Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

Is there an acceptable way to use Microtransaction

OP Eagle 2448

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 5
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.
This right here seems like a good idea to start with at least. Either have MTX or a larger price tag for the game.
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
Well knowing the trend, AAA games would soon be $100, and that would be the stripped down base game, with the Ultra-iconic-mythic edition, Season passes, and you guessed it, microtransactions.
No, unless it’s based in cosmetics.
Weapons skins. Buy a weapon and when you pick up a weapon off the ground in game it automatically transforms into the weapon skin you bought
If you can pay for an in-game advantage that's bad, if you can pay for fun in-game things that don't directly change game play, then that's best.
If you make a rocking good game, micro transactions should be the icing on the cake, not the main course.
For cosmetics only.
I honestly didn't see an issue with Halo 5's REQ system/microtransactions. You knew exactly what you were getting. Well kind of. At least based on the level of pack. But you knew you'd get 2 permanent unlocks and then a variety of consumables for Warzone. It didn't impact the actual gameplay at all. It didn't separate the player base, and it wasn't pay to win. It was purely cosmetics for Arena (armor, skins, and boosts) and then weapon variants, vehicles, and special weapons for Warzone. Warzone was a sandbox style mode that was casual. I saw nothing wrong with the way it was implemented. You never once felt like you had to pay to improve your experience or to make you better. You could unlock absolutely everything (to my knowledge and I'm like an SR125) without having to pay.

Yes, could it get a little grindy. Yes absolutely. But they also have to keep everyone engaged whether you're SR10 or SR152 or whatever. They could lower the amount of grind a little bit, but I'd be cautious of gashing it too much unless they're going to constantly flood it with additional content.

Personally, as long as you can unlock absolutely everything in the game with the same amount of effort, or slightly less in Halo Infinite as you could in 5, I'm totally fine with it. They gave us a year or more of free maps and content. I see a lot of people claiming that Halo 2 or 3 was best, but those games charged $10-$15 per map pack. You're effectively paying double for all the content. 5 made the content available for everyone and didn't separate the player base. Sure, you might see someone running around with cool armor, but at least you knew at some point, you'd unlock it as well. And it honestly wasn't that grindy. For Honor was much worse. The way I see it, for $60 base (or whatever you pay with inflation) and to get all the content for free, you're getting more than your money's worth. If the developer puts something in to make money, so be it. Support the studio if you so choose. No one is forcing you to buy it and it literally had/has 0 impact on your gameplay experience.
No one is forcing you to buy it and it literally had/has 0 impact on your gameplay experience.
This is true, but i know ive wasted hours looking at the req screen and selling thousands of reqs, 1 at a time.
So i guess implementation of micro is important, lol.
No one is forcing you to buy it and it literally had/has 0 impact on your gameplay experience.
This is true, but i know ive wasted hours looking at the req screen and selling thousands of reqs, 1 at a time.
So i guess implementation of micro is important, lol.
I'll give you that. That's fair. The UI can be drastically improved cause selling 50 commons for one weapon is tedious. Especially with how clunky it was. Idk how the backend looked or was set up, but that call took entirely too long. It needed to be almost instant instead 5ish seconds each.

So again, I totally agree with you.
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.
I agree. A few games get it right. I have an issue with rng loot, it's usually designed with low drop rates for good items to encourage us to pay. Thankfully 343i confirmed no paid loot crates in Halo Infinite. I'll accept buy what you see cosmetics, any rng and I walk. I refuse to buy games with rng, if I had not gone dark on Halo 5 I would have known about the rng reqs, I'll never make that mistake again.
I honestly didn't see an issue with Halo 5's REQ system/microtransactions. You knew exactly what you were getting. Well kind of. At least based on the level of pack. But you knew you'd get 2 permanent unlocks and then a variety of consumables for Warzone. It didn't impact the actual gameplay at all. It didn't separate the player base, and it wasn't pay to win. It was purely cosmetics for Arena (armor, skins, and boosts) and then weapon variants, vehicles, and special weapons for Warzone. Warzone was a sandbox style mode that was casual. I saw nothing wrong with the way it was implemented. You never once felt like you had to pay to improve your experience or to make you better. You could unlock absolutely everything (to my knowledge and I'm like an SR125) without having to pay.
When you allow players to purchase consumable items that impact gameplay (e.g., weapons) you create an environment where a player who buys more is likely to have more better items. Maybe it's not blatant enough that you feel bad about it, but the fact is that if players can purchase items which impact gameplay, unless everyone has such an abundance of all items that it literally doesn't matter, players can spend money to gain an advantage. This advantage may not be huge, but if it exists, you have a pay-to-win situation.

