Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

How Microtransactions Can Acceptably Be Utilized

OP Ampicillin

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3
ronnie42 wrote:
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.
You are forgetting about Creation Club.
ronnie42 wrote:
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.
You are forgetting about Creation Club.
Yeh kind of did but...trying to forget Creation Club ever existed since hate the idea of paid mods plus the original Skyrim didn't even have it plus Doom 16 had none, in fact they went as far as making all the dlc free but the problem with micro-transactions in Halo games is they tend to be 1 fee that they would keep trying to get us to pay for over, over while the creation club is more like the standard dlc.
ronnie42 wrote:
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.
DOOM is my go-to game, I fully agree that MT's are not needed. I hope that they don't change the trend for Eternal.
ronnie42 wrote:
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.
DOOM is my go-to game, I fully agree that MT's are not needed. I hope that they don't change the trend for eternal.
Yeh hopefully but just hope 343i take notes from ID Software.
ronnie42 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
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.
DOOM is my go-to game, I fully agree that MT's are not needed. I hope that they don't change the trend for eternal.
Yeh hopefully but just hope 343i take notes from ID Software.
My biggest problem with the way that 343 has worked in the MT is in how heavily they utilize the "Impulse Buy" by slapping you in the face with them, and deceptive wording.

That and the fact that they seemed more focused on building an entire gamemode around them, to the detriment of content at release. I can tolerate MT's a bit more when they aren't constantly shoved in my face. I think GTA has one of the worst cash grab MT, but because I have to actively look for them ( most the time ) I can ignore them.
ronnie42 wrote:
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'll agree that WZ turbo counts, but not regular WZ. Besides, you have an entire team. WZ isn't 1v1.
DoubleSama wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
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'll agree that WZ turbo counts, but not regular WZ. Besides, you have an entire team. WZ isn't 1v1.
It does not matter that WZ isn't 1v1. It is a FACT that you can pay for the chance of better weapons and vehicles, no ifs, buts or maybe about it. The players with more cash can simply buy more chances. It adds a pay to win element to Halo, and if they use the same system in Halo Infinite, I don't buy it.
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.

In recent times, a darker side of transactions has come to light. Players are frustrated by what they, often rightfully(*cough* EA *cough*), percieve to be unfair progression systems that become pay to play. The players feel like thier investment of $60 in the game IS thier pay to play.

The point of this thread is to discuss a way Microtransactions can be utilized to balance the needs of the developers and investing corporate entities with the needs of a strong, dedicated playerbase.

That being said, I'll throw in my first idea.
There should be a new playlist. Social and ranked already exist, so why not include a paid tournament playlist, in which, real rewards can be won. A percentage of the money from people buying into the tournament is taken as profit for 343 and thier investors, while the rest is tiered out to the top 50 %. For example, the 50th to 40th percentile get 5% of winnings and free entry into the next season, 40th to 30th get 10%, 30th to 20th get 20%, with a much higher reward progressing up to the top tier.

The percentages and percentiles I gave are not actually what should be used but help to demonstrate the system I am suggesting as an idea.

Regardless, microtransactions are a part of modern gaming that we as a community need to collaborate on in order to help our franchises succeed. Halo and 343 need us, a community, to help them solve these problems in order to be successful, and to be able to create games we all love.

Leave your suggestions and comments for 343 below. I will not keep up with it, but they very well may take more notice of your words than you realize.
I would be 100% for this implementation of microtransactions in a game, if it wasn't for the fact I live in Arizona and that would be illegal since it is basically online gambling. Perhaps when online gambling is legalized everywhere in the U.S. it can be done, but even then 343 would still have to worry about international laws.Definitely a much better idea than -Yoink- lootboxes though.
I think microtransactions are a real cancer for games. Some sort of trend during the period 2014-2017. Now this trend of microtransactions and packs to be open has changed, leaving his place to battle royale.
Halo should not follow these stupid trends that attract only kids, but developers want to sell more, so...
DoubleSama wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
I'll agree that WZ turbo counts, but not regular WZ. Besides, you have an entire team. WZ isn't 1v1.
Firstly I was stating an example....I never stated 1v1 was actually a thing, was just using that to compare a possible situation that could happen. It be the same problem/situation if 1 entire team had infinite overshields while the other was just with basic Br's only. (Other problems could lead to Wasp spawn killing people at the start of the game)

