Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

REQ System "Unintrusive"?

OP MyNamesFuRii

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 9
  4. 10
  5. 11
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. ...
  9. 15
LethalQ wrote:
LethalQ wrote:
LethalQ wrote:
[...] Just because it does require a lot of play time to unlock everything doesn't make it intrusive.
Actually it does. It means they transformed H5G unlock system into a grind-fest. It's not fun to unlock stuff anymore and they made it boring on purpose to push for MTs in first place. If that's not intrusive I don't know what is.
So? Reach was a grind fest to unlock stuff only difference is you got to pick specific items. It's not intrusive because you don't have to spend money for any game content except a few cosmetics. Every Halo brought changes to stuff.
There is Reach grinding with clear goals ahead, and than there is H5G gambling system with even more grinding.

Reach had a linear and straight forward progression system with plenty of customization options to look forward to. You knew what you would get, when and how. You worked for a piece and yes, you had to collect credits - a lot of credits in fact - but you could safe them, there where daily and weekly objectives that helped you out, there were objectives with a lot of CRs attached to them and more importantly if you played well you got more. Also of course it took long! It was a way to keep playing and people kept playing because it was a ton of fun! Like a good RPG game can be fun even with a lot of grinding. H5G has nothing like that at all.

So again, yes: REQs are really annoying and intrusive, even outside of WZ.
So you had a lot of grinding in reach and a lot of grinding in H5...H5 has RP boost and Jack pots to help you...daily win packs, Spartan ranks packs, commendation packs, HCS free gold packs... All to help you.
And yet no REQ Point discounts whereas 343 will decrease the monetary price of REQ Packs. I mean, if 343 really wanted to help people they'd give them the occasional hand in reducing how much grinding they have to do.
You have your answer in your own post:
"but our current req system is player focused and well liked and unintrusive as far as these things go"
Note the keyword: "as far as these things go".
Meaning: compared to other games' microtransaction systems, Halo 5 has one of the least worst.
And you're going to defend that? You don't think we deserve a bit more than "one of the least worst" micrtransaction systems? You'll just settle for whatever isn't utterly terrible?

I guess, if that's the standard you're happy with, then good for you. But personally I want something that actually adds value to the game, something that's based on interesting challenges rather than a meaningless grind.
LethalQ wrote:
LethalQ wrote:
LethalQ wrote:
[...] Just because it does require a lot of play time to unlock everything doesn't make it intrusive.
Actually it does. It means they transformed H5G unlock system into a grind-fest. It's not fun to unlock stuff anymore and they made it boring on purpose to push for MTs in first place. If that's not intrusive I don't know what is.
So? Reach was a grind fest to unlock stuff only difference is you got to pick specific items. It's not intrusive because you don't have to spend money for any game content except a few cosmetics. Every Halo brought changes to stuff.
There is Reach grinding with clear goals ahead, and than there is H5G gambling system with even more grinding.

Reach had a linear and straight forward progression system with plenty of customization options to look forward to. You knew what you would get, when and how. You worked for a piece and yes, you had to collect credits - a lot of credits in fact - but you could safe them, there where daily and weekly objectives that helped you out, there were objectives with a lot of CRs attached to them and more importantly if you played well you got more. Also of course it took long! It was a way to keep playing and people kept playing because it was a ton of fun! Like a good RPG game can be fun even with a lot of grinding. H5G has nothing like that at all.

So again, yes: REQs are really annoying and intrusive, even outside of WZ.
So you had a lot of grinding in reach and a lot of grinding in H5...H5 has RP boost and Jack pots to help you...daily win packs, Spartan ranks packs, commendation packs, HCS free gold packs... All to help you.
have you seen these online casino commercials? Or perhaps they're differently regulated from where I am.
Either way, heard of "free spins" and "bonuses" when you register?
"First sample is free" also comes to mind.
i343 is helping themselves find and reel in people who are prepared to spend money as long as they get the "kick" out of opening loot boxes.
Also, as Dr Halsey pointed out twice already. i343 is prepared to have monetary discount, but not REQ discounts.

