Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

Microtransactions return back, is the game ruined?

OP AMA4N

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 7
  4. 8
  5. 9
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. ...
  9. 12
Microtransaction is such a parasitic practice. It has ruined gears, halo, and COD for me. infinite will be the first game i buy use. I am not going to give the developer my money if they continue these practice. i will buy it use on sale when it hits 10-20 bucks.
eviltedi wrote:
CAVEMANcr wrote:
There is nothing wrong with microtransactions. They allow devs to have higher budgets, and produce better games.

As long as we don't get a pay to win system, I'm all for them.
Higher budgets simply don't equate to better games . The film and music industry have proven this theory many times . i would argue there is plenty wrong with micro transactions , I would challenge anybody to show an example of how any game is improved as a player experience by there inclusion .quick answer there isn't one because any improvement could be easily added by the devs with in game mechanics or challenges and without the need for outside micro transactions .
I agree when it comes to full priced games and Halo Infinite is definitely on my no buy until I know all, I'm not fan of what they did with Halo 5. But, I think some free to play games like Warframe do them well, and it's worked into the in game economy in a clever way. Warframe and it's players definitely benefit from their inclusion imo. There are constant updates that are free to everyone and the game allows players to grind and earn platinum to buy things.
Having played a little bit of Warframe it is certainly pay to win , the reason I suppose the free to play model gets more community acceptance with micro transactions is the no buy in part. if you want to invest in better weapons ect its certainly optional, but Warframe isn't an example of micro transaction making a better gaming experience for the player, it's an example of a game financing its development and profits via micro transactions whereas it most likely would never been able to at a initial $60 buy in.
Pay to win ? You do realise that you can't simply buy weapons and use them in Warframe ! There's a mastery rank associated to them, and you need to invest time to increase your mastery rank in order to use and trade improved weapons and frames, and you cannot use them in pvp, only pve. Also, all the Prime Access frames come with a platinum pack.

For example, Wukong Prime is available now and will cost £66.99 if you don't want to grind, but you get 2625 platinum with the purchase of the pack, to buy 2625 platinum in the store in bundles of 370 would set you back over £100.00. It's a good trade off imo. Halo 5 was greed for the sake of it and I won't support it going forward. However, a fair system that gives us a good return for our investment would be acceptable imo.

Edit = Having been a little confused with your reply to Marinealver about Warframe being built on the Crytek engine I realised we might not be talking about the same game. You seem to be referring to WARFACE, which is bulit on Crytek engine, and I agree 100% that Warface is an out and out pay to win. However I'm talking about a totally different game called WarFRAME built on the Evolution engine.
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
CAVEMANcr wrote:
There is nothing wrong with microtransactions. They allow devs to have higher budgets, and produce better games.

As long as we don't get a pay to win system, I'm all for them.
Higher budgets simply don't equate to better games . The film and music industry have proven this theory many times . i would argue there is plenty wrong with micro transactions , I would challenge anybody to show an example of how any game is improved as a player experience by there inclusion .quick answer there isn't one because any improvement could be easily added by the devs with in game mechanics or challenges and without the need for outside micro transactions .
I agree when it comes to full priced games and Halo Infinite is definitely on my no buy until I know all, I'm not fan of what they did with Halo 5. But, I think some free to play games like Warframe do them well, and it's worked into the in game economy in a clever way. Warframe and it's players definitely benefit from their inclusion imo. There are constant updates that are free to everyone and the game allows players to grind and earn platinum to buy things.
Having played a little bit of Warframe it is certainly pay to win , the reason I suppose the free to play model gets more community acceptance with micro transactions is the no buy in part. if you want to invest in better weapons ect its certainly optional, but Warframe isn't an example of micro transaction making a better gaming experience for the player, it's an example of a game financing its development and profits via micro transactions whereas it most likely would never been able to at a initial $60 buy in.
Pay to win ? You do realise that you can't simply buy weapons and use them in Warframe ! There's a mastery rank associated to them, and you need to invest time to increase your mastery rank in order to use and trade improved weapons and frames, and you cannot use them in pvp, only pve. Also, all the Prime Access frames come with a platinum pack.

For example, Wukong Prime is available now and will cost £66.99 if you don't want to grind, but you get 2625 platinum with the purchase of the pack, to buy 2625 platinum in the store in bundles of 370 would set you back over £100.00. It's a good trade off imo. Halo 5 was greed for the sake of it and I won't support it going forward. However, a fair system that gives us a good return for our investment would be acceptable imo.

Edit = Having been a little confused with your reply to marinealver about Warframe being built on the Crytek engine I realised we might not be talking about the same game. You seem to be referring to WARFACE, whicih is bulit on Crytek engines, and I agree 100% that Warface is an out and out pay to win. However I'm talking about a totally different game called WarFRAME.
Ahh my mistake, yes I was referring to warface, ive not played warframe, I'm having a little giggle at myself for this naming oversight.
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
CAVEMANcr wrote:
There is nothing wrong with microtransactions. They allow devs to have higher budgets, and produce better games.

As long as we don't get a pay to win system, I'm all for them.
Higher budgets simply don't equate to better games . The film and music industry have proven this theory many times . i would argue there is plenty wrong with micro transactions , I would challenge anybody to show an example of how any game is improved as a player experience by there inclusion .quick answer there isn't one because any improvement could be easily added by the devs with in game mechanics or challenges and without the need for outside micro transactions .
I agree when it comes to full priced games and Halo Infinite is definitely on my no buy until I know all, I'm not fan of what they did with Halo 5. But, I think some free to play games like Warframe do them well, and it's worked into the in game economy in a clever way. Warframe and it's players definitely benefit from their inclusion imo. There are constant updates that are free to everyone and the game allows players to grind and earn platinum to buy things.
Having played a little bit of Warframe it is certainly pay to win , the reason I suppose the free to play model gets more community acceptance with micro transactions is the no buy in part. if you want to invest in better weapons ect its certainly optional, but Warframe isn't an example of micro transaction making a better gaming experience for the player, it's an example of a game financing its development and profits via micro transactions whereas it most likely would never been able to at a initial $60 buy in.
Pay to win ? You do realise that you can't simply buy weapons and use them in Warframe ! There's a mastery rank associated to them, and you need to invest time to increase your mastery rank in order to use and trade improved weapons and frames, and you cannot use them in pvp, only pve. Also, all the Prime Access frames come with a platinum pack.

For example, Wukong Prime is available now and will cost £66.99 if you don't want to grind, but you get 2625 platinum with the purchase of the pack, to buy 2625 platinum in the store in bundles of 370 would set you back over £100.00. It's a good trade off imo. Halo 5 was greed for the sake of it and I won't support it going forward. However, a fair system that gives us a good return for our investment would be acceptable imo.

Edit = Having been a little confused with your reply to marinealver about Warframe being built on the Crytek engine I realised we might not be talking about the same game. You seem to be referring to WARFACE, whicih is bulit on Crytek engines, and I agree 100% that Warface is an out and out pay to win. However I'm talking about a totally different game called WarFRAME.
Ahh my mistake, yes I was referring to warface, ive not played warframe, I'm having a little giggle at myself for this naming oversight.
It's happened on other forums where micro tranactions have been concerned lol. When it comes to Warface it is a complete pay to win game, my review on XBL states as much and I would never support that model for Halo. I believe Warframe is an example where players can benefit from their inclusion. We can trade many parts in Warframe too, but it's limited to x amount of trades per day depending on Mastery Rank which can only be achieved through game time. Even a limited option to trade reqs in Halo 5 would have helped aleviate a dreadful grind, there are so many good examples that 343i could take inspiration from.
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
CAVEMANcr wrote:
There is nothing wrong with microtransactions. They allow devs to have higher budgets, and produce better games.

