Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

Halo Infinite and Microtransactions

OP Jonny45k7236

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 4
  4. 5
  5. 6
  6. 7
  7. ...
  8. 8
Yeah, learning this has kinda killed my hype for the game but I guess I should have expected it with 343 directly working for Microsoft.. I absolutely believe there will be no 'loot boxes' in this Halo game but my concern is for what could 'replace' it.

Depending on how things shake down, Halo 5 might be my very last Halo game...
We need Halo Reach style of armor customization back. It was so addictive that people are still trying to grind for that Inheritor Haunted Helmet.

If 343 is going to add microtransactions as a last resort, then at least only have them for armor variants like the ones with the stripes, but have the base armor unlocked via skill, and require the base armor to be unlocked in order to use the microtransaction armor. There also needs to be certain armors that are only unlocked via skill. At least this way armor will have some meaning again.
GOOD NEWS IT WAS JUST CONFIRMED ON COMICBOOK.COM THAT THERE WILL BE NO ANY KIND OF LOOTBOXES OR MICROTRANSACTIONS IN HALO INFINITE.

Here's the link,

https://comicbook.com/gaming/amp/2018/09/19/-halo-infinite-no-loot-boxes-confirmed/

Firstly it HAS to be known that it is confirmed that there won’t be any form of lootboxes. let’s wait until OFFICIAL information has been released by 343 before we throw our hissy-fit.

Edit:Here’s the source from a 343 employee responding to a high profile Halo youtuber
I read that on twitter, it does not confirm that there won't be any form of loot boxes. I can confirm Halo Infinite will not include real money loot boxes ! That is really worrying too. Will there be an in game currency to buy loot boxes ? Can you buy an in game currency with real money to buy loot crates ? Will there be a loot req system like Halo 5 ? I'm going to be very cautious about Halo Infinite.

The comment of I can confirm Halo Infinite will not include real money loot boxes leaves us with more questions than answers imo. Add to that, we found out that Halo Infinite might be a games as a service title, it's no wonder many of us very concerned about the direction Halo might be going in. Rng loot crates are a millstone around our necks, especially if the ENTIRE progression system is linked to them.

I don't want them, and I won't buy games with them, regardless if they're paid for with real money or not.
eviltedi wrote:
Firstly it HAS to be known that it is confirmed that there won’t be any form of lootboxes. let’s wait until OFFICIAL information has been released by 343 before we throw our hissy-fit.

Edit:Here’s the source from a 343 employee responding to a high profile Halo youtuber
I read that on twitter, it does not confirm that there won't be any form of loot boxes. I can confirm Halo Infinite will not include real money loot boxes ! That is really worrying too. Will there be an in game currency to buy loot boxes ? Can you buy an in game currency with real money to buy loot crates ? Will there be a loot req system like Halo 5 ? I'm going to be very cautious about Halo Infinite.

The comment of I can confirm Halo Infinite will not include real money loot boxes leaves us with more questions than answers imo. Add to that, we found out that Halo Infinite might be a games as a service title, it's no wonder many of us very concerned about the direction Halo might be going in. Rng loot crates are a millstone around our necks, especially if the ENTIRE progression system is linked to them.

I don't want them, and I won't buy games with them, regardless if they're paid for with real money or not.
GOOD NEWS IT WAS JUST CONFIRMED ON COMICBOOK.COM THAT THERE WILL BE NO ANY KIND OF LOOTBOXES OR MICROTRANSACTIONS IN HALO INFINITE.

Here's the link,

https://comicbook.com/gaming/amp/2018/09/19/-halo-infinite-no-loot-boxes-confirmed/
Did you read that link before writing what you did ? The article states there will not be loot boxes you can buy with money, it does not confirm the exclusion of an rng loot progression system, and it also states there will be the possibility of micro transactions.
maxammo365 wrote:
I don't like the REQ system in Halo 5, but I could understand if its necessary. Basically the people who spend a lot of money on REQ packs subsidize the people who do not. Therefore we can all have future updates instead of paying for DLC and splitting up the community. I saw this split in BF1. DICE made really good maps, but no one played them because the community was split behind a paywall. Honestly, I probably put $20 - $30 extra into Halo 5 with REQ packs because I wanted to get armor faster. After buying a few gold packs I stopped, but there are people out there who have spent hundreds. Their money helps go towards future DLC for the rest of us.
No they don't. EA admitted that turning off MTs would not hurt earnings. When a game sells, and it sells millions, and 343i brags about selling well and MS brags about Halo making more money than the last game, the company had already covered the dev cost, and support costs.

