Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

Halo is not Call of Duty

OP Punisher8246

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3
Olive3000 wrote:
Basically what you're saying is you don't want a Battle Royale in Halo Infinite and you don't want microtransactions. Am I right?
no hes saying he was giving an example of a free game. and as for microtransactions do u really want them back
Oh so that's he's saying ok. Thanks.
Anyone who thinks that Microsoft/343 hasn't adjusted their strategy even slightly after seeing the success of Call of Duty's Warzone isn't recognizing that the video game industry is a business and people are in it to make money.

Microsoft/343 have spent a lot of time and money developing Infinite and they need a return on their investment. Infinite needs to be a console seller and successfull on the same level as fortnite - not just a niche arena FPS.
Thats why multiplayer being F2P makes a lot of sense. That being said, it is also gonna be on gamepass so the "return on investment idea" is kind of out the window already, at least with initial game sales. It would be through MTX's which if they were smart, would be for a majority of the armor in the game that is only purchasable after a certain rank as well as having some armor specific to achievements.
Infinite needs to be a console seller and successfull on the same level as fortnite - not just a niche arena FPS.
No, it doesn't. Console sales are not about a single game, they haven't been for a long time. The community of console gamers is so broad and varied that any given game will only count for a fraction of the total number of consoles sold. Microsoft doesn't need Halo Infinite to be absurdly successful. They just need it to be a recognizable brand in a line-up of recognizable brands to show that Microsoft has all the best games you like™. All it needs to do is sit there, look pretty, and not create any negative press. Being an unprecedented success would of course always be a bonus, but it's not required.

It certainly doesn't need to be as successful as Fortnite. There has never been an online multiplayer console game as successful as Fortnite. That hasn't prevented consoles from becoming successful.

Now, I'm not saying that the rest of your post is wrong, or that Microsoft doesn't care about or need to make money. Nor am I saying that Microsoft doesn't need a return of their investment. Just... let's take a couple steps back and scale down our expectations. Nobody's expecting or needs Halo Infinite to be as succesful as Fortnite.
sadly the game is basically confirmed to have micro transactions (not loot boxes if that makes it any better) hopefully the leaks aren't true ( don't want my post to be taken down because i said a rumor) but i highly doubt that halo infinite will be free to play
Microtransactions are fine with me as long as they have no gameplay effect. The REQ system in 5 had a pretty heavy effect on warzone, and if that comes back they need to change that so it isn't pay to win. Cosmetic MTs? Go for it that doesnt matter. As for infinite to be f2p, I highly doubt it will also, but some people think the MP might be. As long as there is no progression system skipping MTs or random lootboxes, I'm fine
Infinite is more than likely gonna take a page out of literally everybody’s playbook and go to a Battle Pass system. And if they’re gonna do it, I would hope for their sake that they do something like MW2019’s battle pass system. Why?

Well, 1: the game has plennnnnnnty of content available without it. Especially if you own the full game. Free to play players have several giant modes and I believe loadouts. Paid players have a full blown campaign, which was excellent, co-op modes and regular multiplayer plus Warzone. Either camp of players can buy the battle pass for basically what amounts to like 10 bucks in CoD currency, and everything they get is purely cosmetic. Most of the operator skins and other cosmetics are unlocked via challenges/missions/ranks. The battle pass is just like extra. If you don’t buy it you still get like 40% of what is in it.

2: It’s not random. You can see exactly what you’re going to get at what slot on the pass and make a determination about whether or not it is worth it to you. Usually if you get far enough on the battle pass you actually earn enough cod points to get the next season’s battle pass or other cosmetic store bundles.

3: The cash flow from that system seems fair and pretty much keeps everyone happy. Even if you didn’t pay a dime you still have access to most of the coolest gear. The RNG aspect of Halo 5 meant that I never got almost anything I wanted, and it got old very quick. It felt like Destiny. That era of games has ended, I would hope.

I highly doubt the next Halo will have any free to play mode but they are 100% gonna have micro transactions so I what’s most important is that they get it right. The best armor needs to be linked to achievements, ranks, in game challenges or currency earnable through playing matches and then they can entice you to spend more with some other cosmetics that are also *pretty frickn* cool. But don’t go pulling this stunt where you can only get like Recon or CE armor or something else everyone wants if you spend 20 bucks on a DLC pack or 1.99 on some random pack with a one in one million chance to actually get it. They would do well to have a ridiculous number of cosmetic items in the game and make it like 50/50 obtainable from the base game/ battle pass, useless cosmetics ONLY.
I want to be productive and say I hope they are making a good decision and the game will be affordable for everyone. I think micro transactional pricing makes sense bc some ppl have and can spend more money whereas others simply have to be content with gameplay and love of the game.

