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)
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.