LethalQ wrote:
Delta5931 wrote:
LethalQ wrote:
LethalQ wrote:
[...] Just because it does require a lot of play time to unlock everything doesn't make it intrusive.
Actually it does. It means they transformed H5G unlock system into a grind-fest. It's not fun to unlock stuff anymore and they made it boring on purpose to push for MTs in first place. If that's not intrusive I don't know what is.
So? Reach was a grind fest to unlock stuff only difference is you got to pick specific items. It's not intrusive because you don't have to spend money for any game content except a few cosmetics. Every Halo brought changes to stuff.
Reach let you directly pick what you want (after reaching the appropiate rank). There were no microtransactions to just get stuff. You had to earn it.

Guardians is designed to infuriate you into purchasing REQ packs by rolling the dice for your armor, and the dice are typically stacked against you. You want EVA armor? Too bad, Seeker for you. Want Raijin? Too bad, Fenrir.
So... Like I way back in this thread the real complaint is people are made because they can't get what they want right way. Just because you can't have excatly what you want doesn't make it intrusive really. Just unrewarding.
Trying to make people seem spoiled?
And people can actually find that intrusive, especially when you compare to previous installments with othet systems.
The system in place prevent a player to set up a meaningful goal, keeping track of it and accomplish it.
By these standards you've displayed here, no lootbox system, except actual paywalls, are intrusive, because no matter how long it takes, you can unlock everything ( Star Wars Battlefron II's previous 4000 hours ), or you not getting what you want ( RNG loot boxes overall ).

But it's just cosmetics, it doesn't matter. ( apart from WarZone )
If cosmetics didn't matter, what are they doing in loot boxes? Even Emblems out of everything. I was pissed at Halo 4 but Halo 5 took it to a new level.

Cosmetics are part of the experience, for a lot of people, I'd dare say for the vast majority even. Otherwise it wouldn't be held hostage by subtle psychological manipulation and RNG.
I just know that if Mirotransactions become more prevalent in future Halo games, I could see myself become a campaign only player or done with the series entirely. Which would make me sad, as Halo has been a big part of my life since Halo CE and is the game that got me back into gaming after Sega decided to get out of the hardware side of the industry.
I could see this for myself as well, which is more than unfortunate, since I play Halo pretty much exclusively.

LethalQ wrote:
They are better than the population dividing map packs we used to get. The req system would be fine had they just made more of the cosmetics earned through game play and kept the other exclusive stuff actually exclusive.
I was all for the packs in the beginning if it meant that DLC maps were free and no longer had to deal with not being able to play the maps I payed for. Then once we started getting reskin maps I was less than thrilled. The problem going ahead is that it is obvious these maps, and the cosmetics added were not given much effort or thought. If they just redo this type of system in Halo 6 they'll have proved it's more about the bottom line than anything else.

I wanted to add this videos that have come up in the youtube community due to what Frank said. I know some here don't have much to do with the Halo content creators, but I think this adds to the conversation and it's a large part of the community. These are only the I could find, and follow on YT. If there are others I am not aware.

DaxSeven09 wrote:
I just know that if Mirotransactions become more prevalent in future Halo games, I could see myself become a campaign only player or done with the series entirely. Which would make me sad, as Halo has been a big part of my life since Halo CE and is the game that got me back into gaming after Sega decided to get out of the hardware side of the industry.
I could see this for myself as well, which is more than unfortunate, since I play Halo pretty much exclusively.

LethalQ wrote:
They are better than the population dividing map packs we used to get. The req system would be fine had they just made more of the cosmetics earned through game play and kept the other exclusive stuff actually exclusive.
I was all for the packs in the beginning if it meant that DLC maps were free and no longer had to deal with not being able to play the maps I payed for. Then once we started getting reskin maps I was less than thrilled. The problem going ahead is that it is obvious these maps, and the cosmetics added were not given much effort or thought. If they just redo this type of system in Halo 6 they'll have proved it's more about the bottom line than anything else.

