Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

Microtransactions might be a HUGE thing

OP Dein Exfreund

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2
Just were on reddit and YouTube and watched some new content for Halo Infinite and I have to say I'm really dissapointed.

YouTube: Fans Upset to Learn Halo Infinite is a Live Service, Microsoft Hiring Monetization/Psychology Expert
Reddit: Fans Upset to learn Halo Infinite is a Live Service, Microsoft is Hiring Microtransactions Expert

Microsoft is hiring a Microtransaction/Psychology Expert for 343 Industries, especially for more microtransactions in Halo

Even if there is not many information about Halo Infinite, but is it possible that Infinite stands for Infinite Microtransactions?
I`m really dissapointed with the way 343/Microsoft is handling Halo and I will not pre-order Halo Infinite.

I remember when halo was a rival to Call of Duty - now it`s a shell of it's former self
Before that happened I was like;
I thought 343 was learning from their mistakes and going to make a game that was faithful to the original trilogy.

When is Halo sold to EA and what do you guys think about that? It`s much speculation but still sounds realistic.
We don't even know what the game is like yet, wait a bit
You're kinda late to the party
This is old news, dude
Not really anything new actually. At least you won't be able to buy boxes using YOUR money.
When is Halo sold to EA and what do you guys think about that? It`s much speculation but still sounds realistic.
Never, because if that ever happens, we can expect to pay 60 for the game, 30 for the title screen, 15 for the campaign, 60/year for MP (separate from Gold), 20 for customization and so on you get the picture.
We know next to nothing about the game & what it will entail. Im pretty pessimistic about where Halo is at, but I'm willing to wait & see what unravels with Infinite.
Yong also made another video that included more information with a Tweet from Chris Lee confirming that there will NOT be paid loot boxes in Infinite. This includes direct purchase of loot boxes and purchasing of in-game currency to then be used on loot boxes. (The second part was confirmed in the official Halo Discord.)

Also, I say this as someone who used to watch quite a bit of Yong, his analysis on the job opening is grasping at straws. And that's being generous. He tried to make it sound like hiring people to objectively analyze player retention is a bad thing. I've said it before and I'll say it again - that is good for both the consumer AND the developer. It's not a "microtransaction expert." What is that even?

Allow me to reiterate: I used to watch quite a bit of Yong during the Battlefront II fiasco. But his recent videos, not just those on Halo, have been seeing fault where there is none. I don't expect him to know about every Tweet or bit of information a developer puts out about their game but it's really unfortunate that due to his video we've seen a lot of misinformation and unnecessary panic going around. When in reality we know so little about the game and the only things that 343 have actually said concerning microtransactions have been good things.

I don't know him personally so I'm not going to accuse him of malicious intent where there may be none.

If fans are skeptical that's not only fair, it's smart. But in the interest of being smart, I would simply urge people to wait for more confirmed information to come out before we grab our pitchforks.
If there are no lootboxes paid or otherwise that will be a step in the right direction, but if Assassin's Creed Odyssey is teaching us anything its that other forms of microtransactions can still have have a detrimental effect on game design. Making the game an absurd grind and selling methods to bypass said grind it is still going to suck even if it doesn't have that extra gross gambling aspect of lootboxes.
  • Yong also made another video that included more information with a Tweet from Chris Lee confirming that there will NOT be paid loot boxes in Infinite. This includes direct purchase of loot boxes and purchasing of in-game currency to then be used on loot boxes.
  • [...] He tried to make it sound like hiring people to objectively analyze player retention is a bad thing. I've said it before and I'll say it again - that is good for both the consumer AND the developer. It's not a "microtransaction expert." What is that even?
  • [...] When in reality we know so little about the game and the only things that 343 have actually said concerning microtransactions have been good things.
[...]
  • If fans are skeptical that's not only fair, it's smart. But in the interest of being smart, I would simply urge people to wait for more confirmed information to come out before we grab our pitchforks.
i just have a few annotations to these points. (also i haven't seen many yong vids, but i think he more or less only reads some news and interprets them. if he is right with his interpretations is another thing)