It's a BS lie that MTs are needed. One to help gamers swallow the whole anti-consumer push. If Splatoon can have free maps updates, surely Halo can?
Wanted to have hope, but now I'm glad I didn't get hyped at just the artwork alone.

Congratulations 343i, I'm not buying it.
WerepyreND wrote:
I want everybody to take note what just happened.

A poster went from advocating for govt regulation of in-game content based on seemingly reasonable motivations,
"Advocating government regulation" is a stretch friend. My first post in this thread amounts to "Hey there are other ways to make money that aren't mired in controversy" and "I think lootboxes are similar to gambling and are unethical". You brought up government action in the form of censorship to which I responded that it was more applicable to liken it to regulation of business practices rather than in game content and violence. I also thought it was rather crummy of you to blame the consumer for getting the government involved rather than the corporations who got themselves into trouble. Apparently pointing out the fact that specific legal wording regarding such things as gambling can be change via rulings or legislation is in fact the same thing as "advocating" for government involvement.

I felt my initial stance in this thread as a whole was pretty straightforward. Imagine that the best way to keep the government from getting involved was to stop plowing forward with something that might get the government involved.
Quote:
to a) playing hard and loose with the very nature of law, b) refusing to clarify the distinction between literally 'nothing' and content he doesn't like, opting instead to invoke subjective review of said content,
I've never argued that they "literally" give you nothing, only that the distinction you are trying to make is meaningless if the end result is the same, ie paying over and over until they "win" whatever it is they actually find to have "value" tangible or not. As I said before if you get infinitely close to fitting the definition even while not technically reaching it, eventually some people are going to stop seeing the distinction.
Quote:
and c) appealing to malleability of legal precedent -
which is not the argument to defer to when the other guy is warning how abusive govt is once they establish precedent.
And by that they mean their slippery slope arguement that any crackdown on paid "in game" microtransactions would lead to government moving to censor actual in game content(violence, sex, etc) despite already admitting that pro-censorship groups have consistently lost ground. Because there is no room for nuance regarding real life money transactions and in game RNG and artistic expression at large.
Quote:
Not to mention dismissing the importance of being extremely clear in defining the factors involved in creating, expanding, or limiting laws and/or regulations is a baffling take and a misunderstanding of why laws 'seemingly' evolve.
More like accepting when definitions start to lose clarity due to changes in society or technology, that said definitions may need to be reexamined in order to once again become restore said clarity in a way that matches the realities of the present. The slow march of time affects everything and sometimes the law needs to catch up, again, whether through new interpretations via the courts or legislative action.
Quote:
I'm done here cause experience tells me this is where the convo ends. So anybody who knows what I'm talking about or have gained new interest in the other side of the argument, remember this:

"Until you detail, in plain legal language, why the garbage content is somehow 'no' content - as is the case with real world gambling - you are misusing the aforementioned gambling addiction and the actual reason it is considered harmful."

And you don't let anybody sidestep it or dismiss it or pretend it's some unreasonable challenge. If they were falsely accused of a crime they'd know exactly the importance of this standard. Present this demand to them and stand your ground.
That is because it is arguement that relies on strict legal definitions that ignores the fact that said legal definitions have mechanisms in place for being changed to something more fitting to modern realities of life. Standards change, and lootboxes already seem to violate the standards of certain nations, specifically Belgium and there are more beginning to look into them.