Not to say, I don't want a cool spartan but some people can't afford luxury.
tsassi wrote:
Infinite needs to be a console seller and successfull on the same level as fortnite - not just a niche arena FPS.
No, it doesn't. Console sales are not about a single game, they haven't been for a long time. The community of console gamers is so broad and varied that any given game will only count for a fraction of the total number of consoles sold. Microsoft doesn't need Halo Infinite to be absurdly successful. They just need it to be a recognizable brand in a line-up of recognizable brands to show that Microsoft has all the best games you like™. All it needs to do is sit there, look pretty, and not create any negative press. Being an unprecedented success would of course always be a bonus, but it's not required.

It certainly doesn't need to be as successful as Fortnite. There has never been an online multiplayer console game as successful as Fortnite. That hasn't prevented consoles from becoming successful.

Now, I'm not saying that the rest of your post is wrong, or that Microsoft doesn't care about or need to make money. Nor am I saying that Microsoft doesn't need a return of their investment. Just... let's take a couple steps back and scale down our expectations. Nobody's expecting or needs Halo Infinite to be as succesful as Fortnite.
OK, some of my above comments may have been hyperbole, but I maintain the argument that a strong Halo game is critical to the overall and long term success of the console. 343 spent 5 years developing not just this game but an entirely new engine as well. 5 Years! The game needs to be successful to at least make up for the resources put into it. Now if there's gameplay offerings they believe will increase the likelihood of the game reaching mass appeal, it's ignorant to think they won't try to capitalize and move in that direction.
I completely agree and they should stop trying to make halo like call of duty and stick to the traditional halo that's what made halo famous if it's not broke don't fix it 343 tried to fix something that wasn't broke and broke it return halo to its roots and how it was
tsassi wrote:
Infinite needs to be a console seller and successfull on the same level as fortnite - not just a niche arena FPS.
No, it doesn't. Console sales are not about a single game, they haven't been for a long time. The community of console gamers is so broad and varied that any given game will only count for a fraction of the total number of consoles sold. Microsoft doesn't need Halo Infinite to be absurdly successful. They just need it to be a recognizable brand in a line-up of recognizable brands to show that Microsoft has all the best games you like™. All it needs to do is sit there, look pretty, and not create any negative press. Being an unprecedented success would of course always be a bonus, but it's not required.

It certainly doesn't need to be as successful as Fortnite. There has never been an online multiplayer console game as successful as Fortnite. That hasn't prevented consoles from becoming successful.

Now, I'm not saying that the rest of your post is wrong, or that Microsoft doesn't care about or need to make money. Nor am I saying that Microsoft doesn't need a return of their investment. Just... let's take a couple steps back and scale down our expectations. Nobody's expecting or needs Halo Infinite to be as succesful as Fortnite.
OK, some of my above comments may have been hyperbole, but I maintain the argument that a strong Halo game is critical to the overall and long term success of the console. 343 spent 5 years developing not just this game but an entirely new engine as well. 5 Years! The game needs to be successful to at least make up for the resources put into it. Now if there's gameplay offerings they believe will increase the likelihood of the game reaching mass appeal, it's ignorant to think they won't try to capitalize and move in that direction.
Development costs for the new engine is really not that relevant unless Microsoft prohibit use of it outside of Halo games.

As long as Microsoft use the engine as an in-house engine for most of their first party products, then the cost is spread out over numerous titles. For instance, GoW has run on the Unreal Engine, and I doubt microsoft doesn't need to pay license fees for it.

