Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

Is there an acceptable way to use Microtransaction

OP Eagle 2448

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
(Sorry for the weird stop of the Title, I ran out of space.) Anyway, do you think that there could be an okay, ethical way to import loot boxes into Halo Infinite?
Halo 5's mtx were not that bad of an implementation. Its biggest problem is the focus on WZ to push consumable items that players would either need to grind for or buy just to compete. Axing Warzone and replacing it with a bigger focus on developer made big team battle maps, and retaining random cosmetics alongside a good number of unlockable cosmetics seems like an ideal implementation. Ideally free DLC and people who drop money mtxs can still support the game.
Free 2 Play using a model that is not Pay 2 Win.
Not all microtransactions are lootboxes. There are plenty of ways mtx can be implemented that aren’t too predatory.

As for lootboxes, something along the lines of Overwatch’s system would be tolerable, where unlocks are purely cosmetic and can always be gotten regularly through gameplay, and it’s not necessary to purchase them. But it’s a moot point since 343 has already said that real-money lootboxes won’t be in Infinite.
Free 2 Playusing a model that is not Pay 2 Win.
I'd hate to get labeled a 'freeloader' by the AAA industry though
Free 2 Playusing a model that is not Pay 2 Win.
I'd hate to get labeled a 'freeloader' by the AAA industry though
You would be called that even if you just pay the $60 (or $80 adjusting for inflation) edition and don't purchase any in-game items.
Honestly, as long as it doesn't separate the community, I'm ok with it. There are games these days that seem to think it's ok to sell content that you have to pay for that separates everyone who can and can not pay.

Destiny is the best example of this; while anyone can play the game so long as they paid for it, there was always the DLC's that were extra expenses out of pocket. Some might say this didn't divide the players, but it really did. You'd have friends who only own the base game be unable to participate in many late game events simply because they didn't cough up another $10-20 per DLC. So while their friends who did pay the extra amount were able to go do those raids and special events, everyone else that didn't was stuck unable to progress because they didn't have the money.

Games should never do this. Not just because it divides the community, but because you are essentially telling the player that they are only worth having half the game despite paying the full price up front of $60.

Simple cosmetics you can earn in game are fine to put a price tag on. I was mostly ok with how Halo 5 handled the situation, but it was rather frustrating to bust my rear off for years trying to get the one helmet I actually wanted.

I believe they can revert back to the Halo: Reach customization method; where you can purchase armor dependent on your rank or maybe even earn lootables that you can choose to pay with a form of cR, a currency that you can obtain by playing the game.

The fact of the matter is; so long as there are people out there with jobs or busy schedules in general who don't have the time to grind out everything they want that are willing to pay a bit of money, the games will always be supported.

In my opinion, players like myself like the ability to play the game of chance. The question of 'what will I get from this one?' is always exciting. However, if the game goes on too long where I simply don't get what I've been hoping for, the ability to save up in game currency to straight out buy it is always nice.
There surely exists a non-predatory way to implement microtransactions, which is to allow players to purchase specific, solely cosmetic items that are also unlockable for free through a reasonable amount of work such that an active player could reasonably unlock everything within the game without ever paying. However, I would still be hesitant to call that "ethical" unless the developers diligently ensure that their pursuit of money never compromises the gameplay of unlocking items and customizing your characters. Examples how they could fail include flooding the game with large amounts of uninspired cosmetics (i.e., quantity over quality), or not making the process of unlocking items via gameplay interesting enough.
Chimera30 wrote:
Not all microtransactions are lootboxes. There are plenty of ways mtx can be implemented that aren’t too predatory.

As for lootboxes, something along the lines of Overwatch’s system would be tolerable, where unlocks are purely cosmetic and can always be gotten regularly through gameplay, and it’s not necessary to purchase them. But it’s a moot point since 343 has already said that real-money lootboxes won’t be in Infinite.
Please no. Overwatch's system is taking cosmetic microtransactions to a predatory level. It punishes people for not opening enough boxes which can bar them from getting stuff they actually want during limited-time event periods. Its Halo 5's system on steroids and should never see the light of day beyond Overwatch
Halo 5's mtx were not that bad of an implementation. Its biggest problem is the focus on WZ to push consumable items that players would either need to grind for or buy just to compete. Axing Warzone and replacing it with a bigger focus on developer made big team battle maps, and retaining random cosmetics alongside a good number of unlockable cosmetics seems like an ideal implementation. Ideally free DLC and people who drop money mtxs can still support the game.
Halo 5 should have had the weapon variation unlocks tied to levels instead of lootboxes. If they had armors and other cosmetics tied to the Reqs and kept everything else unlockable through regular gameplay it would have been a much better system and incentivized leveling up
By not including them at all
By not including them at all
Well said. I Could not have put it better myself. Halo Infinite will have them, sadly. The only kind I'll accept is buy what you see cosmetic, any rng ? I walk.
Free 2 Playusing a model that is not Pay 2 Win.
I'd hate to get labeled a 'freeloader' by the AAA industry though
You would be called that if you just pay the $60 (or $80 adjusting for inflation) edition and don't purchase any in-game items.
$100 Aus for the base game
I always thought that micro-transactions should be less for character cosmetics and more for gameplay and before you take your pitchforks out let me explain:

In Halo, cosmetics should be earned. Your spartan armor and emblems should be hard boiled grinded and not RNG. Something 343i needs to understand.

