Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

The Effect of Micro-transactions on Halo

OP Ar5eNo

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 5
I play Arena 99% of the time, so I don't see them having much of an effect.
They effect games by allowing kids to get weapons and armor that they didn't actually earn. It doesn't make the game worse though because odds are the kids that will pay for a gold pack aren't going to be experienced enough to use a legendary weapon. Probably still gonna get rekt m8.
Agreed. It's a good feeling to score a great find at the Salvation Army of careless players. "You wouldn't believe the Answer I just found. Like new!'
Dude that's the best hahaha. Or when I find a Nornfang with only one shot expelled because that kid got slapped.
Dang that's pro deal-hunting. Sometimes a little retail therapy is just what we need after a long day of work you know?
They effect games by allowing kids to get weapons and armor that they didn't actually earn. It doesn't make the game worse though because odds are the kids that will pay for a gold pack aren't going to be experienced enough to use a legendary weapon. Probably still gonna get rekt m8.
Agreed. It's a good feeling to score a great find at the Salvation Army of careless players. "You wouldn't believe the Answer I just found. Like new!'
Dude that's the best hahaha. Or when I find a Nornfang with only one shot expelled because that kid got slapped.
Dang that's pro deal-hunting. Sometimes a little retail therapy is just what we need after a long day of work you know?
Definitely lmao
I don't mind micro transactions, people who spend money on them help the Devs to put out so many free updates like we've seen in Halo 5. Granted a lot of that content should have already been included, but it helps. What I don't like is having the micro transactions for req that you CAN NOT unlock without spending money. Like Weapon Skins. I hate that they add to the content the halo championship series skins like counter logic or what not. Cool if I can spend req points to unlock it, because I want to c complete the game and have everything. But no you have to spend money. Thats dumb. Now I don't see a purpose to even try to complete they game because you never can UNLESS you spend money at a specific time the micro transaction is available. BTW $9.99 isn't a micro transaction...
Justima wrote:
Chipmmunk wrote:
I don't mind micro-transactions AS LONG as they don't alter the game-play or focus of a game.

You can probably tell how I feel about them in Halo 5
It's such tragedy that most people here ignore how REQ is affecting the game fundamentally. When they are out of argument, they justify its existence by "it provides free DLC!" Not to long ago, I was shocked by some people even stating post-launch DLC is "mandatory" for video game these days and having broken system like REQ is fine as long as they get free stuff.
Or people don't see it like you do. I still don't a year later, I know the positives and the negatives, I know solutions to improve it or ideas to completely replace it. Am I ignoring it just cause I disagree with you?or do you think I truly don't understand? Once it makes its way past warzone is when I'll have a different stance, so I don't see it changing the fundamentals of the game nor does it take away from arena which is the sole reason I play. I disagree and don't see anything altering the gameplay of halo when it directly effects one game mode. So it comes off ignorant to me when people make it bigger than it actually is. So taco and you justima , is the campaign touched by it? Arena? Btb? Infection? Customs? Are the reqs a necessity in those categories? If we look at strictly warzone I agree. Guess we'll see how h6 handles it.

next is the free dlc claim. Would you not like free content? That's a very good and justified reason lol. The issue here is people mix the actual dlc with stuff that's late. Btb isn't a part of the dlc plan, nor was forge, they were simply delayed as 343 admitted to it. But you then have firefight which was never intended to be in the game, a custom server browser coming out soon, and a lot of redundant crap for the warzone kids and maps (could argue some were late as well) that everyone has access to without paying themselves. It's a take what you will scenario I guess but free dlc is most definitely a justified reason. I'd be happy halo isn't doing what gears is doing with 1.the base $60 price tag 2. A$50 season pass and 3. They're own little microT system that also does what halo 5 does but slightly better to an extent.

