Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

Halo 5 is pay to win?

OP ShadowTron

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 6
  4. 7
  5. 8
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. ...
  9. 18
I honestly don't see how someone could argue that it isn't pay to win. Paying money lets you skip forward to the level that you'd be at if you had invested weeks worth of gametime. That's how pay to win games like World of Tanks work... the money is worth it as an incentive to save time.

If you and your five friends all buy the game and begin playing together as a ground in Warzone, and you come across a group that has played the exact same number of games, but those guys all spent $100 on REQ packs, the other team will almost always win. It definitely creates an unfair advantage, but that's the point of Warzone. It's supposed to be a giant shitfest.

I played a game today where, by the end of the game, I had called in two scorpions, two wraiths and a sword ghost. That's just me, just one player. If everyone on the same team does that, they'll win. Yeah, maybe the skilled players know that they can call in a plasma pistol and kill your tank, but guess what, the guys that spend lots on REQ packs have tons of plasma pistols, too.

It's not a matter of money > skill. It's a matter of money+skill > skill. If you're decently good AND you have tons of REQs, it's a totally unfair advantage. You can call in a tank every single game. How is that not pay to win? Seriously
ANY ONE CAN GET THAT AND DO THAT.
No, only people who have either invested lots of time or lots of money can do that. A team of guys that have played for a couple days can't do that, period.
well play more and stop -Yoinking!- save your points like i do to a min of 4000 and when i hit 5000 i buy 1 gold req pack
Wow, I wish I could buy gold packs for 5000.

"Just play more". Hilarious argument. The counter to people that spent real money is to invest more time than they did... totally fair!
Shotgunner wrote:
I have like 10 days of playtime and I already have 75+% customization in all categories except emblems (there are mostly from commendations I will not get done ever).

I haven't gotten anything really useful since about ~50%. More skins for the terrible Mantis, more shiny skins for my weapons, legendary armor, etc. I got the good armor mods ages ago with probably ~2 days of game play. ( Upgraded shields, increased sprint speed/regen, and splinter nades). Upgraded shields is only uncommon and is easily one of the best. Default and hardlight DMR before 5 days of play.

I think "pay to win" is an overstatement. You WILL get the good stuff if you play. In a lot of other games that are pay to win you will NOT get the best stuff unless you pay.

And frankly, being better at the game will never be a purchasable item. My thumbs cannot be bought and that's why I do well...not because my Mantis has dank snow camo.
Don't be downplaying the value of dank snow camo - lol
I wouldn't say it's pay to win. First off, having REQs that others don't is an advantage, but only a slight one. Having a Phaeton isn't going to do much to protect and capture bases, but it's great at getting kills and boss takedowns. But really, Banshees, Warthogs, and Ghosts can do that too. Besides, getting kills in Warzone doesn't do much for your team anyway.
HFish12 wrote:
I wouldn't say it's pay to win. First off, having REQs that others don't is an advantage, but only a slight one. Having a Phaeton isn't going to do much to protect and capture bases, but it's great at getting kills and boss takedowns. But really, Banshees, Warthogs, and Ghosts can do that too. Besides, getting kills in Warzone doesn't do much for your team anyway.
While I agree with you in general, one thing I've noticed that a lot of people don't really consider is the fact that more packs = more certification cards.

If you take two players that have never played a match, and one buys 47 gold packs and the other buys nothing, and then they both begin their Halo careers, it's arguable that every single pack that the guy that bought the gold packs with is going to actually have more value, because he's already unlocked the strong certification cards.

The very first gold pack (after the real money ones) that they both buy could be tiled heavily in the real-money guys favour because he's unlocked a bunch of good certifications.
ShadowTron wrote:
First off, Warzone is technically 100% pay to win, because pay to win means the person who spends money on a game will have an unfair advantage over the person who doesn't. Since buying REQ packs in Halo 5 gives weapons that can be used in Warzone, there is no question about it. However, what I want to know is whether people think that Warzone is too much so. Don't forget that the money spent on REQ packs goes towards prize money for global Halo championships. Is Warzone so pay to win that it hurts the experience? Or is it barely noticeable? Do I have to spend money to get Nornfang? Post your opinions below. I don't think so, because it's clear that Warzone is not designed to be super-competitive like Arena. I mean, come on. There are literally RANDOM WEAPONS AND VEHICLES. Doesn't that tell you that Warzone is designed more for fun than for competition? With that in mind, Warzone being pay to win becomes more acceptable. Also, I don't think that Warzone is extremely pay to win anyway. REQ pack rewards are random, the game lasts longer than your upgraded banshee or SAW or whatever, and most of your engagements will be BR vs BR, which comes down to skill.
Ya it's really just a matter of preference. If you plan on playing Warzone as randomly as the REQ system then I don't think you'd have a problem. Me, however, there are certain elements that I enjoy when I play so it's annoying if I haven't randomly unlocked it vs someone who has a hundred bucks to just splurge on a big REQ bundle. It took me until a level 50 something until I finally unlocked a sniper. That's like the only reason I enjoy playing BTB or Warzone is to pick people off and I had to literally exhaust myself of this game just to get a basic weapon. So that would be frustrating for someone like me, when you can't get a sniper and because there are 24 people in the game there are plenty of people sniping you who might have paid and got them, or just a lucky draw.