first point. i'm not sure it really is saying that there won't be lootboxes paid with ingame currency. to me the tweet isn't saying much and has a lot of room for interpretation. (to me it only says: no lootboxes with real money and it's not excluding lootboxes with ingame currency)

secound point: true, analyzing player retention isn't bad per se and we can't say what halo infinite will be. but it should raise suspision none the less, looking at the lootbox system in h5 (and other games) and the way the gaming industry as a whole is heading at the moment. if i remember correctly, the job offering also describes: experience with implementing microtransactions (please correct me if i'm wrong or if this was another job openening or whatever). at least for me that sets of a few alarms.

third point: we really know nothing and all things are only speculation at this point. the only thing we know is: no real money paid lootboxes (which is good). but like i said: for me that doesn't exclude lootboxes paid with purchasable ingame currency (which would contradict the no real money lootbox point and maybe would even be worse, bc people may lose context on how much they spend)

fourth point: thats the best advice for gamers (and actually people in general) and i 100% agree. sadly many don't act smart and preorder blindly or are grabing pitchforks over small informations (or just speculations), but we should still be voicing our concerns and what we want in the game. and we should definatly be on the lookout for MTs and how they will be implemented (if at all).
__________________________

additionaly because EA was mentioned: i know EA is a bad company and it rightfully deserves the heat it gets (it should even be more), but we should never forget it is not the only company pushing lootboxes and practices which are only there to generate money and damage the gaming experience with unnecassery long grinds or whatever (and in doing so urging people to spend more on MTs)
ubisoft, activision-blizzard, konami and warner brothers are a few more to mention. and on top of that i also would put microsoft up there. M$ can still redeem itself, but looking at recent titels (h5, hw2, gow4, forza), there are already a lot of games using these practices, which is another reason to look very carefully at what halo infinite will come up with.
WSerg wrote:
  • Yong also made another video that included more information with a Tweet from Chris Lee confirming that there will NOT be paid loot boxes in Infinite. This includes direct purchase of loot boxes and purchasing of in-game currency to then be used on loot boxes.
  • [...] He tried to make it sound like hiring people to objectively analyze player retention is a bad thing. I've said it before and I'll say it again - that is good for both the consumer AND the developer. It's not a "microtransaction expert." What is that even?
  • [...] When in reality we know so little about the game and the only things that 343 have actually said concerning microtransactions have been good things.
[...]
  • If fans are skeptical that's not only fair, it's smart. But in the interest of being smart, I would simply urge people to wait for more confirmed information to come out before we grab our pitchforks.
M$ can still redeem itself, but looking at recent titels (h5, hw2, gow4, forza), there are already a lot of games using these practices, which is another reason to look very carefully at what halo infinite will come up with.
Sometime around the reveal (I think) I stated in a thread that there was an opportunity for a developer and or publisher to really stand out from the rest. With all the furore surrounding SWBF2, Destiny 2, BFV, Shadow of War and others, there was a chance for Microsoft and 343i to really push with a consumer friendly game. We still don't know how the games monetisation will be structured, I'm not sure it will be good, but I'm hoping.
WSerg wrote:
first point. i'm not sure it really is saying that there won't be lootboxes paid with ingame currency. to me the tweet isn't saying much and has a lot of room for interpretation. (to me it only says: no lootboxes with real money and it's not excluding lootboxes with ingame currency)
True enough, the tweet from Chris does not talk about lootboxes via in-game currency. However, this topic was brought up in the official discord, where a 343i dev stated that paid lootboxes include buying a lootbox directly with real money or buying premium currency with real money and using that currency to buy a lootbox (a loophole used by Blizzard to get around lootbox laws in China). This dev confirmed that Infinite will contain neither of those monetization structures.

