Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

Halo Infinite and Microtransactions

OP Johny45k

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 8
Johny45k wrote:
So lets add something to the conversation.

What if lootboxes but not microtransactions are indeed banned throughout most of the world? That is becoming a very real possibility as we get closer to Infinites launch.

What would they do than?
I'm pretty sure it's all but guaranteed loot boxes or anything RNG related will be shut down, it's simply a matter of time at this point with various countries getting involved, devs will either ditch the system or they won't be allowed to sell their games in W/E country won't allow it. In this case there's no doubt developers/publishers change as you can't make much if countries like the U.S. or Japan won't allow your game to be sold in it, and whatever countries letting you keep loot boxes won't be even close enough to get by. I mean think on it, I'd say most sales come from the U.S., Halo 5 sold an estimated 5 million, let's assume 3 million of that 5 is U.S. sales, take that out and you lost 180 million dollars from that country alone. BIG dent in your sales. Now imagine a few more countries doing the same and you lose millions more, even smaller countries it can be a dent. Say you sold 200k copies to Japan and they ban the game, that's still 12 million you just lost out on. I only bring up smaller countries as some people under value how much they can contribute even if they bring in lower numbers, I mean sure 200k sales isn't a lot compared to the 3 million, but that 12 million dollar loss still hurts in the end.

As for what devs would do in place of it: there's various things they can do. They can go back to season passes, dlc implementation, buy exactly what you want IE cosmetics only which some are reverting to. I wouldn't be surprised to find some implement a system where you can only get an item by buying, meaning you can't earn it in game. Want that badass armor? Hope you have 10$ as there's no in game currency to get it, this method would suck if most of the armor is applied this way imagine had H5 did this, out if the 200+ variants, let's say only a dozen could be earned in game and the rest you could only obtain by paying, especially the fan favorites. Hell they may even come up with something entirely new, I'm sure they could get creative when it comes to making money.
WerepyreND wrote:
AlibutOne wrote:
WerepyreND wrote:
Its real simple, just don't use exploitative gambling mechanics like lootboxes and/or P2W mechanics(which REQS were) and I feel like most people will be fine.

Just follow a Titanfall style model:
Step 1: Release a full featured game with a plethora of visual customization from the get go.
Step 2: Start development on additional paid(cosmetic) items after the game releases or at the very least after the game has gone gold.
Step 3: Just sell people cool stuff up front without any of the slimy yoink!
Step 4: Profit without the bad press and an angry fanbase.

The in game purchases need to be completely segregated in game unlocks. In game unlocks should only be able to be unlocked in game without being able to buy any "currency" to speed up the process. Microtransactions meanwhile should be straightforward and honest. "Do you think this thing we made is cool? Do you think it is worth the price we are charging? No slot machines or absurd grinds to wear the customer down, just selling a specific item for a specific price and letting them decide whether it is worth it.

But most importantly, JUST DON"T USE GAMBLING MECHANICS TO TRY AND EXPLOIT YOUR CUSTOMERS. Like seriously just don't do it, there are plenty of other ways to make money that are more ethical.
I think for me if it's purely cosmectics for me it's fine.
The people are still forgetting about the side of developers. To make an AAA title requires millions like they made for a movie. There are a thousand of artists, programmers, server maintenance, audio team, effect team, etc...
I completely agree about the unbalanced reqs on the warzone, and I hate lootboxes when bring so useless random itens, but it's not necessary to be so extremist on the idea.
If Infinite won't be any microtransactions, they will problaby sell more expensive on their final product. So my question is: this will be worthing for truth or the results will be the same if will had microtransactions?
Developers and publishers love to use the "games are expensive to make" excuse and I don't think anyone will deny there is truth to that, but until dev/pubs start being vastly more transparent about how and where all this money is being spent, they can stuff it. Its easy to go and say "X game cost Y millions" to make, but if it is the publishers who blow up the price due to absurd demands and meddling than suddenly Y millions of dollars is suddenly a lot less sympathetic.

I didn't even say microtransactions as a whole needed to go, just exploitative gambling mechanics and absurdly long grinds(regardless of whether it is "only cosmetic"). Go ahead, sell bits a pieces of armor, assassinations, armor effects, etc. Simple, up front micro-transactions that are not hidden behind gambling or other shady practices. Make small things people want to buy and just let them buy them with no strings attached.
I completely agree.
I don't want to be forced to buy microtransactions or DLCs. I think Halo 5 does well, but unfortunately, i think the only problem is with warzone.
You can't get specific vehicles like wraths, scorpio, forerunner ships, banshees; who would be a great help to kill enemies. And most of weapons are useless and unbalanced too. I think most of weapons are too weak against the horde, specialy enemies vehicles. I win more ghosts than any other things.
For REQ PvP, I don't have anything to complain.
I'm not comfortable with govt getting involved in matters they only understand from the most hysterical voices in the gaming community.

