Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

Microtransactions return back, is the game ruined?

OP AMA4N

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 5
  4. 6
  5. 7
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. ...
  9. 10
There's just one problem with your sentiments...Halo 3 WAS better than its predecessor, which indeed required higher costs. It has "low graphics" compared to modern games, but during its release, its graphics were considered "high". Alas, the upgrade from Halo 2 did not require microtransactions to compensate.
That's not how it works. Better hardware also means more props on screen, more polygonal diversity, you can create bigger areas, routines can get more complex and so on. That mean you will have to add more and more people and the working hours to your team if you still want to push for the greatest potential of the machine! Of course software, renders and editors are getting better, faster and easier to use as well, but it's never proportional to the amount of details and complexity studios got to push into modern games compared to the past.

What you're stating is straight out ridiculous, sorry! But when you think about ANY development process behind a videogame (and the choice between design, programming, art pre-production, voice acting, motion capturing, environmental architecture, animation... let's just say it's vast), you got to understand how much harder the process becomes the more we push the hardware limitation year after year. You certainly don't need me to say it out loud! Not to mention MARKETING has become more and more important in this industry to stay competitive as well, needless to say publishers are investing a ridiculous amount of money in this aspect as well and kinda have to sadly.

Yet games still cost between 60 to 75 bucks - Let's not forget the value of those bucks is not the same as 10 years ago either. So were else should the money come from? Nobody likes MTs, I certainly don't!^^' But if the starting price doesn't get higher (like it it should have), most devs will be obligated to introduce them or out right fail. The third option is becoming smaller again and as such leaving the AAA market all together.
So you're one of those, um, special people, like those Extra Credits guys, that think that game should cost more because "oh no, it's getting harder to make videogames, if you want a game without DLC and mtx gice us more money please", We don't owe them anything, a game isn't even out yet and people thinks that it should cost more because companies think so, of course companies think that doofus they want to make more money, and people buy the idea that "oh poor developers, they need or help", developers don't see a cent from the game revenue or mtx, the companies take it all. Some people are really, naive.
HSC Master wrote:
So you're one of those, um, special people, like those Extra Credits guys, that think that game should cost more because "oh no, it's getting harder to make videogames, if you want a game without DLC and mtx gice us more money please", We don't owe them anything, a game isn't even out yet and people thinks that it should cost more because companies think so, of course companies think that doofus they want to make more money, and people buy the idea that "oh poor developers, they need or help", developers don't see a cent from the game revenue or mtx, the companies take it all. Some people are really, naive.
That they don't see cent from revenue is obvious (at least to me). They make a prudct and get paid for the service and not for the sales of the product itself. There are however still a lot more employees working for a lot longer periods of time on a game than they did ever before - even after a release nowadays. You still need to pay those employees! Also most of them are pricey professionals as well (so poor my "yoink" if I may say so). Yet a general game price-tag went down if you consider inflation. Now you could tell me that the money should come from publishers and CEOs and that they are overpaid and I would even agree with you, but that's the real naive answer to the problem right there. Welcome to one'o'one capitalism my friend!
The good thing is if you play enough fps games, over time you come to the realizion that MTs are just digital fluff that has no value whatsoever and isn't included for the benefit of the player.
Halo has sold out under 343i therefore my fan loyalty is equally up for sale . It is currently in a very weak position as a franchise regardless of any narrative the corporate bots try to spin on it,
Infinite really is their last chance to regain our trust and confidence. But I'm sure the halo franchise can't be revived from its current position.
Well I am starting to wonder if a game like Halo Combat Evolved would have been commercially successful if it were released in this market. The concept of the Feature Full game (Single Player story Campaign with split screen co-op, Split, LAN, and online multiplayer, character customization and custom game content, flat rate price), is frankly dead. No it wasn't the players demand (except for the whales) it was the Publisher and Investor demand because it is the few are the ones outspending the many. Given the concept of updated graphics it would likely be considered a failure because it didn't make the live services money that other games have.

Frankly this is all real depressing, I had already given up on the franchise once before, it would be a real disappointment if I have to give up on it again (this time without looking back). I was hoping to buy feature complete game where I wouldn't need to download a bunch of patches and in-game purchases in order to enjoy it. Guess I'll just have to wait and see.
HSC Master wrote:
So you're one of those, um, special people, like those Extra Credits guys, that think that game should cost more because "oh no, it's getting harder to make videogames, if you want a game without DLC and mtx gice us more money please", We don't owe them anything, a game isn't even out yet and people thinks that it should cost more because companies think so, of course companies think that doofus they want to make more money, and people buy the idea that "oh poor developers, they need or help", developers don't see a cent from the game revenue or mtx, the companies take it all. Some people are really, naive.
That they don't see cent from revenue is obvious (at least to me). They make a prudct and get paid for the service and not for the sales of the product itself. There are however still a lot more employees working for a lot longer periods of time on a game than they did ever before - even after a release nowadays. You still need to pay those employees! Also most of them are pricey professionals as well (so poor my "yoink" if I may say so). Yet a general game price-tag went down if you consider inflation. Now you could tell me that the money should come from publishers and CEOs and that they are overpaid and I would even agree with you, but that's the real naive answer to the problem right there. Welcome to one'o'one capitalism my friend!
343's parent company is Xbox, who's owned by -Yoinking!- Mocrosoft. They bought 10 studios with -Yoinking!- pocket change and you want to justify -Yoink- like MTX systems in AAA gaming with that?