I wanted to add this videos that have come up in the youtube community due to what Frank said. I know some here don't have much to do with the Halo content creators, but I think this adds to the conversation and it's a large part of the community. These are only the I could find, and follow on YT. If there are others I am not aware.

Frank O'Connor Says Halo 5's Microtransactions Were Unintrusive~GamerJleeNEW Halo 6 LEAK - Microtransactions (Possibly debunked, but not good)~HiddenXperiaREQ in Halo 6? Breaking Down Frankie's Comment~Ready Up Live343 Thinks Halo's Microtransactions are Well Liked and Unintrusive. They're WRONG!~FavynFrank O Connor talks about Halo's Lootboxes "Our system is unintrusive" Why this is INCORRECT~LateNightGamingHalo 6 News - LOOT BOXES in Halo 6? 343 Responds to Halo 6 Leak - Lootcrate EA~HaloFollower
I don't waste my time with the "angry YouTubers videos anyways. Most the time they aren't really speaking actual facts it's just their opinions made more for views and subscribers. Anyways the maps for H5 weren't great from the start so I can't really blame the req system itself for them. Who ever was in charge of making the decisions for multiplayer maps is responsible for that. I honestly don't care if a map is a "remake" or not or is developer made or forge made. It's how the map plays for game play that matters to me. H5 has to many CQC maps and little map diversity and it was like that from the start.
LethalQ wrote:
DaxSeven09 wrote:
I just know that if Mirotransactions become more prevalent in future Halo games, I could see myself become a campaign only player or done with the series entirely. Which would make me sad, as Halo has been a big part of my life since Halo CE and is the game that got me back into gaming after Sega decided to get out of the hardware side of the industry.
I could see this for myself as well, which is more than unfortunate, since I play Halo pretty much exclusively.

LethalQ wrote:
They are better than the population dividing map packs we used to get. The req system would be fine had they just made more of the cosmetics earned through game play and kept the other exclusive stuff actually exclusive.
I was all for the packs in the beginning if it meant that DLC maps were free and no longer had to deal with not being able to play the maps I payed for. Then once we started getting reskin maps I was less than thrilled. The problem going ahead is that it is obvious these maps, and the cosmetics added were not given much effort or thought. If they just redo this type of system in Halo 6 they'll have proved it's more about the bottom line than anything else.

I wanted to add this videos that have come up in the youtube community due to what Frank said. I know some here don't have much to do with the Halo content creators, but I think this adds to the conversation and it's a large part of the community. These are only the I could find, and follow on YT. If there are others I am not aware.

Frank O'Connor Says Halo 5's Microtransactions Were Unintrusive~GamerJleeNEW Halo 6 LEAK - Microtransactions (Possibly debunked, but not good)~HiddenXperiaREQ in Halo 6? Breaking Down Frankie's Comment~Ready Up Live343 Thinks Halo's Microtransactions are Well Liked and Unintrusive. They're WRONG!~FavynFrank O Connor talks about Halo's Lootboxes "Our system is unintrusive" Why this is INCORRECT~LateNightGamingHalo 6 News - LOOT BOXES in Halo 6? 343 Responds to Halo 6 Leak - Lootcrate EA~HaloFollower
I don't waste my time with the "angry YouTubers videos anyways. Most the time they aren't really speaking actual facts it's just their opinions made more for views and subscribers. Anyways the maps for H5 weren't great from the start so I can't really blame the req system itself for them. Who ever was in charge of making the decisions for multiplayer maps is responsible for that. I honestly don't care if a map is a "remake" or not or is developer made or forge made. It's how the map plays for game play that matters to me. H5 has to many CQC maps and little map diversity and it was like that from the start.
Maybe, and to a certain degree I agree with you about the YT community, but it adds to the discussion does it not? Why completely disregard them? I mean aren't we talking opinions here anyway? They're just another form of opinion. You are giving this thread enough of a concern that you must be the one that has responded the most on this thread. A lot of what you have responded to here has been said in these videos. How is this thread not a waste of time and these content creators are?

