Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

There must be a rank and battlepass system- Post 1

OP xADommMx

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2
There are countless reasons why both these systems need to be in the game, ranging from consumer individuality, to player base longevity, to GREATLY increasing the monetization of the game.

Firstly, it's a staple in all modern multiplayer games for good reason. It is ESSENTIAL in maintaining a healthy player base in the long term thus increasing the amount of time a f2p player can purchase currency from the games shop. People will max out the battlepass and they will quit once the grind is over. It is a FACT player bases die when a battlepass is maxed out. If there isn't even a secondary leveling system that entices players to stay after the battlepass is maxed out the game is going to be dead in the water after a month. This issue is only compounded when we know you can BUY battlepass tiers. There will be no differentiation or sense of reward between players. A total lack of individuality does not entice consumers to spend time or MONEY on a product. I don't have constructive criticism for this, it's a terrible and short sighted idea that is ALREADY off putting to every single fps multiplayer player.

I love this franchise, I want to see it succeed, change, and grow. The game will survive without co-op campaign and without forge at launch, but, if it doesn't have a ranking system (or a pre-match lobby system like reach that lets you flex your armor- but that's a different issue) then it's going to fail to capture the new player base that this game desperately needs.

The people who are complaining about all the other features will be here no matter what, but, if we can't get a straight forward ranking system how can you ever even think you have a chance at converting the majority of casual players from Battlefield or COD players who love the grind and arbitrary statistics which makes them come pack to the game EVERY SINGLE DAY.

The MCC leveling system isn't even that good but it would be better than nothing. Just copy everything from the reach leveling system, YOU WOULD BE PRAISED!
Agreed, I don't know what they were smoking when they thought removing all rank and traditional "leveling" systems was a good idea
xADommMx wrote:
There are countless reasons why both these systems need to be in the game, ranging from consumer individuality, to player base longevity, to GREATLY increasing the monetization of the game.

Firstly, it's a staple in all modern multiplayer games for good reason. It is ESSENTIAL in maintaining a healthy player base in the long term thus increasing the amount of time a f2p player can purchase currency from the games shop. People will max out the battlepass and they will quit once the grind is over. It is a FACT player bases die when a battlepass is maxed out. If there isn't even a secondary leveling system that entices players to stay after the battlepass is maxed out the game is going to be dead in the water after a month. This issue is only compounded when we know you can BUY battlepass tiers. There will be no differentiation or sense of reward between players. A total lack of individuality does not entice consumers to spend time or MONEY on a product. I don't have constructive criticism for this, it's a terrible and short sighted idea that is ALREADY off putting to every single fps multiplayer player.

I love this franchise, I want to see it succeed, change, and grow. The game will survive without co-op campaign and without forge at launch, but, if it doesn't have a ranking system (or a pre-match lobby system like reach that lets you flex your armor- but that's a different issue) then it's going to fail to capture the new player base that this game desperately needs.

The people who are complaining about all the other features will be here no matter what, but, if we can't get a straight forward ranking system how can you ever even think you have a chance at converting the majority of casual players from Battlefield or COD players who love the grind and arbitrary statistics which makes them come pack to the game EVERY SINGLE DAY.

The MCC leveling system isn't even that good but it would be better than nothing. Just copy everything from the reach leveling system, YOU WOULD BE PRAISED!
I agree that the ranking system is very, very necessary. I'm not sure why it can't just be the system it was in Reach, which was very effective and fun. I imagine that with the many more customization options in Infinite, the Reach style progression system would keep people coming back for a long time.

There's no reason this needs to include battle passes. I really disagree with the notion that a game is not viable without that kind of monetization, they've done it for years. It is purely greed that leads to this type of monetization. Making the progression system last a long time is the key to a great player base, and updates over time are helpful, but I really really wish we could move away from the microtransactions.
I don’t think neither are needed as people could just play for fun, it’s kinda what games are for afterall but I understand some need that progression of sorts when it comes to slowly working a number up.

battle passes though? That’s purely to the companies benefit for milking money.
xADommMx wrote:
There are countless reasons why both these systems need to be in the game, ranging from consumer individuality, to player base longevity, to GREATLY increasing the monetization of the game.