As long as we don't get a pay to win system, I'm all for them.
Higher budgets simply don't equate to better games . The film and music industry have proven this theory many times . i would argue there is plenty wrong with micro transactions , I would challenge anybody to show an example of how any game is improved as a player experience by there inclusion .quick answer there isn't one because any improvement could be easily added by the devs with in game mechanics or challenges and without the need for outside micro transactions .
I agree when it comes to full priced games and Halo Infinite is definitely on my no buy until I know all, I'm not fan of what they did with Halo 5. But, I think some free to play games like Warframe do them well, and it's worked into the in game economy in a clever way. Warframe and it's players definitely benefit from their inclusion imo. There are constant updates that are free to everyone and the game allows players to grind and earn platinum to buy things.
Having played a little bit of Warframe it is certainly pay to win , the reason I suppose the free to play model gets more community acceptance with micro transactions is the no buy in part. if you want to invest in better weapons ect its certainly optional, but Warframe isn't an example of micro transaction making a better gaming experience for the player, it's an example of a game financing its development and profits via micro transactions whereas it most likely would never been able to at a initial $60 buy in.
Pay to win ? You do realise that you can't simply buy weapons and use them in Warframe ! There's a mastery rank associated to them, and you need to invest time to increase your mastery rank in order to use and trade improved weapons and frames, and you cannot use them in pvp, only pve. Also, all the Prime Access frames come with a platinum pack.

For example, Wukong Prime is available now and will cost £66.99 if you don't want to grind, but you get 2625 platinum with the purchase of the pack, to buy 2625 platinum in the store in bundles of 370 would set you back over £100.00. It's a good trade off imo. Halo 5 was greed for the sake of it and I won't support it going forward. However, a fair system that gives us a good return for our investment would be acceptable imo.

Edit = Having been a little confused with your reply to marinealver about Warframe being built on the Crytek engine I realised we might not be talking about the same game. You seem to be referring to WARFACE, whicih is bulit on Crytek engines, and I agree 100% that Warface is an out and out pay to win. However I'm talking about a totally different game called WarFRAME.
Ahh my mistake, yes I was referring to warface, ive not played warframe, I'm having a little giggle at myself for this naming oversight.
It's happened on other forums where micro tranactions have been concerned lol. When it comes to Warface it is a complete pay to win game, my review on XBL states as much and I would never support that model for Halo. I believe Warframe is an example where players can benefit from their inclusion. We can trade many parts in Warframe too, but it's limited to x amount of trades per day depending on Mastery Rank which can only be achieved through game time. Even a limited option to trade reqs in Halo 5 would have helped aleviate a dreadful grind, there are so many good examples that 343i could take inspiration from.
I played Warframe it was ok but I wouldn't set it as an example for Halo Infinite. Remember Warframe is a free to play game from a non AAA developer. It is good for what it is but what I want from Halo Infinite is a AAA expereience and in my mind that isn't microtransactions. A AAA game in my mind is $60.00, I buy a disk or download it, I launch the game and I have all the content to keep me entertained for many months. Since this game is a sequel, I expect the story to be compelling, all the game modes present in multiplayer, a well concieved interface, no glitches, no microtransactions, and updates to fix issues in a timely manner if there are any issues to begin with. I expect daily challenges for XP and a progression system based on playability and/or risk - reward methodology not pay to win. An example is risk playing on Legendary, rewarded with a unique and iconic set of armor. Take the time to unlock all achievements in the game, get a really cool armor effect or new armor set. Something in game that shows off your superiority in the game that you cannot get from any other method. That is the AAA gamming expereience not a loot box or microtransaction system that makes the game feel like it was developed by a second class developer trying to get started with a free to play game.
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
CAVEMANcr wrote:
There is nothing wrong with microtransactions. They allow devs to have higher budgets, and produce better games.

As long as we don't get a pay to win system, I'm all for them.
Higher budgets simply don't equate to better games . The film and music industry have proven this theory many times . i would argue there is plenty wrong with micro transactions , I would challenge anybody to show an example of how any game is improved as a player experience by there inclusion .quick answer there isn't one because any improvement could be easily added by the devs with in game mechanics or challenges and without the need for outside micro transactions .
I agree when it comes to full priced games and Halo Infinite is definitely on my no buy until I know all, I'm not fan of what they did with Halo 5. But, I think some free to play games like Warframe do them well, and it's worked into the in game economy in a clever way. Warframe and it's players definitely benefit from their inclusion imo. There are constant updates that are free to everyone and the game allows players to grind and earn platinum to buy things.
Having played a little bit of Warframe it is certainly pay to win , the reason I suppose the free to play model gets more community acceptance with micro transactions is the no buy in part. if you want to invest in better weapons ect its certainly optional, but Warframe isn't an example of micro transaction making a better gaming experience for the player, it's an example of a game financing its development and profits via micro transactions whereas it most likely would never been able to at a initial $60 buy in.
Pay to win ? You do realise that you can't simply buy weapons and use them in Warframe ! There's a mastery rank associated to them, and you need to invest time to increase your mastery rank in order to use and trade improved weapons and frames, and you cannot use them in pvp, only pve. Also, all the Prime Access frames come with a platinum pack.

For example, Wukong Prime is available now and will cost £66.99 if you don't want to grind, but you get 2625 platinum with the purchase of the pack, to buy 2625 platinum in the store in bundles of 370 would set you back over £100.00. It's a good trade off imo. Halo 5 was greed for the sake of it and I won't support it going forward. However, a fair system that gives us a good return for our investment would be acceptable imo.

Edit = Having been a little confused with your reply to marinealver about Warframe being built on the Crytek engine I realised we might not be talking about the same game. You seem to be referring to WARFACE, whicih is bulit on Crytek engines, and I agree 100% that Warface is an out and out pay to win. However I'm talking about a totally different game called WarFRAME.
Ahh my mistake, yes I was referring to warface, ive not played warframe, I'm having a little giggle at myself for this naming oversight.
It's happened on other forums where micro tranactions have been concerned lol. When it comes to Warface it is a complete pay to win game, my review on XBL states as much and I would never support that model for Halo. I believe Warframe is an example where players can benefit from their inclusion. We can trade many parts in Warframe too, but it's limited to x amount of trades per day depending on Mastery Rank which can only be achieved through game time. Even a limited option to trade reqs in Halo 5 would have helped aleviate a dreadful grind, there are so many good examples that 343i could take inspiration from.
I played Warframe it was ok but I wouldn't set it as an example for Halo Infinite. Remember Warframe is a free to play game from a non AAA developer. It is good for what it is but what I want from Halo Infinite is a AAA expereience and in my mind that isn't microtransactions. A AAA game in my mind is $60.00, I buy a disk or download it, I launch the game and I have all the content to keep me entertained for many months. Since this game is a sequel, I expect the story to be compelling, all the game modes present in multiplayer, a well concieved interface, no glitches, no microtransactions, and updates to fix issues in a timely manner if there are any issues to begin with. I expect daily challenges for XP and a progression system based on playability and/or risk - reward methodology not pay to win. An example is risk playing on Legendary, rewarded with a unique and iconic set of armor. Take the time to unlock all achievements in the game, get a really cool armor effect or new armor set. Something in game that shows off your superiority in the game that you cannot get from any other method. That is the AAA gamming expereience not a loot box or microtransaction system that makes the game feel like it was developed by a second class developer trying to get started with a free to play game.
Well it doesn't matter if it is a AAA developer or not, Warframe was Free2play, also there isn't a PvP element so pay2win whales do carry those who don't have the good stuff. But the most important part is it is free.

Unless Microsoft is shipping a free download of Halo Infinite in every Xbox Scarlet, then I would be all for it.
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
CAVEMANcr wrote:
There is nothing wrong with microtransactions. They allow devs to have higher budgets, and produce better games.