If that's not enough, third-party licensing is also an option, like UE, Unity and others are doing.
I completely agree and they should stop trying to make halo like call of duty and stick to the traditional halo that's what made halo famous if it's not broke don't fix it 343 tried to fix something that wasn't broke and broke it return halo to its roots and how it was
Bungie started taking Halo down this path with Halo Reach, loadouts, armour lock, sprint, etc. I'm not 343i's biggest fan as I've been burned three tumes now imo. I think they're trying to make Halo great again, but they are not the sole reason we're where we are, Bungie played their part too. I think there's going to be a few surprises between now and release.
Its important to express what we want from a Halo game but also what we don't want. Call of duty recently implemented a free to play game mode called Warzone. Anyone who understands the gaming industry knows that this mode wasn't made for fans (who would have bought the game anyway). Its simply a way for Activision to justify heavy monetization under the excuse that the game is free to play. Because Halo is also a massively popular shooter, 343 could (purely speculative) be tempted to implement some form of free to play feature for the same purpose of heavy monetization. This kind of feature could be very harmful to the franchise in the long term. Nothing suggests that 343 could be planning something like this but when we look at what other shooters do, its hard not to compare and fear the worst.
That's a bit short sighted. A free game like Warzone (Halo's own Warzone as a F2P game for instance) could just as easily draw in mainstream gamers who normally aren't into Halo. Just like how I don't like CoD but am tempted to download Warzone because of the cross platform play, so I can play with friends and brothers on different platforms.
As for the monetization: I believe the industry as a whole has learned enough from the SW:BF2 debacle and MS as well knows we shouldn't be getting paid REQs/Loot boxes anymore. Will that mean no microtransactions at all? Probably not, but if that is what's needed to maintain Infinite and give us new content on a regular basis than I'm fine with that.
Well at least the Original Bungie Halo's are not COD, 343 seemed to try copying in Halo's 4 and 5.
Halo 4? Absolutely. Halo 5? H5 is about as COD as Halo 3 or any other Bungie entry in the series.

Anyways, we've had threads about microtransactions before, and I think it's fairly safe to say Halo: Infinite will have them. People no longer want to buy season passes/map packs and developers don't want to fragment their community based on what MP DLC they do or don't have. So MTs are here to stay. As long as they keep them purely cosmetic, I'm fine with whatever MS and 343 implement. As for battle royale, Frankie did say a fair while ago that they weren't planning anything on adding BR mode to Infinite, but things can change. As long as the core Halo experience stays the way it is, I think adding a BR mode could be pretty cool.
(...) some form of free to play feature for the same purpose of heavy monetization. This kind of feature could be very harmful to the franchise in the long term.
Please elaborate the harm. Because otherwise, I would counter argue that being free-to-play has attracted even more players (millions of extra players) to an already popular game. That's exactly what I want for Halo.
I wish we could have map packs back.

inb4 "bUt The SpLiT plAyErbAse!" Yeah have you seen MCC matchmaking that lets you search by game, number of players, starting weapons and game modes and somehow people are still playing together.
You pay for developers work and in return, they don't nicke'n'dime you with randomized loot, 'free' content that should have been there at launch or GoW 5 you with drip-feed of anorexic 'updates'
I think a presented option (and probably best) for them is to make a system where players who buy the full game don't deal with MTX while players who get the free version basically get all-out MTX. This is something I've thought of, nothing indicates thus far that this will be the case, but it'd be cool if this happened.

It would satisfy Halo players, satisfy outsiders who just wanted to try the game out because it's free (spread exposure), and satisfy 343/Microsoft because they can make their fans happy, get MTX money, and maybe even sell more copies to people who buy the game because they figure they'd spend less with a one-time $60 instead of getting everything via MTX.

Again, there's no proof this would happen, but I think it'd be the best option. I'm trying to stay optimistic about the whole MTX deal, although I'm not in denial of it's existence in Infinite.

Also, it's important to note that the Nerf AR code does suggest weapon skins exist, but it doesn't suggest how we'll get them.
This is the best way to include MTX I have heard so far. I would pay way more than $60 to ensure a MTX free experience.
Two things here. First on FTP and second on MTX.

On FTP, I pray that MS does not cave into the trend and offer a FTP BR type mode in Infinite. I don't mean to sound like some misconceived snob, but this is a AAA franchise for Xbox. Halo is better than doing something like this. It's already been announced Infinite will be available (or "free") to Xbox players that have Game Pass (similar to Gears 5). I am guessing they are going to focus more on gaining subscribers to GPU by dangling Infinite in front of people ("play Halo Infinite now with Game Pass Ultimate!"). Ramping up that subscriber base is far more important to Microsoft - it enhances the financial value of the Xbox franchise by adding a solid recurring revenue stream (monthly subscribers) to the business. With all the promotions and campaigns, MS is really trying to build that subscription model with its gamers. A FTP BR model of Infinite would certainly weaken the appeal of getting Infinite by signing up for GPU. I signed up for it right before Gears 5 came out. I also made sure to have like ~3 years of XBL membership paid for before doing it because I basically upgraded XBL Gold to GPU for the next 3 years for $1.

One other reason I would dread a FTP BR mode is because it would surely have a significant negative impact on the rest on the online MP experience. It's also a snub to a franchise where campaign is such a major component of the games and its community. Have you heard of or seen any of your friends online playing Fortnite's campaign? For a solid period of time people who purchase the full game will likely be in that BR mode because that is what everyone is going to be playing. Infinite deserves better than that.