Yes, could it get a little grindy. Yes absolutely. But they also have to keep everyone engaged whether you're SR10 or SR152 or whatever. They could lower the amount of grind a little bit, but I'd be cautious of gashing it too much unless they're going to constantly flood it with additional content.
A good game can keep players engaged by offering them meaningful experiences that enrich their life. That's what we played Halo for when unlockable cosmetics didn't exist. While it's true that humans are prone to engaging in busywork if they are promised a reward at the end, this is hardly an ethical way of keeping them engaged. You know who are very good at keeping their players engaged? Casinos.
My idea:
If loot box comes back, make emblems, colors only effected by it, not weapons and armors
Cosmetic microtransactions only
Do not make them pay to win
Don't effect it on any gameplay
Please don't go full on EA/Activision/epic and bethesda
AMA4N wrote:
My idea:
If loot box comes back, make emblems, colors only effected by it, not weapons and armors
Cosmetic microtransactions only
Do not make them pay to win
Don't effect it on any gameplay
Please don't go full on EA/Activision/epic and bethesda
343i have stated no paid loot boxes. How do you see them coming back ? Free ? No point in that imo. 343i upset the fans with more rng nonsense AND get no income, absolutely pointless.
User economies a'la Team Fortress 2.
The only way MTX is in any way acceptable to me is if the game is free-to-play. If I have to pay $60 upfront, then MTX just feels like you're trying to nickel and dime me. I don't mind paying for DLC, as long as the price is fair for what I get.

You can't change my mind.
eviltedi wrote:
AMA4N wrote:
My idea:
If loot box comes back, make emblems, colors only effected by it, not weapons and armors
Cosmetic microtransactions only
Do not make them pay to win
Don't effect it on any gameplay
Please don't go full on EA/Activision/epic and bethesda
343i have stated no paid loot boxes. How do you see them coming back ? Free ? No point in that imo. 343i upset the fans with more rng nonsense AND get no income, absolutely pointless.
they paid "paid loot box" but it could still mean that loot box could be in game but "in game loot box" not like halo 5
Entropy91 wrote:
The only way MTX is in any way acceptable to me is if the game is free-to-play. If I have to pay $60 upfront, then MTX just feels like you're trying to nickel and dime me. I don't mind paying for DLC, as long as the price is fair for what I get.

You can't change my mind.
That sounds more like you're just haggling over what constitutes a "DLC" versus a "microtransaction", at that point.

Call of Duty map packs weren't considered "microtransactions", but I also don't think parceling out core content like that behind a paywall, was actually good for the games. It just created "Have" and "Have Not" tiers within the actual matchmaking. Destiny 1 and 2 had similar problems, where if you didn't buy the latest expansion, your userbase got balkanized in multiplayer based on who owned access to what.

If keeping all of these "big" things free for everyone means having a non-random store where you can drop a few bucks on a BR skin, or a disco ball MJOLNIR paint job or something, then I think that's a perfectly fair compromise - even a potentially GOOD one. They'd just need to implement it carefully, to make sure it doesn't poison the game's progression and reward systems, in favour making them grind-ier. And make sure there's plenty of this stuff that can still be earned in reasonable intervals just by playing the game.