You just said "that they don't see a cent from that revenue is obvious" and then turn around and say "they need to get paid somehow" when their salary has already been worked into the overall budget. You aren't making a whole lot of sense there.

Calling the solution of overpaid CEO's and lead exec's taking the hit for budgeting instead of consumers because "muh capitalism" is a load of bull and completely flies in the face of your previous points about developers.

Microtransactions and lootboxes don't belong in AAA gaming, period, especially when you're a brand like Xbox that has been on the side of bad press for the better part of a generation. Making excuses for these things while going off of pure speculation about current industry expenses isn't helping the unhealthy direction of the games industry and is just contributing to the problem.
The good thing is if you play enough fps games, over time you come to the realizion that MTs are just digital fluff that has no value whatsoever and isn't included for the benefit of the player.
Halo has sold out under 343i therefore my fan loyalty is equally up for sale . It is currently in a very weak position as a franchise regardless of any narrative the corporate bots try to spin on it,
Infinite really is their last chance to regain our trust and confidence. But I'm sure the halo franchise can't be revived from its current position.
Well I am starting to wonder if a game like Halo Combat Evolved would have been commercially successful if it were released in this market. The concept of the Feature Full game (Single Player story Campaign with split screen co-op, Split, LAN, and online multiplayer, character customization and custom game content, flat rate price), is frankly dead. No it wasn't the players demand (except for the whales) it was the Publisher and Investor demand because it is the few are the ones outspending the many. Given the concept of updated graphics it would likely be considered a failure because it didn't make the live services money that other games have.

Frankly this is all real depressing, I had already given up on the franchise once before, it would be a real disappointment if I have to give up on it again (this time without looking back). I was hoping to buy feature complete game where I wouldn't need to download a bunch of patches and in-game purchases in order to enjoy it. Guess I'll just have to wait and see.
I think we can safely say up till 2013 or so the old AAA gaming model was an effective and reasonably functional and I dare say profitable one for both the gamer and the publisher . The product success or failure stood on its merits as a quality product .

Halo Ce to H4 all lived under this model and produced a high quality product on day of release with some minor balancing and bug fixing patches with the addition of dic that could be purchased as a traditional add on on if you wanted more from the game . One could argue that it was certainly a profitable venture for both the dev and the publisher with the games , console sales and trans media as well.
modern gaming is really In a bad place at this current moment .
Good graphics but bad products .
my idea for this system:
Cosmetic only please
Don't effect it on gameplay, armor and warzone
If loot box do cone back, don't lock the armor pieces in the loot box t least.
Just because Frankie said they ell liked after they said it's better than battlefront 2, that doesn't mean its good, in fact the microtransactions re still bad in halo 5, you can't just say it's liked because battlefront 2 microtransactions were more of a disaster so it basicially makes your self look bad because he choice decision in the current halo state was the main problem. I agree some games did well with MTX but sadly H5 didn't.
343's parent company is Xbox, who's owned by -Yoinking!- Mocrosoft. They bought 10 studios with -Yoinking!- pocket change and you want to justify -Yoink- like MTX systems in AAA gaming with that?

You just said "that they don't see a cent from that revenue is obvious" and then turn around and say "they need to get paid somehow" when their salary has already been worked into the overall budget. You aren't making a whole lot of sense there.

Calling the solution of overpaid CEO's and lead exec's taking the hit for budgeting instead of consumers because "muh capitalism" is a load of bull and completely flies in the face of your previous points about developers.

Microtransactions and lootboxes don't belong in AAA gaming, period, especially when you're a brand like Xbox that has been on the side of bad press for the better part of a generation. Making excuses for these things while going off of pure speculation about current industry expenses isn't helping the unhealthy direction of the games industry and is just contributing to the problem.
Who said am I pro MTs?! If you have read the tread you know I'm against them, especially if we're talking about gambling mechanics like lootboxes. Please don't put words in my mouth!

I'm just saying, if the initial price tag for a game would be higher without a sail dropping, than there would be no need for all that garbage in first place. And this is what might happen if gambling FINALLY gets outlawed. It's the only solution I can see without introducing a netflix like subscription in the style of Game Pass.

And being parented with MS doesn't mean much. We are talking about the Xbox branch (or better you are, I was talking AAA development in general, but details I guess) and Xbox Game Studios are not Microsoft! The branch has a predefined budget and only recently became a major player for MS -> which means they are making money with gaming and therefore they got a bigger budget to buy all those studios in first place. Now guess what happens to said budget if they don't hit the quotas or at least achieve similar results every year.

And yes, it is bull. That's the point. That's my point! The world sucks and I hate that things work like that, but they do! You got to work with those "bull" rules or go independent, like it or not there is no middle ground. If the game doesn't sell as expected or get negative publicity and therefore shareholder leave it before release, the first that will suffer are the devs and not the publisher. For sure not the headfigures that put the money into the project in first place! Should they? Yes, but they won't and the people creating the your hobby are the one that get "yoinked" and exceptions like Furukawa or Iwata at Nintendo cutting their own income during bad times are rare at best. If you can't even understand this simple concept don't go around calling other people naive please. Also read the comments before insinuating stuff!
343's parent company is Xbox, who's owned by -Yoinking!- Mocrosoft. They bought 10 studios with -Yoinking!- pocket change and you want to justify -Yoink- like MTX systems in AAA gaming with that?

