Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

How Microtransactions Can Acceptably Be Utilized

OP Ampicillin

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3
Ampicillin wrote:
Microtransactions are a large part of the success of a video game on multiple fronts. It's not just about greed of the developers, but monetary success of the franchise and the capabilities to move forward.
Except it is about greed. It's part of the reason why I mostly hate mobile games since they ruined mobile gaming for me, now there ruining modern games like taking away feature like offline modes, forcing awful rng unlocks, has hurt the franchise, which is part of the reason I disliked H5, is why Hw2s Blitz mode is mostly dead. Micro-transactions are one of the worst things to come to the games industry.
DoubleSama wrote:
All games have some sort of mirco transaction, its this new era of gaming now,
It doesn't mean we have to blindly accept it...
May I direct you to my previous post:
DoubleSama wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again, microtransactions are a good thing as long as they're purely cosmetic. This allows players who want to spend money on the game to do so, the developers make money from it, and the rest of us get free DLC which doesn't split up the community the way paid map packs used to. H5 was Halo's first attempt at microtransactions, and I admit they weren't perfect, but I believe they'll do an even better job with them in the future if that's the path they choose to go down. When done right, microtransactions have literally no downside.
There's nothing to "blindly accept" other than good things. Why get so mad about an improvement to the industry at large?
Tell that to how Ea and bungie,we all know how they handle their microtransactions
That paid tournament idea actually sounds really cool, would like to see how that would turn out. I don't know how many people would actually participate but it'd be interesting nonetheless. Besides that, I'm cool with cosmetic mtx.
MTs are basically a staple in the industry now.
I remember reading that most of the prize money for the HCS comes out of the MTs - so if you want to see a strong competitive scene, with fun championships to watch, the MTs aren't going anywhere.

I honestly felt like they were implemented fairly well in H5.
I was very happy that any game-altering reqs stayed out of Arena. They were only in WZ. I get it that some people may want to play WZ without having to 'pay to win' - but I unlocked the whole req pool without spending any $$$.

Really the only thing I would change is the randomness of the packs.
Sure, make some things random in those packs - like the cosmetics. But why not just make it so that you can unlock certain weapons with a set amount of RP. Or maybe you need to reach a certain Spartan Rank tier to make certain reqs purchaseable with RP.

In any event, the randomness made it akin to gambling, and that's kinda wrong. Otherwise, as long as it stays of out Arena, I'm generally OK with it.
I can accept microtransactions in a free to play game like Star Trek Online...but Halo is not free to play. I might be more open to the idea if I knew the developer and/or publisher would not eventually abuse the hell out of it and be reasonable with the practice.