Firstly, it's a staple in all modern multiplayer games for good reason. It is ESSENTIAL in maintaining a healthy player base in the long term thus increasing the amount of time a f2p player can purchase currency from the games shop. People will max out the battlepass and they will quit once the grind is over. It is a FACT player bases die when a battlepass is maxed out. If there isn't even a secondary leveling system that entices players to stay after the battlepass is maxed out the game is going to be dead in the water after a month. This issue is only compounded when we know you can BUY battlepass tiers. There will be no differentiation or sense of reward between players. A total lack of individuality does not entice consumers to spend time or MONEY on a product. I don't have constructive criticism for this, it's a terrible and short sighted idea that is ALREADY off putting to every single fps multiplayer player.

I love this franchise, I want to see it succeed, change, and grow. The game will survive without co-op campaign and without forge at launch, but, if it doesn't have a ranking system (or a pre-match lobby system like reach that lets you flex your armor- but that's a different issue) then it's going to fail to capture the new player base that this game desperately needs.

The people who are complaining about all the other features will be here no matter what, but, if we can't get a straight forward ranking system how can you ever even think you have a chance at converting the majority of casual players from Battlefield or COD players who love the grind and arbitrary statistics which makes them come pack to the game EVERY SINGLE DAY.

The MCC leveling system isn't even that good but it would be better than nothing. Just copy everything from the reach leveling system, YOU WOULD BE PRAISED!
I agree that the ranking system is very, very necessary. I'm not sure why it can't just be the system it was in Reach, which was very effective and fun. I imagine that with the many more customization options in Infinite, the Reach style progression system would keep people coming back for a long time.

There's no reason this needs to include battle passes. I really disagree with the notion that a game is not viable without that kind of monetization, they've done it for years. It is purely greed that leads to this type of monetization. Making the progression system last a long time is the key to a great player base, and updates over time are helpful, but I really really wish we could move away from the microtransactions.
I understand that you don't want a battlepass but this is how Halo gets its largest player base. If they added a proper leveling system and had gear specific to your rank I think there would be no issue, again though, they can't even do that which is pretty terrible. They could use that as a reason for people to buy the game or gamepass.
I don’t think neither are needed as people could just play for fun, it’s kinda what games are for afterall but I understand some need that progression of sorts when it comes to slowly working a number up.

battle passes though? That’s purely to the companies benefit for milking money.
People play games for such a variety of reasons, but, having something like leveling can only be an addition to the players experience.

I understand where a lot of people are coming from with the battlepass. But you need to remember, in reality, the battlepass does allow everyone (including those less fortunate) to play the game at no cost. The battlepass is optional, it's not going to detract from the amount of fun you have in the game itself.

At the end of the day a company is a company. They need to make a profit to make products. This game is reportedly around the $300 million mark, someone has to pay for that. As long as the game nails its fundamental values and provides a truly optimum experience I don't think there is anything to worry about or be upset about.

Currently though, the game is not structured like that, so, I understand your concern and it's something I am concerned about too.
xADommMx wrote:
xADommMx wrote:
There are countless reasons why both these systems need to be in the game, ranging from consumer individuality, to player base longevity, to GREATLY increasing the monetization of the game.

Firstly, it's a staple in all modern multiplayer games for good reason. It is ESSENTIAL in maintaining a healthy player base in the long term thus increasing the amount of time a f2p player can purchase currency from the games shop. People will max out the battlepass and they will quit once the grind is over. It is a FACT player bases die when a battlepass is maxed out. If there isn't even a secondary leveling system that entices players to stay after the battlepass is maxed out the game is going to be dead in the water after a month. This issue is only compounded when we know you can BUY battlepass tiers. There will be no differentiation or sense of reward between players. A total lack of individuality does not entice consumers to spend time or MONEY on a product. I don't have constructive criticism for this, it's a terrible and short sighted idea that is ALREADY off putting to every single fps multiplayer player.