You just said "that they don't see a cent from that revenue is obvious" and then turn around and say "they need to get paid somehow" when their salary has already been worked into the overall budget. You aren't making a whole lot of sense there.

Calling the solution of overpaid CEO's and lead exec's taking the hit for budgeting instead of consumers because "muh capitalism" is a load of bull and completely flies in the face of your previous points about developers.

Microtransactions and lootboxes don't belong in AAA gaming, period, especially when you're a brand like Xbox that has been on the side of bad press for the better part of a generation. Making excuses for these things while going off of pure speculation about current industry expenses isn't helping the unhealthy direction of the games industry and is just contributing to the problem.
Who said am I pro MTs?! If you have read the tread you know I'm against them, especially if we're talking about gambling mechanics like lootboxes. Please don't put words in my mouth!

I'm just saying, if the initial price tag for a game would be higher without a sails dropping, than there would be no need for all that garbage in first place. And this is what might happen if gambling FINALLY gets outlawed. It's the only solution I can see without introducing a netflix like subscription in the style of Game Pass.

And being parented with MS doesn't mean much. We are talking about the Xbox branch (or better you are, I was talking AAA development in general, but details I guess) and Xbox Game Studios are not Microsoft! The branch has a predefined budget and only recently became a major player for MS -> which means they are making money with gaming and therefore they got a bigger budget to buy all those studios in first place. Now guess what happens to said budget if they don't hit the quotas or at least achieve similar results every year.

And yes, it is bull. That's the point. That's my point! The world sucks and I hate that things work like that, but they do! You got to work with those "bull" rules or go independent, like it or not there is no middle ground. If the game doesn't sell as expected or get negative publicity and therefore shareholder leave it before release, the first that will suffer are the devs and not the publisher. For sure not the headfigures that put the money into the project in first place! Should they? Yes, but they won't and the people creating the your hobby are the one that get "yoinked" and exceptions like Furukawa or Iwata at Nintendo cutting their own income during bad times are rare at best. If you can't even understand this simple concept don't go around calling other people naive please. Also read the comments before insinuating stuff!
I read the comments and there were a couple things that were ambiguous which is why my reaction was the way it is. Regardless, sorry about insinuating. Hearing this stuff about MTX in the next Halo is extremely troubling when I think about the future of the franchise and what this could mean for the direction of said franchise. Hopefully 343 sees how many people aren't happy with this and adjust accordingly otherwise the damage could be irreversible.
It's hard to say whether it could really ruin the game as of yet, though it's definitely a bad sign it's still expected on this time & day, not really any sort of shocking news. The game can still be good depending on how they handle the microtransactions.

Though I still think the optimal case is that there would be no microtransactions & games would be ready when they launch, I dont simply expect that in most games I see. Though I have hopes for return to type of paying for a finished product type of market.

Fully priced games should get their profits from the sales while F2P games should get their profit from legal method they see fit (it's free so no complaining). It was the natural balance in games & I hope it will be so in the future too. But for now, it's not the case.
It's hard to say whether it could really ruin the game as of yet, though it's definitely a bad sign it's still expected on this time & day, not really any sort of shocking news. The game can still be good depending on how they handle the microtransactions.

Though I still think the optimal case is that there would be no microtransactions & games would be ready when they launch, I dont simply expect that in most games I see. Though I have hopes for return to type of paying for a finished product type of market.

Fully priced games should get their profits from the sales while F2P games should get their profit from legal method they see fit (it's free so no complaining). It was the natural balance in games & I hope it will be so in the future too. But for now, it's not the case.
The thing is every Halo that has had them in has negatively effected their games, the same can be said about Gears too.

Also agree...I would rather have a complete game at launch but it does feel like games are rushed more these days so they can try to rely too heavily on MT...which most hate.
If 343i continue forcing them then it's going to continue hurting the IP, distrust will continue.
ronnie42 wrote:
It's hard to say whether it could really ruin the game as of yet, though it's definitely a bad sign it's still expected on this time & day, not really any sort of shocking news. The game can still be good depending on how they handle the microtransactions.

Though I still think the optimal case is that there would be no microtransactions & games would be ready when they launch, I dont simply expect that in most games I see. Though I have hopes for return to type of paying for a finished product type of market.

Fully priced games should get their profits from the sales while F2P games should get their profit from legal method they see fit (it's free so no complaining). It was the natural balance in games & I hope it will be so in the future too. But for now, it's not the case.
The thing is every Halo that has had them in has negatively effected their games, the same can be said about Gears too.

Also agree...I would rather have a complete game at launch but it does feel like games are rushed more these days so they can try to rely too heavily on MT...which most hate.
If 343i continue forcing them then it's going to continue hurting the IP, distrust will continue.
Generally microtransactions seem to have negative effect on the brand itself, that much is obvious. Other related obvious thing is that it brings money to companies given they still exist.
Simple math, people buy microtransactions results in more companies pushing microtransactions in games, it's business.
But I think thats enough stating the obvious in one post, the point that microtransactions can be handled in varying levels was that microtransactions potentially wont exactly "ruin" the game given that microtransactions will possibly be a bit toned down given microtransactions have been quite hot topic for quite some years with media catching up & some legal stuff happening in various countries.
So even with occasional microtransaction (depends on the type of microtransaction & how it's handled) I think the rest of the game can be relatively enjoyable. It's just reality that in this time & day microtransactions persist & if game seems otherwise good I might get the said game but I wont put a dime on microtransactions in fully priced games to avoid supporting pushing such things in videogames.
Though if some game has obviously over the top microtransactions, the best would be to avoid it. Games should not be platform for series of extra mini payments but enjoyable experiences themselves from the start.
That can be only achieved if adding microtransactions becomes more of a hassle than it's worth in business sense, that means enough people against the microtransactions.