Anyway, I am not interested in getting into a discussion as to the quality of maps. That's another side issue entirely. It is about the fact that this free DLC, which is one of the selling points of the Req system, did not give much of any good original items. It was re-used maps and armor, the white strips given as new armor and Torque/Stasis as an example. The free DLC is an illusion to keep us okay with more of the same.
343i needs to learn that we do not ENJOY REQS, we only buy them and get them cause we're impatient and are desperate to unlock that certain thing, if they're making halo 6 then please for the love of the FANS, make the armors a separate thing, make them like halo reach's way. Now thing is, as much I love to have the armor like reach, if 343 are just THAT DESPERATE to add microtransactions then Idk, give them credit packs (I'm not suggesting it but I know 343i is more the green dosh than the right thing) but if 343i are intending to put bullcrap microtransactions, then at least just offer them packs of cash to unlock what their desire.

BUT one god damn thing I hate to see 343i do in halo 5, is make something "Exclusive" to Inclusive, Helioskrill *EHM EHM* and Sticker Shock. Me and other hardcore halo players had to fight through 4 games worth on legendary and to me in my honest opinion, it's like climbing a mountain bare handed to get treasure, only to know there's a quick helicopter ride to the treasure for god knows how much per chance. but a thing to also note, make sure it's NOT unpredictable, achillies is fine as you work as a team but Olive? people don't have time to build a master piece with work on their hands and not everyone has a creative mind. what made halo 3's recon unique is cause you can do it with friends to have support. and a preferred roles.
All four Halo games on Legendary is a relaxing day or two of fun for me, lol. Regardless, I was really annoyed when they put Helioskrill in REQ packs and allowed people to buy Sticker Shock. Not to mention when they gave everyone Recon in Halo 3. I was -blam-ing TEN when I completed my last Vidmaster challenge and unlocked Recon. I was pretty proud that I had done all of them, and I don’t regret doing them because I’d like to get all of the achievements in every Halo game someday (-blam- you MCC LASO achievements and the DLC playlist achievements in Halo 3, Reach, and 4! -Blam- you all!), but it was still really aggravating that they just gave it away. I mean, I guess it’s how the original players who earned their armor through Bungie felt, but it’s not like Endure, Annual, and Deja VU were easy.

Anyway, I’m actually fine with the Olive helmet being that restricted. It’s a joke type of helmet that I would never wear, it’s existence as a helmet in the universe is a bug or glitch in the War Games simulator, and those skilled forgers should be rewarded for the work they do. They helped give the multiplayer some life that was very needed after 343i decided to release an incomplete game.
DaxSeven09 wrote:
Your points are valid. I just gave out my own opinion about it. However.. I wanna explain my self some more.

"Is this what we're hoping for in Halo now, "the least worst"?"
Sorry dude, but it's the best we can get at the moment. Game companies implementing smart microtransaction / loot box systems to their games are making several millions of dollars per game. There's no way they are going to stop, since for some developers the microtransactions have become the biggest income in their games, even over original sales. And since it's so profitable, so many more game developers are going to jump on the same boat. CD Project Red and From Software might be the only ones that I know who are not going there, (Xbox games) and still managing to make great games that sell well. I know, my knowledge of games is pretty limited, since I don't really play indie games, which probably are microtransaction free mostly. Anyway, you might get my point. There's no going back, there can be movement towards less intrusive systems but I doubt it. I think Halo 6 will be more of the same with Halo 5's REQ system.

"The fact that you are okay with this proves that the developers have worn us down enough over the years"
Yeah dude.. The thing is, it doesn't matter what I do. I actually am now boycotting EA by not buying their games. They have crossed the line so many times that it's ridiculous already. I've never spent money on microtransactions in games except for Team Envyus pro team skins, which I wanted to buy to support my favourite team. So I'm not supporting these systems, but I happen to know that it doesn't matter. There are millions of brainless people who will keep wasting money on these systems, so that this business model will only continue to increase, and won't go away anytime soon. Don't get me wrong, I do try to oppose these systems every now and then when I feel like it, but it is rather pointless. Sorry for repeating my self there by the way. So I would say that the reason why I'm okay with Halo 5's system is that..