I'm more opposed to lucky random rewards than paying to get to something faster (as long as I can get it at some realistic point). At least I can have an idea of what I need to do in that case.
Warzone is not pay to win.

I recently got the game and hopped straight into a warzone. Still won. Still got many kills. No disadvantages.

And it does not take long for you to get an armoury full of good stuff.
343 are bringing out free maps and reqs and stuff. They added microtransactions for the championship series.
Not payed a single cent on req packs and im winning warzone matches.
So warzone is not pay to win.
HFish12 wrote:
I wouldn't say it's pay to win. First off, having REQs that others don't is an advantage, but only a slight one. Having a Phaeton isn't going to do much to protect and capture bases, but it's great at getting kills and boss takedowns. But really, Banshees, Warthogs, and Ghosts can do that too. Besides, getting kills in Warzone doesn't do much for your team anyway.
While I agree with you in general, one thing I've noticed that a lot of people don't really consider is the fact that more packs = more certification cards.

If you take two players that have never played a match, and one buys 47 gold packs and the other buys nothing, and then they both begin their Halo careers, it's arguable that every single pack that the guy that bought the gold packs with is going to actually have more value, because he's already unlocked the strong certification cards.

The very first gold pack (after the real money ones) that they both buy could be tiled heavily in the real-money guys favour because he's unlocked a bunch of good certifications.
It's still wasting money on something that they could have gotten for free with effort. Effort and skill will ultimately triumph over short-cuts.
Warzone is not pay to win.

I recently got the game and hopped straight into a warzone. Still won. Still got many kills. No disadvantages.

And it does not take long for you to get an armoury full of good stuff.
343 are bringing out free maps and reqs and stuff. They added microtransactions for the championship series.
Not payed a single cent on req packs and im winning warzone matches.
So warzone is not pay to win.
I don't think you even understand what pay to win means
Paying doesn't help you win at all in my opinion. Your either good or your not, simple as that. I see people lose way more reqs than they actually get to use them. Plus you get free dlc because of it. If those people are stupid enough to spend they're money let them. We all win in the end. By the time you reach level 70 you have everything you want anyway.
Sure it's pay to win by definition. But 343 was very clever about how they went about it. They gave us these two crucial features that make it not pay2win (IMHO of course)

1. Arena

2. Skilled BR/DMRs will absolutely WRECK intermediate players with pay2win power weapon
HFish12 wrote:
I wouldn't say it's pay to win. First off, having REQs that others don't is an advantage, but only a slight one. Having a Phaeton isn't going to do much to protect and capture bases, but it's great at getting kills and boss takedowns. But really, Banshees, Warthogs, and Ghosts can do that too. Besides, getting kills in Warzone doesn't do much for your team anyway.
While I agree with you in general, one thing I've noticed that a lot of people don't really consider is the fact that more packs = more certification cards.

If you take two players that have never played a match, and one buys 47 gold packs and the other buys nothing, and then they both begin their Halo careers, it's arguable that every single pack that the guy that bought the gold packs with is going to actually have more value, because he's already unlocked the strong certification cards.

The very first gold pack (after the real money ones) that they both buy could be tiled heavily in the real-money guys favour because he's unlocked a bunch of good certifications.
It's still wasting money on something that they could have gotten for free with effort.

Wasting money? How is someone spending money in order to save time "wasting" their money? By that logic, every single taxi cab is a waste of money, because you could have put in a bit more effort and walked. Who cares if your destination is 20km away, get to steppin!

Quote:
Effort and skill will ultimately triumph over short-cuts.
What if an entire team of extremely skilled players all have tons of strong reqs and they all use tons of them in every single game?
I think the problem in this thread is the definition of pay to win. Imo pay to win means if you pay money, you will win. This is not even remotely the case in Warzone. You can beat anyone using a power weapon with any sort of loadout weapon, and even if you're just grinding you'll have power weapons of your own. Not to mention no matter how badass your gun or vehicle is, if your team is -Yoink- you're going to get gangbanged. AND you still have ro be playing well just to access said power weapons.. Paying for reqs in no way affects balance imho. This game is insanely well balanced, there is ALWAYS a way to beat every weapon or vehicle someone has no matter how much money they spent.
Sure it's pay to win by definition. But 343 was very clever about how they went about it. They gave us these two crucial features that make it not pay2win (IMHO of course)

1. Arena

2. Skilled BR/DMRs will absolutely WRECK intermediate players with pay2win power weapon
And skilled players with a team of five Urban Scorpions and five Urban Banshees will absolutely WRECK a team of skilled players with BR/DMRs
I think the problem in this thread is the definition of pay to win. Imo pay to win means if you pay money, you will win. This is not even remotely the case in Warzone. You can beat anyone using a power weapon with any sort of loadout weapon, and even if you're just grinding you'll have power weapons of your own. Not to mention no matter how badass your gun or vehicle is, if your team is -Yoink- you're going to get gangbanged. AND you still have ro be playing well just to access said power weapons.. Paying for reqs in no way affects balance imho. This game is insanely well balanced, there is ALWAYS a way to beat every weapon or vehicle someone has no matter how much money they spent.
Pay to win means that players that pay real money have an advantage. And in Halo 5, they without question do have an advantage.