So in aggregate, these statements don't negate the possibility of lootboxes in Infinite, but they do state that any lootbox in Infinite will not be obtainable via real money in any way, shape, or form. If lootboxes are in Infinite, they will be tied to some system that is not supported by real money microtransactions. If, for instance, they were obtainable via in-game currency, then that in-game currency would only be attainable via progression and/or gameplay, not microtransactions.
No doubt they'll be a huge thing. They were there in H5, HW2, the fact that almost if not all big successful multiplayer game today has them, it was obvious Infinite would in my opinion. If they are non gameplay intrusive I can tolerate micros, but that "live service" term has me worried. Could just be a simple job description and we're freaking out over nothing or they have something really bad planned, we'll just have to see. So far though they've confirmed there will be no real money lootboxes and they must know how the industry feels about gameplay intrusive micros so I will remain cautiously optimistic.

As for that EA purchasing Halo rumor, where did that come from? Any weight behind it or completely unfounded? I personally could not see that happening considering Halo is Microsoft's biggest IP and they are pushing first party harder now.
Chimera30 wrote:
WSerg wrote:
first point. i'm not sure it really is saying that there won't be lootboxes paid with ingame currency. to me the tweet isn't saying much and has a lot of room for interpretation. (to me it only says: no lootboxes with real money and it's not excluding lootboxes with ingame currency)
True enough, the tweet from Chris does not talk about lootboxes via in-game currency. However, this topic was brought up in the official discord, where a 343i dev stated that paid lootboxes include buying a lootbox directly with real money or buying premium currency with real money and using that currency to buy a lootbox (a loophole used by Blizzard to get around lootbox laws in China). This dev confirmed that Infinite will contain neither of those monetization structures.

So in aggregate, these statements don't negate the possibility of lootboxes in Infinite, but they do state that any lootbox in Infinite will not be obtainable via real money in any way, shape, or form. If lootboxes are in Infinite, they will be tied to some system that is not supported by real money microtransactions. If, for instance, they were obtainable via in-game currency, then that in-game currency would only be attainable via progression and/or gameplay, not microtransactions.
thats good to hear. but i would also like to see it being writen down in an update by 343 on waypoint news or somewhere similar. (is there a recording of this?) but for now i will give the benefit of the doubt to 343i. (but i will keep my eys up about this topic and MTs overall).

As for that EA purchasing Halo rumor, where did that come from? Any weight behind it or completely unfounded? I personally could not see that happening considering Halo is Microsoft's biggest IP and they are pushing first party harder now.
i don't think there is any rumor out there considering halo being sold to EA. even in it's weakend state, halo is still a flagship for M$ (even if it's maybe for lack of contest). i think OP wanted to exaggerate because of the MT/lootbox topic in general.
but there was a rumor of M$ buying EA or valve a bit back (was it even before E3?). but i wouldn't count on that either
He tried to make it sound like hiring people to objectively analyze player retention is a bad thing. I've said it before and I'll say it again - that is good for both the consumer AND the developer. It's not a "microtransaction expert." What is that even?
To be fair, it is a double edged sword. For example, tricking players with random rewards and Skinner boxes are used in game design because they are known to be really effective at keeping players engaged, but I doubt anyone would argue they are good for the player. The issue here is that a lot of the time things that keep the brain engaged are not things that people would describe as fun. The person working on these systems has to be constantly conscious about the fact that psychological engagement is not the same thing as fun if they want to do no harm.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, but I find it very difficult to imagine how it could be a good thing.
WSerg wrote:
Chimera30 wrote:
WSerg wrote:
first point. i'm not sure it really is saying that there won't be lootboxes paid with ingame currency. to me the tweet isn't saying much and has a lot of room for interpretation. (to me it only says: no lootboxes with real money and it's not excluding lootboxes with ingame currency)
True enough, the tweet from Chris does not talk about lootboxes via in-game currency. However, this topic was brought up in the official discord, where a 343i dev stated that paid lootboxes include buying a lootbox directly with real money or buying premium currency with real money and using that currency to buy a lootbox (a loophole used by Blizzard to get around lootbox laws in China). This dev confirmed that Infinite will contain neither of those monetization structures.