2ndly All Warzone modes are pay 2 win, that's just a fact since the entire Warzone modes is directly linked to the p2w loot box system.
eviltedi wrote:
DoubleSama wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
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'll agree that WZ turbo counts, but not regular WZ. Besides, you have an entire team. WZ isn't 1v1.
It does not matter that WZ isn't 1v1. It is a FACT that you can pay for the chance of better weapons and vehicles, no ifs, buts or maybe about it. The players with more cash can simply buy more chances. It adds a pay to win element to Halo, and if they use the same system in Halo Infinite, I don't buy it.
I'm fine if you don't buy it.
But, I'll actually change my stance to say that WZ turbo isn't even p2w either. The point of turbo is to give players a chance to use up all those high level reqs they never get to in regular wz. The whole point of the gametype is that new players have a place to use those reqs which they may not be good enough to call in normally, as well as for veterans to use up a massive amount of high level reqs which they've stockpiled simply through playing. To say that this is p2w is the same as complaining that you get matched against people who are better than you in casual. The whole point of casual is that you don't get matched up with your skill level, so don't complain. WZ turbo is the same thing. The whole point is that players are using up all their stockpiled, not typically purchased, reqs, so why do people complain when they know this going in?
I'm willing to bet only a small percentage of people who get accused of p2w are actually paying for packs. Just because I have 50+ of every legendary req doesn't mean I payed for them, I just put time into the game. It's veteran players who have the advantage here, not those who simply pay.
DoubleSama wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
DoubleSama wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
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'll agree that WZ turbo counts, but not regular WZ. Besides, you have an entire team. WZ isn't 1v1.
It does not matter that WZ isn't 1v1. It is a FACT that you can pay for the chance of better weapons and vehicles, no ifs, buts or maybe about it. The players with more cash can simply buy more chances. It adds a pay to win element to Halo, and if they use the same system in Halo Infinite, I don't buy it.
I'm fine if you don't buy it.
But, I'll actually change my stance to say that WZ turbo isn't even p2w either. The point of turbo is to give players a chance to use up all those high level reqs they never get to in regular wz. The whole point of the gametype is that new players have a place to use those reqs which they may not be good enough to call in normally, as well as for veterans to use up a massive amount of high level reqs which they've stockpiled simply through playing. To say that this is p2w is the same as complaining that you get matched against people who are better than you in casual. The whole point of casual is that you don't get matched up with your skill level, so don't complain. WZ turbo is the same thing. The whole point is that players are using up all their stockpiled, not typically purchased, reqs, so why do people complain when they know this going in?
I'm willing to bet only a small percentage of people who get accused of p2w are actually paying for packs. Just because I have 50+ of every legendary req doesn't mean I payed for them, I just put time into the game. It's veteran players who have the advantage here, not those who simply pay.
What you said makes no sense whatsoever. Anyone who has played WZ long enough can have a fair amount of weapons/vehicles stockpiled...it's like I'm level 150 so obviously I'm going to have plenty of resources but that still doesn't change the fact that it's a P2W game-type...and anyone who is new to the game will not be able to constantly counter an endless amount of players who can spam over-shield's to gain an advantage...unless the 'new' player decides to pay to get ahead so skill has nothing to do with it.

Nobody is saying everyone is paying to get ahead...the only thing that's been said is that it's possible to get ahead so therefore the fact is that it's a P2W mode. Someone who's level 1 could easily buy tons of loot box's and have just as many weapons/vehicles and power ups as someone who is a veteran but of course Veterans like myself will have the advantage because it's highly unlikely anyone who is paying will ever have enough money to match the amount of resources I have stockpiled over several years of game-play.
I kinda think anyone who is trying to say that Warzone has no pay to win characteristics is completely wrong.
So many people have illustrated the very basic fact that you can purchase the loot boxes to unlock the more powerful weapons.
Just because you can ALSO play to unlock those things does not change the fact that you CAN pay.

I think the real argument should be: who cares?

Warzone was a new experience added to Halo 5.
Reqs were new to Halo 5.
Req are only used in Warzone (other than cosmetics and RP/XP boosts - not affecting gameplay).

So your core Halo experience is still intact. They just added a new, completely separate game mode, that has this pay to win element.
The thing is, you don't HAVE to pay to win, and I think that's what makes it ok.

I'd be choked it there was no way to unlock everything by playing - but that isn't the case (except for skins).

So my opinion is that it's ok, as long as it isn't in the core game modes, but there has to be the option of playing to unlock.
AshamanND wrote:
So your core Halo experience is still intact. They just added a new, completely separate game mode, that has this pay to win element.
The thing is, you don't HAVE to pay to win, and I think that's what makes it ok.

I'd be choked it there was no way to unlock everything by playing - but that isn't the case (except for skins).