Aside from finally getting their decades long wish of setting precedent that they can indeed regulate in-game content, there's also the matter that they likely won't tell the different between premium loot boxes that are P2W, Overwatch's harmless loot boxes, cosmetic microtransactions, or even the original loot boxes of RPG games. We just gave a new avenue of power to powers that never in its existence liked videogames and wanted to control its content since Doom.

And you people are applauding.
You give them an inch, and microsoft will try to milk you dry

I am apalled that you guys are even slightly okay with this slap to the player's face

WE SHOULD BE PROTESTING TO GET MICROTRANSACTIONS REMOVED
appalled indeed! It is an insult too halo fans and people who have stick too the franchise, especially in last couple of years in its slow downfall. And they are still being greedy and want more money at the cost of a QUALITY, FILLED, AMD COMPLETE GAMEfor the price of a game, like it should be! Currently not having a good feeling or hope for the new halo
Thats a shame. I guess Halo infinite wont be an amazing game online. Hopefully the story is good though.
At the very least the story should be at least better then the last! Have no hope in the multiplayer as some of the first news we have heard about it is microtransactions which speaks for itself on the priorities of 343. Assuming they will put more time and development on this aspect of the game rather then the story campaign like they did in halo 5. SORT IT OUT 343, Simple, go back too halo roots, let us be chief in campaign, let the game sell itself and not need microtransactions too make up in money for a failure of a bad game when it can sell itself.
I'm not comfortable with govt getting involved in matters they only understand from the most hysterical voices in the gaming community.

Aside from finally getting their decades long wish of setting precedent that they can indeed regulate in-game content, there's also the matter that they likely won't tell the different between premium loot boxes that are P2W, Overwatch's harmless loot boxes, cosmetic microtransactions, or even the original loot boxes of RPG games. We just gave a new avenue of power to powers that never in its existence liked videogames and wanted to control its content since Doom.

And you people are applauding.
We are not talking about censorship, the issue with lootboxes regards regulation of business models. There is no meaninful disinction between P2W lootboxes and cosmetic only lootboxes(I loved overwatch but its lootboxes are still horrible), they all contain something of value to the consumer or else these schemes wouldn't be effective. It all relies on the same fundamental principle of "just one more pull of the lever." It walks like a duck(gambling) and quacks like duck and as a result if these companies want to use it then they ought to be regulated as such. If you want to blame anyone for getting government agencies involved blame EA and all the AAA publishers who's unrestrained avarice pushed the envelope until it ripped.

Blaming the consumer for complaining about business practices that exploit said consumers is absurd and quite frankly gross. This isn't a matter of defending artistic expression, its a matter of corporate greed.

AlibutOne wrote:
I completely agree.
I don't want to be forced to buy microtransactions or DLCs. I think Halo 5 does well, but unfortunately, i think the only problem is with warzone.
You can't get specific vehicles like wraths, scorpio, forerunner ships, banshees; who would be a great help to kill enemies. And most of weapons are useless and unbalanced too. I think most of weapons are too weak against the horde, specialy enemies vehicles. I win more ghosts than any other things.
For REQ PvP, I don't have anything to complain.
Even if you removed all gameplay related elements of the req system you are still left with an exploitative gambling system. If people didn't value cosmetics, then these gambling schemes wouldn't be effective but people clearly do. This is not somehting we as consumers need to compromise on, they can make plenty of money through other microtransaction models that don't have the same ethical issues.
I'm not comfortable with govt getting involved in matters they only understand from the most hysterical voices in the gaming community.

Aside from finally getting their decades long wish of setting precedent that they can indeed regulate in-game content, there's also the matter that they likely won't tell the different between premium loot boxes that are P2W, Overwatch's harmless loot boxes, cosmetic microtransactions, or even the original loot boxes of RPG games. We just gave a new avenue of power to powers that never in its existence liked videogames and wanted to control its content since Doom.