I love this franchise, I want to see it succeed, change, and grow. The game will survive without co-op campaign and without forge at launch, but, if it doesn't have a ranking system (or a pre-match lobby system like reach that lets you flex your armor- but that's a different issue) then it's going to fail to capture the new player base that this game desperately needs.

The people who are complaining about all the other features will be here no matter what, but, if we can't get a straight forward ranking system how can you ever even think you have a chance at converting the majority of casual players from Battlefield or COD players who love the grind and arbitrary statistics which makes them come pack to the game EVERY SINGLE DAY.

The MCC leveling system isn't even that good but it would be better than nothing. Just copy everything from the reach leveling system, YOU WOULD BE PRAISED!
I agree that the ranking system is very, very necessary. I'm not sure why it can't just be the system it was in Reach, which was very effective and fun. I imagine that with the many more customization options in Infinite, the Reach style progression system would keep people coming back for a long time.

There's no reason this needs to include battle passes. I really disagree with the notion that a game is not viable without that kind of monetization, they've done it for years. It is purely greed that leads to this type of monetization. Making the progression system last a long time is the key to a great player base, and updates over time are helpful, but I really really wish we could move away from the microtransactions.
I understand that you don't want a battlepass but this is how Halo gets its largest player base. If they added a proper leveling system and had gear specific to your rank I think there would be no issue, again though, they can't even do that which is pretty terrible. They could use that as a reason for people to buy the game or gamepass.
I would argue that Halo would get the largest, most long lasting, and most satisfying player base by making the best game possible. Wasting their efforts on microtransactions is counterproductive. Take armor coatings, for example. They clearly spent a lot of time and effort coming up with a new system, which clearly according the majority of fans, is worse than what was there before. The only advantage is that it makes it easier to sell microtransactions. Imagine what an amazing progression system we could have if they had spent their time designing that instead?

Continuing to add new content like weapons, vehicles, campaign expansions, and multipalyer maps is a great idea, but there's no reason for it to all be some sort of battlepass system.
xADommMx wrote:
xADommMx wrote:
There are countless reasons why both these systems need to be in the game, ranging from consumer individuality, to player base longevity, to GREATLY increasing the monetization of the game.

Firstly, it's a staple in all modern multiplayer games for good reason. It is ESSENTIAL in maintaining a healthy player base in the long term thus increasing the amount of time a f2p player can purchase currency from the games shop. People will max out the battlepass and they will quit once the grind is over. It is a FACT player bases die when a battlepass is maxed out. If there isn't even a secondary leveling system that entices players to stay after the battlepass is maxed out the game is going to be dead in the water after a month. This issue is only compounded when we know you can BUY battlepass tiers. There will be no differentiation or sense of reward between players. A total lack of individuality does not entice consumers to spend time or MONEY on a product. I don't have constructive criticism for this, it's a terrible and short sighted idea that is ALREADY off putting to every single fps multiplayer player.

I love this franchise, I want to see it succeed, change, and grow. The game will survive without co-op campaign and without forge at launch, but, if it doesn't have a ranking system (or a pre-match lobby system like reach that lets you flex your armor- but that's a different issue) then it's going to fail to capture the new player base that this game desperately needs.

The people who are complaining about all the other features will be here no matter what, but, if we can't get a straight forward ranking system how can you ever even think you have a chance at converting the majority of casual players from Battlefield or COD players who love the grind and arbitrary statistics which makes them come pack to the game EVERY SINGLE DAY.

The MCC leveling system isn't even that good but it would be better than nothing. Just copy everything from the reach leveling system, YOU WOULD BE PRAISED!
Continuing to add new content like weapons, vehicles, campaign expansions, and multipalyer maps is a great idea, but there's no reason for it to all be some sort of battlepass system.
That would be great, but for that to happen they need consistent revenue.