If we are using the crime analogy like the above, maybe the best defense isn't to say, "well that doesn't fit the legal definition of X due to Y technicality, perhaps the best way to avoid such trouble is to avoid doing something that comes close to reaching the legal definition of X crime in the first place. Turns out when you try to slip through loopholes, that certain folks might try to close said loopholes.
Thank you, sir, for arguing with logic this entire time.
I know it has already been technically explained, but let me put it my way; when gambling, you have the desired outcome(s) and an undesired outcome(s). It doesn't matter whether you are rewarded for receiving an undesired outcome or not; you still did not get the desired outcome. This drive for the desired outcome is what makes gambling so addictive.
Richnj wrote:
maxammo365 wrote:
I don't like the REQ system in Halo 5, but I could understand if its necessary. Basically the people who spend a lot of money on REQ packs subsidize the people who do not. Therefore we can all have future updates instead of paying for DLC and splitting up the community. I saw this split in BF1. DICE made really good maps, but no one played them because the community was split behind a paywall. Honestly, I probably put $20 - $30 extra into Halo 5 with REQ packs because I wanted to get armor faster. After buying a few gold packs I stopped, but there are people out there who have spent hundreds. Their money helps go towards future DLC for the rest of us.
No they don't. EA admitted that turning of MTs would not hurt earnings. When a game sells, and it sells millions, and 343i brags about selling well and MS brags about Halo making more money than the last game, the company had already covered the dev cost, and support costs.

It's a BS lie that MTs are needed. One to help gamers swallow the whole anti-consumer push. If Splatoon cam have free maps updates, surely Halo can?
Whether it actually does or not, it is pretty clear that micro-transactions will be in Halo Infinite. Comparing Splatoon and Halo is a stretch.
<p></p>
GravyGlove wrote:
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
Yeah, even as a loyal fan to the franchise, my hype has been killed stone dead.

No pre-order, I'll wait this time.
I personally disagree. This job listing looks like they are looking to increase the presence and manipulation of the gambling style loot boxes.

Let's be clear here. H5G's REQ System was not too intrusive. BUT it did effect how the rest of the modes were made. Big Team Battle was shrunken down so much so, that it was actually the size of Halo 3's regular Slayer! They shrunked it on purpose so there were no more Scorpions, Banshees, Wraiths, and Hornets so that way they could be exclusive to their precious Micro-transaction War Zone.

Perhaps some of you are to young to remember Halo's pinnacle, Halo 3. The wording in the 343i job listing truly puts this into perspective. Halo is being effected by the Flood of corporate greed.

Making a lot of money isn't enough. They need to make ALL OF THE MONEY.
maxammo365 wrote:
Richnj wrote:
maxammo365 wrote:
I don't like the REQ system in Halo 5, but I could understand if its necessary. Basically the people who spend a lot of money on REQ packs subsidize the people who do not. Therefore we can all have future updates instead of paying for DLC and splitting up the community. I saw this split in BF1. DICE made really good maps, but no one played them because the community was split behind a paywall. Honestly, I probably put $20 - $30 extra into Halo 5 with REQ packs because I wanted to get armor faster. After buying a few gold packs I stopped, but there are people out there who have spent hundreds. Their money helps go towards future DLC for the rest of us.
No they don't. EA admitted that turning of MTs would not hurt earnings. When a game sells, and it sells millions, and 343i brags about selling well and MS brags about Halo making more money than the last game, the company had already covered the dev cost, and support costs.

It's a BS lie that MTs are needed. One to help gamers swallow the whole anti-consumer push. If Splatoon cam have free maps updates, surely Halo can?
Whether it actually does or not, it is pretty clear that micro-transactions will be in Halo Infinite. Comparing Splatoon and Halo is a stretch.
<p></p>
They will be in Halo, but they shouldn't, nor need to be. Halo sells far more than Splatoon does. Therefore it makes more money and has more money available to be used for post launch support. Or are you suggesting that Halo is barely breaking even and Nintendo have a far more profitable model with splatoon?
This is very discomforting news... I will keep my eyes peeled to see what they do :/
Richnj wrote:
maxammo365 wrote:
Richnj wrote:
maxammo365 wrote:
I don't like the REQ system in Halo 5, but I could understand if its necessary. Basically the people who spend a lot of money on REQ packs subsidize the people who do not. Therefore we can all have future updates instead of paying for DLC and splitting up the community. I saw this split in BF1. DICE made really good maps, but no one played them because the community was split behind a paywall. Honestly, I probably put $20 - $30 extra into Halo 5 with REQ packs because I wanted to get armor faster. After buying a few gold packs I stopped, but there are people out there who have spent hundreds. Their money helps go towards future DLC for the rest of us.
No they don't. EA admitted that turning of MTs would not hurt earnings. When a game sells, and it sells millions, and 343i brags about selling well and MS brags about Halo making more money than the last game, the company had already covered the dev cost, and support costs.