And you people are applauding.
I too share some concern on government intervention, I believe this is something they shouldn't "have to" get involved with but that's the card people are given at this point. Gaming corps have ignored the issue as they simply don't care and the consumers continue to buy into it. I won't see it as an issue so long as the primary goal is to simply shut down loot boxes or RNG systems (so overwatch isn't "harmless", it's been used in this argument for a while now) and go no further. If they try to also control what people can and cannot play then I'd be curious how much people would fight back on it as I see that as the potential issue with the government getting involved.
I'm not comfortable with govt getting involved in matters they only understand from the most hysterical voices in the gaming community.

Aside from finally getting their decades long wish of setting precedent that they can indeed regulate in-game content, there's also the matter that they likely won't tell the different between premium loot boxes that are P2W, Overwatch's harmless loot boxes, cosmetic microtransactions, or even the original loot boxes of RPG games. We just gave a new avenue of power to powers that never in its existence liked videogames and wanted to control its content since Doom.

And you people are applauding.
While I am against micro transactions I very much agree with this sentiment. Especially when it comes to the extremly authoritarian government of the EU (Looking at you article 13).
<p></p>
Chimera30 wrote:
Johny45k wrote:
So lets add something to the conversation.

What if lootboxes but not microtransactions are indeed banned throughout most of the world? That is becoming a very real possibility as we get closer to Infinites launch.

What would they do than?
You'll find out soon enough what they'd do instead of paid lootboxes.
Well than.
Johny45k wrote:
So lets add something to the conversation.

What if lootboxes but not microtransactions are indeed banned throughout most of the world? That is becoming a very real possibility as we get closer to Infinites launch.

What would they do than?
I'm pretty sure it's all but guaranteed loot boxes or anything RNG related will be shut down, it's simply a matter of time at this point with various countries getting involved, devs will either ditch the system or they won't be allowed to sell their games in W/E country won't allow it. In this case there's no doubt developers/publishers change as you can't make much if countries like the U.S. or Japan won't allow your game to be sold in it, and whatever countries letting you keep loot boxes won't be even close enough to get by. I mean think on it, I'd say most sales come from the U.S., Halo 5 sold an estimated 5 million, let's assume 3 million of that 5 is U.S. sales, take that out and you lost 180 million dollars from that country alone. BIG dent in your sales. Now imagine a few more countries doing the same and you lose millions more, even smaller countries it can be a dent. Say you sold 200k copies to Japan and they ban the game, that's still 12 million you just lost out on. I only bring up smaller countries as some people under value how much they can contribute even if they bring in lower numbers, I mean sure 200k sales isn't a lot compared to the 3 million, but that 12 million dollar loss still hurts in the end.

As for what devs would do in place of it: there's various things they can do. They can go back to season passes, dlc implementation, buy exactly what you want IE cosmetics only which some are reverting to. I wouldn't be surprised to find some implement a system where you can only get an item by buying, meaning you can't earn it in game. Want that badass armor? Hope you have 10$ as there's no in game currency to get it, this method would suck if most of the armor is applied this way imagine had H5 did this, out if the 200+ variants, let's say only a dozen could be earned in game and the rest you could only obtain by paying, especially the fan favorites. Hell they may even come up with something entirely new, I'm sure they could get creative when it comes to making money.
Or we could stop forcing a $60 limit and start charging $70 for a game. If not, a season pass as long as it doesn't affect armor earning but maybe gives access to exclusive events could be gud.
Johny45k wrote:
So lets add something to the conversation.

What if lootboxes but not microtransactions are indeed banned throughout most of the world? That is becoming a very real possibility as we get closer to Infinites launch.

What would they do than?
I'm pretty sure it's all but guaranteed loot boxes or anything RNG related will be shut down, it's simply a matter of time at this point with various countries getting involved, devs will either ditch the system or they won't be allowed to sell their games in W/E country won't allow it. In this case there's no doubt developers/publishers change as you can't make much if countries like the U.S. or Japan won't allow your game to be sold in it, and whatever countries letting you keep loot boxes won't be even close enough to get by. I mean think on it, I'd say most sales come from the U.S., Halo 5 sold an estimated 5 million, let's assume 3 million of that 5 is U.S. sales, take that out and you lost 180 million dollars from that country alone. BIG dent in your sales. Now imagine a few more countries doing the same and you lose millions more, even smaller countries it can be a dent. Say you sold 200k copies to Japan and they ban the game, that's still 12 million you just lost out on. I only bring up smaller countries as some people under value how much they can contribute even if they bring in lower numbers, I mean sure 200k sales isn't a lot compared to the 3 million, but that 12 million dollar loss still hurts in the end.