As it stands I do not trust any device or publisher like that.
DoubleSama wrote:
DoubleSama wrote:
All games have some sort of mirco transaction, its this new era of gaming now,
It doesn't mean we have to blindly accept it...
May I direct you to my previous post:
DoubleSama wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again, microtransactions are a good thing as long as they're purely cosmetic. This allows players who want to spend money on the game to do so, the developers make money from it, and the rest of us get free DLC which doesn't split up the community the way paid map packs used to. H5 was Halo's first attempt at microtransactions, and I admit they weren't perfect, but I believe they'll do an even better job with them in the future if that's the path they choose to go down. When done right, microtransactions have literally no downside.
There's nothing to "blindly accept" other than good things. Why get so mad about an improvement to the industry at large?
YOU think microtransactions are good. Not everybody agrees. Everybody cannot possibly agree on this. It seems to me like you are suggesting opponents should accept it just because there is potential to improve. Whether or not it does improve is aside the point. They have made no indication pay-to-win will not be present in Infinite so why should anyone give them the benefit of the doubt?
Tell me one way in which microtransactions are bad. I'll wait.
Except you didn't have to wait. I already mentioned the biggest offense, which is PAY-TO-WIN and that is pretty self-explanatory. Was this not present in Halo 5?
DoubleSama wrote:
DoubleSama wrote:
All games have some sort of mirco transaction, its this new era of gaming now,
It doesn't mean we have to blindly accept it...
May I direct you to my previous post:
DoubleSama wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again, microtransactions are a good thing as long as they're purely cosmetic. This allows players who want to spend money on the game to do so, the developers make money from it, and the rest of us get free DLC which doesn't split up the community the way paid map packs used to. H5 was Halo's first attempt at microtransactions, and I admit they weren't perfect, but I believe they'll do an even better job with them in the future if that's the path they choose to go down. When done right, microtransactions have literally no downside.
There's nothing to "blindly accept" other than good things. Why get so mad about an improvement to the industry at large?
YOU think microtransactions are good. Not everybody agrees. Everybody cannot possibly agree on this. It seems to me like you are suggesting opponents should accept it just because there is potential to improve. Whether or not it does improve is aside the point. They have made no indication pay-to-win will not be present in Infinite so why should anyone give them the benefit of the doubt?
Tell me one way in which microtransactions are bad. I'll wait.
Except you didn't have to wait. I already mentioned the biggest offense, which is PAY-TO-WIN and that is pretty self-explanatory. Was this not present in Halo 5?
There was no pay-to-win in Halo 5. You must have played the wrong game. I've never paid for anything in the game other than the retail price and never had an issue. I unlocked everything just fine and never really even called in REQs in WZ because why do that when I have a BR and new kids to steal REQs off of?
Just because someone has 50 Nornfangs like I do doesn't mean they paid for them, I just played the game and unlocked them like everyone else. If people spent half the time playing the game that they do complaining about their perceived "pay-to-win" maybe they'd have all of the stuff unlocked too by now.
Also, 343 knows that pay-to-win would get some pretty extreme backlash. There's no way they'd add that into infinite because it would be franchise suicide.
DoubleSama wrote:
There was no pay-to-win in Halo 5. You must have played the wrong game.
False. Let's define what pay-to-win is, shall we? According to Google:
Quote:
In some multiplayer free-to-play games, players who are willing to pay for special items or downloadable content may be able to gain a significant advantage over those playing for free. Critics of such games call them "pay-to-win" (p2w) games.
So tell me, can you or can you not download special items (in this case, weapons) that give a significant advantage over those who don't? Of course you can. If one person buys a Nornfang, but the other is poor and can't afford anything, they are likely to use a weapon they can afford or (if they have one to spare) a more efficient one they might've earned from a random REQ pack.
DoubleSama wrote:
I've never paid for anything in the game other than the retail price and never had an issue. I unlocked everything just fine and never really even called in REQs in WZ because why do that when I have a BR and new kids to steal REQs off of?
I respect your sentiments, but you are basing your argument off your own experience. This is a fallacy and proves nothing.
DoubleSama wrote:
Just because someone has 50 Nornfangs like I do doesn't mean they paid for them
Just because you don't suspect someone has bought 50 Nornfangs does not mean they didn't. The mere fact that you can spend real money to buy in-game weapons that can and do benefit you in a match is literally what pay-to-win is. Perhaps you are one of the few players who haven't been affected by it or simply don't care. In any case, you are assuming this is (or should be) the case for everyone and it's not.
DoubleSama wrote:
If people spent half the time playing the game that they do complaining about their perceived "pay-to-win" maybe they'd have all of the stuff unlocked too by now.
So in other words, you are suggesting critics should not constructively criticize the franchise because hey, there's all these cool helmets to unlock! LOL. Unlocking everything won't give you an unlimited supply of Nornfangs, I'm afraid. That's why we have microtransactions.
DoubleSama wrote:
Also, 343 knows that pay-to-win would get some pretty extreme backlash. There's no way they'd add that into infinite because it would be franchise suicide.
The existence of Halo 5 proves this is not true. Halo 5 got a hell of a lot of backlash and a big part of that had to do with (you guessed it!) microtransactions.
Halo has always been about fair starts. Microtransactions ruined that & will ruin infinite if they return in the same fashion. There is no reason that someone who has played the game longer deserves a distinct advantage over someone who just picked the game up.
If they have to implement microtransactions into Halo Infinite I don't want to see loot boxes anymore. Just give us Reach like customization and 4 types of equipment: you can buy every single common, non common and rare stuff for real money. NO LOOT BOXES. You can NOT buy ultra rare stuff. I think that would be ok to me but what if we want to do microtransactions fit even better? After you own the item you have to beat a challenge to equip it. More rare is the item more difficult the challenge is. Obviously I'm taking about aesthetic stuff only and no microtransactions would be better.
I can accept microtransactions in a free to play game like Star Trek Online...but Halo is not free to play. I might be more open to the idea if I knew the developer and/or publisher would not eventually abuse the hell out of it and be reasonable with the practice.