1) It isn't that bad when compared to games like Destiny 2, Call of Duty WW2 and Star Wars Battlefront 2. I'd rather have the lesser evil system any day and be fine with it.

2) It doesn't matter what I think. It's 343's and Microsoft's decision. I have expressed my feelings in the forums a couple of times and also in the community feedback program. But I know it makes no difference. They are corporations, they want and need money. They won't throw these money making systems away, no matter what I do. So why not stop stressing about things I can't change and be okay with it? If they go towards more pay-to-win system for Halo 6 like in Halo Wars 2 Blitz, then I will not be fine with it. Halo 5's system? I don't mind it to be honest.

"That's not so for the new player, or heck even some older players who still don't have things like the H2BR and DMR"
You've found my guilty side of thinking. I don't care about new players or people who can't play for 150 hours (to unlock most of the best REQs) of Halo 5 in 2+ years of time. New players won't feel like it's a pay-to-win system though, since they are playing against people who might've played since launch. Like I said, this long after the launch of Halo 5, the "pay-to-win" aspect of REQ packs is almost non-existent. It's your own struggle if you decide to buy the game 2 years late. And it is also your own struggle if you don't play enough to unlock the good stuff. I don't care, not one tiny bit. Say what you will.

"Wow, I thought maybe we were making real progress, but with statements like this no wonder developers keep giving gamers this type of system"
See my previous points. The struggle is pointless. Corporations are made to generate money and wealth. When they find a way to make even more money, they will take it, well most of them anyway. There's so little I can do about it, I'm not gonna waste my energy on it unless it is necessary (see my earlier points about when they cross the line in my opinion). As long as 343 and Microsoft keeps Halo's REQ system just the way it is in Halo 5, I'm really glad and will even give them thumbs up. See the thing we should worry about is them making it worse, which is very possible.

Thank you for your reply, I haven't been "challenged" like this in a while. I did make a bit foolish post and it was quite misleading to be honest. I only intended to show my way of thinking, but for that to succeed I would've needed more words. Perhaps this text wall will explain things better.
tsassi wrote:
You have your answer in your own post:
"but our current req system is player focused and well liked and unintrusive as far as these things go"
Note the keyword: "as far as these things go".
Meaning: compared to other games' microtransaction systems, Halo 5 has one of the least worst.
And you're going to defend that? You don't think we deserve a bit more than "one of the least worst" micrtransaction systems? You'll just settle for whatever isn't utterly terrible?

I guess, if that's the standard you're happy with, then good for you. But personally I want something that actually adds value to the game, something that's based on interesting challenges rather than a meaningless grind.
Don't know if it changes anything, but I replied to another person on this thread. Perhaps reading it will make you understand my point of view, and why I am fine with things as they are. Perhaps not, it doesn't really matter. I doubt it will actually, but I'm not ashamed of writing honestly and giving my thoughts out.
You know, I think we all can admit that game development is an expensive process. Yet I'm entirely skeptical of the notion that publishers and developers NEED loot boxes to make money because, as has been said, games are so expensive to make. Why am I skeptical? Because we've heard numerous excuses over the years given by the industry to justify arguably -Yoink- schemes.

Remember when intrusive DRM from the likes of Ubisoft was said to be necessary to stop all the piracy that was hurting them? Only as it happened the pirates were able to get around it and so the only people being hurt were legitimate players and Ubisoft even admitted DRM doesn't work. Maybe that's more debatable.

Or how about the online pass system? Remember how the industry claimed that the second-hand or used game market was just KILLING the profits of the industry? That's why games with an online component were given a code to use that could only be used once. Without it you'd be gated from multiplayer or pay an add-on fee. And now where is that concept despite being such a necessity?

