honestly dont think your gonna agree with me and vice versa. I mean we definitely have different opinions on the matter but i hope this at least informs you on where i am
coming from and that it starts to sound more logical. Also if you respond tell me if you think they should add firefight/sparten ops in general im curious to see how popular it it still.

1. Fair point but respectfully it doesn't really have merit. You are just saying you don't feel it'll be of the quality despite pretty much ever all time great FPS campaign sharing resources with an MP Suite. The only exception that comes to mind off the top of my head being HL2 and even then there is an argument to be made for CS source getting those resources. Yes mp costs alot but it shares assets with mp most of the work load is actually shared not divided. I know some gonna try argue that but having made games I know this to be true and yes issues arise using assets between the 2 but it is mostly shared work load for art and designers.

2. You are equating quality and length now. But to quote you in 1. "Bigger doesn't always equal better" the game being an exceptional 10 hours has more value than a drawn out 18. You wrote off the value of side content but now are advocating length for the sake of length. So honestly I'm a bit perplexed by your thinking.
While I concede we dont know the quality as of yet thats is why as consumers we should not preorder and do our due diligence before a purchase. You will have access to reviews and will be able to determine this prior to purchase. Again its an entirely different type of game to halos ce - 5. It isn't a linear corridor campaign. The ideas prior titles played with is the core philosophy here and as such it deserves to be compared to games like that. Those launch with either lacking mp suite or non at all at full RRP.

3. OK, then how? Please explain how the mp that
Was inevitably gonna feature micro purchases going F2P and receiving the same level of polish as it would have if it were tied to the campaign purchase cost you?
How is it like cod which has 1 F2P mode but ties its traditional MP to a 60 purchase of a short linear campaign on top of a battle pass the same? Or Battlefield who are charging 70 for a campaign without a single player component.
In the case of Infinite we get the option to not pay at all and have mp or pay the usual price and have access to everything with a larger playerbase for mp that funds further content for both modes and then the additional option to just play campaign Via gamepass.
What you declare is a way of taking our money is very much the best model I've seen in the modern FPS market for avoiding over payment. Additionally the SP works towards MP unlocks. Essentially I read your argument as spending the same price for access to everything but locking out potential players from multiplayer is bad.

3.5 I never said halo has zero replay value I used the example of GOW4 as an indication that price isn't just derived by time spent but in the case of infinite that time spent is made greater due to a greater replay value by design.
I understand your opinion it isn't my own clearly. While being open world to you doesn't permit the 60 price tag are you sire that isn't because its a halo? Have you never bought an openwork single-player game at full price and felt it deserving of the money? Genuinely curious.

4. I think the comments on our spartan being part of the universe more or less confirms spartan ops2. Halo 4 beat destiny to the punch but didn't have the best level design or raids. These are easily fixed and would be a great addition. On top of that firefight would be a great addition.
Sadly the game should be delayed imo so these modes and coop and forge are all ready at launch.

Well that or MS is taking the Gears5 approach of piecemeal launching to create the impression of longevity and retaining monthly active users. Honestly thats my major concern not the campaign being full price but the inherent push gamepass gives MS to treat all major ip as live service games. Thats another topic though. And ultimately GP is great value and on a technical front the next big halo has never been so affordable.
The more people playing MP the Better and as a primarily campaign fan im happy to pay the same as I always have for the full experience even if that means some people get mp for free as it only benefits me and the player base at large.
That's why I'm glad I have Gamepass. That being said, no-way it's only 5 hours long.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 4