It's never late to break the current norm of big games having microtransactions.

As for the rushed games problem, it seems to me like it's more tied to preorder culture & normalization of games getting patched later on.
If companies get money off a product that they haven't even finished yet, some of the greedier personalities can think that maybe they could push the releases of the games in the franchise closer together resulting in more projects in same amount of time resulting in potentially more money.
The flipside of patches (which as ability is generally a good thing) is that it can create a mentality that game can be just patched later on so some might cut corners in proper testing. The games might be even left unpatched to a degree for videogames are currently largely a trend products, rare people seem to care when there are some issues in a last years game, or games older than that.
As example of such I could mention the "headless" bug in RDR undead nightmare which is pretty much a gamebreaking thing, unless the game is played offline without the latest patches installed.
So basically it was caused by a patch & left there & even in pretty well known game.

But as of what will be the future of Infinite & Halo itself, remains to be seen.
ronnie42 wrote:
Generally microtransactions seem to have negative effect on the brand itself, that much is obvious. Other related obvious thing is that it brings money to companies given they still exist.
Simple math, people buy microtransactions results in more companies pushing microtransactions in games, it's business.
But I think thats enough stating the obvious in one post, the point that microtransactions can be handled in varying levels was that microtransactions potentially wont exactly "ruin" the game given that microtransactions will possibly be a bit toned down given microtransactions have been quite hot topic for quite some years with media catching up & some legal stuff happening in various countries.
So even with occasional microtransaction (depends on the type of microtransaction & how it's handled) I think the rest of the game can be relatively enjoyable. It's just reality that in this time & day microtransactions persist & if game seems otherwise good I might get the said game but I wont put a dime on microtransactions in fully priced games to avoid supporting pushing such things in videogames.
Though if some game has obviously over the top microtransactions, the best would be to avoid it. Games should not be platform for series of extra mini payments but enjoyable experiences themselves from the start.
That can be only achieved if adding microtransactions becomes more of a hassle than it's worth in business sense, that means enough people against the microtransactions.

It's never late to break the current norm of big games having microtransactions.

As for the rushed games problem, it seems to me like it's more tied to preorder culture & normalization of games getting patched later on.
If companies get money off a product that they haven't even finished yet, some of the greedier personalities can think that maybe they could push the releases of the games in the franchise closer together resulting in more projects in same amount of time resulting in potentially more money.
The flipside of patches (which as ability is generally a good thing) is that it can create a mentality that game can be just patched later on so some might cut corners in proper testing. The games might be even left unpatched to a degree for videogames are currently largely a trend products, rare people seem to care when there are some issues in a last years game, or games older than that.
As example of such I could mention the "headless" bug in RDR undead nightmare which is pretty much a gamebreaking thing, unless the game is played offline without the latest patches installed.
So basically it was caused by a patch & left there & even in pretty well known game.

But as of what will be the future of Infinite & Halo itself, remains to be seen.
I can't think of a single game where micro-transactions hasn't eventually made me start hating part or an entire game because of them being included. Either it's turning everything into a mindless grind or forcing pay to win elements.

There's plenty that refuse pay for them but for every 100+ people...there's always 1 annoying player that will waste hundreds, basically our protests end up seeming like a frustrating uphill struggle. Look at Gears Pop for example...at first it seemed fun but soon as the pay 2 win elements became more noticeable...it made me hate the game and yet if it wasn't then it would have been a fun game to buy.

Breaking a habit is 1 thing but getting a company to actually care about the fan-base can be difficult.

I understand the pre-order issues but these issues have gotten worse since micro-transactions became more common...to a point where Halo 5 had the least amount of content at launch, yet we got the usual excuses of them needing more money when there not short for money. As for Halo Infinite I'm mostly just concerned at this point since I hated the grind in Halo 5 and the pay to win modes like Blitz, Warzone was mostly annoying...though Warzone did sort of even out after everyone eventually had enough items stockpiled.
ronnie42 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
Generally microtransactions seem to have negative effect on the brand itself, that much is obvious. Other related obvious thing is that it brings money to companies given they still exist.
Simple math, people buy microtransactions results in more companies pushing microtransactions in games, it's business.
But I think thats enough stating the obvious in one post, the point that microtransactions can be handled in varying levels was that microtransactions potentially wont exactly "ruin" the game given that microtransactions will possibly be a bit toned down given microtransactions have been quite hot topic for quite some years with media catching up & some legal stuff happening in various countries.
So even with occasional microtransaction (depends on the type of microtransaction & how it's handled) I think the rest of the game can be relatively enjoyable. It's just reality that in this time & day microtransactions persist & if game seems otherwise good I might get the said game but I wont put a dime on microtransactions in fully priced games to avoid supporting pushing such things in videogames.
Though if some game has obviously over the top microtransactions, the best would be to avoid it. Games should not be platform for series of extra mini payments but enjoyable experiences themselves from the start.
That can be only achieved if adding microtransactions becomes more of a hassle than it's worth in business sense, that means enough people against the microtransactions.