When I say gameplay, I mean by the visual sense of it and if warzone comes back. If warzone comes back, micro transactions should stay in the thin line of REQ weapons only. And visual gameplay is me referring to stuff assassinations. It seperates the allowed unbalance in warzone and fun cosmetics in gameplay with the cosmetics for customization.
There are some less problematic microtransaction types but optimally there would be none on fully priced games.
And as for the lootboxes specifically? Definitely no.

Unless Halo Infinite turns out to be free of charge then it's a complete free for all given the game itself is free. Though in case of Halo, I prefer the buy to own the product like at some point in videogame history.
Microtransactions in fully priced games are just a slippery slide, when future consumers emerge more & more types of microtransactions become a norm if current consumers allow such behavior.
So better think wisely what your spending can do to the industry & whether it encourages companies to put more intrusive microtransactions in games.
Are we talking microtransactions in general or specifically loot boxes?

If just mtx in general, I think the best way is to
1. Cosmetic only, no in game advantages
2. Fair prices. You want a skin in Apex in Canada you're shelling out $25, that's absolutely insane
3. Don't design the progression around making you feel like or straight up actually have to buy instead of getting in game, again like Apex. It should genuinely just be an option, not a necessity.

As far as loot boxes specifically I am much more hesitant of having them at all. MAYBE the only way I wouldn't mind them is if they weren't the main unlocking system and rather just also there if you actually like the random aspect. Kinda like FM7. You can just keep buying packs and see what you get but you can also save up for the car you really want.
the only acceptable way to implement MTs for me is: make the game free2play. have some cosmetics be purchasable, but also have cosmetic which can be unlocked by playing. not every cosmetic has to be unlockable by playing, but those which aren't shouldn't be locked behing an RNG system (lootboxes). also the pricing has to be reasonable.
To be honest no. Hate that downgrading of Halo with that stupid lootboxes/microtransactions.

Want to unlock my stuff during challenges like Halo 3's Vidmasters or with the cR I earned like in Reach.

The only thing I can tolerate are lootboxes with skins for same random wannabe espors team (sorry but I really hate that focus on esport)
If we mean loot box's...no. If there was a system that auto-unlocks them when I have one, in the background then I could in theory tolerate them to a degree but the issue with Halo 5 was the constant need to open up hundreds of them, in some cases it would take hours to waste my saved up RP because I got tired of opening them.

I've yet to see a single game with micro-transactions where it hasn't eventually put me off playing a game. If a game was free to play I could tolerate them since it would be there only source of income but I generally hate when games force micro-transactions, which is generally why I mostly avoid mobile gaming since it generally turns games into pay to win or forcing mindless grinds for unlocks and forcing most games into online only so no I don't think there's any way Halo Infinite will benefit from having them in because I strongly feel it will negatively hurt the game in some form of way.
Randomized loot boxes? Not really. The best you can do so gate stuff behind them that no one cares about anyway, which studios don't want to do for obvious reasons.
Microtransactions more broadly? There absolutely is - it just depends on the context, and what kind of content it is.

I'm always amused when people talk wistfully of the good old days, before MTX. In the "good old days", a game would be released, and then the developer would move on to the next thing. Certain games might get an expansion pack, and you would pay money for it.

Nowadays, games with multiplayer components are frequently supported with new content for months, if not years, past their release. People like Jim Sterling will tell you that should all be part of the $60 you paid for the game, and will dismiss out of hand the notion that it shouldn't. But this ignores that your $60 goes toward the investment ALREADY MADE into the game's development over the last X years - in the case of "triple-A" games, this can be hundreds of millions of dollars.

Why would you support a game with free content for 2-3 years afterward, if all you're getting for it, is eating into your own profit margin (assuming there is one in the first place)? You'd shove it out the door, and move on to the next thing. And you're not making it up with NEW games sales - have you ever seen the sales tail for a game? It's like a Marvel movie - heavily frontloaded, and then a long trickle (hence the term "sales tail").

So devs have done multiple things to support the business case for this ongoing support - map packs, season passes, "battle passes", loot boxes, and so on. However, in the case of things like maps and modes, all that does is balkanize the player base into smaller and smaller subgroups of "Have Nots" who may not own certain DLCs, and thus can only play with players in the same situation. In the case of season passes, you're essentially pre-ordering unknown DLC for anywhere from $30 to $100. Lootboxes, I don't need to go into.

If 343's MTX plan is basically selling optional sparkly paint jobs for your Mjolnir for $3, in order to keep the "big" things like new maps, and multiplayer modes, and armor pieces etc. free for everyone, I'd consider that a perfectly acceptable use of microtransactions. Gears 5 appears to be going this route.

If it's selling some sort of "pay to win" system? No, that's not acceptable.
Gating things in single player behind MTX? No, not acceptable.
Heavily imbalancing the game's progression to funnel people towards MTX? Not acceptable

It's really more a question of if you trust 343 Industries to be thoughtful about making sure they do it so it isn't intrusive. I've seen other games get it right. It can be done.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5