So my opinion is that it's ok, as long as it isn't in the core game modes, but there has to be the option of playing to unlock.
Yes, no.
Well the arena matches aren't pay to win, it may not effect core game-play in modes like that while Warzone is effected but I'd barely call my Halo experience intact, the servers frequently have issues that make REQ'S unusable, which directly effects my gaming experience since in some cases it either means nobody can use them or only certain players can use them and that leads to very unbalanced games. Plus I believe there directly to blame for why we have no AAA BTB, even then the Warzone game type is forced to be online only so there's no way to continue playing my game and I feel like micro-transactions are to blame for this because I'm pretty confident this would have been playable in custom games offline if 343i hadn't decided to add loot box's so I strongly feel like they should stay away from Halo Infinite or any future Halo game.
ronnie42 wrote:
AshamanND wrote:
So your core Halo experience is still intact. They just added a new, completely separate game mode, that has this pay to win element.
The thing is, you don't HAVE to pay to win, and I think that's what makes it ok.

I'd be choked it there was no way to unlock everything by playing - but that isn't the case (except for skins).

So my opinion is that it's ok, as long as it isn't in the core game modes, but there has to be the option of playing to unlock.
Yes, no.
Well the arena matches aren't pay to win, it may not effect core game-play in modes like that while Warzone is effected but I'd barely call my Halo experience intact, the servers frequently have issues that make REQ'S unusable, which directly effects my gaming experience since in some cases it either means nobody can use them or only certain players can use them and that leads to very unbalanced games. Plus I believe there directly to blame for why we have no AAA BTB, even then the Warzone game type is forced to be online only so there's no way to continue playing my game and I feel like micro-transactions are to blame for this because I'm pretty confident this would have been playable in custom games offline if 343i hadn't decided to add loot box's so I strongly feel like they should stay away from Halo Infinite or any future Halo game.
Agree with you BTB comments.

But I think we need to separate the discussion about Loot boxes in theory, and the discussion of server issues.
AshamanND wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
AshamanND wrote:
So your core Halo experience is still intact. They just added a new, completely separate game mode, that has this pay to win element.
The thing is, you don't HAVE to pay to win, and I think that's what makes it ok.

I'd be choked it there was no way to unlock everything by playing - but that isn't the case (except for skins).

So my opinion is that it's ok, as long as it isn't in the core game modes, but there has to be the option of playing to unlock.
Yes, no.
Well the arena matches aren't pay to win, it may not effect core game-play in modes like that while Warzone is effected but I'd barely call my Halo experience intact, the servers frequently have issues that make REQ'S unusable, which directly effects my gaming experience since in some cases it either means nobody can use them or only certain players can use them and that leads to very unbalanced games. Plus I believe there directly to blame for why we have no AAA BTB, even then the Warzone game type is forced to be online only so there's no way to continue playing my game and I feel like micro-transactions are to blame for this because I'm pretty confident this would have been playable in custom games offline if 343i hadn't decided to add loot box's so I strongly feel like they should stay away from Halo Infinite or any future Halo game.
Agree with you BTB comments.

But I think we need to separate the discussion about Loot boxers in theory, and the discussion of server issues.
Maybe but the thing is there is a lot of factors that can effect how loot box's work, well it would cost me a few exp boosts when the servers have issues, that means anyone can who bought them with real money would lose out on what they paid for. As for the REQ system going down...that can be seen as more of a glitch since I've been in games where I'm stuck with a slow progression system in Turbo while everyone is spamming tanks, etc...while there are other games where nobody can use anything but the DMR, Pistol. As for loot box's as a whole I don't feel like they belong in any game where I'm asked to pay full price for a game, in some cases a season pass too...not even if it was cosmetics only and that's part of the reason I mainly refuse to go near games like Overwatch, why I can't see much point in playing Fornites BR.
Whether or not something is Pay 2 Win is not a binary yes/no question. Pay 2 Win is a spectrum and because the req system contains gameplay altering items it is inherently P2W. You can argue the severity of it if you want.

Moreover, people please. You don't have to go to bat for lootboxes, cosmetic only or otherwise. Stop conflating lootboxes and microtransactions at large. Lootboxes(which is what req packs are) are inherently anti-consumer whether you buy them or not. Even if you hate paid map packs, there is no reason to defend Lootboxes(Req Packs) because there are other, more ethical options for microtransactions that don't involve gambling and can give us all the same benefits(no split community, constant support, esports prize funding, etc).

Why anyone would willingly choose a system where you only get a chance at getting what you want? And again for the people in the back: lootboxes are not the only form of microtransactions, we don't have to choose between a rock(paid map packs) and a hard place(lootboxes) when there are other options.
WerepyreND wrote:
Whether or not something is Pay 2 Win is not a binary yes/no question. Pay 2 Win is a spectrum and because the req system contains gameplay altering items it is inherently P2W. You can argue the severity of it if you want.