It's never late to break the current norm of big games having microtransactions.

As for the rushed games problem, it seems to me like it's more tied to preorder culture & normalization of games getting patched later on.
If companies get money off a product that they haven't even finished yet, some of the greedier personalities can think that maybe they could push the releases of the games in the franchise closer together resulting in more projects in same amount of time resulting in potentially more money.
The flipside of patches (which as ability is generally a good thing) is that it can create a mentality that game can be just patched later on so some might cut corners in proper testing. The games might be even left unpatched to a degree for videogames are currently largely a trend products, rare people seem to care when there are some issues in a last years game, or games older than that.
As example of such I could mention the "headless" bug in RDR undead nightmare which is pretty much a gamebreaking thing, unless the game is played offline without the latest patches installed.
So basically it was caused by a patch & left there & even in pretty well known game.

But as of what will be the future of Infinite & Halo itself, remains to be seen.
I can't think of a single game where micro-transactions hasn't eventually made me start hating part or an entire game because of them being included. Either it's turning everything into a mindless grind or forcing pay to win elements.

There's plenty that refuse pay for them but for every 100+ people...there's always 1 annoying player that will waste hundreds, basically our protests end up seeming like a frustrating uphill struggle. Look at Gears Pop for example...at first it seemed fun but soon as the pay 2 win elements became more noticeable...it made me hate the game and yet if it wasn't then it would have been a fun game to buy.

Breaking a habit is 1 thing but getting a company to actually care about the fan-base can be difficult.

I understand the pre-order issues but these issues have gotten worse since micro-transactions became more common...to a point where Halo 5 had the least amount of content at launch, yet we got the usual excuses of them needing more money when there not short for money. As for Halo Infinite I'm mostly just concerned at this point since I hated the grind in Halo 5 and the pay to win modes like Blitz, Warzone was mostly annoying...though Warzone did sort of even out after everyone eventually had enough items stockpiled.
So when you mention that you start hating "part of the game", would you mean by that you still might see some aspects of the game as enjoyable even?

If so, thats what my view sort of is. What I mean by that microtransactions might not ruin the entire game is that some aspects of the game can still be great, be it unique setting, enjoyable gameplay, engaging story or sorts.
Obviously I think such games would be better without microtransactions but I think that microtransactions don't outweight every other aspect of the game in all cases.
Though that still is up to the type of microtransaction & how it's used in the game.

And ratio of people actually using money for microtransactions is right now in such shape that it encourages inclusion of microtransactions in games but that can change. Even some studios exclude microtransactions from their games but bigger franchises seem to push the microtransactions.
Though for new studio, excluding microtransactions might be something to boost the image of the studio where increased publicity outweights the potential sales from microtransactions created by smaller playerbase but in case of known publishers it's currently flipped.
And I believe that outweight ratio can be flipped if enough people truly want to get rid of the microtransactions.
That could mean "bad years" for sales in gaming & even bit of quiet time by new releases but overall it would be (relatively) moments sacrifice to purify the industry from microtransactions, as long as the mistake of letting microtransactions to gradually increase wouldn't be repeated.

So, you dont need to make the company to care about the playerbase, you just need to keep them caring about the money by having popularity gained by excluding microtransactions outweight the sales from microtransactions. This act though, requires the support of big part of playerbases. Optimally, microtransaction sales wouldnt even go over the cost of developing them though that is pretty much utopistic.
ronnie42 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
So when you mention that you start hating "part of the game", would you mean by that you still might see some aspects of the game as enjoyable even?

If so, thats what my view sort of is. What I mean by that microtransactions might not ruin the entire game is that some aspects of the game can still be great, be it unique setting, enjoyable gameplay, engaging story or sorts.
Obviously I think such games would be better without microtransactions but I think that microtransactions don't outweight every other aspect of the game in all cases.
Though that still is up to the type of microtransaction & how it's used in the game.

And ratio of people actually using money for microtransactions is right now in such shape that it encourages inclusion of microtransactions in games but that can change. Even some studios exclude microtransactions from their games but bigger franchises seem to push the microtransactions.
Though for new studio, excluding microtransactions might be something to boost the image of the studio where increased publicity outweights the potential sales from microtransactions created by smaller playerbase but in case of known publishers it's currently flipped.
And I believe that outweight ratio can be flipped if enough people truly want to get rid of the microtransactions.
That could mean "bad years" for sales in gaming & even bit of quiet time by new releases but overall it would be (relatively) moments sacrifice to purify the industry from microtransactions, as long as the mistake of letting microtransactions to gradually increase wouldn't be repeated.

So, you dont need to make the company to care about the playerbase, you just need to keep them caring about the money by having popularity gained by excluding microtransactions outweight the sales from microtransactions. This act though, requires the support of big part of playerbases. Optimally, microtransaction sales wouldnt even go over the cost of developing them though that is pretty much utopistic.
When I say part of the game...sure there maybe parts of the game I might enjoy but after a while it generally tends to turn into more hate. Look at the Crash team racing for example...it's well done except the 'grind' to unlock anything has sort of made me hate part of the game's unlock system and I still sort of enjoy it for playing it sometimes but eventually I'm going to get sick of it due to how tedious the grind is, just like what happened with Halo 5....though with Halo 5 I do have more complaints with the game design overall but it's ok to a degree, yet the micro-transactions are tolerated to a degree but after I reached 152 I decided I had enough.