I'm very okay with monetisation as it means we get a better, longer supported game. They needed to generate the money somehow.
xADommMx wrote:
I don’t think neither are needed as people could just play for fun, it’s kinda what games are for afterall but I understand some need that progression of sorts when it comes to slowly working a number up.

battle passes though? That’s purely to the companies benefit for milking money.
People play games for such a variety of reasons, but, having something like leveling can only be an addition to the players experience.

I understand where a lot of people are coming from with the battlepass. But you need to remember, in reality, the battlepass does allow everyone (including those less fortunate) to play the game at no cost. The battlepass is optional, it's not going to detract from the amount of fun you have in the game itself.

At the end of the day a company is a company. They need to make a profit to make products. This game is reportedly around the $300 million mark, someone has to pay for that. As long as the game nails its fundamental values and provides a truly optimum experience I don't think there is anything to worry about or be upset about.

Currently though, the game is not structured like that, so, I understand your concern and it's something I am concerned about too.
Sorry to double post, just read your response to this other one and had a thought.

You say the game was around $300 million, right? Halo 3 grossed $300 million in its first week.

To make $300 million just in sales on a $60 game, you need to sell 5 million copies. Halo 3 sold almost 15 million. Red Dead 2 sold almost 40 million. So clearly it is viable, and there are huge profits to be made, without microtransactions. In the case of Infinite, I think they could very reasonably milk it and offer a second full length campaign in the same engine for $40 each year over the next 10 years. Even if they only sold 1 million copies of each of those campaigns, there's easily another three hundred million.

You might also note that profit is not necessary for a company to exist. If Halo was being developed by an independent studio, all they have to do is make enough money to pay for the development of the game for it to be worthwhile, and everyone working on it to be paid. In the case of Halo, profit is only necessary to satisfy the greed of bill gates and the rest of microsoft's investors. Constant growth and profit are greed, not something inherently necessary to making video games.
I absolutely disagree with your views when it comes to having a microtransaction system. We need a ranking system based off of mmr and skill in the ranked sectors yes. However a game can be amazing with no microtransations at all, why would the playerbase ask for features to cost extra, when in previous titles the SAME FEATURES existed through gameplay.

You said:

"Firstly, it's a staple in all modern multiplayer games for good reason. It is ESSENTIAL in maintaining a healthy player base in the long term thus increasing the amount of time a f2p player can purchase currency from the games shop."

This confuses me.

This microtransaction staple only exists to fill the pockets of a big corporation, I am amazed that somebody who is not directly involved in the profit process of this system would even say such a thing. Over monetizing, and filling a game with daily chores does the exact opposite of what you said, and kills a game's population faster than if they had just ,ade a fun game that players play for fun.

I play games for fun, not to drain my wallet.
xADommMx wrote:
There are countless reasons why both these systems need to be in the game, ranging from consumer individuality, to player base longevity, to GREATLY increasing the monetization of the game.

Firstly, it's a staple in all modern multiplayer games for good reason. It is ESSENTIAL in maintaining a healthy player base in the long term thus increasing the amount of time a f2p player can purchase currency from the games shop. People will max out the battlepass and they will quit once the grind is over. It is a FACT player bases die when a battlepass is maxed out. If there isn't even a secondary leveling system that entices players to stay after the battlepass is maxed out the game is going to be dead in the water after a month. This issue is only compounded when we know you can BUY battlepass tiers. There will be no differentiation or sense of reward between players. A total lack of individuality does not entice consumers to spend time or MONEY on a product. I don't have constructive criticism for this, it's a terrible and short sighted idea that is ALREADY off putting to every single fps multiplayer player.

I love this franchise, I want to see it succeed, change, and grow. The game will survive without co-op campaign and without forge at launch, but, if it doesn't have a ranking system (or a pre-match lobby system like reach that lets you flex your armor- but that's a different issue) then it's going to fail to capture the new player base that this game desperately needs.