Moreover, people please. You don't have to go to bat for lootboxes, cosmetic only or otherwise. Stop conflating lootboxes and microtransactions at large. Lootboxes(which is what req packs are) are inherently anti-consumer whether you buy them or not. Even if you hate paid map packs, there is no reason to defend Lootboxes(Req Packs) because there are other, more ethical options for microtransactions that don't involve gambling and can give us all the same benefits(no split community, constant support, esports prize funding, etc).

Why anyone would willingly choose a system where you only get a chance at getting what you want? And again for the people in the back: lootboxes are not the only form of microtransactions, we don't have to choose between a rock(paid map packs) and a hard place(lootboxes) when there are other options.
Maybe I'm mis-reading this but it sounds like something I said earlier that I probably should have worded better... I was talking about the game as a whole. Arena isn't pay to win while Warzone is straight up P2W and Halo 5 is partly P2W but it really depends on which modes are being played. I agree it is anti-consumer, should be frowned upon in the industry. The thing is I preferred the map packs because I know what I was getting while with loot box's I have no clue and nothing is permanent either so it loses it's worth. The main concern about Infinite that I'm concerned about is how there going to make their game without splitting the community since that's generally what map packs do but at the same time adding loot box's generally ruins it for me...it's part of the reason I just lose interest in some games and end up not not wanting to go back to playing games like Gears 4.
ronnie42 wrote:
WerepyreND wrote:
Whether or not something is Pay 2 Win is not a binary yes/no question. Pay 2 Win is a spectrum and because the req system contains gameplay altering items it is inherently P2W. You can argue the severity of it if you want.

Moreover, people please. You don't have to go to bat for lootboxes, cosmetic only or otherwise. Stop conflating lootboxes and microtransactions at large. Lootboxes(which is what req packs are) are inherently anti-consumer whether you buy them or not. Even if you hate paid map packs, there is no reason to defend Lootboxes(Req Packs) because there are other, more ethical options for microtransactions that don't involve gambling and can give us all the same benefits(no split community, constant support, esports prize funding, etc).

Why anyone would willingly choose a system where you only get a chance at getting what you want? And again for the people in the back: lootboxes are not the only form of microtransactions, we don't have to choose between a rock(paid map packs) and a hard place(lootboxes) when there are other options.
Maybe I'm mis-reading this but it sounds like something I said earlier that I probably should have worded better... I was talking about the game as a whole. Arena isn't pay to win while Warzone is straight up P2W and Halo 5 is partly P2W but it really depends on which modes are being played. I agree it is anti-consumer, should be frowned upon in the industry. The thing is I preferred the map packs because I know what I was getting while with loot box's I have no clue and nothing is permanent either so it loses it's worth. The main concern about Infinite that I'm concerned about is how there going to make their game without splitting the community since that's generally what map packs do but at the same time adding loot box's generally ruins it for me...it's part of the reason I just lose interest in some games and end up not not wanting to go back to playing games like Gears 4.
Oh no, your fine, I'm not referencing you in my post, in fact by the sound of things I'm right there with you :) The discussion was just all over the place after checking back in so it would have been troublesome to quote a bunch of different posts so I figured it was better to do general response to some of the issues I've taken with some aspects of this thread as a whole.
DoubleSama wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
DoubleSama wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
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'll agree that WZ turbo counts, but not regular WZ. Besides, you have an entire team. WZ isn't 1v1.
It does not matter that WZ isn't 1v1. It is a FACT that you can pay for the chance of better weapons and vehicles, no ifs, buts or maybe about it. The players with more cash can simply buy more chances. It adds a pay to win element to Halo, and if they use the same system in Halo Infinite, I don't buy it.
I'm fine if you don't buy it.
But, I'll actually change my stance to say that WZ turbo isn't even p2w either. The point of turbo is to give players a chance to use up all those high level reqs they never get to in regular wz. The whole point of the gametype is that new players have a place to use those reqs which they may not be good enough to call in normally, as well as for veterans to use up a massive amount of high level reqs which they've stockpiled simply through playing. To say that this is p2w is the same as complaining that you get matched against people who are better than you in casual. The whole point of casual is that you don't get matched up with your skill level, so don't complain. WZ turbo is the same thing. The whole point is that players are using up all their stockpiled, not typically purchased, reqs, so why do people complain when they know this going in?
I'm willing to bet only a small percentage of people who get accused of p2w are actually paying for packs. Just because I have 50+ of every legendary req doesn't mean I payed for them, I just put time into the game. It's veteran players who have the advantage here, not those who simply pay.
It's not just veteran players that have an advantage. If you have cash you can buy reqs for the chance of better weapons and vehicles, there are no ifs and buts about it. It's irrelevant that you don't do that, it's the FACT that players can that is the point.

The reqs system is rammed down your throat the second the game loads, and it's hardwired to the unlock system, it's rng and it adds a pay to win element to Halo. It's the worst type of monetisation in gaming imo, and I will not support it.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3