For hints at how they might be looking to implement their MTX, I think it's probably instructive to look at their last two games with post-release monetization: Gears 5 and Sea of Thieves. Both seem to be embracing the above philosophy (though SOT had a long period without monetization, I suspect because Rare/Microsoft realized the game was threadbare content-wise at release).
tsassi wrote:
I honestly didn't see an issue with Halo 5's REQ system/microtransactions. You knew exactly what you were getting. Well kind of. At least based on the level of pack. But you knew you'd get 2 permanent unlocks and then a variety of consumables for Warzone. It didn't impact the actual gameplay at all. It didn't separate the player base, and it wasn't pay to win. It was purely cosmetics for Arena (armor, skins, and boosts) and then weapon variants, vehicles, and special weapons for Warzone. Warzone was a sandbox style mode that was casual. I saw nothing wrong with the way it was implemented. You never once felt like you had to pay to improve your experience or to make you better. You could unlock absolutely everything (to my knowledge and I'm like an SR125) without having to pay.
When you allow players to purchase consumable items that impact gameplay (e.g., weapons) you create an environment where a player who buys more is likely to have more better items. Maybe it's not blatant enough that you feel bad about it, but the fact is that if players can purchase items which impact gameplay, unless everyone has such an abundance of all items that it literally doesn't matter, players can spend money to gain an advantage. This advantage may not be huge, but if it exists, you have a pay-to-win situation.
I agree with you, however I feel like Halo 5 hardly did that. I wouldn't consider 5 pay to win in the slightest. The weapons or whatever you were earning were for a sandbox game mode which required the player to obtain a certain level to even use. You could buy as many Req packs as you wanted, it wasn't going to make you better or up your Req level any faster. I would say a good majority of players had that said abundance where it didn't really matter. Most of the time there was a solution or counter for whatever was on the field. I personally liked the randomness of the Req packs. You didn't really know what you were getting and you were guaranteed to unlock something you didn't already have. But I also wasn't dumping money into these packs. I could see where you'd be mad if you were actually spending money, but again, no one is forcing you to buy these packs, and you can unlock them and everything in the game just by playing.

tsassi wrote:
I honestly didn't see an issue with Halo 5's REQ system/microtransactions. You knew exactly what you were getting. Well kind of. At least based on the level of pack. But you knew you'd get 2 permanent unlocks and then a variety of consumables for Warzone. It didn't impact the actual gameplay at all. It didn't separate the player base, and it wasn't pay to win. It was purely cosmetics for Arena (armor, skins, and boosts) and then weapon variants, vehicles, and special weapons for Warzone. Warzone was a sandbox style mode that was casual. I saw nothing wrong with the way it was implemented. You never once felt like you had to pay to improve your experience or to make you better. You could unlock absolutely everything (to my knowledge and I'm like an SR125) without having to pay.
When you allow players to purchase consumable items that impact gameplay (e.g., weapons) you create an environment where a player who buys more is likely to have more better items. Maybe it's not blatant enough that you feel bad about it, but the fact is that if players can purchase items which impact gameplay, unless everyone has such an abundance of all items that it literally doesn't matter, players can spend money to gain an advantage. This advantage may not be huge, but if it exists, you have a pay-to-win situation.

Yes, could it get a little grindy. Yes absolutely. But they also have to keep everyone engaged whether you're SR10 or SR152 or whatever. They could lower the amount of grind a little bit, but I'd be cautious of gashing it too much unless they're going to constantly flood it with additional content.
A good game can keep players engaged by offering them meaningful experiences that enrich their life. That's what we played Halo for when unlockable cosmetics didn't exist. While it's true that humans are prone to engaging in busywork if they are promised a reward at the end, this is hardly an ethical way of keeping them engaged. You know who are very good at keeping their players engaged? Casinos.
Absolutely but if Halo CE or 2 released today, it'd feel so dated and old that people would be pissed. The industry is ever-changing and developers have to find new ways to engage player bases. Now am I saying that's justification for them to throw microtransactions in the game to nickel and dime the player base or make them grind forever, no absolutely not. But it was an optional implementation of a system that players voluntarily opted into. No one forced anyone to purchase anything so when it comes to what's ethical and what isn't, I'd say its completely ethical. They aren't preying on a player base. Maybe the better question is individual decision making, self control, and cost/benefit analysis. Like casinos, microtransactions aren't being pushed on anyone. It's on individuals to decide if they want to participate. It's a risk vs reward system as to what exactly you may get (although Halo 5 made it abundantly clear what would be in each pack), but they are also completing a transaction. Now if you're arguing that microtransactions shouldn't be included because people will inclined to purchase them just because they're there and that we should be protecting consumers, I feel like there's a bigger issue at hand. You can't hold everyone's hand or protect them.
Entropy91 wrote:
The only way MTX is in any way acceptable to me is if the game is free-to-play. If I have to pay $60 upfront, then MTX just feels like you're trying to nickel and dime me. I don't mind paying for DLC, as long as the price is fair for what I get.

You can't change my mind.
That sounds more like you're just haggling over what constitutes a "DLC" versus a "microtransaction", at that point.