That's just my opinion, of course. But if you take two new players and one spends money on a bunch of packs before beginning and the other doesn't, the guy that spent the money has a big advantage.
Even if it was P2W (which it is not), the fact is that no dollar amount you throw at REQ packs will make you a better player. If your understanding of "better player" is tied to what weapon you're holding or what vehicle you're driving, you have a deficient view of the phrase. If you're good at playing Halo, you will be able to hold your own against other people even if they've got something you don't. If you suck at Halo, no amount of high power REQs can help you. The core factor is still raw skill, and no dollar amount will augment that in Halo 5.
HFish12 wrote:
I wouldn't say it's pay to win. First off, having REQs that others don't is an advantage, but only a slight one. Having a Phaeton isn't going to do much to protect and capture bases, but it's great at getting kills and boss takedowns. But really, Banshees, Warthogs, and Ghosts can do that too. Besides, getting kills in Warzone doesn't do much for your team anyway.
While I agree with you in general, one thing I've noticed that a lot of people don't really consider is the fact that more packs = more certification cards.

If you take two players that have never played a match, and one buys 47 gold packs and the other buys nothing, and then they both begin their Halo careers, it's arguable that every single pack that the guy that bought the gold packs with is going to actually have more value, because he's already unlocked the strong certification cards.

The very first gold pack (after the real money ones) that they both buy could be tiled heavily in the real-money guys favour because he's unlocked a bunch of good certifications.
It's still wasting money on something that they could have gotten for free with effort.
Wasting money? How is someone spending money in order to save time "wasting" their money? By that logic, every single taxi cab is a waste of money, because you could have put in a bit more effort and walked. Who cares if your destination is 20km away, get to steppin!

Quote:
Effort and skill will ultimately triumph over short-cuts.
What if an entire team of extremely skilled players all have tons of strong reqs and they all use tons of them in every single game?
If they are professionals and getting paid for this then your point is valid, otherwise spending money when your just wasting time anyway - well, personally - I'd rather waste it on a good night out rather than being home alone with my joystick shooting colored pixels and lamenting everyone that isn't playing fair. It's supposed to be fun, and I honestly laugh at spending money to get a slight edge on a "social" game.
ShadowTron wrote:
First off, Warzone is technically 100% pay to win, because pay to win means the person who spends money on a game will have an unfair advantage over the person who doesn't. Since buying REQ packs in Halo 5 gives weapons that can be used in Warzone, there is no question about it. However, what I want to know is whether people think that Warzone is too much so. Don't forget that the money spent on REQ packs goes towards prize money for global Halo championships. Is Warzone so pay to win that it hurts the experience? Or is it barely noticeable? Do I have to spend money to get Nornfang? Post your opinions below. I don't think so, because it's clear that Warzone is not designed to be super-competitive like Arena. I mean, come on. There are literally RANDOM WEAPONS AND VEHICLES. Doesn't that tell you that Warzone is designed more for fun than for competition? With that in mind, Warzone being pay to win becomes more acceptable. Also, I don't think that Warzone is extremely pay to win anyway. REQ pack rewards are random, the game lasts longer than your upgraded banshee or SAW or whatever, and most of your engagements will be BR vs BR, which comes down to skill.
I haven't spent one penny on REQ cards, yet I'm always up at the top of the scoreboard, and my team wins the biggest majority of the time. Yeah it might help but it is not pay to win, there is a big difference!
If they are professionals and getting paid for this then your point is valid, otherwise spending money when your just wasting time anyway - well, personally - I'd rather waste it on a good night out rather than being home alone with my joystick shooting colored pixels and lamenting everyone that isn't playing fair. It's supposed to be fun, and I honestly laugh at spending money to get a slight edge on a "social" game.
You sound very insecure and you pretty much ignored what I said in my post. You also said that playing video games is a waste of time. Not sure why I'm even bothering to reply after that.
If they are professionals and getting paid for this then your point is valid, otherwise spending money when your just wasting time anyway - well, personally - I'd rather waste it on a good night out rather than being home alone with my joystick shooting colored pixels and lamenting everyone that isn't playing fair. It's supposed to be fun, and I honestly laugh at spending money to get a slight edge on a "social" game.
You sound very insecure and you pretty much ignored what I said in my post. You also said that playing video games is a waste of time. Not sure why I'm even bothering to reply after that.
LOL
Neyrra wrote:
NO. Unless you use micro-transactions. Otherwise it's play and earn to win.
But people are using microtransactions......
If they have that kind of money to waste I say let 'em. I'm laughing either way.
Yeah I suppose so. I'm laughing at Halo 5 in general.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 6
  4. 7
  5. 8
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. ...
  9. 18