As it stands I do not trust any device or publisher like that.
Exactly plus STO is an MMO so kind of makes sense that it would need an alternate solution to online subs since it dropped the forced monthly subscriptions and I basically never have to pay for anything ever again since it's all optional except the only downside is everything is a grind for ships, etc... which was mainly a problem for me when they were doing this with subs. Soon as it went F2P I was sort of ok with it but then the chats just became nothing but flooded with key selling scams, well the admins for STO never seem to be able to get rid of them.

The problem with Halo 5 is it's a paid game, yet we're forced to pay for online and deal with micro-transactions and I suspect if Halo Infinite went the 'key' route then Halo Infinite could end up with similar spam in-game but that depends on if 343i lets us use custom chat similar to Monster Hunter World.

Anyway have to agree with you about having a hard time trusting any dev's that pull these stunts, the worst ones seem to be the ones where they forced online only into their games so that would have no other options but to grind for unlocks or deal with the awful RNG loot box's instead of earning them by doing something fun, meaningful.

From my own experiences every time micro-transactions have been included in many games, I've noticed these common things:
- Devs claim they'll add more content
(Lack of content, pulled content at launch)
- More grinds to unlock anything, everything becomes tedious.
- Pay to win elements (Pay to get better upgrades...worst one yet SWB2)
- Overpriced skins dlc (Sometimes they can go overboard like Dead or Alive which would cost a fortune to afford everything)
- Cheat to win (Similar to P2W but like MGS5 it allows players to keep buying insurance so they won't lose resources to help upgrade their motherbase)
- Then there's the single use purchases (I will never understand why people would ever use them)
- And the worst one's that make 3/4 or 4/4 of their game online only just so they can force micro-transactions on everything then lock out dlc to get people to buy overpriced expansions, emotes (Destiny is one of the worst ones for that)

DoubleSama wrote:
DoubleSama wrote:
There was no pay-to-win in Halo 5. You must have played the wrong game. I've never paid for anything in the game other than the retail price and never had an issue. I unlocked everything just fine and never really even called in REQs in WZ because why do that when I have a BR and new kids to steal REQs off of?
Just because someone has 50 Nornfangs like I do doesn't mean they paid for them, I just played the game and unlocked them like everyone else. If people spent half the time playing the game that they do complaining about their perceived "pay-to-win" maybe they'd have all of the stuff unlocked too by now.
Also, 343 knows that pay-to-win would get some pretty extreme backlash. There's no way they'd add that into infinite because it would be franchise suicide.
Actually it is partly. Warzone is by the definition Pay to Win and that's technically just a fact. It is irrelevant if someone can 'unlock' everything'.

I'll give you an example:

Let's say 2 rookies start Halo 5 in Warzone Turbo...1 person has only a dmr, the other has an endless amount of money...who do you think would win?, the person who has plenty of money has a higher chance of winning because that person can pay to technically unlock everything, have as many resources as that person wants, this would be against a rookie that is limited to a basic pistol or dmr, this means only 1 player can spawn with an over-shield, any vehicle/weapon they want.