As long as we don't get a pay to win system, I'm all for them.
Higher budgets simply don't equate to better games . The film and music industry have proven this theory many times . i would argue there is plenty wrong with micro transactions , I would challenge anybody to show an example of how any game is improved as a player experience by there inclusion .quick answer there isn't one because any improvement could be easily added by the devs with in game mechanics or challenges and without the need for outside micro transactions .
I agree when it comes to full priced games and Halo Infinite is definitely on my no buy until I know all, I'm not fan of what they did with Halo 5. But, I think some free to play games like Warframe do them well, and it's worked into the in game economy in a clever way. Warframe and it's players definitely benefit from their inclusion imo. There are constant updates that are free to everyone and the game allows players to grind and earn platinum to buy things.
Having played a little bit of Warframe it is certainly pay to win , the reason I suppose the free to play model gets more community acceptance with micro transactions is the no buy in part. if you want to invest in better weapons ect its certainly optional, but Warframe isn't an example of micro transaction making a better gaming experience for the player, it's an example of a game financing its development and profits via micro transactions whereas it most likely would never been able to at a initial $60 buy in.
Pay to win ? You do realise that you can't simply buy weapons and use them in Warframe ! There's a mastery rank associated to them, and you need to invest time to increase your mastery rank in order to use and trade improved weapons and frames, and you cannot use them in pvp, only pve. Also, all the Prime Access frames come with a platinum pack.

For example, Wukong Prime is available now and will cost £66.99 if you don't want to grind, but you get 2625 platinum with the purchase of the pack, to buy 2625 platinum in the store in bundles of 370 would set you back over £100.00. It's a good trade off imo. Halo 5 was greed for the sake of it and I won't support it going forward. However, a fair system that gives us a good return for our investment would be acceptable imo.

Edit = Having been a little confused with your reply to marinealver about Warframe being built on the Crytek engine I realised we might not be talking about the same game. You seem to be referring to WARFACE, whicih is bulit on Crytek engines, and I agree 100% that Warface is an out and out pay to win. However I'm talking about a totally different game called WarFRAME.
Ahh my mistake, yes I was referring to warface, ive not played warframe, I'm having a little giggle at myself for this naming oversight.
It's happened on other forums where micro tranactions have been concerned lol. When it comes to Warface it is a complete pay to win game, my review on XBL states as much and I would never support that model for Halo. I believe Warframe is an example where players can benefit from their inclusion. We can trade many parts in Warframe too, but it's limited to x amount of trades per day depending on Mastery Rank which can only be achieved through game time. Even a limited option to trade reqs in Halo 5 would have helped aleviate a dreadful grind, there are so many good examples that 343i could take inspiration from.
I played Warframe it was ok but I wouldn't set it as an example for Halo Infinite. Remember Warframe is a free to play game from a non AAA developer. It is good for what it is but what I want from Halo Infinite is a AAA expereience and in my mind that isn't microtransactions. A AAA game in my mind is $60.00, I buy a disk or download it, I launch the game and I have all the content to keep me entertained for many months. Since this game is a sequel, I expect the story to be compelling, all the game modes present in multiplayer, a well concieved interface, no glitches, no microtransactions, and updates to fix issues in a timely manner if there are any issues to begin with. I expect daily challenges for XP and a progression system based on playability and/or risk - reward methodology not pay to win. An example is risk playing on Legendary, rewarded with a unique and iconic set of armor. Take the time to unlock all achievements in the game, get a really cool armor effect or new armor set. Something in game that shows off your superiority in the game that you cannot get from any other method. That is the AAA gamming expereience not a loot box or microtransaction system that makes the game feel like it was developed by a second class developer trying to get started with a free to play game.
Well it doesn't matter if it is a AAA developer or not, Warframe was Free2play, also there isn't a PvP element so pay2win whales do carry those who don't have the good stuff. But the most important part is it is free.

Unless Microsoft is shipping a free download of Halo Infinite in every Xbox Scarlet, then I would be all for it.
I only bring it up because in several posts 343 talks about the AAA game experience. In my mind anything involving the same mechanics found in non AAA F2P games isn't the AAA expereience. I spelled out what the AAA expereience is in my opinion so hopefully a plurality of the player base agrees across not just Halo fans but game fans in general. If they had a really good companion app for Halo Infinite they could have MT's in that if they wanted but as far as the in game experience is concerned, I shouldn't be playing a AAA game and have the same feeling I get when I play a non AAA F2P game which rely's on the MT's because it is a F2P game.
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
CAVEMANcr wrote:
There is nothing wrong with microtransactions. They allow devs to have higher budgets, and produce better games.

As long as we don't get a pay to win system, I'm all for them.
Higher budgets simply don't equate to better games . The film and music industry have proven this theory many times . i would argue there is plenty wrong with micro transactions , I would challenge anybody to show an example of how any game is improved as a player experience by there inclusion .quick answer there isn't one because any improvement could be easily added by the devs with in game mechanics or challenges and without the need for outside micro transactions .
I agree when it comes to full priced games and Halo Infinite is definitely on my no buy until I know all, I'm not fan of what they did with Halo 5. But, I think some free to play games like Warframe do them well, and it's worked into the in game economy in a clever way. Warframe and it's players definitely benefit from their inclusion imo. There are constant updates that are free to everyone and the game allows players to grind and earn platinum to buy things.
Having played a little bit of Warframe it is certainly pay to win , the reason I suppose the free to play model gets more community acceptance with micro transactions is the no buy in part. if you want to invest in better weapons ect its certainly optional, but Warframe isn't an example of micro transaction making a better gaming experience for the player, it's an example of a game financing its development and profits via micro transactions whereas it most likely would never been able to at a initial $60 buy in.
Pay to win ? You do realise that you can't simply buy weapons and use them in Warframe ! There's a mastery rank associated to them, and you need to invest time to increase your mastery rank in order to use and trade improved weapons and frames, and you cannot use them in pvp, only pve. Also, all the Prime Access frames come with a platinum pack.

For example, Wukong Prime is available now and will cost £66.99 if you don't want to grind, but you get 2625 platinum with the purchase of the pack, to buy 2625 platinum in the store in bundles of 370 would set you back over £100.00. It's a good trade off imo. Halo 5 was greed for the sake of it and I won't support it going forward. However, a fair system that gives us a good return for our investment would be acceptable imo.

Edit = Having been a little confused with your reply to marinealver about Warframe being built on the Crytek engine I realised we might not be talking about the same game. You seem to be referring to WARFACE, whicih is bulit on Crytek engines, and I agree 100% that Warface is an out and out pay to win. However I'm talking about a totally different game called WarFRAME.
Ahh my mistake, yes I was referring to warface, ive not played warframe, I'm having a little giggle at myself for this naming oversight.
It's happened on other forums where micro tranactions have been concerned lol. When it comes to Warface it is a complete pay to win game, my review on XBL states as much and I would never support that model for Halo. I believe Warframe is an example where players can benefit from their inclusion. We can trade many parts in Warframe too, but it's limited to x amount of trades per day depending on Mastery Rank which can only be achieved through game time. Even a limited option to trade reqs in Halo 5 would have helped aleviate a dreadful grind, there are so many good examples that 343i could take inspiration from.
I played Warframe it was ok but I wouldn't set it as an example for Halo Infinite. Remember Warframe is a free to play game from a non AAA developer. It is good for what it is but what I want from Halo Infinite is a AAA expereience and in my mind that isn't microtransactions. A AAA game in my mind is $60.00, I buy a disk or download it, I launch the game and I have all the content to keep me entertained for many months. Since this game is a sequel, I expect the story to be compelling, all the game modes present in multiplayer, a well concieved interface, no glitches, no microtransactions, and updates to fix issues in a timely manner if there are any issues to begin with. I expect daily challenges for XP and a progression system based on playability and/or risk - reward methodology not pay to win. An example is risk playing on Legendary, rewarded with a unique and iconic set of armor. Take the time to unlock all achievements in the game, get a really cool armor effect or new armor set. Something in game that shows off your superiority in the game that you cannot get from any other method. That is the AAA gamming expereience not a loot box or microtransaction system that makes the game feel like it was developed by a second class developer trying to get started with a free to play game.
Well it doesn't matter if it is a AAA developer or not, Warframe was Free2play, also there isn't a PvP element so pay2win whales do carry those who don't have the good stuff. But the most important part is it is free.