Loot boxes just seem like another industry scheme that, in reality, is just there to facilitate corporate greed. You can say that corporations are all about making money and I know that. But when they drape it if they are struggling to make money that's when I get annoyed. We are talking about an industry where selling millions of copies of a game can be considered a failure. Resident Evil 6 sold, I believe, roughly 4.8 million units by the end of 2012. Capcom considered that a failure. Think about that. Assuming all of those units were the base $60 version (and I know there are varying economic factors at play), that would have made Capcom in the ballpark of $288,000,000. $288,000,000. Now, Capcom said that game under-performed compared to what they expected, but is this more of a case of real disappointment or "Well, it made money, just not ALL the money."

So we can debate whether loot boxes provide "fun" to players or any plethora of issues, but if games cannot make money in an environment where they are sold at $60 for a basic edition, sold higher for a deluxe edition, sold higher for a "legendary" edition, where the games future DLC is sold ahead of time with season passes and then sold itself upon release and where games enjoy sponsorship to the point that you see CoD on Mountain Dew, Destiny on Pop-Tarts and Halo on Totinos...that points to an unhealthy industry where loot boxes would be, at best, a band-aid to the "We've gotta make money!" problem.
I strongly dislike the random card packs. I mean, it's cool to see what you get; random mystery... but it's no fun when people buy them all and unlock them that way. GO baack to the Reach armor system!
DaxSeven09 wrote:
I'd argue the struggle isn't as pointless as you suggest. Sometimes fan feedback leads to a drastic response. EA being an example. I wouldn't say it was only the fan outcry that led to them turning off paid MTXs for Battlefront 2, but the fan outcry got Disney's attention, and politician's attention, and Wall Street's attention, and all of that together was enough to lead EA to make a drastic move to salvage some good faith. Of course, they advertised it as a temporary measure, and I wouldn't be surprised if the paid MTXs make their way back to BF2. But a change was made, and it was pretty big. I've heard their stocks have recovered since then, but I never expected EA to crumble just from Battlefront 2's controversy.

Destiny 2 is a less drastic example of fan outcry leading to change. Bungie is not getting rid of their MTXs in Destiny 2, despite pages and pages of #RemoveEververse in their forums. But they did announce a game plan for changes to the game based on player feedback and controversies, including a reduced presence of the MTXs in the game.

I agree with you that, in general, the game industry is gonna do whatever is best for the bottom line, and that's not likely to change. Rather, loot boxes will only be retired when a new, more lucrative monetization system is developed. But it is still worth voicing opinion. Though ultimately, the more effective thing is to "vote with your wallet", as they say, by either not buying/playing games with monetization practices you don't like, or at the very least by not supporting the MTXs in those games.
I’d question how much loot boxes really contribute to “the bottom line”. EA had no difficulty telling it’s shareholders and investors (the people they really want to make happy) that removing its MTX would cause no material impact on their sales. So like I said, is it really a question of the industry needing to make more money because games are too expensive to make or is it a question of just how much more money can they get from consumers?
I’d question how much loot boxes really contribute to “the bottom line”. EA had no difficulty telling it’s shareholders and investors (the people they really want to make happy) that removing its MTX would cause no material impact on their sales. So like I said, is it really a question of the industry needing to make more money because games are too expensive to make or is it a question of just how much more money can they get from consumers?
I think it's both, but probably more weighted towards the latter.