As for what devs would do in place of it: there's various things they can do. They can go back to season passes, dlc implementation, buy exactly what you want IE cosmetics only which some are reverting to. I wouldn't be surprised to find some implement a system where you can only get an item by buying, meaning you can't earn it in game. Want that badass armor? Hope you have 10$ as there's no in game currency to get it, this method would suck if most of the armor is applied this way imagine had H5 did this, out if the 200+ variants, let's say only a dozen could be earned in game and the rest you could only obtain by paying, especially the fan favorites. Hell they may even come up with something entirely new, I'm sure they could get creative when it comes to making money.
Or we could stop forcing a $60 limit and start charging $70 for a game. If not, a season pass as long as it doesn't affect armor earning but maybe gives access to exclusive events could be gud.
I would be fine with $70 games.
344i, Bungie, Activision, EA and
the ESRB, a'll need to see this:

https://youtu.be/zl7A6bRKPDU
Right everyone we all need to calm down. This comes directly from Chris Lee. "Keep the faith, it's appreciated! We’re still working through final plans and will share more when we are ready, but I can definitely say that Halo Infinite will not include real-money loot boxes."
WerepyreND wrote:
I'm not comfortable with govt getting involved in matters they only understand from the most hysterical voices in the gaming community.

Aside from finally getting their decades long wish of setting precedent that they can indeed regulate in-game content, there's also the matter that they likely won't tell the different between premium loot boxes that are P2W, Overwatch's harmless loot boxes, cosmetic microtransactions, or even the original loot boxes of RPG games. We just gave a new avenue of power to powers that never in its existence liked videogames and wanted to control its content since Doom.

And you people are applauding.
We are not talking about censorship, the issue with lootboxes regards regulation of business models. There is no meaninful disinction between P2W lootboxes and cosmetic only lootboxes(I loved overwatch but its lootboxes are still horrible), they all contain something of value to the consumer or else these schemes wouldn't be effective. It all relies on the same fundamental principle of "just one more pull of the lever." It walks like a duck(gambling) and quacks like duck and as a result if these companies want to use it then they ought to be regulated as such. If you want to blame anyone for getting government agencies involved blame EA and all the AAA publishers who's unrestrained avarice pushed the envelope until it ripped.

Blaming the consumer for complaining about business practices that exploit said consumers is absurd and quite frankly gross. This isn't a matter of defending artistic expression, its a matter of corporate greed.

AlibutOne wrote:
I completely agree.
I don't want to be forced to buy microtransactions or DLCs. I think Halo 5 does well, but unfortunately, i think the only problem is with warzone.
You can't get specific vehicles like wraths, scorpio, forerunner ships, banshees; who would be a great help to kill enemies. And most of weapons are useless and unbalanced too. I think most of weapons are too weak against the horde, specialy enemies vehicles. I win more ghosts than any other things.
For REQ PvP, I don't have anything to complain.
Even if you removed all gameplay related elements of the req system you are still left with an exploitative gambling system. If people didn't value cosmetics, then these gambling schemes wouldn't be effective but people clearly do. This is not somehting we as consumers need to compromise on, they can make plenty of money through other microtransaction models that don't have the same ethical issues.
You're absolutely right!
I confess I am little scaried if the final game gets too expensive.
Here in my country, is hard to spend only a game
I would love to pre-order or buy physical copy on launch day, but i can't. Maybe later with some short promotion or something like that. Maybe I can do it earlier, maybe not...
BFV goes high with dólar value ( i am not blaming anyone)
But I want get in to the party with on the beta and launch. I am aware there's some player will buy later, but i think it's fascinating to join the fun earlier.
That's all.
Johny45k wrote:
So lets add something to the conversation.

What if lootboxes but not microtransactions are indeed banned throughout most of the world? That is becoming a very real possibility as we get closer to Infinites launch.

What would they do than?
I'm pretty sure it's all but guaranteed loot boxes or anything RNG related will be shut down, it's simply a matter of time at this point with various countries getting involved, devs will either ditch the system or they won't be allowed to sell their games in W/E country won't allow it. In this case there's no doubt developers/publishers change as you can't make much if countries like the U.S. or Japan won't allow your game to be sold in it, and whatever countries letting you keep loot boxes won't be even close enough to get by. I mean think on it, I'd say most sales come from the U.S., Halo 5 sold an estimated 5 million, let's assume 3 million of that 5 is U.S. sales, take that out and you lost 180 million dollars from that country alone. BIG dent in your sales. Now imagine a few more countries doing the same and you lose millions more, even smaller countries it can be a dent. Say you sold 200k copies to Japan and they ban the game, that's still 12 million you just lost out on. I only bring up smaller countries as some people under value how much they can contribute even if they bring in lower numbers, I mean sure 200k sales isn't a lot compared to the 3 million, but that 12 million dollar loss still hurts in the end.