Unless Microsoft is shipping a free download of Halo Infinite in every Xbox Scarlet, then I would be all for it.
I only bring it up because in several posts 343 talks about the AAA game experience. In my mind anything involving the same mechanics found in non AAA F2P games isn't the AAA expereience. I spelled out what the AAA expereience is in my opinion so hopefully a plurality of the player base agrees across not just Halo fans but game fans in general. If they had a really good companion app for Halo Infinite they could have MT's in that if they wanted but as far as the in game experience is concerned, I shouldn't be playing a AAA game and have the same feeling I get when I play a non AAA F2P game which rely's on the MT's because it is a F2P game.
Well it has been said that the AAA experience today is nothing more than a $60 priced F2P game and that the true AAA experience ended almost 10 years ago. But a F2P game relies on Mtxs, that is the whole business model, and it is acceptable, those with just enough money for a phone or computer can get the game and those that want to whale can splash into it. But with the current monitization model of the upfront $60 for the standard edition but the best stuff is in the $80-$120 and up premium edition which included in game items, and on top of that adding Mtxs that are designed to take at least $1,000 from a player alone. It is like the publisher just hung up a sign that says Whales Only and left the player focus on that.
As long as microtransactions are pay to win, I personally am not terribly worried about them being in Halo Infinite. But I'd still prefer they stay out of the game given the choice.
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
CAVEMANcr wrote:
There is nothing wrong with microtransactions. They allow devs to have higher budgets, and produce better games.

As long as we don't get a pay to win system, I'm all for them.
Higher budgets simply don't equate to better games . The film and music industry have proven this theory many times . i would argue there is plenty wrong with micro transactions , I would challenge anybody to show an example of how any game is improved as a player experience by there inclusion .quick answer there isn't one because any improvement could be easily added by the devs with in game mechanics or challenges and without the need for outside micro transactions .
I agree when it comes to full priced games and Halo Infinite is definitely on my no buy until I know all, I'm not fan of what they did with Halo 5. But, I think some free to play games like Warframe do them well, and it's worked into the in game economy in a clever way. Warframe and it's players definitely benefit from their inclusion imo. There are constant updates that are free to everyone and the game allows players to grind and earn platinum to buy things.
Having played a little bit of Warframe it is certainly pay to win , the reason I suppose the free to play model gets more community acceptance with micro transactions is the no buy in part. if you want to invest in better weapons ect its certainly optional, but Warframe isn't an example of micro transaction making a better gaming experience for the player, it's an example of a game financing its development and profits via micro transactions whereas it most likely would never been able to at a initial $60 buy in.
Pay to win ? You do realise that you can't simply buy weapons and use them in Warframe ! There's a mastery rank associated to them, and you need to invest time to increase your mastery rank in order to use and trade improved weapons and frames, and you cannot use them in pvp, only pve. Also, all the Prime Access frames come with a platinum pack.

For example, Wukong Prime is available now and will cost £66.99 if you don't want to grind, but you get 2625 platinum with the purchase of the pack, to buy 2625 platinum in the store in bundles of 370 would set you back over £100.00. It's a good trade off imo. Halo 5 was greed for the sake of it and I won't support it going forward. However, a fair system that gives us a good return for our investment would be acceptable imo.

Edit = Having been a little confused with your reply to marinealver about Warframe being built on the Crytek engine I realised we might not be talking about the same game. You seem to be referring to WARFACE, whicih is bulit on Crytek engines, and I agree 100% that Warface is an out and out pay to win. However I'm talking about a totally different game called WarFRAME.
Ahh my mistake, yes I was referring to warface, ive not played warframe, I'm having a little giggle at myself for this naming oversight.
It's happened on other forums where micro tranactions have been concerned lol. When it comes to Warface it is a complete pay to win game, my review on XBL states as much and I would never support that model for Halo. I believe Warframe is an example where players can benefit from their inclusion. We can trade many parts in Warframe too, but it's limited to x amount of trades per day depending on Mastery Rank which can only be achieved through game time. Even a limited option to trade reqs in Halo 5 would have helped aleviate a dreadful grind, there are so many good examples that 343i could take inspiration from.
I played Warframe it was ok but I wouldn't set it as an example for Halo Infinite. Remember Warframe is a free to play game from a non AAA developer.
I'm well aware that Warframe is free, I've put more hours into that game than anyone I know, and I didn't state it should set an example for Halo Infinite in any way. I clearly wrote that 343i could take inspiration from other good examples, like giving us the option to trade reqs to reduce grind. As for Digital Extremes being AAA or not, that's an opinion, but it's my opinion they're better than most so called AAA companies. However, that's a discussion for another forum.
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
CAVEMANcr wrote:
There is nothing wrong with microtransactions. They allow devs to have higher budgets, and produce better games.

As long as we don't get a pay to win system, I'm all for them.
Higher budgets simply don't equate to better games . The film and music industry have proven this theory many times . i would argue there is plenty wrong with micro transactions , I would challenge anybody to show an example of how any game is improved as a player experience by there inclusion .quick answer there isn't one because any improvement could be easily added by the devs with in game mechanics or challenges and without the need for outside micro transactions .
I agree when it comes to full priced games and Halo Infinite is definitely on my no buy until I know all, I'm not fan of what they did with Halo 5. But, I think some free to play games like Warframe do them well, and it's worked into the in game economy in a clever way. Warframe and it's players definitely benefit from their inclusion imo. There are constant updates that are free to everyone and the game allows players to grind and earn platinum to buy things.
Having played a little bit of Warframe it is certainly pay to win , the reason I suppose the free to play model gets more community acceptance with micro transactions is the no buy in part. if you want to invest in better weapons ect its certainly optional, but Warframe isn't an example of micro transaction making a better gaming experience for the player, it's an example of a game financing its development and profits via micro transactions whereas it most likely would never been able to at a initial $60 buy in.
Pay to win ? You do realise that you can't simply buy weapons and use them in Warframe ! There's a mastery rank associated to them, and you need to invest time to increase your mastery rank in order to use and trade improved weapons and frames, and you cannot use them in pvp, only pve. Also, all the Prime Access frames come with a platinum pack.

For example, Wukong Prime is available now and will cost £66.99 if you don't want to grind, but you get 2625 platinum with the purchase of the pack, to buy 2625 platinum in the store in bundles of 370 would set you back over £100.00. It's a good trade off imo. Halo 5 was greed for the sake of it and I won't support it going forward. However, a fair system that gives us a good return for our investment would be acceptable imo.

Edit = Having been a little confused with your reply to marinealver about Warframe being built on the Crytek engine I realised we might not be talking about the same game. You seem to be referring to WARFACE, whicih is bulit on Crytek engines, and I agree 100% that Warface is an out and out pay to win. However I'm talking about a totally different game called WarFRAME.
Ahh my mistake, yes I was referring to warface, ive not played warframe, I'm having a little giggle at myself for this naming oversight.
It's happened on other forums where micro tranactions have been concerned lol. When it comes to Warface it is a complete pay to win game, my review on XBL states as much and I would never support that model for Halo. I believe Warframe is an example where players can benefit from their inclusion. We can trade many parts in Warframe too, but it's limited to x amount of trades per day depending on Mastery Rank which can only be achieved through game time. Even a limited option to trade reqs in Halo 5 would have helped aleviate a dreadful grind, there are so many good examples that 343i could take inspiration from.
I played Warframe it was ok but I wouldn't set it as an example for Halo Infinite. Remember Warframe is a free to play game from a non AAA developer.
I'm well aware that Warframe is free, I've put more hours into that game than anyone I know, and I didn't state it should set an example for Halo Infinite in any way. I clearly wrote that 343i could take inspiration from other good examples, like giving us the option to trade reqs to reduce grind. As for Digital Extremes being AAA or not, that's an opinion, but it's my opinion they're better than most so called AAA companies. However, that's a discussion for another forum.
I think you're missing the point of my comment. I'm not attacking Warframe or you for playing it, liking it, or spending money on the MT's in it; I'm merely pointing out the difference and tieing it to what 343 is referring to as the "AAA experience". I like Warframe and put several hours into it and spent some money on the MT's because I enjoyed the game and it didn't cost me anything to download and play. I would like to see more Warframe like mechanics in other F2P games but I do not want to see F2P mechanics in what is supposed to be a AAA game that cost me a minimum of $60 just to get. My point is Reqs or other loot boxes whether they are purchased with real money or not shouldn't be in Halo Infinite at all. I don't want to trade them, I don't want to open them, I don't want to have them in Halo period for any reason because 343 is a AAA developer developoing a AAA game and loot boxes and MT's is a trademark sign that the game you're playing isn't AAA. The inspiration I want 343 to take is from older Halo games that never included a MT system or game modes spawned from a terribly flawed and burdensom game mechanic. Halo Reach's armor customization system is as close to a MT system as I'm willing to accept in Halo Infinite because you saw what you were getting and could select what you wanted to purchase. The only rule was you had to play to gain rank so you could have more choices on what to buy.
Well it doesn't matter if it is a AAA developer or not, Warframe was Free2play, also there isn't a PvP element so pay2win whales do carry those who don't have the good stuff. But the most important part is it is free.