It's a BS lie that MTs are needed. One to help gamers swallow the whole anti-consumer push. If Splatoon cam have free maps updates, surely Halo can?
Whether it actually does or not, it is pretty clear that micro-transactions will be in Halo Infinite. Comparing Splatoon and Halo is a stretch.
<p></p>
They will be in Halo, but they shouldn't, nor need to be. Halo sells far more than Splatoon does. Therefore it makes more money and has more money available to be used for post launch support. Or are you suggesting that Halo is barely breaking even and Nintendo have a far more profitable model with splatoon?
Just because a game sells more does not mean it makes more PROFIT. Profit and revenue are two different things. Revenue is all of the money a company makes on a game. Profit = revenue - cost. Development costs for Halo 5 can be assumed to be higher than costs for splatoon. I am not saying splatoon made more money. I'm sure it didn't. But if Microsoft invests $50 mil into a Halo game, they don't want a small profit margin. They want a high ROI.

I am no suggesting anything. I am saying, comparing Xbox's largest franchise to Splatoon is a stretch. Period.
If its like halo 5s id be ok with it. If they made it just cosmetics id be happy because it would mean its fair and 1 guy cant have everything op at launch
Richnj wrote:
maxammo365 wrote:
Richnj wrote:
maxammo365 wrote:
I don't like the REQ system in Halo 5, but I could understand if its necessary. Basically the people who spend a lot of money on REQ packs subsidize the people who do not. Therefore we can all have future updates instead of paying for DLC and splitting up the community. I saw this split in BF1. DICE made really good maps, but no one played them because the community was split behind a paywall. Honestly, I probably put $20 - $30 extra into Halo 5 with REQ packs because I wanted to get armor faster. After buying a few gold packs I stopped, but there are people out there who have spent hundreds. Their money helps go towards future DLC for the rest of us.
No they don't. EA admitted that turning of MTs would not hurt earnings. When a game sells, and it sells millions, and 343i brags about selling well and MS brags about Halo making more money than the last game, the company had already covered the dev cost, and support costs.

It's a BS lie that MTs are needed. One to help gamers swallow the whole anti-consumer push. If Splatoon cam have free maps updates, surely Halo can?
Whether it actually does or not, it is pretty clear that micro-transactions will be in Halo Infinite. Comparing Splatoon and Halo is a stretch.
<p></p>
They will be in Halo, but they shouldn't, nor need to be. Halo sells far more than Splatoon does. Therefore it makes more money and has more money available to be used for post launch support. Or are you suggesting that Halo is barely breaking even and Nintendo have a far more profitable model with splatoon?
You know, I think Splatoon might actually sell better than Halo if we just use H5 since everything related to H5 estimates around 5 million in sales while Splatoon 2 is 6.75 million units as of June of this year. https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/finance/software/index.htmlAlso just to budge in, let's say that 5 million mark for H5 is true, that's 300 million$ which is more than enough for a lot of things, I bet itd pay for H5 3X over but that's with the assumption all 5 million sales were at 60$, I'm sure some were discounts, some on sale, some part of the console deals but 60$ would be the bulk of it, primarily month one of launch. Regardless I'm more in agreement base sales can typically cover a games expenses as well as cover any other future projects.
kinda sad we are learning theyre adding microtransactions before we even know of any actual content
Halo Infinite will probably have some garbage Fortnite style progression with virtual currencies in a full priced game.

-Yoink- man, you’d think Microsoft would treat the few remaining fans with some respect considering we’ve been so active in the Waypoint forums advising against this exploitative -Yoink-.
And then we have games like Spider-man and God of War that broke records, which don't have mirco-transactions and are loved by all who play them. Can't we get that with Halo?
And then we have games like Spider-man and God of War that broke records, which don't have mirco-transactions and are loved by all who play them. Can't we get that with Halo?
That was halo. Lol.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 4
  4. 5
  5. 6
  6. 7
  7. ...
  8. 8