As for what devs would do in place of it: there's various things they can do. They can go back to season passes, dlc implementation, buy exactly what you want IE cosmetics only which some are reverting to. I wouldn't be surprised to find some implement a system where you can only get an item by buying, meaning you can't earn it in game. Want that badass armor? Hope you have 10$ as there's no in game currency to get it, this method would suck if most of the armor is applied this way imagine had H5 did this, out if the 200+ variants, let's say only a dozen could be earned in game and the rest you could only obtain by paying, especially the fan favorites. Hell they may even come up with something entirely new, I'm sure they could get creative when it comes to making money.
Or we could stop forcing a $60 limit and start charging $70 for a game. If not, a season pass as long as it doesn't affect armor earning but maybe gives access to exclusive events could be gud.
I would be fine with $70 games.
Its really the same price as games 10 years ago, but adjusted for inflation. A $60 limit is one of the most ridiculous concepts I've heard of to date.
smasher555 wrote:
Right everyone we all need to calm down. This comes directly from Chris Lee. "Keep the faith, it's appreciated! We’re still working through final plans and will share more when we are ready, but I can definitely say that Halo Infinite will not include real-money loot boxes."
If true then u can remove 343i from my list, but everyone else in it still needs to see that vid.
WerepyreND wrote:
I'm not comfortable with govt getting involved in matters they only understand from the most hysterical voices in the gaming community.

Aside from finally getting their decades long wish of setting precedent that they can indeed regulate in-game content, there's also the matter that they likely won't tell the different between premium loot boxes that are P2W, Overwatch's harmless loot boxes, cosmetic microtransactions, or even the original loot boxes of RPG games. We just gave a new avenue of power to powers that never in its existence liked videogames and wanted to control its content since Doom.

And you people are applauding.
We are not talking about censorship,
I am.

This is how it works: Certain authoritarian nanny types in govt want very badly to get their hands on various forms of entertainment because they simply don't like it. It's so prevalent that it's one of the few issues both sides are bipartisan about. Be it Metal music or Power Rangers, there's always some kind of campaign to wag their finger and control what we consume. And they lost - each and every time. 1stA is actually very useful.

But you know what changed since the Doom, Mortal Kombat, and GTA3 hysteria? They got smart. They know people are turned off by blatant attempts to limit what they consume so the new tactic is dealing with low hanging fruit to establish precedent. Because once the precedent is established, as with SCOTUS decisions, it can used as a basis for future decisions.

So here comes the loot box ferver, right? Low hanging fruit; a bunch of loud gamers hate loit boxes as a concept. No discussion about improvent or anything, just liud rage at something they could end by simply not buying anything. So here comes politicians, who never in their career showed interest in the game industry or gamers, other than to score points with soccer moms trying to ban Doom. So why now?

Lootboxes are technically in-game content. They set the precedent that they can actually tell a publisher to remove something they have every right to include in their product, that's the framework. If you think for some reason it ends there, you either let your dislike for RNG blind you or you don't know how legislative precedent works.

Lootboxes 'harm' players, right? "Oh god think of the children," right? What else have you caught govt or its lobby group talk about as a 'harm' to citizens? Sexuality? Violence? Perhaps narratives that criticize govt? Why not? You just told them premium RNG was harmful and should be regulated by them, what makes you think they'll need you for further decisions? You gave them the okay.

This should have been handled among the gaming community and industry. Under no circumstance should even local govt been involved. I've watched their attempts against entertainment since I was 14yrs old - in fact those attempts are what made me take interest in politics. And that was mid-90s. Absolutely nothing changed and I'm not gonna cheer them on because people don't have self control.
Johny45k wrote:
So lets add something to the conversation.

What if lootboxes but not microtransactions are indeed banned throughout most of the world? That is becoming a very real possibility as we get closer to Infinites launch.