Unless Microsoft is shipping a free download of Halo Infinite in every Xbox Scarlet, then I would be all for it.
I only bring it up because in several posts 343 talks about the AAA game experience. In my mind anything involving the same mechanics found in non AAA F2P games isn't the AAA expereience. I spelled out what the AAA expereience is in my opinion so hopefully a plurality of the player base agrees across not just Halo fans but game fans in general. If they had a really good companion app for Halo Infinite they could have MT's in that if they wanted but as far as the in game experience is concerned, I shouldn't be playing a AAA game and have the same feeling I get when I play a non AAA F2P game which rely's on the MT's because it is a F2P game.
Well it has been said that the AAA experience today is nothing more than a $60 priced F2P game and that the true AAA experience ended almost 10 years ago. But a F2P game relies on Mtxs, that is the whole business model, and it is acceptable, those with just enough money for a phone or computer can get the game and those that want to whale can splash into it. But with the current monitization model of the upfront $60 for the standard edition but the best stuff is in the $80-$120 and up premium edition which included in game items, and on top of that adding Mtxs that are designed to take at least $1,000 from a player alone. It is like the publisher just hung up a sign that says Whales Only and left the player focus on that.
Yeah and this is why it is so important for people against the MT's to be so vocal about it. The one big thing I'm concerned about from 343 is that these MT conversations get shut down more than anything else. It's like they don't want to hear us complain about the MT systems which I honestly don't blame them. I'm sure Microsoft is breathing down their neck for a MT system while players are pestering them complaining about MT systems. The people who don't mind MT systems in games are causing an issue because the overall quality of games goes down by the inclusion of an MT system regardless of the purpose and function of the system. Even cosmetic only MT systems diminishes the quality of the game because they introduce the loot box mechanic which always feels like a rip off or a cheap and cheesy addition to the game. AAA games where you spend money up front to obtain the game should have all features, modes, mechanics, and content unlocked without spending any more real money period. I don't mind the "standard" edition, "Special" edition, "Legendary" edition, "Mythic" edition packages at the point of sale mostly because they come will cool stuff like statues and posters, etc that you can show off in and out of game but all of the gameplay is the same for all versions of the game. Sure the higher end package may have a single unique armor set or something like that but usually it isn't even the best in the game and the best stuff is only unlocked by achievements.

The true AAA experience needs to make a return to the marketplace and 343 should be the company leading the charge. This product is Microsofts flagship game that made the Xbox a viable console. Halo has long time fans and new fans and we need to make a stand against the invasive MT system of the modern era and show 343 and Microsoft that they don't need MT's to have a successful game that breaks records. I will buy special editions of this game and map packs if needed because overall the game experience will be superior than having any form of MT in the game.
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
CAVEMANcr wrote:
There is nothing wrong with microtransactions. They allow devs to have higher budgets, and produce better games.

As long as we don't get a pay to win system, I'm all for them.
Higher budgets simply don't equate to better games . The film and music industry have proven this theory many times . i would argue there is plenty wrong with micro transactions , I would challenge anybody to show an example of how any game is improved as a player experience by there inclusion .quick answer there isn't one because any improvement could be easily added by the devs with in game mechanics or challenges and without the need for outside micro transactions .
I agree when it comes to full priced games and Halo Infinite is definitely on my no buy until I know all, I'm not fan of what they did with Halo 5. But, I think some free to play games like Warframe do them well, and it's worked into the in game economy in a clever way. Warframe and it's players definitely benefit from their inclusion imo. There are constant updates that are free to everyone and the game allows players to grind and earn platinum to buy things.
Having played a little bit of Warframe it is certainly pay to win , the reason I suppose the free to play model gets more community acceptance with micro transactions is the no buy in part. if you want to invest in better weapons ect its certainly optional, but Warframe isn't an example of micro transaction making a better gaming experience for the player, it's an example of a game financing its development and profits via micro transactions whereas it most likely would never been able to at a initial $60 buy in.
Pay to win ? You do realise that you can't simply buy weapons and use them in Warframe ! There's a mastery rank associated to them, and you need to invest time to increase your mastery rank in order to use and trade improved weapons and frames, and you cannot use them in pvp, only pve. Also, all the Prime Access frames come with a platinum pack.

For example, Wukong Prime is available now and will cost £66.99 if you don't want to grind, but you get 2625 platinum with the purchase of the pack, to buy 2625 platinum in the store in bundles of 370 would set you back over £100.00. It's a good trade off imo. Halo 5 was greed for the sake of it and I won't support it going forward. However, a fair system that gives us a good return for our investment would be acceptable imo.

Edit = Having been a little confused with your reply to marinealver about Warframe being built on the Crytek engine I realised we might not be talking about the same game. You seem to be referring to WARFACE, whicih is bulit on Crytek engines, and I agree 100% that Warface is an out and out pay to win. However I'm talking about a totally different game called WarFRAME.
Ahh my mistake, yes I was referring to warface, ive not played warframe, I'm having a little giggle at myself for this naming oversight.
It's happened on other forums where micro tranactions have been concerned lol. When it comes to Warface it is a complete pay to win game, my review on XBL states as much and I would never support that model for Halo. I believe Warframe is an example where players can benefit from their inclusion. We can trade many parts in Warframe too, but it's limited to x amount of trades per day depending on Mastery Rank which can only be achieved through game time. Even a limited option to trade reqs in Halo 5 would have helped aleviate a dreadful grind, there are so many good examples that 343i could take inspiration from.
I played Warframe it was ok but I wouldn't set it as an example for Halo Infinite. Remember Warframe is a free to play game from a non AAA developer.
I'm well aware that Warframe is free, I've put more hours into that game than anyone I know, and I didn't state it should set an example for Halo Infinite in any way. I clearly wrote that 343i could take inspiration from other good examples, like giving us the option to trade reqs to reduce grind. As for Digital Extremes being AAA or not, that's an opinion, but it's my opinion they're better than most so called AAA companies. However, that's a discussion for another forum.
I think you're missing the point of my comment. I'm not attacking Warframe or you for playing it, liking it, or spending money on the MT's in it; I'm merely pointing out the difference and tieing it to what 343 is referring to as the "AAA experience". I like Warframe and put several hours into it and spent some money on the MT's because I enjoyed the game and it didn't cost me anything to download and play. I would like to see more Warframe like mechanics in other F2P games but I do not want to see F2P mechanics in what is supposed to be a AAA game that cost me a minimum of $60 just to get. My point is Reqs or other loot boxes whether they are purchased with real money or not shouldn't be in Halo Infinite at all. I don't want to trade them, I don't want to open them, I don't want to have them in Halo period for any reason because 343 is a AAA developer developoing a AAA game and loot boxes and MT's is a trademark sign that the game you're playing isn't AAA. The inspiration I want 343 to take is from older Halo games that never included a MT system or game modes spawned from a terribly flawed and burdensom game mechanic. Halo Reach's armor customization system is as close to a MT system as I'm willing to accept in Halo Infinite because you saw what you were getting and could select what you wanted to purchase. The only rule was you had to play to gain rank so you could have more choices on what to buy.
I'm not missing anything. You're not going to have to open reqs in Halo Infinite, 343i stated there would be no paid loot boxes, and they have nothing to gain with free ones imo. As for older Halo games, sure they didn't have micro transactions, but they had paid map packs that split the player base. I don't like micro transactions, but they will be in Halo Infinite, no if, but or maybe about it. How they'll be implemented remains to be seen, but there are systems that other games use that I will tolerate in a full priced game. Map packs are not a good substitute either.
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
CAVEMANcr wrote:
There is nothing wrong with microtransactions. They allow devs to have higher budgets, and produce better games.