The people who are complaining about all the other features will be here no matter what, but, if we can't get a straight forward ranking system how can you ever even think you have a chance at converting the majority of casual players from Battlefield or COD players who love the grind and arbitrary statistics which makes them come pack to the game EVERY SINGLE DAY.

The MCC leveling system isn't even that good but it would be better than nothing. Just copy everything from the reach leveling system, YOU WOULD BE PRAISED!
I agree that the ranking system is very, very necessary. I'm not sure why it can't just be the system it was in Reach, which was very effective and fun. I imagine that with the many more customization options in Infinite, the Reach style progression system would keep people coming back for a long time.

There's no reason this needs to include battle passes. I really disagree with the notion that a game is not viable without that kind of monetization, they've done it for years. It is purely greed that leads to this type of monetization. Making the progression system last a long time is the key to a great player base, and updates over time are helpful, but I really really wish we could move away from the microtransactions.
strange how people seem to forget that map packs are microtransactions. the gaming industry now has the hindsight to know that people would rather enjoy content for free and pay for cosmetics than vice versa. remove paywalls for playing the game, let as many people in as possible, and 343 makes enough money off bp sales to put out content for free, which keeps people playing. it's an objectively better system.

having no rank system is super lame though. theres absolutely no reason why a bp and xp-based rank can't coexist, 343i is being weird.
xADommMx wrote:
There are countless reasons why both these systems need to be in the game, ranging from consumer individuality, to player base longevity, to GREATLY increasing the monetization of the game.

Firstly, it's a staple in all modern multiplayer games for good reason. It is ESSENTIAL in maintaining a healthy player base in the long term thus increasing the amount of time a f2p player can purchase currency from the games shop. People will max out the battlepass and they will quit once the grind is over. It is a FACT player bases die when a battlepass is maxed out. If there isn't even a secondary leveling system that entices players to stay after the battlepass is maxed out the game is going to be dead in the water after a month. This issue is only compounded when we know you can BUY battlepass tiers. There will be no differentiation or sense of reward between players. A total lack of individuality does not entice consumers to spend time or MONEY on a product. I don't have constructive criticism for this, it's a terrible and short sighted idea that is ALREADY off putting to every single fps multiplayer player.

I love this franchise, I want to see it succeed, change, and grow. The game will survive without co-op campaign and without forge at launch, but, if it doesn't have a ranking system (or a pre-match lobby system like reach that lets you flex your armor- but that's a different issue) then it's going to fail to capture the new player base that this game desperately needs.

The people who are complaining about all the other features will be here no matter what, but, if we can't get a straight forward ranking system how can you ever even think you have a chance at converting the majority of casual players from Battlefield or COD players who love the grind and arbitrary statistics which makes them come pack to the game EVERY SINGLE DAY.

The MCC leveling system isn't even that good but it would be better than nothing. Just copy everything from the reach leveling system, YOU WOULD BE PRAISED!
I agree that the ranking system is very, very necessary. I'm not sure why it can't just be the system it was in Reach, which was very effective and fun. I imagine that with the many more customization options in Infinite, the Reach style progression system would keep people coming back for a long time.

There's no reason this needs to include battle passes. I really disagree with the notion that a game is not viable without that kind of monetization, they've done it for years. It is purely greed that leads to this type of monetization. Making the progression system last a long time is the key to a great player base, and updates over time are helpful, but I really really wish we could move away from the microtransactions.
weird how people seem to forget that map packs are microtransactions. the gaming industry now has the hindsight to know that people would rather enjoy content for free and pay for cosmetics than vice versa. remove paywalls for playing the game, let as many people in as possible, and 343 makes enough money off bp sales to put out content for free, which keeps people playing. it's an objectively better system.
I disagree, the "Free" systems that we have seen in the past actually end up giving less content than the prior map pack systems. See how the price per map of dlc went from a near $3 average, to 5 dollars for halo 4, and with halo 5's system, only 4 of the 12 "free" dlcs had new maps, where of the 15 made, 9 were unique, 3 of themn were empty skybox forge canvases, and the other 3 were the base warzone maps cut in half for warzone assault / firefight. If I am going top pay for dlc, I would rather it be for new maps, not a ton of random custimizatons, that I could have unlocked through gameplay anyway opn prior titles.