If keeping all of these "big" things free for everyone means having a non-random store where you can drop a few bucks on a BR skin, or a disco ball MJOLNIR paint job or something, then I think that's a perfectly fair compromise - even a potentially GOOD one. They'd just need to implement it carefully, to make sure it doesn't poison the game's progression and reward systems, in favour making them grind-ier. And make sure there's plenty of this stuff that can still be earned in reasonable intervals just by playing the game.

I agree. I actually applauded Halo 5 for what they did as far as maps and content went. They ensured the entire player base would stick together. And like you, I'm fine with some sort of storefront where players can buy items. As long as they don't have an impact on gameplay, so as you stated, cosmetics only. However, I will say I didn't mind the randomness of items you got of Req Packs for Warzone since it was a casual sandbox game mode. It kept a nice variety in the game mode and there was never a time where I was like, "Oh this sucks, I really wish I had *weapon/vehicle"*. But I'm also the person that kept a minimum of 5 of each Req just in case. I understand not everyone plays that way.

A recent example of your example stated above that worries me is BFV. I have no problems with their storefront largely. Although a good majority of their cosmetics are locked behind their paid currency, and can't be earned with in game currency. I feel like you should be able to earn all content without having to pay. Some will debate me on this. What's more concerning for me is the utter lack of content for BFV and how plagued with bugs it is. It's been like 9 months and I think the game has received like 3 or 4 maps, another campaign chapter, numerous Limited Time Game Modes, and cosmetics. It lacks substance and ultimately pisses me off. There is very little that makes me want to continue to play the game just because of the slow roll of meaningful content. Tides of War offers some incentive to continue to play but even now, most of those rewards are pretty underwhelming.
Entropy91 wrote:
The only way MTX is in any way acceptable to me is if the game is free-to-play. If I have to pay $60 upfront, then MTX just feels like you're trying to nickel and dime me. I don't mind paying for DLC, as long as the price is fair for what I get.

You can't change my mind.
That sounds more like you're just haggling over what constitutes a "DLC" versus a "microtransaction", at that point.

If keeping all of these "big" things free for everyone means having a non-random store where you can drop a few bucks on a BR skin, or a disco ball MJOLNIR paint job or something, then I think that's a perfectly fair compromise - even a potentially GOOD one. They'd just need to implement it carefully, to make sure it doesn't poison the game's progression and reward systems, in favour making them grind-ier. And make sure there's plenty of this stuff that can still be earned in reasonable intervals just by playing the game.

I agree. I actually applauded Halo 5 for what they did as far as maps and content went. They ensured the entire player base would stick together. And like you, I'm fine with some sort of storefront where players can buy items. As long as they don't have an impact on gameplay, so as you stated, cosmetics only. However, I will say I didn't mind the randomness of items you got of Req Packs for Warzone since it was a casual sandbox game mode. It kept a nice variety in the game mode and there was never a time where I was like, "Oh this sucks, I really wish I had *weapon/vehicle"*. But I'm also the person that kept a minimum of 5 of each Req just in case. I understand not everyone plays that way.

A recent example of your example stated above that worries me is BFV. I have no problems with their storefront largely. Although a good majority of their cosmetics are locked behind their paid currency, and can't be earned with in game currency. I feel like you should be able to earn all content without having to pay. Some will debate me on this. What's more concerning for me is the utter lack of content for BFV and how plagued with bugs it is. It's been like 9 months and I think the game has received like 3 or 4 maps, another campaign chapter, numerous Limited Time Game Modes, and cosmetics. It lacks substance and ultimately pisses me off. There is very little that makes me want to continue to play the game just because of the slow roll of meaningful content. Tides of War offers some incentive to continue to play but even now, most of those rewards are pretty underwhelming.
Yeah, there's definitely a way to implement such a system in a way that is weighted too heavily towards funneling people to spend.

However, I take heart in two things: 1) Microsoft aren't EA (huzzah!), and 2) Microsoft will likely err on the side of being delicate, because they have a lot riding on Halo Infinite beyond simply making their immediate cash.

HI is the tip of Microsoft's spear for next generation. The big launch title. The biggest IP in their portfolio. A rumoured total investment of hundreds of millions of dollars. The big attempt to rehabilitate the Halo brand culturally, to be like the "good old days" - even producing a prestige-budgeted television show to coincide with the same time period.

They surely won't risk all of that, simply to extract more money from microtransactions. The last thing they need is Infinite to get reviews in the 6's and 7's, because they were too aggressive with their monetization. They need it to sell consoles, and they need it to stand up to Sony's exclusive portfolio.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 5