As long as we don't get a pay to win system, I'm all for them.
Higher budgets simply don't equate to better games . The film and music industry have proven this theory many times . i would argue there is plenty wrong with micro transactions , I would challenge anybody to show an example of how any game is improved as a player experience by there inclusion .quick answer there isn't one because any improvement could be easily added by the devs with in game mechanics or challenges and without the need for outside micro transactions .
I agree when it comes to full priced games and Halo Infinite is definitely on my no buy until I know all, I'm not fan of what they did with Halo 5. But, I think some free to play games like Warframe do them well, and it's worked into the in game economy in a clever way. Warframe and it's players definitely benefit from their inclusion imo. There are constant updates that are free to everyone and the game allows players to grind and earn platinum to buy things.
Having played a little bit of Warframe it is certainly pay to win , the reason I suppose the free to play model gets more community acceptance with micro transactions is the no buy in part. if you want to invest in better weapons ect its certainly optional, but Warframe isn't an example of micro transaction making a better gaming experience for the player, it's an example of a game financing its development and profits via micro transactions whereas it most likely would never been able to at a initial $60 buy in.
Pay to win ? You do realise that you can't simply buy weapons and use them in Warframe ! There's a mastery rank associated to them, and you need to invest time to increase your mastery rank in order to use and trade improved weapons and frames, and you cannot use them in pvp, only pve. Also, all the Prime Access frames come with a platinum pack.

For example, Wukong Prime is available now and will cost £66.99 if you don't want to grind, but you get 2625 platinum with the purchase of the pack, to buy 2625 platinum in the store in bundles of 370 would set you back over £100.00. It's a good trade off imo. Halo 5 was greed for the sake of it and I won't support it going forward. However, a fair system that gives us a good return for our investment would be acceptable imo.

Edit = Having been a little confused with your reply to marinealver about Warframe being built on the Crytek engine I realised we might not be talking about the same game. You seem to be referring to WARFACE, whicih is bulit on Crytek engines, and I agree 100% that Warface is an out and out pay to win. However I'm talking about a totally different game called WarFRAME.
Ahh my mistake, yes I was referring to warface, ive not played warframe, I'm having a little giggle at myself for this naming oversight.
It's happened on other forums where micro tranactions have been concerned lol. When it comes to Warface it is a complete pay to win game, my review on XBL states as much and I would never support that model for Halo. I believe Warframe is an example where players can benefit from their inclusion. We can trade many parts in Warframe too, but it's limited to x amount of trades per day depending on Mastery Rank which can only be achieved through game time. Even a limited option to trade reqs in Halo 5 would have helped aleviate a dreadful grind, there are so many good examples that 343i could take inspiration from.
I played Warframe it was ok but I wouldn't set it as an example for Halo Infinite. Remember Warframe is a free to play game from a non AAA developer.
I'm well aware that Warframe is free, I've put more hours into that game than anyone I know, and I didn't state it should set an example for Halo Infinite in any way. I clearly wrote that 343i could take inspiration from other good examples, like giving us the option to trade reqs to reduce grind. As for Digital Extremes being AAA or not, that's an opinion, but it's my opinion they're better than most so called AAA companies. However, that's a discussion for another forum.
I think you're missing the point of my comment. I'm not attacking Warframe or you for playing it, liking it, or spending money on the MT's in it; I'm merely pointing out the difference and tieing it to what 343 is referring to as the "AAA experience". I like Warframe and put several hours into it and spent some money on the MT's because I enjoyed the game and it didn't cost me anything to download and play. I would like to see more Warframe like mechanics in other F2P games but I do not want to see F2P mechanics in what is supposed to be a AAA game that cost me a minimum of $60 just to get. My point is Reqs or other loot boxes whether they are purchased with real money or not shouldn't be in Halo Infinite at all. I don't want to trade them, I don't want to open them, I don't want to have them in Halo period for any reason because 343 is a AAA developer developoing a AAA game and loot boxes and MT's is a trademark sign that the game you're playing isn't AAA. The inspiration I want 343 to take is from older Halo games that never included a MT system or game modes spawned from a terribly flawed and burdensom game mechanic. Halo Reach's armor customization system is as close to a MT system as I'm willing to accept in Halo Infinite because you saw what you were getting and could select what you wanted to purchase. The only rule was you had to play to gain rank so you could have more choices on what to buy.
I'm not missing anything. You're not going to have to open reqs in Halo Infinite, 343i stated there would be no paid loot boxes, and they have nothing to gain with free ones imo. As for older Halo games, sure they didn't have micro transactions, but they had paid map packs that split the player base. I don't like micro transactions, but they will be in Halo Infinite, no if, but or maybe about it. How they'll be implemented remains to be seen, but there are systems that other games use that I will tolerate in a full priced game.
And that is the issue. They won't have "paid loot boxes" but what does that really mean? Will you buy microsoft points and use those for loot boxes in Halo? Will you earn CP or RP in game that you use for a RNG loot box system? We don't know what it is and I get it WILL have MT's in the game but my point is it SHOULDN'T have MT's in the game. I think paid map packs split the player base less than the MT's due to the sheer number of people who HATE MT's in games. I do not remember the player base pushing back against anything as hard as the MT systems. I will not tolerate anymore or find acceptable MT systems in fully priced games because I bought the game. I don't want to now have to buy the stuff that should have been and would have been in other games.
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
CAVEMANcr wrote:
There is nothing wrong with microtransactions. They allow devs to have higher budgets, and produce better games.

As long as we don't get a pay to win system, I'm all for them.
Higher budgets simply don't equate to better games . The film and music industry have proven this theory many times . i would argue there is plenty wrong with micro transactions , I would challenge anybody to show an example of how any game is improved as a player experience by there inclusion .quick answer there isn't one because any improvement could be easily added by the devs with in game mechanics or challenges and without the need for outside micro transactions .
I agree when it comes to full priced games and Halo Infinite is definitely on my no buy until I know all, I'm not fan of what they did with Halo 5. But, I think some free to play games like Warframe do them well, and it's worked into the in game economy in a clever way. Warframe and it's players definitely benefit from their inclusion imo. There are constant updates that are free to everyone and the game allows players to grind and earn platinum to buy things.
Having played a little bit of Warframe it is certainly pay to win , the reason I suppose the free to play model gets more community acceptance with micro transactions is the no buy in part. if you want to invest in better weapons ect its certainly optional, but Warframe isn't an example of micro transaction making a better gaming experience for the player, it's an example of a game financing its development and profits via micro transactions whereas it most likely would never been able to at a initial $60 buy in.
Pay to win ? You do realise that you can't simply buy weapons and use them in Warframe ! There's a mastery rank associated to them, and you need to invest time to increase your mastery rank in order to use and trade improved weapons and frames, and you cannot use them in pvp, only pve. Also, all the Prime Access frames come with a platinum pack.

For example, Wukong Prime is available now and will cost £66.99 if you don't want to grind, but you get 2625 platinum with the purchase of the pack, to buy 2625 platinum in the store in bundles of 370 would set you back over £100.00. It's a good trade off imo. Halo 5 was greed for the sake of it and I won't support it going forward. However, a fair system that gives us a good return for our investment would be acceptable imo.