As for 343i getting backlash...they did, it was heavily down-voted on their Youtube video, is one of the most common complaints about Halo 5, Halo Spartan Assault, Hw2 Blitz.
I think cosmetic-only microtransactions would actually be OK, as long as we get a lot of post-release support and new content in return (hopefully more than Halo 5 got). I also want there to be more helmets and armour that you can unlock from completing certain challenges (Beating the game on legendary, getting all achievements, maybe even completing a set of vidmaster-style tasks). Of course, I'd much rather just have no microtransactions or community-splitting map packs at all, but I feel like this game having MTX is kind of an inevitability, so they may as well be 'somewhat acceptable' ones.
hope req packs return
DoubleSama wrote:
DoubleSama wrote:
All games have some sort of mirco transaction, its this new era of gaming now,
It doesn't mean we have to blindly accept it...
May I direct you to my previous post:
DoubleSama wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again, microtransactions are a good thing as long as they're purely cosmetic. This allows players who want to spend money on the game to do so, the developers make money from it, and the rest of us get free DLC which doesn't split up the community the way paid map packs used to. H5 was Halo's first attempt at microtransactions, and I admit they weren't perfect, but I believe they'll do an even better job with them in the future if that's the path they choose to go down. When done right, microtransactions have literally no downside.
There's nothing to "blindly accept" other than good things. Why get so mad about an improvement to the industry at large?
YOU think microtransactions are good. Not everybody agrees. Everybody cannot possibly agree on this. It seems to me like you are suggesting opponents should accept it just because there is potential to improve. Whether or not it does improve is aside the point. They have made no indication pay-to-win will not be present in Infinite so why should anyone give them the benefit of the doubt?
Tell me one way in which microtransactions are bad. I'll wait.
Is this some kind of joke?
Chimera30 wrote:
tuhin94 wrote:
Chimera30 wrote:
tuhin94 wrote:
Development costs, according to a few videos from creators with sources in the industry, have gone down, or at least stayed the same, with inflation factored in.
I'd like to see those sources, because the coverage I've seen on game development across time has said dev costs are getting greater, especially for AAA games.
This is the most memorable one I recall watching.
Briefly looked into that. There's alot to unpack and alot of differing opinions on that video. Many people seem to view that video as the end-all, be-all proof that game devs and publishers are nothing but greedy fat cats. But look a little deeper and you see plenty of people who find problems with that guy's analysis, and that it doesn't paint the whole picture.

But rather than get into all that, I'll just say what I took from it: that guy's point is that game's aren't too expensive to make, not that games individually are less expensive to make these days than in previous days. When you take into account the costs with the number of games produced for EA, as an example, in subsequent years the overall costs were less but the number of projects was less, too, resulting in individual games still getting more expensive. There's also a very small sample size of devs/publishers analyzed. So in all, I don't think that video is clear-cut proof of the cost of developing a AAA game going down as time goes on.
People also forget to factor in advertising costs, licensing fees, facility staff, production artists, mocap facility staff, set designers for the mocap facility, rental costs if the dev doesn't have a facility to do things like mocap and VA recording. The number of jobs that are required to produce a AAA title are much larger then just a dev staff, and none of the prices for anything have gone down. Especially if you need to license a persons likeness or a car, or a sports team. Those costs can cripple a company these days if they are dealing with say the WWE or NFL and especially anything that even partially belongs to the "Mouse". There is a reason that they spent billions purchasing IPs and it isn't to give it away or just break even.

Not that I am ok with blindly accepting MT's in a game, but I have seen a lot of people who still think that creating a game is like it was back in 2010 or earlier.
Chimera30 wrote:
tuhin94 wrote:
Chimera30 wrote:
tuhin94 wrote:
Development costs, according to a few videos from creators with sources in the industry, have gone down, or at least stayed the same, with inflation factored in.
I'd like to see those sources, because the coverage I've seen on game development across time has said dev costs are getting greater, especially for AAA games.
People also forget to factor in advertising costs, licensing fees, facility staff, production artists, mocap facility staff, set designers for the mocap facility, rental costs if the dev doesn't have a facility to do things like mocap and VA recording. The number of jobs that are required to produce a AAA title are much larger then just a dev staff, and none of the prices for anything have gone down. Especially if you need to license a persons likeness or a car, or a sports team. Those costs can cripple a company these days if they are dealing with say the WWE or NFL and especially anything that even partially belongs to the "Mouse". There is a reason that they spent billions purchasing IPs and it isn't to give it away or to just break even.

Not that I am ok with blindly accepting MT's in a game, but I have seen a lot of people who still think that creating a game is like it was back in 2010 or earlier.
And yet that's no different to what Indy dev's have to pay for. Actually prices do go down...it just varies and it's a matter of price hunting, there are many alternatives out there that can do the same 3d work for less money...for example I can make 3d model's just as well as anyone can in 3ds Max, yet Autodesk is on-going cost while Blender 3d is free and despite what some AAA studio's claim...many of the excuses tends to be because there using software that is generally more expensive. As for other funds it really depends on what is needed but with the amount of money Halo games generally get...it should be more than enough but it should not be an excuse to strip a game to it's bare minimum and I really believe that is why Halo 5 lacked content for so long, is part of the reason why 3/4 of the game is unplayable offline, like I've said before if 343i decide to shut the servers someday then the only playable part of the game is the campaign...not even Lan support will work if you reinstall the game when the servers go down.