Sure I love story in games but the thing about micro-transactions...outweighing...I guess that depends on the game but for me I feel like it's generally made games worse and I've avoided many new IP's just because there included.
Not sure the ratio will ever be flipping over since there's too many stubborn people out there, I know some them that just don't care how there effecting the industry, which is probably why the mobile market ended being plagued with them.

Of course we need the company to care about the playerbase since if they don't then they could end up having the same issues that SWB2 had.
ronnie42 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
So when you mention that you start hating "part of the game", would you mean by that you still might see some aspects of the game as enjoyable even?

If so, thats what my view sort of is. What I mean by that microtransactions might not ruin the entire game is that some aspects of the game can still be great, be it unique setting, enjoyable gameplay, engaging story or sorts.
Obviously I think such games would be better without microtransactions but I think that microtransactions don't outweight every other aspect of the game in all cases.
Though that still is up to the type of microtransaction & how it's used in the game.

And ratio of people actually using money for microtransactions is right now in such shape that it encourages inclusion of microtransactions in games but that can change. Even some studios exclude microtransactions from their games but bigger franchises seem to push the microtransactions.
Though for new studio, excluding microtransactions might be something to boost the image of the studio where increased publicity outweights the potential sales from microtransactions created by smaller playerbase but in case of known publishers it's currently flipped.
And I believe that outweight ratio can be flipped if enough people truly want to get rid of the microtransactions.
That could mean "bad years" for sales in gaming & even bit of quiet time by new releases but overall it would be (relatively) moments sacrifice to purify the industry from microtransactions, as long as the mistake of letting microtransactions to gradually increase wouldn't be repeated.

So, you dont need to make the company to care about the playerbase, you just need to keep them caring about the money by having popularity gained by excluding microtransactions outweight the sales from microtransactions. This act though, requires the support of big part of playerbases. Optimally, microtransaction sales wouldnt even go over the cost of developing them though that is pretty much utopistic.
When I say part of the game...sure there maybe parts of the game I might enjoy but after a while it generally tends to turn into more hate. Look at the Crash team racing for example...it's well done except the 'grind' to unlock anything has sort of made me hate part of the game's unlock system and I still sort of enjoy it for playing it sometimes but eventually I'm going to get sick of it due to how tedious the grind is, just like what happened with Halo 5....though with Halo 5 I do have more complaints with the game design overall but it's ok to a degree, yet the micro-transactions are tolerated to a degree but after I reached 152 I decided I had enough.

Sure I love story in games but the thing about micro-transactions...outweighing...I guess that depends on the game but for me I feel like it's generally made games worse and I've avoided many new IP's just because there included.
Not sure the ratio will ever be flipping over since there's too many stubborn people out there, I know some them that just don't care how there effecting the industry, which is probably why the mobile market ended being plagued with them.

Of course we need the company to care about the playerbase since if they don't then they could end up having the same issues that SWB2 had.
So if I got that right, you can find occasional enjoyment in a product even when it contains microtransactions & that excluding microtransactions can better bring out the potential of the product that betters the game.

If so, It's pretty much in line with my view.

So given that phrasing Im guessing you agree that it's a possibility that microtransactions can be outweighed with other aspects being great but simultaneously thinking the overall experience could be better with microtransactions being excluded & that such scensrios are rarer occasions.

If so, It's in line with my views yet again.

As for avoiding games because they include microtransactions, I see that as extremely situational, sometimes games could be deemed overall avoidable but occasionally I see that a game with original ideas or other favorable aspects could be purchased but no exceptions in the rule of not spending money on microtransactions as it would be encouraging the wrong aspect of a game.

Obviously that is just my view & as such it's just one among the others.

As for the possibility of a flip, it could be possible with enough support from playerbase, not saying it's even likely but just saying it's a possibility among others while being one of the better case scenarios.
Other means to get to a place where microtransactions are no more would be some legal changes that are resulted by gaming becoming more & more mainstream but not going more in-depth with that in this site.

And having companies to care about playerbases seems like unrealistic scenario given it consists of growing amount of different people.
Generally I would see effecting the business itself as more effective & realistic opinion. It would basically be an attempt to effect a business with making favorable decisions (for playerbase) becoming the business solution that makes more sense.
Meaning money for business people that are against microtransactions & microtransaction-free games for playerbases in optimal scenario.

Unrealistic as in I would see appealing to multiple various sides being more effective than trying to make, for example, a money driven person to care about things they dont.

Some care about the product, some care about profits & so on.
So I would see that making some behaviour more profitable as all around more pleasing to various sides rather than thought policing.

Though if I missed something, could you enlighten how exactly would the physical action of making people care about the product itself happen?
I just don't see how I could change the nature of a human being though I could definitely be misunderstanding the text itself.
ronnie42 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
So if I got that right, you can find occasional enjoyment in a product even when it contains microtransactions & that excluding microtransactions can better bring out the potential of the product that betters the game.

If so, It's pretty much in line with my view.

So given that phrasing Im guessing you agree that it's a possibility that microtransactions can be outweighed with other aspects being great but simultaneously thinking the overall experience could be better with microtransactions being excluded & that such scensrios are rarer occasions.

If so, It's in line with my views yet again.

As for avoiding games because they include microtransactions, I see that as extremely situational, sometimes games could be deemed overall avoidable but occasionally I see that a game with original ideas or other favorable aspects could be purchased but no exceptions in the rule of not spending money on microtransactions as it would be encouraging the wrong aspect of a game.