How many times are we going to have to pay for the Mk V helmet?
xADommMx wrote:
There are countless reasons why both these systems need to be in the game, ranging from consumer individuality, to player base longevity, to GREATLY increasing the monetization of the game.

Firstly, it's a staple in all modern multiplayer games for good reason. It is ESSENTIAL in maintaining a healthy player base in the long term thus increasing the amount of time a f2p player can purchase currency from the games shop. People will max out the battlepass and they will quit once the grind is over. It is a FACT player bases die when a battlepass is maxed out. If there isn't even a secondary leveling system that entices players to stay after the battlepass is maxed out the game is going to be dead in the water after a month. This issue is only compounded when we know you can BUY battlepass tiers. There will be no differentiation or sense of reward between players. A total lack of individuality does not entice consumers to spend time or MONEY on a product. I don't have constructive criticism for this, it's a terrible and short sighted idea that is ALREADY off putting to every single fps multiplayer player.

I love this franchise, I want to see it succeed, change, and grow. The game will survive without co-op campaign and without forge at launch, but, if it doesn't have a ranking system (or a pre-match lobby system like reach that lets you flex your armor- but that's a different issue) then it's going to fail to capture the new player base that this game desperately needs.

The people who are complaining about all the other features will be here no matter what, but, if we can't get a straight forward ranking system how can you ever even think you have a chance at converting the majority of casual players from Battlefield or COD players who love the grind and arbitrary statistics which makes them come pack to the game EVERY SINGLE DAY.

The MCC leveling system isn't even that good but it would be better than nothing. Just copy everything from the reach leveling system, YOU WOULD BE PRAISED!
I agree that the ranking system is very, very necessary. I'm not sure why it can't just be the system it was in Reach, which was very effective and fun. I imagine that with the many more customization options in Infinite, the Reach style progression system would keep people coming back for a long time.

There's no reason this needs to include battle passes. I really disagree with the notion that a game is not viable without that kind of monetization, they've done it for years. It is purely greed that leads to this type of monetization. Making the progression system last a long time is the key to a great player base, and updates over time are helpful, but I really really wish we could move away from the microtransactions.
weird how people seem to forget that map packs are microtransactions. the gaming industry now has the hindsight to know that people would rather enjoy content for free and pay for cosmetics than vice versa. remove paywalls for playing the game, let as many people in as possible, and 343 makes enough money off bp sales to put out content for free, which keeps people playing. it's an objectively better system.
I disagree, the "Free" systems that we have seen in the past actually end up giving less content than the prior map pack systems. See how the price per map of dlc went from a near $3 average, to 5 dollars for halo 4, and with halo 5's system, only 4 of the 12 "free" dlcs had new maps, where of the 15 made, 9 were unique, 3 of themn were empty skybox forge canvases, and the other 3 were the base warzone maps cut in half for warzone assault / firefight. If I am going top pay for dlc, I would rather it be for new maps, not a ton of random custimizatons, that I could have unlocked through gameplay anyway opn prior titles.

How many times are we going to have to pay for the Mk V helmet?
halo 5 wasn't a f2p game, they're not very comparable. having a lootbox monetization system in a game that you already pay for doesn't work. lootboxes are terrible in general, bp feels a lot more like a natural progression system.
xADommMx wrote:
You might also note that profit is not necessary for a company to exist.
Come on bro, that is some madness talking.

A lot of consoles don't actually make money that's why they are affordable to the average person, the profits come later down the line from everything else so certain games are essential to that too. Halo is the flagship game, there are going to be investor targets which if not met will critically hurt future investment potential. Microsoft have invested loads of $ into the game pass too and that money has to return somewhere.

It doesn't even matter if Infinite turns a huge profit if the returns on the project are much worse than the industry standard and expectation. Will just end up seriously hurting the MS corporate brand and future work potential.