On MTX, I haven't followed this as closely but it appears from others' posts here they have already confirmed they are not doing loot boxes next time around? One of the few things I did not have a problem with in Gears 5 was how they approached the "Operations" and MTX. The only thing I took issue with in that system was that some of the challenges require you to invest a significant amount of time in specific game modes that I frankly categorize as "non-core" (Horde, Escape). I am fine with in Halo having some challenges tied to Warzone/whatever an Infinite- warzone equivalent will be called.

Perhaps they use that as some sort of starting point reach a happy medium. Provide players with a comprehensive list of challenges that need to be completed over a certain period of time (e.g., 10 weeks, 3 months, etc.). Players can choose which of those challenges they want to complete (or all of them) by looking at what the rewards are for each (some heavy grinds could be required for the more desirable/coveted skins). The beauty of this type of reward system is that it keeps regular users sticking around longer. At the same time, every week (or few days, whenver) you have a store roll out new stuff for the MTX - this would include armor, skins, assassinations, etc. Gears messed this up given how infrequent it was updating the store and some of the prices they were charging for certain items. As we've seen in H5, 343 has no problem cranking out a ton of armor and skins. By regularly updating the store and offering stuff that actually looks cool (but obviously not the most BA stuff in the game, which is saved for the real grinders), you increase the selling opportunities. Combine this with the battle pass/operations style which keeps players around longer, you just increased your customer lifetime value (LTV).

I am sure there are plenty of bright minds working in the finance teams at MS/Xbox that have thought through all of this and run endless scenarios. When MS rolled out GPU and decided Gears 5 would be included, they did that for very well-calculated reasons. They knew they were basically giving away an otherwise $60 game to players who would have bought it anyway. But what they also got was a ton of new players who may not have otherwise bought the game for $60. Once the players are in, the ball is in the developer's court to find ways to monetize through MTX.

I for one do not believe MTX are the devil's work. You might call them a "necessary evil" in an evolving industry, but I really do believe with the right teams behind development you can strike a fair balance.
DonVinzone wrote:
Its important to express what we want from a Halo game but also what we don't want. Call of duty recently implemented a free to play game mode called Warzone. Anyone who understands the gaming industry knows that this mode wasn't made for fans (who would have bought the game anyway). Its simply a way for Activision to justify heavy monetization under the excuse that the game is free to play. Because Halo is also a massively popular shooter, 343 could (purely speculative) be tempted to implement some form of free to play feature for the same purpose of heavy monetization. This kind of feature could be very harmful to the franchise in the long term. Nothing suggests that 343 could be planning something like this but when we look at what other shooters do, its hard not to compare and fear the worst.
That's a bit short sighted. A free game like Warzone (Halo's own Warzone as a F2P game for instance) could just as easily draw in mainstream gamers who normally aren't into Halo. Just like how I don't like CoD but am tempted to download Warzone because of the cross platform play, so I can play with friends and brothers on different platforms.
As for the monetization: I believe the industry as a whole has learned enough from the SW:BF2 debacle and MS as well knows we shouldn't be getting paid REQs/Loot boxes anymore. Will that mean no microtransactions at all? Probably not, but if that is what's needed to maintain Infinite and give us new content on a regular basis than I'm fine with that.
That player base argument is so weak. Who exactly would you try to attract with a F2P mode? Halo fans will already buy the game no matter what. F2P modes don't exist to make new people buy the actual game, they exist to justify heavy monetization. How many people who downloaded warzone decided to buy MW because of it? Probably not that many. How many non-halo fans do you think will buy the game after playing a F2P portion? Probably not that many. If Infinite's multiplayer ends up being F2P, its means the actual game will have single player and maybe firefight. Why would a non fan care about the single player part? F2P doesn't attract a new fanbase, it only makes people play for free, which isn't beneficial for Halo sales. Some people might spend money on microtransactions but that will be harmful for the franchise. The more people spend on MTX, the more 343 will get agressive with them. I bought MW, which means I directly contributed to the success of the game. If you just download warzone and play, you're not changing anything.
(...) some form of free to play feature for the same purpose of heavy monetization. This kind of feature could be very harmful to the franchise in the long term.
Please elaborate the harm. Because otherwise, I would counter argue that being free-to-play has attracted even more players (millions of extra players) to an already popular game. That's exactly what I want for Halo.
It seems you and I have a different definition of player base. For me, player base are people who purchase the game at full price and contribute to sales. Pirated games or free modes can bring players, but they rarely bring actual support. Real support is buying the game, not just playing it. Lets be honest, MW was already huge before warzone arrived, COD fans will buy the games no matter what. If you look at the warzone community, I can guarantee you that the majority of players already bought the full game, and the ones that didn't won't change their minds just because of warzone. Barely anyone who just plays warzone will decide to buy MW because of it. The number of players has grown for sure, but Activision hasn't specified the effect on game sales, probably because it didn't have any. I want Halo to grow in game sales, because that's how the franchise makes profit without getting destroyed by microtransactions. If Infinite's multiplayer is F2P, that means the full game will have single player and firefight. Why would a non-fan pay for just single player? Why would someone who downloads the F2P version want to pay full price for the story? Why would they care? I don't see any evidence that having a F2P mode will grow copy sales for Infinite. The only thing it will do is open the door for 343 to double down on monetization under the excuse that its free to play. The more 343 makes from microtransactions, the more they will spend development money in building a monetization system that makes people addicted and pushes them to buy. That's how MTX could harm the franchise. That's what happened to AC Odyssey for example. The entire game was built to feel like a huge chore and a grind so that players get impatient and spend money. The danger is that developers divert funds that could be used to make an actual good game to focus on MTX. If 343's priorities aren't in the right place, Halo will suffer. Even Halo 5 had that problem. Why do you think the customization system had thousands of armor pieces? Of which many were duplicates and most were ugly? It was poor quality content but in huge numbers, to make players grind like crazy to get cool pieces, encouraging them to buy card packs. The more profits 343 makes from MTX, the more they will build their games based on monetization, and that can only be harmful. F2P will only bring more monetization.
Anyone who thinks that Microsoft/343 hasn't adjusted their strategy even slightly after seeing the success of Call of Duty's Warzone isn't recognizing that the video game industry is a business and people are in it to make money.