Obviously that is just my view & as such it's just one among the others.

As for the possibility of a flip, it could be possible with enough support from playerbase, not saying it's even likely but just saying it's a possibility among others while being one of the better case scenarios.
Other means to get to a place where microtransactions are no more would be some legal changes that are resulted by gaming becoming more & more mainstream but not going more in-depth with that in this site.

And having companies to care about playerbases seems like unrealistic scenario given it consists of growing amount of different people.
Generally I would see effecting the business itself as more effective & realistic opinion. It would basically be an attempt to effect a business with making favorable decisions (for playerbase) becoming the business solution that makes more sense.
Meaning money for business people that are against microtransactions & microtransaction-free games for playerbases in optimal scenario.

Unrealistic as in I would see appealing to multiple various sides being more effective than trying to make, for example, a money driven person to care about things they dont.

Some care about the product, some care about profits & so on.
So I would see that making some behaviour more profitable as all around more pleasing to various sides rather than thought policing.

Though if I missed something, could you enlighten how exactly would the physical action of making people care about the product itself happen?
I just don't see how I could change the nature of a human being though I could definitely be misunderstanding the text itself.
I've tried to enjoy games within reason but I think I mostly just tolerate it, though lately I'm mostly just wanting to avoid them altogether...it's sort of why I'm enjoying games like Breath of the Wild without being pestered to grind endless hours for items. At the moment I'm more interested in playing Halo games before 5 since there not included. I feel like I'm on the edge of mostly avoiding MT games completely and it's the reason why I find the later Assassins Creed games exhausting, which is making it difficult to encourage me to want to complete.

Yeh I get the caring part to a degree but it did feel like Bungie seemed to be sort of close with the community in Halo classic days more than 343i at the moment but after what Bungie did with Destiny...I generally have a hard time trusting Bungie anymore. (Mainly due to them being blaming Microsoft then going to Activision...despite their reputation then with what happened with Martin O'donnel'.

I think regardless of how there handled....I think I'm mostly just tired of it.
ronnie42 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
So if I got that right, you can find occasional enjoyment in a product even when it contains microtransactions & that excluding microtransactions can better bring out the potential of the product that betters the game.

If so, It's pretty much in line with my view.

So given that phrasing Im guessing you agree that it's a possibility that microtransactions can be outweighed with other aspects being great but simultaneously thinking the overall experience could be better with microtransactions being excluded & that such scensrios are rarer occasions.

If so, It's in line with my views yet again.

As for avoiding games because they include microtransactions, I see that as extremely situational, sometimes games could be deemed overall avoidable but occasionally I see that a game with original ideas or other favorable aspects could be purchased but no exceptions in the rule of not spending money on microtransactions as it would be encouraging the wrong aspect of a game.

Obviously that is just my view & as such it's just one among the others.

As for the possibility of a flip, it could be possible with enough support from playerbase, not saying it's even likely but just saying it's a possibility among others while being one of the better case scenarios.
Other means to get to a place where microtransactions are no more would be some legal changes that are resulted by gaming becoming more & more mainstream but not going more in-depth with that in this site.

And having companies to care about playerbases seems like unrealistic scenario given it consists of growing amount of different people.
Generally I would see effecting the business itself as more effective & realistic opinion. It would basically be an attempt to effect a business with making favorable decisions (for playerbase) becoming the business solution that makes more sense.
Meaning money for business people that are against microtransactions & microtransaction-free games for playerbases in optimal scenario.

Unrealistic as in I would see appealing to multiple various sides being more effective than trying to make, for example, a money driven person to care about things they dont.

Some care about the product, some care about profits & so on.
So I would see that making some behaviour more profitable as all around more pleasing to various sides rather than thought policing.

Though if I missed something, could you enlighten how exactly would the physical action of making people care about the product itself happen?
I just don't see how I could change the nature of a human being though I could definitely be misunderstanding the text itself.
I've tried to enjoy games within reason but I think I mostly just tolerate it, though lately I'm mostly just wanting to avoid them altogether...it's sort of why I'm enjoying games like Breath of the Wild without being pestered to grind endless hours for items. At the moment I'm more interested in playing Halo games before 5 since there not included. I feel like I'm on the edge of mostly avoiding MT games completely and it's the reason why I find the later Assassins Creed games exhausting, which is making it difficult to encourage me to want to complete.

Yeh I get the caring part to a degree but it did feel like Bungie seemed to be sort of close with the community in Halo classic days more than 343i at the moment but after what Bungie did with Destiny...I generally have a hard time trusting Bungie anymore. (Mainly due to them being blaming Microsoft then going to Activision...despite their reputation then with what happened with Martin O'donnel'.

I think regardless of how there handled....I think I'm mostly just tired of it.
I kind of get the exhaustion with bigger titles, it sometimes seems like when some franchise has pushed itself through & gained reputation of a "good" franchise, the slide starts. Like something worked for greatness & is now milked with cramming it with money sucking stuff that are made occasionally near necessary by commonly increasing grind.
Something that once was something enjoyable now reduced to being pretty much a platform for extra sales.
But that is pretty much the worst that microtransactions are, it doesn't necessarily mean that every type of microtransaction would totally ruin a game, only dampen it's greatness.
That said Infinite still has hope to being a good game, even though it likely wont meet it's potential with current trend of microtransactions.