So in aggregate, these statements don't negate the possibility of lootboxes in Infinite, but they do state that any lootbox in Infinite will not be obtainable via real money in any way, shape, or form. If lootboxes are in Infinite, they will be tied to some system that is not supported by real money microtransactions. If, for instance, they were obtainable via in-game currency, then that in-game currency would only be attainable via progression and/or gameplay, not microtransactions.
thats good to hear. but i would also like to see it being writen down in an update by 343 on waypoint news or somewhere similar. (is there a recording of this?) but for now i will give the benefit of the doubt to 343i. (but i will keep my eys up about this topic and MTs overall).

As for that EA purchasing Halo rumor, where did that come from? Any weight behind it or completely unfounded? I personally could not see that happening considering Halo is Microsoft's biggest IP and they are pushing first party harder now.
i don't think there is any rumor out there considering halo being sold to EA. even in it's weakend state, halo is still a flagship for M$ (even if it's maybe for lack of contest). i think OP wanted to exaggerate because of the MT/lootbox topic in general.
but there was a rumor of M$ buying EA or valve a bit back (was it even before E3?). but i wouldn't count on that either
Man I wonder how many billions it would take to buy all of EA or Valve, I can't see that happening either. I mean Minecraft was like 2.5b or something around there? That was just one game, granted probably the biggest game ever but still.
tsassi wrote:
He tried to make it sound like hiring people to objectively analyze player retention is a bad thing. I've said it before and I'll say it again - that is good for both the consumer AND the developer. It's not a "microtransaction expert." What is that even?
To be fair, it is a double edged sword. For example, tricking players with random rewards and Skinner boxes are used in game design because they are known to be really effective at keeping players engaged, but I doubt anyone would argue they are good for the player. The issue here is that a lot of the time things that keep the brain engaged are not things that people would describe as fun. The person working on these systems has to be constantly conscious about the fact that psychological engagement is not the same thing as fun if they want to do no harm.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, but I find it very difficult to imagine how it could be a good thing.
I understand all of this but I'm not seeing how it's difficult to imagine how this could benefit players as well. Correct me if I'm wrong here but you seem to be assuming the entire position is based on the manipulation of the players. I don't say "manipulation" to necessarily be a negative. But if, for example, a DLC, playlist, balance patch, achievements, cosmetic release, are at least correlated with player retention then none of these inherently have to be underhanded tactics.

I think I'm focusing more on the positive potentials as opposed to the negative ones like the ones you pointed out. However, in conjunction with what we already know to be true of microtransactions in Infinite, random rewards won't exist in the form of loot boxes. Until otherwise stated I think it's safe to say that random rewards won't exist in Infinite. After all, there would be no benefit to having loot boxes (like REQ packs) available without microtransactions. Assuming there will be microtransactions, the person being hired for this position would then be left to analyze practices that lack random rewards. Perhaps I'm giving gamers too much credit here but I'd like to assume that, in the absence of randomness and outright paying to win, only sheer quality could convince them to part with their money for an MTX.
WSerg wrote:
Chimera30 wrote:
WSerg wrote:
first point. i'm not sure it really is saying that there won't be lootboxes paid with ingame currency. to me the tweet isn't saying much and has a lot of room for interpretation. (to me it only says: no lootboxes with real money and it's not excluding lootboxes with ingame currency)
True enough, the tweet from Chris does not talk about lootboxes via in-game currency. However, this topic was brought up in the official discord, where a 343i dev stated that paid lootboxes include buying a lootbox directly with real money or buying premium currency with real money and using that currency to buy a lootbox (a loophole used by Blizzard to get around lootbox laws in China). This dev confirmed that Infinite will contain neither of those monetization structures.