When did EA tell it's shareholders that turning off the MTXs would not hurt?
The struggle is pointless. Corporations are made to generate money and wealth. When they find a way to make even more money, they will take it, well most of them anyway. There's so little I can do about it, I'm not gonna waste my energy on it unless it is necessary (see my earlier points about when they cross the line in my opinion).
To make an analogy, think for a moment about how different politics would be if nobody had this "my one vote won't change things, so I'm just going to stay home and not waste my energy voting" mindset. Chimera30 is right, you seem to be underestimating the value of criticism and feedback from fans. If you have a problem with the req system, there's nothing wrong with voicing that on a forum. Your defeatist attitude, on the other hand, is far less constructive.
You know, I think we all can admit that game development is an expensive process. Yet I'm entirely skeptical of the notion that publishers and developers NEED loot boxes to make money because, as has been said, games are so expensive to make.
My thoughts exactly. People are far too quick to buy into the industry's "waah we need more money" sob story. I've said this before, but if developers thought nobody would buy a game with microtransactions in it, but they also thought that game would sell more copies if it had extra DLC, then in this capitalist society you can be sure they would find a way to fund that extra DLC using only the revenue from the original game sales. So I don't buy for one second this notion that they need extra money from microtransactions in order to give us extra content, or even to make games in the first place. Call me cynical but it should be no surprise that corporations are greedy and will say anything if they think they can make another buck.
Chimera30 wrote:
I’d question how much loot boxes really contribute to “the bottom line”. EA had no difficulty telling it’s shareholders and investors (the people they really want to make happy) that removing its MTX would cause no material impact on their sales. So like I said, is it really a question of the industry needing to make more money because games are too expensive to make or is it a question of just how much more money can they get from consumers?
I think it's both, but probably more weighted towards the latter.

When did EA tell it's shareholders that turning off the MTXs would not hurt?
Back in November.
The struggle is pointless. Corporations are made to generate money and wealth. When they find a way to make even more money, they will take it, well most of them anyway. There's so little I can do about it, I'm not gonna waste my energy on it unless it is necessary (see my earlier points about when they cross the line in my opinion).
To make an analogy, think for a moment about how different politics would be if nobody had this "my one vote won't change things, so I'm just going to stay home and not waste my energy voting" mindset. Chimera30 is right, you seem to be underestimating the value of criticism and feedback from fans. If you have a problem with the req system, there's nothing wrong with voicing that on a forum. Your defeatist attitude, on the other hand, is far less constructive.
You know, I think we all can admit that game development is an expensive process. Yet I'm entirely skeptical of the notion that publishers and developers NEED loot boxes to make money because, as has been said, games are so expensive to make.
My thoughts exactly. People are far too quick to buy into the industry's "waah we need more money" sob story. I've said this before, but if developers thought nobody would buy a game with microtransactions in it, but they also thought that game would sell more copies if it had extra DLC, then in this capitalist society you can be sure they would find a way to fund that extra DLC using only the revenue from the original game sales. So I don't buy for one second this notion that they need extra money from microtransactions in order to give us extra content, or even to make games in the first place. Call me cynical but it should be no surprise that corporations are greedy and will say anything if they think they can make another buck.
I did mention that I have voiced my opinion regarding microtransactions here on the forums and also on the feedback program. However, I only do it rarely and when I feel like it. If I however see more resistance building up, I probably will join it. For example if 343 made the REQ system worse and actually intrusive in Halo 6, I would voice my opinion in opposing it. I don't disagree with what you said however, you are correct. And I must think about what you said from time to time, no matter what.
Chimera30 wrote:
DaxSeven09 wrote:
I agree with you man. I will stand up to them and voice my opinion if they make the REQ system worse and actually intrusive. Right now, I am however fine with Halo 5's system and that really can't be changed by anyone. No-life Halo players like me who unlock all REQs in three months (like I did) don't generally have a problem with this system, but I can understand that other people do. Anyway, I do believe that you believe that the struggle isn't as pointless as I may think, and I will think about this from time to time.
Tommi theKrogan

We've come a long way.

People back then said this was the start of something awful, something sinister.
What happened? Quite a lot, and now we're here, loot boxes.
The industry has shown it's patient with monetization schemes, moving merely inches at a time.
Think it'll get better if you settle for what they're doing now? Unless you tell them "NO", they'll take it as a "go on and do your thing".

Edit: Worth a look.
The REQ system is not well liked and "unintrusive", it's the opposite and I know Frankie knows this, but MS told him to say what he said. I'm not buying Halo 6 if it has any form of MTX.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 9
  4. 10
  5. 11
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. ...
  9. 15