Microsoft/343 have spent a lot of time and money developing Infinite and they need a return on their investment. Infinite needs to be a console seller and successfull on the same level as fortnite - not just a niche arena FPS.
Thats why multiplayer being F2P makes a lot of sense. That being said, it is also gonna be on gamepass so the "return on investment idea" is kind of out the window already, at least with initial game sales. It would be through MTX's which if they were smart, would be for a majority of the armor in the game that is only purchasable after a certain rank as well as having some armor specific to achievements.
Look I don't know you but I read your comment and you really don't seem to understand Halo... Halo 5 should be an indication that following COD strategies is not a good idea, both in terms of gameplay and in terms of sales. I've already explained in the comments why F2P is a terrible idea so I'm not going to repeat myself. The sad part about 343's situation is that they don't have a lot of leeway to maneuver with MTX because gamers are so fed up of being milked. The best thing they could do is not release Infinite in game pass, and remove monetization from the game. Making the majority of armor pieces purchasable before reaching the required rank would be a bad idea. First because armor customization in Halo is very important to fans, more so than in many other shooters, second because if 343 implements such a system, they will have no other choice but to make ranking up an absolute grind, which will piss everyone off and third, because it will remove any value and sense of accomplishment in unlocking armor pieces. A halo fan would understand that. The last thing 343 wants is to create another controversy and replicate the Battlefront 2 situation. In today's climate, microtransactions are more and more risky and players are getting less and less patient. 343 could actually make more profit if they would focus solely on making the best game possible, which won't happen if they keep trying to monetize it. Halo 3 remains the most successful game in the franchise for a reason. People need to stop thinking that MTX are the best business model for games. CD Projekt Red just surpassed Ubisoft in value despite the fact that they launch much fewer titles and barely rely on MTX.
I think a presented option (and probably best) for them is to make a system where players who buy the full game don't deal with MTX while players who get the free version basically get all-out MTX. This is something I've thought of, nothing indicates thus far that this will be the case, but it'd be cool if this happened.

It would satisfy Halo players, satisfy outsiders who just wanted to try the game out because it's free (spread exposure), and satisfy 343/Microsoft because they can make their fans happy, get MTX money, and maybe even sell more copies to people who buy the game because they figure they'd spend less with a one-time $60 instead of getting everything via MTX.

Again, there's no proof this would happen, but I think it'd be the best option. I'm trying to stay optimistic about the whole MTX deal, although I'm not in denial of it's existence in Infinite.

Also, it's important to note that the Nerf AR code does suggest weapon skins exist, but it doesn't suggest how we'll get them.
This is the best way to include MTX I have heard so far. I would pay way more than $60 to ensure a MTX free experience.
I like the idea too but how would it work when it comes to pre-owned physical copies ? Have a code like PC games ? Probably not a good idea, it would stop game sharing and we all know how that affected Xbox this gen. It will be interesting to see where this goes. I do truly believe there are some announcements coming that are going to rustle some jimmies.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3