What would they do than?
I'm pretty sure it's all but guaranteed loot boxes or anything RNG related will be shut down, it's simply a matter of time at this point with various countries getting involved, devs will either ditch the system or they won't be allowed to sell their games in W/E country won't allow it. In this case there's no doubt developers/publishers change as you can't make much if countries like the U.S. or Japan won't allow your game to be sold in it, and whatever countries letting you keep loot boxes won't be even close enough to get by. I mean think on it, I'd say most sales come from the U.S., Halo 5 sold an estimated 5 million, let's assume 3 million of that 5 is U.S. sales, take that out and you lost 180 million dollars from that country alone. BIG dent in your sales. Now imagine a few more countries doing the same and you lose millions more, even smaller countries it can be a dent. Say you sold 200k copies to Japan and they ban the game, that's still 12 million you just lost out on. I only bring up smaller countries as some people under value how much they can contribute even if they bring in lower numbers, I mean sure 200k sales isn't a lot compared to the 3 million, but that 12 million dollar loss still hurts in the end.

As for what devs would do in place of it: there's various things they can do. They can go back to season passes, dlc implementation, buy exactly what you want IE cosmetics only which some are reverting to. I wouldn't be surprised to find some implement a system where you can only get an item by buying, meaning you can't earn it in game. Want that badass armor? Hope you have 10$ as there's no in game currency to get it, this method would suck if most of the armor is applied this way imagine had H5 did this, out if the 200+ variants, let's say only a dozen could be earned in game and the rest you could only obtain by paying, especially the fan favorites. Hell they may even come up with something entirely new, I'm sure they could get creative when it comes to making money.
Or we could stop forcing a $60 limit and start charging $70 for a game. If not, a season pass as long as it doesn't affect armor earning but maybe gives access to exclusive events could be gud.
I myself wouldn't mind paying 70-80$ for a game day one if that needs to be the case. The issue is I don't think most people will be willing to accept that, there were already issues going from 50 to 60$ in the past.
I'm not comfortable with govt getting involved in matters they only understand from the most hysterical voices in the gaming community.

Aside from finally getting their decades long wish of setting precedent that they can indeed regulate in-game content, there's also the matter that they likely won't tell the different between premium loot boxes that are P2W, Overwatch's harmless loot boxes, cosmetic microtransactions, or even the original loot boxes of RPG games. We just gave a new avenue of power to powers that never in its existence liked videogames and wanted to control its content since Doom.

And you people are applauding.
I too share some concern on government intervention, I believe this is something they shouldn't "have to" get involved with but that's the card people are given at this point. Gaming corps have ignored the issue as they simply don't care and the consumers continue to buy into it. I won't see it as an issue so long as the primary goal is to simply shut down loot boxes or RNG systems (so overwatch isn't "harmless", it's been used in this argument for a while now) and go no further. If they try to also control what people can and cannot play then I'd be curious how much people would fight back on it as I see that as the potential issue with the government getting involved.
After the precedent is established there's basically nothing we could do to stop it, since they will defend the next 'harmful' content using the game community's own logic that allowed them in to begin with.
Thing is, I will say that microtransaction is something I despise but as of right now we do not know if they mean microtransaction as in REQ PACKS or Things to boost your way to items with IRL money. or they could mean map packs, armor packs, etc.

All I hope is 343i DOES NOT go back to Halo 5's way with microtransactions. I seriously hope not cause customization should allow players to freely buy (In-Game Currency) / unlock armor of their choosing, no RNG bull crap. Another thing I love to note too is not to make exclusive armors inclusive after a few weeks after. After noticing players being able to get that helioskrill armor simply by grinding or paying is flat out insulting to players who keen the MC:C on legendary.

To be honest if 343i is going to bring crap Microtransaction back it should be one of the categories:

- Map Packs
- Skin Packs (maybe slight alternative armor designs, either skin wise or just like a "Classic" type like with the halo reach pack)
- Voice Packs
etc.

Anything that is simply cosmetic but nothing to dramatic to make players jealous like making an awesome flaming skull behind a paywall.

343i aren't the worse offenders of the microtransaction scheme but it doesn't make it okay and I swear to god what they are announcing is less of a piss take than what we're thinking of it. but unfortunately so far I am sadly now feeling concern for halo: infinite due to 343i re-introducing Microtransactions and making multiplayer more Esports focus (aka, spending loads of money on sweaty teens for pointless "Sport" shows. making their games multiplayer more of a stress fest than a fun fest)

I hope I am over thinking the negatives here cause I hate to see a game I love since I was a kid just go down this hole full of grunt feces.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 8