So in short micro-transactions have done nothing to help the Halo games, have sort of made every game they touch worse in some way...
ronnie42 wrote:
Chimera30 wrote:
tuhin94 wrote:
Chimera30 wrote:
tuhin94 wrote:
Development costs, according to a few videos from creators with sources in the industry, have gone down, or at least stayed the same, with inflation factored in.
I'd like to see those sources, because the coverage I've seen on game development across time has said dev costs are getting greater, especially for AAA games.
And yet that's no different to what Indy dev's have to pay for. Actually prices do go down...it just varies and it's a matter of price hunting, there are many alternatives out there that can do the same 3d work for less money...for example I can make 3d model's just as well as anyone can in 3ds Max, yet Autodesk is on-going cost while Blender 3d is free and despite what some AAA studio's claim...many of the excuses tends to be because there using software that is generally more expensive. As for other funds it really depends on what is needed but with the amount of money Halo games generally get...it should be more than enough but it should not be an excuse to strip a game to it's bare minimum and I really believe that is why Halo 5 lacked content for so long, is part of the reason why 3/4 of the game is unplayable offline, like I've said before if 343i decide to shut the servers someday then the only playable part of the game is the campaign...not even Lan support will work if you reinstall the game when the servers go down.

So in short micro-transactions have done nothing to help the Halo games, have sort of made every game they touch worse in some way...
I'm sorry but costs have not gone down. Do you think if Blender found out that their software was being used for a AAA title they aren't going to have their lawyers try and get a piece of that revenue? The business world doesn't work that way. Maybe in terms of 3D programs, if you are indy but you need more then just 3D programs, especially at the AAA level. TV advertising has gone up, IP costs have gone up, property rental costs have gone up. If you have an in house advertising dept, you have multiple AD's ( that's a 35-70k salary for each staff member) for illustration, graphic design, as well as the staff to back them up, and they work well after the game is released. No in house advert dept, then you need to hire an outside advertiser which has another large price tag on it as well. If you need to create a live action TV spot, you need to hire an entire crew (they will be union, so you have to deal with their costs) and then if you want to play it at multiple events like the Superbowl, you are paying a lot more. Indy doesn't advertise like that, because it would break their bank, AAA can, because they can absorb those costs to an extent, or they can't and tank like THQ did.

But I agree MT's have caused a rift in Halo, not for the better.
ronnie42 wrote:
Chimera30 wrote:
tuhin94 wrote:
Chimera30 wrote:
tuhin94 wrote:
Development costs, according to a few videos from creators with sources in the industry, have gone down, or at least stayed the same, with inflation factored in.
I'd like to see those sources, because the coverage I've seen on game development across time has said dev costs are getting greater, especially for AAA games.
I'm sorry but costs have not gone down. Do you think if Blender found out that their software was being used for a AAA title they aren't going to have their lawyers try and get a piece of that revenue? The business world doesn't work that way. Maybe in terms of 3D programs, if you are indy but you need more then just 3D programs, especially at the AAA level. TV advertising has gone up, IP costs have gone up, property rental costs have gone up. If you have an in house advertising dept, you have multiple AD's ( that's a 35-70k salary for each staff member) for illustration, graphic design, as well as the staff to back them up, and they work well after the game is released. If you need to create a live action TV spot, you need to hire an entire crew (they will be union, so you have to deal with their costs) and then if you want to play it at multiple events like the Superbowl, you are paying a lot more. Indy doesn't advertise like that, because it would break their bank, AAA can, because they can absorb those costs to an extent, or they can't and tank like THQ did.