And I think I get Bungie remark too, though I think 343i is trying to interact with the community to a degree too, more so than some other studios though not the most either.
343i is sort of different case than many other studios, where many other studios raise with their own creativeness, 343i was pretty much made to continue a known franchise. This brings a rather large existing playerbase but it also somewhat restricts creativeness which I believe could get frustrating for some developers.

And the whole microtransaction thing can be tiring but if videogaming industry is something worth spending time on, it's worth looking into what is deemed worthwhile & what is not. There are some pearls hidden there that is more than worth the money.

Videogames are something that offer experiences that I hope would someday be seen again without intrusive/predatory mechanics & I think it's something worth using my time on to better it, no matter how small my personal role is.

Just remember the first times you played Halo & fond memories it created but do not be blinded by brands.

Though that is just what I think.

"When you first saw Halo, were you blinded by its majesty?"
ronnie42 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
I kind of get the exhaustion with bigger titles, it sometimes seems like when some franchise has pushed itself through & gained reputation of a "good" franchise, the slide starts. Like something worked for greatness & is now milked with cramming it with money sucking stuff that are made occasionally near necessary by commonly increasing grind.
Something that once was something enjoyable now reduced to being pretty much a platform for extra sales.
But that is pretty much the worst that microtransactions are, it doesn't necessarily mean that every type of microtransaction would totally ruin a game, only dampen it's greatness.
That said Infinite still has hope to being a good game, even though it likely wont meet it's potential with current trend of microtransactions.

And I think I get Bungie remark too, though I think 343i is trying to interact with the community to a degree too, more so than some other studios though not the most either.
343i is sort of different case than many other studios, where many other studios raise with their own creativeness, 343i was pretty much made to continue a known franchise. This brings a rather large existing playerbase but it also somewhat restricts creativeness which I believe could get frustrating for some developers.

And the whole microtransaction thing can be tiring but if videogaming industry is something worth spending time on, it's worth looking into what is deemed worthwhile & what is not. There are some pearls hidden there that is more than worth the money.

Videogames are something that offer experiences that I hope would someday be seen again without intrusive/predatory mechanics & I think it's something worth using my time on to better it, no matter how small my personal role is.

Just remember the first times you played Halo & fond memories it created but do not be blinded by brands.

Though that is just what I think.

"When you first saw Halo, were you blinded by its majesty?"
A few years back I'd might have been a bit more tolerate of them but as things just got worse....I'm not sure I want to keep putting up with them.
Anyway I'm hoping Infinite will be fun but I have my doubts, I guess I'm feeling more pessimistic since H5 made me to want to avoid Halo for a while. I think at this point I'm just wanting to finds games without them to at least try to find games that don't feel tedious.
The loot boxes in Halo 5 were very annoying. I would play to build up points, not buying anything, and then when there was finally a box for the armor piece (the classic Halo CE helm) I wanted I spent all of my points and never got it. If I had spent any money on it rather than in game currency I would have been much more livid than I was. They should be much more fair with it if it's going to be in there. I'm not happy that micro-transactions will be in Infinite, but If I could just spend a dollar on the armor I wanted and not have to deal with that loot box crap, I'd take it.
ronnie42 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
I kind of get the exhaustion with bigger titles, it sometimes seems like when some franchise has pushed itself through & gained reputation of a "good" franchise, the slide starts. Like something worked for greatness & is now milked with cramming it with money sucking stuff that are made occasionally near necessary by commonly increasing grind.
Something that once was something enjoyable now reduced to being pretty much a platform for extra sales.
But that is pretty much the worst that microtransactions are, it doesn't necessarily mean that every type of microtransaction would totally ruin a game, only dampen it's greatness.
That said Infinite still has hope to being a good game, even though it likely wont meet it's potential with current trend of microtransactions.

And I think I get Bungie remark too, though I think 343i is trying to interact with the community to a degree too, more so than some other studios though not the most either.
343i is sort of different case than many other studios, where many other studios raise with their own creativeness, 343i was pretty much made to continue a known franchise. This brings a rather large existing playerbase but it also somewhat restricts creativeness which I believe could get frustrating for some developers.

And the whole microtransaction thing can be tiring but if videogaming industry is something worth spending time on, it's worth looking into what is deemed worthwhile & what is not. There are some pearls hidden there that is more than worth the money.

Videogames are something that offer experiences that I hope would someday be seen again without intrusive/predatory mechanics & I think it's something worth using my time on to better it, no matter how small my personal role is.

Just remember the first times you played Halo & fond memories it created but do not be blinded by brands.

Though that is just what I think.

"When you first saw Halo, were you blinded by its majesty?"
A few years back I'd might have been a bit more tolerate of them but as things just got worse....I'm not sure I want to keep putting up with them.
Anyway I'm hoping Infinite will be fun but I have my doubts, I guess I'm feeling more pessimistic since H5 made me to want to avoid Halo for a while. I think at this point I'm just wanting to finds games without them to at least try to find games that don't feel tedious.
Well you can simultaneously dislike microtransactions & live with them as the reality of today.
But it's good that there are others that are against current microtransaction epidemic in videogaming & I hope you wont miss out on some great titles because of anykind of inclusion of microtransactions.
But occasionally it could be good to take a break from games which include microtransactions, though those games seem to be the rarer case.

No marketing, just pure gaming.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 5
  4. 6
  5. 7
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. ...
  9. 10