So in aggregate, these statements don't negate the possibility of lootboxes in Infinite, but they do state that any lootbox in Infinite will not be obtainable via real money in any way, shape, or form. If lootboxes are in Infinite, they will be tied to some system that is not supported by real money microtransactions. If, for instance, they were obtainable via in-game currency, then that in-game currency would only be attainable via progression and/or gameplay, not microtransactions.
thats good to hear. but i would also like to see it being writen down in an update by 343 on waypoint news or somewhere similar. (is there a recording of this?) but for now i will give the benefit of the doubt to 343i. (but i will keep my eys up about this topic and MTs overall).
If you want to see the message for yourself, join the official discord, and search for posts from Plutologist around 9/19/2018.
WerepyreND wrote:
If there are no lootboxes paid or otherwise that will be a step in the right direction, but if Assassin's Creed Odyssey is teaching us anything its that other forms of microtransactions can still have have a detrimental effect on game design. Making the game an absurd grind and selling methods to bypass said grind it is still going to suck even if it doesn't have that extra gross gambling aspect of lootboxes.
Odyssey isn't much of an example to me, you may as well bring up any open world RPG if grinding is an issue as that will be the case with all of them. Plus my own experience differs from media reviewers playing the game half--Yoinked!- and making up false narratives. Dismantle things, loot things as they'll be in your lath anyways, and you'll have plenty of materials to upgrade. Lvl gating wise I'd say tough, games have been doing that since that the start before microTs were a thing, the point Is to make players challenge themselves, remove the lvl gating and let people go wherever they want and said challenge is gone. It's either that or let players have a ridiculous power fantasy.

@OP: microTs will indeed be a huge thing, it's why 343 needs to be smart about it. Government intervention is already inevitable, it's simply a matter of time till regulations are in place. That said 343 would be smart to not do anything dumb with infinite, the brand names already been in decline, feeding into the microtransactions controversy isn't something infinite needs as it will be watched for. Really they simply need to not include anything RNG related and they'd be in the clear, the issue isn't that microTs are used, it's how they're used that causes the issue and RNG AKA lootboxes are the driving force.
WerepyreND wrote:
If there are no lootboxes paid or otherwise that will be a step in the right direction, but if Assassin's Creed Odyssey is teaching us anything its that other forms of microtransactions can still have have a detrimental effect on game design. Making the game an absurd grind and selling methods to bypass said grind it is still going to suck even if it doesn't have that extra gross gambling aspect of lootboxes.
Odyssey isn't much of an example to me, you may as well bring up any open world RPG if grinding is an issue as that will be the case with all of them. Plus my own experience differs from media reviewers playing the game half--Yoinked!- and making up false narratives. Dismantle things, loot things as they'll be in your lath anyways, and you'll have plenty of materials to upgrade. Lvl gating wise I'd say tough, games have been doing that since that the start before microTs were a thing, the point Is to make players challenge themselves, remove the lvl gating and let people go wherever they want and said challenge is gone. It's either that or let players have a ridiculous power fantasy.

@OP: microTs will indeed be a huge thing, it's why 343 needs to be smart about it. Government intervention is already inevitable, it's simply a matter of time till regulations are in place. That said 343 would be smart to not do anything dumb with infinite, the brand names already been in decline, feeding into the microtransactions controversy isn't something infinite needs as it will be watched for. Really they simply need to not include anything RNG related and they'd be in the clear, the issue isn't that microTs are used, it's how they're used that causes the issue and RNG AKA lootboxes are the driving force.
Gov intervention? That is all depending on where your specific gov is located. If you are located in Europe or Asia I'd say possibly, and a BIG "possibly". In the US, no way.