But I agree MT's have caused a rift in Halo, not for the better.
I know for a fact prices do go down sometimes...I even got Substance on sale so I know what you said isn't always true.
Not sure why you think the creators of Blender would get mad at AAA studio's using them when the original creator doesn't care about money, try the FAQ. Of course there's 3d programs, there's even 2d software alternatives that are free like Gimp or Inkscape...there are many good alternatives out there for many different software's, I'm pretty confident there is alternative for most software there and not all games design related. Nobody said advertising was cheaper...we're talking about games design, the costs but like I said many of us 'Indy devs' have the same problems just like any AAA studio, in fact they have bigger budgets so it makes zero sense to assume a bigger studio can't do more work with more staff, bigger budget than most small studio's with barely any budget. Adverts aren't the point...it's about how the game is budgeted.
ronnie42 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
Chimera30 wrote:
tuhin94 wrote:
Chimera30 wrote:
tuhin94 wrote:
Development costs, according to a few videos from creators with sources in the industry, have gone down, or at least stayed the same, with inflation factored in.
I'd like to see those sources, because the coverage I've seen on game development across time has said dev costs are getting greater, especially for AAA games.
And yet that's no different to what Indy dev's have to pay for. Actually prices do go down...it just varies and it's a matter of price hunting, there are many alternatives out there that can do the same 3d work for less money...for example I can make 3d model's just as well as anyone can in 3ds Max, yet Autodesk is on-going cost while Blender 3d is free and despite what some AAA studio's claim...many of the excuses tends to be because there using software that is generally more expensive. As for other funds it really depends on what is needed but with the amount of money Halo games generally get...it should be more than enough but it should not be an excuse to strip a game to it's bare minimum and I really believe that is why Halo 5 lacked content for so long, is part of the reason why 3/4 of the game is unplayable offline, like I've said before if 343i decide to shut the servers someday then the only playable part of the game is the campaign...not even Lan support will work if you reinstall the game when the servers go down.

So in short micro-transactions have done nothing to help the Halo games, have sort of made every game they touch worse in some way...
But I agree MT's have caused a rift in Halo, not for the better.
I know for a fact prices do go down sometimes...I even got Substance on sale so I know what you said isn't always true.
Not sure why you think the creators of Blender would get mad at AAA studio's using them when the original creator doesn't care about money, try the FAQ. Of course there's 3d programs, there's even 2d software alternatives that are free like Gimp or Inkscape...there are many good alternatives out there for many different software's, I'm pretty confident there is alternative for most software there and not all games design related. Nobody said advertising was cheaper...we're talking about games design, the costs but like I said many of us 'Indy devs' have the same problems just like any AAA studio, in fact they have bigger budgets so it makes zero sense to assume a bigger studio can't do more work with more staff, bigger budget than most small studio's with barely any budget. Adverts aren't the point...it's about how the game is budgeted.
A small business, which most indy studios are, is at a different level from a large AAA studio that might have multiple offices across multiple states or countries, and has to take into consideration rules and regs that apply to businesses that size. It's apples and oranges. It's also getting off topic, so I agree with the bold.
ronnie42 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
Chimera30 wrote:
tuhin94 wrote:
Chimera30 wrote:
tuhin94 wrote:
Development costs, according to a few videos from creators with sources in the industry, have gone down, or at least stayed the same, with inflation factored in.
I'd like to see those sources, because the coverage I've seen on game development across time has said dev costs are getting greater, especially for AAA games.
And yet that's no different to what Indy dev's have to pay for. Actually prices do go down...it just varies and it's a matter of price hunting, there are many alternatives out there that can do the same 3d work for less money...for example I can make 3d model's just as well as anyone can in 3ds Max, yet Autodesk is on-going cost while Blender 3d is free and despite what some AAA studio's claim...many of the excuses tends to be because there using software that is generally more expensive. As for other funds it really depends on what is needed but with the amount of money Halo games generally get...it should be more than enough but it should not be an excuse to strip a game to it's bare minimum and I really believe that is why Halo 5 lacked content for so long, is part of the reason why 3/4 of the game is unplayable offline, like I've said before if 343i decide to shut the servers someday then the only playable part of the game is the campaign...not even Lan support will work if you reinstall the game when the servers go down.

So in short micro-transactions have done nothing to help the Halo games, have sort of made every game they touch worse in some way...
A small business, which most indy studios are, is at a different level from a large AAA studio that might have multiple offices across multiple states or countries, and has to take into consideration rules and regs that apply to businesses that size. It's apples and oranges. It's also getting off topic, so I agree with the bold.
Ok but the point about Micro-transactions is that it's not a necessary evil that future Halo game needs, plenty of AAA studio's like Bethesda make amazing games without resorting to them so Infinite should avoid them.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3