Edit = Having been a little confused with your reply to marinealver about Warframe being built on the Crytek engine I realised we might not be talking about the same game. You seem to be referring to WARFACE, whicih is bulit on Crytek engines, and I agree 100% that Warface is an out and out pay to win. However I'm talking about a totally different game called WarFRAME.
Ahh my mistake, yes I was referring to warface, ive not played warframe, I'm having a little giggle at myself for this naming oversight.
It's happened on other forums where micro tranactions have been concerned lol. When it comes to Warface it is a complete pay to win game, my review on XBL states as much and I would never support that model for Halo. I believe Warframe is an example where players can benefit from their inclusion. We can trade many parts in Warframe too, but it's limited to x amount of trades per day depending on Mastery Rank which can only be achieved through game time. Even a limited option to trade reqs in Halo 5 would have helped aleviate a dreadful grind, there are so many good examples that 343i could take inspiration from.
I played Warframe it was ok but I wouldn't set it as an example for Halo Infinite. Remember Warframe is a free to play game from a non AAA developer.
I'm well aware that Warframe is free, I've put more hours into that game than anyone I know, and I didn't state it should set an example for Halo Infinite in any way. I clearly wrote that 343i could take inspiration from other good examples, like giving us the option to trade reqs to reduce grind. As for Digital Extremes being AAA or not, that's an opinion, but it's my opinion they're better than most so called AAA companies. However, that's a discussion for another forum.
I think you're missing the point of my comment. I'm not attacking Warframe or you for playing it, liking it, or spending money on the MT's in it; I'm merely pointing out the difference and tieing it to what 343 is referring to as the "AAA experience". I like Warframe and put several hours into it and spent some money on the MT's because I enjoyed the game and it didn't cost me anything to download and play. I would like to see more Warframe like mechanics in other F2P games but I do not want to see F2P mechanics in what is supposed to be a AAA game that cost me a minimum of $60 just to get. My point is Reqs or other loot boxes whether they are purchased with real money or not shouldn't be in Halo Infinite at all. I don't want to trade them, I don't want to open them, I don't want to have them in Halo period for any reason because 343 is a AAA developer developoing a AAA game and loot boxes and MT's is a trademark sign that the game you're playing isn't AAA. The inspiration I want 343 to take is from older Halo games that never included a MT system or game modes spawned from a terribly flawed and burdensom game mechanic. Halo Reach's armor customization system is as close to a MT system as I'm willing to accept in Halo Infinite because you saw what you were getting and could select what you wanted to purchase. The only rule was you had to play to gain rank so you could have more choices on what to buy.
I'm not missing anything. You're not going to have to open reqs in Halo Infinite, 343i stated there would be no paid loot boxes, and they have nothing to gain with free ones imo. As for older Halo games, sure they didn't have micro transactions, but they had paid map packs that split the player base. I don't like micro transactions, but they will be in Halo Infinite, no if, but or maybe about it. How they'll be implemented remains to be seen, but there are systems that other games use that I will tolerate in a full priced game.
And that is the issue. They won't have "paid loot boxes" but what does that really mean? Will you buy microsoft points and use those for loot boxes in Halo? Will you earn CP or RP in game that you use for a RNG loot box system? We don't know what it is and I get it WILL have MT's in the game but my point is it SHOULDN'T have MT's in the game. I think paid map packs split the player base less than the MT's due to the sheer number of people who HATE MT's in games. I do not remember the player base pushing back against anything as hard as the MT systems. I will not tolerate anymore or find acceptable MT systems in fully priced games because I bought the game. I don't want to now have to buy the stuff that should have been and would have been in other games.
They already stated paid loot boxes will not be there, either with real world or in game currency that you could purchase. You really need to research my previous posts too, if Halo Infinite has any rng I will not buy it, I've stated that countless times, and I'll stand by it. I'm against the return of map packs though, I remember booting up previous games then finding out we had to play day one maps only because others didn't have the latest pack. Map packs need to stay away, but I'll accept a micro transaction system that's fair.
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
I'm not missing anything. You're not going to have to open reqs in Halo Infinite, 343i stated there would be no paid loot boxes, and they have nothing to gain with free ones imo. As for older Halo games, sure they didn't have micro transactions, but they had paid map packs that split the player base. I don't like micro transactions, but they will be in Halo Infinite, no if, but or maybe about it. How they'll be implemented remains to be seen, but there are systems that other games use that I will tolerate in a full priced game.
And that is the issue. They won't have "paid loot boxes" but what does that really mean? Will you buy microsoft points and use those for loot boxes in Halo? Will you earn CP or RP in game that you use for a RNG loot box system? We don't know what it is and I get it WILL have MT's in the game but my point is it SHOULDN'T have MT's in the game. I think paid map packs split the player base less than the MT's due to the sheer number of people who HATE MT's in games. I do not remember the player base pushing back against anything as hard as the MT systems. I will not tolerate anymore or find acceptable MT systems in fully priced games because I bought the game. I don't want to now have to buy the stuff that should have been and would have been in other games.
They already stated paid loot boxes will not be there, either with real world or in game currency that you could purchase. You really need to research my previous posts too, if Halo Infinite has any rng I will not buy it, I've stated that countless times, and I'll stand by it. I'm against the return of map packs though, I remember booting up previous games the finding out we had to play day one maps only because others didn't have the latest pack. Map packs need to stay away, but I'll accept a micro transaction system that's fair.
In order for me to accept a MT system at this point, it really needs to be like nothing we've ever seen before or along the same lines as Titanfall 2. It can't have any RNG aspect, no duplicates possible, no overwhelming quantity of items that all operate the same that were all added just to make it look like there is a lot of variety and content. If any of that stuff show up, I won't buy Halo Infinite. I also don't want an entire game mode that revolves around the MT system like in Halo 5. Warzone would be far more entertaining with loadouts and powerweapons spawning on the map as opposed to the Req system it uses. It needs to add something to the game that is just enough to make people interested in buying stuff but not enough where it makes players feel at a disadvantage for not buying stuff. It also needs to be done in an interesting way that feels natural as opposed to any system that I've seen where it's just a random addition without any thought to make extra cash. Lastly, if you include MT's at any point to any capacity, all downloadable expansions, map packs, and content, become free automatically. No season's pass, no content left out, everything else that is an add on must be free.
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
I'm not missing anything. You're not going to have to open reqs in Halo Infinite, 343i stated there would be no paid loot boxes, and they have nothing to gain with free ones imo. As for older Halo games, sure they didn't have micro transactions, but they had paid map packs that split the player base. I don't like micro transactions, but they will be in Halo Infinite, no if, but or maybe about it. How they'll be implemented remains to be seen, but there are systems that other games use that I will tolerate in a full priced game.
And that is the issue. They won't have "paid loot boxes" but what does that really mean? Will you buy microsoft points and use those for loot boxes in Halo? Will you earn CP or RP in game that you use for a RNG loot box system? We don't know what it is and I get it WILL have MT's in the game but my point is it SHOULDN'T have MT's in the game. I think paid map packs split the player base less than the MT's due to the sheer number of people who HATE MT's in games. I do not remember the player base pushing back against anything as hard as the MT systems. I will not tolerate anymore or find acceptable MT systems in fully priced games because I bought the game. I don't want to now have to buy the stuff that should have been and would have been in other games.
They already stated paid loot boxes will not be there, either with real world or in game currency that you could purchase. You really need to research my previous posts too, if Halo Infinite has any rng I will not buy it, I've stated that countless times, and I'll stand by it. I'm against the return of map packs though, I remember booting up previous games the finding out we had to play day one maps only because others didn't have the latest pack. Map packs need to stay away, but I'll accept a micro transaction system that's fair.
In order for me to accept a MT system at this point, it really needs to be like nothing we've ever seen before or along the same lines as Titanfall 2. It can't have any RNG aspect, no duplicates possible, no overwhelming quantity of items that all operate the same that were all added just to make it look like there is a lot of variety and content. If any of that stuff show up, I won't buy Halo Infinite. I also don't want an entire game mode that revolves around the MT system like in Halo 5. Warzone would be far more entertaining with loadouts and powerweapons spawning on the map as opposed to the Req system it uses. It needs to add something to the game that is just enough to make people interested in buying stuff but not enough where it makes players feel at a disadvantage for not buying stuff. It also needs to be done in an interesting way that feels natural as opposed to any system that I've seen where it's just a random addition without any thought to make extra cash. Lastly, if you include MT's at any point to any capacity, all downloadable expansions, map packs, and content, become free automatically. No season's pass, no content left out, everything else that is an add on must be free.