Video games are a "Luxury Industry" that has become big business and has gotten to the point where investors need to be kept happy in order to keep the industry going. MT's are not going away unless game prices go up. The industry tried raising prices and that got push back, then season passes and that got push back. Now they are full force into Micro's, it is working and no matter how much push back, the industry now has the numbers to back up the practice because people will simply spend the cash.

I know people who I've played Halo with since 3, who never got a map pack, but gladly buy into the Fortnite cosmetic BS, and have spent more then they would have getting a map pack. Now this same person is trying to get me to play that BS game, because his kids want him to play it and he spent so much money on it. There is no controversy, the companies know what they are doing and it's OK because the fault lies in the consumer.

I seriously don't see MT's going away unless consumers stop feeding into it and start paying companies through a different revenue stream.
WerepyreND wrote:
If there are no lootboxes paid or otherwise that will be a step in the right direction, but if Assassin's Creed Odyssey is teaching us anything its that other forms of microtransactions can still have have a detrimental effect on game design. Making the game an absurd grind and selling methods to bypass said grind it is still going to suck even if it doesn't have that extra gross gambling aspect of lootboxes.
Odyssey isn't much of an example to me, you may as well bring up any open world RPG if grinding is an issue as that will be the case with all of them. Plus my own experience differs from media reviewers playing the game half--Yoinked!- and making up false narratives. Dismantle things, loot things as they'll be in your lath anyways, and you'll have plenty of materials to upgrade. Lvl gating wise I'd say tough, games have been doing that since that the start before microTs were a thing, the point Is to make players challenge themselves, remove the lvl gating and let people go wherever they want and said challenge is gone. It's either that or let players have a ridiculous power fantasy.

@OP: microTs will indeed be a huge thing, it's why 343 needs to be smart about it. Government intervention is already inevitable, it's simply a matter of time till regulations are in place. That said 343 would be smart to not do anything dumb with infinite, the brand names already been in decline, feeding into the microtransactions controversy isn't something infinite needs as it will be watched for. Really they simply need to not include anything RNG related and they'd be in the clear, the issue isn't that microTs are used, it's how they're used that causes the issue and RNG AKA lootboxes are the driving force.
Gov intervention? That is all depending on where your specific gov is located. If you are located in Europe or Asia I'd say possibly, and a BIG "possibly". In the US, no way.

Video games are a "Luxury Industry" that has become big business and has gotten to the point where investors need to be kept happy in order to keep the industry going. MT's are not going away unless game prices go up. The industry tried raising prices and that got push back, then season passes and that got push back. Now they are full force into Micro's, it is working and no matter how much push back, the industry now has the numbers to back up the practice because people will simply spend the cash.

I know people who I've played Halo with since 3, who never got a map pack, but gladly buy into the Fortnite cosmetic BS, and have spent more then they would have getting a map pack. Now this same person is trying to get me to play that BS game, because his kids want him to play it and he spent so much money on it.

I seriously don't see MT's going away.
You're missing my point. The issue isn't microTs in general, it's lootboxes IE random items given to you. That is what governments are looking at as that is what's ticking people off to such a big degree.

Furthermore the U.S. has already been getting involved.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=04c83f73-6a42-43ec-baf3-dd30b7094ab0It's only going to get bigger and bigger, even then the US wouldn't be needed 🤷. All it takes is a good chunk of countries to oppose it and the gaming companies will be forced to change it or their game won't be allowed in said country. That's a lot of sales you're missing out on. Regardless the US IS getting involved, that article mentions Minnesota and Hawaii originally started it off.

There is no possibly to this either, EA has already been taken to court over it and threats have been made towards other games like blizzards overwatch game. It's inevitable, there is no possibility, there is no maybe, it will happen in due time. Furthermore it's not hard to see how some companies have changed things with their newer games, it's helped contribute to emotes being popular.

So I'm In Agreement, microTs aren't going away, lootboxes however will and that was my point.
I don’t really watch Yong, but I mostly see his channel as pretty click-baity.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2