Not to mention the idea of going to F2P isn't just to make money through battle passes and monetisation, it's also to bring a greater population back to Halo to revitalise and grow the community.
xADommMx wrote:
strange how people seem to forget that map packs are microtransactions. the gaming industry now has the hindsight to know that people would rather enjoy content for free and pay for cosmetics than vice versa. remove paywalls for playing the game, let as many people in as possible, and 343 makes enough money off bp sales to put out content for free, which keeps people playing. it's an objectively better system.
Preach. The fact you would hardly get to play on the maps either too as very few times every player in the game had them so you could usually only play them in the dlc specific playlists except for super rare occasions.

I much prefer getting free maps and not paying for skins than I do paying for maps I barely get to play and getting some skins for free. The irony being games tend to have more customisation for free now as well anyway than you would have got in the base game.
xADommMx wrote:
There are countless reasons why both these systems need to be in the game, ranging from consumer individuality, to player base longevity, to GREATLY increasing the monetization of the game.

Firstly, it's a staple in all modern multiplayer games for good reason. It is ESSENTIAL in maintaining a healthy player base in the long term thus increasing the amount of time a f2p player can purchase currency from the games shop. People will max out the battlepass and they will quit once the grind is over. It is a FACT player bases die when a battlepass is maxed out. If there isn't even a secondary leveling system that entices players to stay after the battlepass is maxed out the game is going to be dead in the water after a month. This issue is only compounded when we know you can BUY battlepass tiers. There will be no differentiation or sense of reward between players. A total lack of individuality does not entice consumers to spend time or MONEY on a product. I don't have constructive criticism for this, it's a terrible and short sighted idea that is ALREADY off putting to every single fps multiplayer player.

I love this franchise, I want to see it succeed, change, and grow. The game will survive without co-op campaign and without forge at launch, but, if it doesn't have a ranking system (or a pre-match lobby system like reach that lets you flex your armor- but that's a different issue) then it's going to fail to capture the new player base that this game desperately needs.

The people who are complaining about all the other features will be here no matter what, but, if we can't get a straight forward ranking system how can you ever even think you have a chance at converting the majority of casual players from Battlefield or COD players who love the grind and arbitrary statistics which makes them come pack to the game EVERY SINGLE DAY.

The MCC leveling system isn't even that good but it would be better than nothing. Just copy everything from the reach leveling system, YOU WOULD BE PRAISED!
I agree that the ranking system is very, very necessary. I'm not sure why it can't just be the system it was in Reach, which was very effective and fun. I imagine that with the many more customization options in Infinite, the Reach style progression system would keep people coming back for a long time.

There's no reason this needs to include battle passes. I really disagree with the notion that a game is not viable without that kind of monetization, they've done it for years. It is purely greed that leads to this type of monetization. Making the progression system last a long time is the key to a great player base, and updates over time are helpful, but I really really wish we could move away from the microtransactions.
weird how people seem to forget that map packs are microtransactions. the gaming industry now has the hindsight to know that people would rather enjoy content for free and pay for cosmetics than vice versa. remove paywalls for playing the game, let as many people in as possible, and 343 makes enough money off bp sales to put out content for free, which keeps people playing. it's an objectively better system.
I disagree, the "Free" systems that we have seen in the past actually end up giving less content than the prior map pack systems. See how the price per map of dlc went from a near $3 average, to 5 dollars for halo 4, and with halo 5's system, only 4 of the 12 "free" dlcs had new maps, where of the 15 made, 9 were unique, 3 of themn were empty skybox forge canvases, and the other 3 were the base warzone maps cut in half for warzone assault / firefight. If I am going top pay for dlc, I would rather it be for new maps, not a ton of random custimizatons, that I could have unlocked through gameplay anyway opn prior titles.