I agree, I'll accept cosmetic buy what you see items, like Titanfall 2 and other games have done. However that could be an egregious system too, where all the best kit is behind a pay wall. We know the game will have a micro transaction system, all we can do is hope for the best and walk if we don't like what we see. As for things like Warzone, who knows ? It was not for me but others like it. The invasive rng reqs killed Halo 5 for me, you could not avoid it at all as everything was unlocked through it, and it was shoved down your throat the moment you boot up. If it had been restricted to Warzone items for Warzone only it would have been better imo.
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
I'm not missing anything. You're not going to have to open reqs in Halo Infinite, 343i stated there would be no paid loot boxes, and they have nothing to gain with free ones imo. As for older Halo games, sure they didn't have micro transactions, but they had paid map packs that split the player base. I don't like micro transactions, but they will be in Halo Infinite, no if, but or maybe about it. How they'll be implemented remains to be seen, but there are systems that other games use that I will tolerate in a full priced game.
And that is the issue. They won't have "paid loot boxes" but what does that really mean? Will you buy microsoft points and use those for loot boxes in Halo? Will you earn CP or RP in game that you use for a RNG loot box system? We don't know what it is and I get it WILL have MT's in the game but my point is it SHOULDN'T have MT's in the game. I think paid map packs split the player base less than the MT's due to the sheer number of people who HATE MT's in games. I do not remember the player base pushing back against anything as hard as the MT systems. I will not tolerate anymore or find acceptable MT systems in fully priced games because I bought the game. I don't want to now have to buy the stuff that should have been and would have been in other games.
They already stated paid loot boxes will not be there, either with real world or in game currency that you could purchase. You really need to research my previous posts too, if Halo Infinite has any rng I will not buy it, I've stated that countless times, and I'll stand by it. I'm against the return of map packs though, I remember booting up previous games the finding out we had to play day one maps only because others didn't have the latest pack. Map packs need to stay away, but I'll accept a micro transaction system that's fair.
In order for me to accept a MT system at this point, it really needs to be like nothing we've ever seen before or along the same lines as Titanfall 2. It can't have any RNG aspect, no duplicates possible, no overwhelming quantity of items that all operate the same that were all added just to make it look like there is a lot of variety and content. If any of that stuff show up, I won't buy Halo Infinite. I also don't want an entire game mode that revolves around the MT system like in Halo 5. Warzone would be far more entertaining with loadouts and powerweapons spawning on the map as opposed to the Req system it uses. It needs to add something to the game that is just enough to make people interested in buying stuff but not enough where it makes players feel at a disadvantage for not buying stuff. It also needs to be done in an interesting way that feels natural as opposed to any system that I've seen where it's just a random addition without any thought to make extra cash. Lastly, if you include MT's at any point to any capacity, all downloadable expansions, map packs, and content, become free automatically. No season's pass, no content left out, everything else that is an add on must be free.
I agree, I'll accept cosmetic buy what you see items, like Titanfall 2 and other games have done. However that could be an egregious system too, where all the best kit is behind a pay wall. We know the game will have a micro transaction system, all we can do is hope for the best and walk if we don't like what we see. As for things like Warzone, who knows ? It was not for me but others like it. The invasive rng reqs killed Halo 5 for me, you could not avoid it at all as everything was unlocked through it, and it was shoved down your throat the moment you boot up. If it had been restricted to Warzone items for Warzone only it would have been better imo.
I think this is mostly where we disagree. I don't believe all we can do is hope for the best. We can work to have these defeated and if we really don't like them, then we have to fight to make that point clear. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. That is why I don't support or condone any MT system at any time for pay full price games. Free to play games it is totally understandable and acceptable because I didn't pay for the game and even then, pay to win in not acceptable. To me, that is why it's such a big deal because when I purchase a game, I don't expect to have to buy additional content.
They can have all of my money. While everyone is complaining, I'll be the one with super cool light up boots that light up when I move. Yes everyone will be jealous and yes they will not improve how bad I actually am at Halo.
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
I'm not missing anything. You're not going to have to open reqs in Halo Infinite, 343i stated there would be no paid loot boxes, and they have nothing to gain with free ones imo. As for older Halo games, sure they didn't have micro transactions, but they had paid map packs that split the player base. I don't like micro transactions, but they will be in Halo Infinite, no if, but or maybe about it. How they'll be implemented remains to be seen, but there are systems that other games use that I will tolerate in a full priced game.
And that is the issue. They won't have "paid loot boxes" but what does that really mean? Will you buy microsoft points and use those for loot boxes in Halo? Will you earn CP or RP in game that you use for a RNG loot box system? We don't know what it is and I get it WILL have MT's in the game but my point is it SHOULDN'T have MT's in the game. I think paid map packs split the player base less than the MT's due to the sheer number of people who HATE MT's in games. I do not remember the player base pushing back against anything as hard as the MT systems. I will not tolerate anymore or find acceptable MT systems in fully priced games because I bought the game. I don't want to now have to buy the stuff that should have been and would have been in other games.
They already stated paid loot boxes will not be there, either with real world or in game currency that you could purchase. You really need to research my previous posts too, if Halo Infinite has any rng I will not buy it, I've stated that countless times, and I'll stand by it. I'm against the return of map packs though, I remember booting up previous games the finding out we had to play day one maps only because others didn't have the latest pack. Map packs need to stay away, but I'll accept a micro transaction system that's fair.
In order for me to accept a MT system at this point, it really needs to be like nothing we've ever seen before or along the same lines as Titanfall 2. It can't have any RNG aspect, no duplicates possible, no overwhelming quantity of items that all operate the same that were all added just to make it look like there is a lot of variety and content. If any of that stuff show up, I won't buy Halo Infinite. I also don't want an entire game mode that revolves around the MT system like in Halo 5. Warzone would be far more entertaining with loadouts and powerweapons spawning on the map as opposed to the Req system it uses. It needs to add something to the game that is just enough to make people interested in buying stuff but not enough where it makes players feel at a disadvantage for not buying stuff. It also needs to be done in an interesting way that feels natural as opposed to any system that I've seen where it's just a random addition without any thought to make extra cash. Lastly, if you include MT's at any point to any capacity, all downloadable expansions, map packs, and content, become free automatically. No season's pass, no content left out, everything else that is an add on must be free.
I agree, I'll accept cosmetic buy what you see items, like Titanfall 2 and other games have done. However that could be an egregious system too, where all the best kit is behind a pay wall. We know the game will have a micro transaction system, all we can do is hope for the best and walk if we don't like what we see. As for things like Warzone, who knows ? It was not for me but others like it. The invasive rng reqs killed Halo 5 for me, you could not avoid it at all as everything was unlocked through it, and it was shoved down your throat the moment you boot up. If it had been restricted to Warzone items for Warzone only it would have been better imo.
I think this is mostly where we disagree. I don't believe all we can do is hope for the best. We can work to have these defeated and if we really don't like them, then we have to fight to make that point clear. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. That is why I don't support or condone any MT system at any time for pay full price games. Free to play games it is totally understandable and acceptable because I didn't pay for the game and even then, pay to win in not acceptable. To me, that is why it's such a big deal because when I purchase a game, I don't expect to have to buy additional content.
Unless we stop buying the games en masse all we can do is voice our opinions and hope for the best. Everyone I know that games has supported post launch monetisation to one degree or another. Be it loot boxes, dlc, map packs etc. They will always need money for additional content, and with many more games becoming gaas (games as a service) it will get worse. Even following the furore surrounding SWBF 2, EA reinstated them at the earliest opportunity.

There will always be exceptions, Cyberpunk 2077 will not have micro transactions, but it will have paid DLC along with other free content drops. With Halo 5 it was loot boxes and free content updates. However, with Halo 5 a lot of post launch content should have been there day one imo, especially BTB. Some games are moving away from loot boxes including Halo Infinite if 343i are to be believed, however something will replace that.

I've seen games up for pre order with things like a year one pass that includes DLC's 1 and 2 for example. Maybe Halo will follow that route ? Who knows ? I would like nothing more than to pay one price at launch and have everything for the life of that game. Some single player games like Sekiro Shadows Die Twice are like that, but when you have multiplayer and perpetual online games, extra funding is needed imo.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 7
  4. 8
  5. 9
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. ...
  9. 12