How many times are we going to have to pay for the Mk V helmet?
halo 5 wasn't a f2p game, they're not very comparable. having a lootbox monetization system in a game that you already pay for doesn't work. lootboxes are terrible in general, bp feels a lot more like a natural progression system.
Games have had challenges built into them for years, suddenly having to pay for these same kinds of challenges is rediculous and greedy. It is further inflamed when these same challenges can be skipped by paying more real money for "swaps".
Moodster wrote:
Agreed, I don't know what they were smoking when they thought removing all rank and traditional "leveling" systems was a good idea
I have to think it was because of time constraint but I don't know who that isn't the first thing you make and the priority of the system in general.
I absolutely disagree with your views when it comes to having a microtransaction system. We need a ranking system based off of mmr and skill in the ranked sectors yes. However a game can be amazing with no microtransations at all, why would the playerbase ask for features to cost extra, when in previous titles the SAME FEATURES existed through gameplay.

You said:

"Firstly, it's a staple in all modern multiplayer games for good reason. It is ESSENTIAL in maintaining a healthy player base in the long term thus increasing the amount of time a f2p player can purchase currency from the games shop."

This confuses me.

This microtransaction staple only exists to fill the pockets of a big corporation, I am amazed that somebody who is not directly involved in the profit process of this system would even say such a thing. Over monetizing, and filling a game with daily chores does the exact opposite of what you said, and kills a game's population faster than if they had just ,ade a fun game that players play for fun.

I play games for fun, not to drain my wallet.
Essential because at the moment they only have a battlepass which you have to pay for. If that is the case you absolutely need a free regular leveling alternative, something like halo reach leveling. That's why I say it's essential. The battlepass won't be going away, but, that doesn't mean traditional leveling should.
xADommMx wrote:
I absolutely disagree with your views when it comes to having a microtransaction system. We need a ranking system based off of mmr and skill in the ranked sectors yes. However a game can be amazing with no microtransations at all, why would the playerbase ask for features to cost extra, when in previous titles the SAME FEATURES existed through gameplay.

You said:

"Firstly, it's a staple in all modern multiplayer games for good reason. It is ESSENTIAL in maintaining a healthy player base in the long term thus increasing the amount of time a f2p player can purchase currency from the games shop."

This confuses me.

This microtransaction staple only exists to fill the pockets of a big corporation, I am amazed that somebody who is not directly involved in the profit process of this system would even say such a thing. Over monetizing, and filling a game with daily chores does the exact opposite of what you said, and kills a game's population faster than if they had just ,ade a fun game that players play for fun.

I play games for fun, not to drain my wallet.
Essential because at the moment they only have a battlepass which you have to pay for. If that is the case you absolutely need a free regular leveling alternative, something like halo reach leveling. That's why I say it's essential. The battlepass won't be going away, but, that doesn't mean traditional leveling should.
I never said that leveling was going away, I said very clearly that:

"We need a ranking system based off of mmr and skill in the ranked sectors yes. However a game can be amazing with no microtransations at all, why would the playerbase ask for features to cost extra, when in previous titles the SAME FEATURES existed through gameplay."

This means yes, we need a ranking system based off of your rank, but we do not need the monetized fluff of a "battle pass" when prior titles have had unlockables and challenges that came with the game.
Ken2379 wrote:
xADommMx wrote:
You might also note that profit is not necessary for a company to exist.
Come on bro, that is some madness talking.

A lot of consoles don't actually make money that's why they are affordable to the average person, the profits come later down the line from everything else so certain games are essential to that too. Halo is the flagship game, there are going to be investor targets which if not met will critically hurt future investment potential. Microsoft have invested loads of $ into the game pass too and that money has to return somewhere.

It doesn't even matter if Infinite turns a huge profit if the returns on the project are much worse than the industry standard and expectation. Will just end up seriously hurting the MS corporate brand and future work potential.

Not to mention the idea of going to F2P isn't just to make money through battle passes and monetisation, it's also to bring a greater population back to Halo to revitalise and grow the community.
It's almost like capitalism isn't conducive to making good art, or making the world a better place?
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2