Post launch dlc is mandatory tho. Many games rely on it just to keep people coming back to it. I played the witcher, stopped, dlc came out and I was back. That's just one game. People no longer stick to just one game so devs have to have road maps for post launch support to keep people playing them. What I don't like is map packs being a part of the road plan cuz maps are not worth a dime to me at all. Real dlc adds replay value, adds something completely new to the game, and can be easily accessible by everyone. I have no issue with how 343 are handling it but I do have an issue with the quality of what they're putting out.
I don't feel like it's effected me at all. I don't really like the MoM but the "normal" microtransactions are fine. AAA games like H5 are expensive to make these days and I don't blame them for cashing in with microtransactions as long as it doesn't literally become pay to win.
-_-

Basically that since it ruined BTB and made Warzone significantly less fun for casuals or new players.
Oh wow look at that tank, I can't wait to use one of those. 72 hours of play time, and you still won't necessarily have used it, let alone unlock it. (And you only played warzone during this time, not including arena time) See the problem? Because if you don't I'm sorry.
I don't feel like it's effected me at all. I don't really like the MoM but the "normal" microtransactions are fine. AAA games like H5 are expensive to make these days and I don't blame them for cashing in with microtransactions as long as it doesn't literally become pay to win.
My only issue is these gaming companies are millionaires supported by millionaires. In halos case 343 owns a multibillion dollar franchise with Microsoft being even richer. The microTs aren't their because they need money, they're there to make even more money on top of what they're already getting. In the end tho there's not much to do about it other than trying to get them to implement them to be more friendly to the consumer.its perfectly understandable that they need money to make the content and to pay the guys making the content, no issue with that. What I do have an issue with tho 343 doesn't do much with what they're given. H5 is to underwhelming with them supposedly using the req money for post launch support. They've made at least 2.5 million off of it, and yet even tho they say it's used to support the game, we still have bugs roaming free, still have missing game modes, nothing new to halo coming out of it, and lackluster updates. The idea works, it's the execution that is the issue. To me the best fan service they could do with the money is improve their dedicated servers. What many fail to understand is dedicated servers cost money to keep running and to keep it up to date. I bet that's where most of the money goes after they count what they want to keep for themselves. The best quote I can give 343/Microsoft is "you have to spend money to make money". Seriously. Make the fan base happy and they'll be willing to forfeit money so long as they're taken care of. Like I told justima, I don't mind the idea of the microT system and what they're wanting to achieve in theory, but I do mind the poor quality they put out from it.
I don't feel like it's effected me at all. I don't really like the MoM but the "normal" microtransactions are fine. AAA games like H5 are expensive to make these days and I don't blame them for cashing in with microtransactions as long as it doesn't literally become pay to win.
My only issue is these gaming companies are millionaires supported by millionaires. In halos case 343 owns a multibillion dollar franchise with Microsoft being even richer. The microTs aren't their because they need money, they're there to make even more money on top of what they're already getting. In the end tho there's not much to do about it other than trying to get them to implement them to be more friendly to the consumer.its perfectly understandable that they need money to make the content and to pay the guys making the content, no issue with that. What I do have an issue with tho 343 doesn't do much with what they're given. H5 is to underwhelming with them supposedly using the req money for post launch support. They've made at least 2.5 million off of it, and yet even tho they say it's used to support the game, we still have bugs roaming free, still have missing game modes, nothing new to halo coming out of it, and lackluster updates. The idea works, it's the execution that is the issue. To me the best fan service they could do with the money is improve their dedicated servers. What many fail to understand is dedicated servers cost money to keep running and to keep it up to date. I bet that's where most of the money goes after they count what they want to keep for themselves. The best quote I can give 343/Microsoft is "you have to spend money to make money". Seriously. Make the fan base happy and they'll be willing to forfeit money so long as they're taken care of. Like I told justima, I don't mind the idea of the microT system and what they're wanting to achieve in theory, but I do mind the poor quality they put out from it.
You make some very good points. I'd like to know how much money it took to create Halo 5 and these post game updates and also how much they make from microtransactions. That first major Halo tournament had a 2.5m prize pool and apparently that money came from only a percentage (I assume a relatively some one) of the money earned from microtransactions.
I think their biggest effect would be shifting 343's incentives from "make a good Halo game" to "make people want to buy req packs". I think a good example of this is how unreasonably difficult WZFF can be, and almost impossible to win without spamming lots of heavy vehicles.

Another example is how, until recently, BTB was an afterthought for 343 because they wanted everyone to go to Warzone and be more likely to buy req packs. I think Halo 5 would have launched with BTB and possibly even BTB Heavies if 343 didn't have that incentive to make people want to buy req packs.

On the other hand, having paid DLC map packs splits the community (this was a big problem in Reach, if I remember correctly) so it can be argued that microtransactions are better...
To expand your point about Warzone Firefight, microtransactions also seem to encourage 343i to leave out certain features like custom Firefight matches where user's have a full control of the game options including enemy spawns, difficult, wave traits, objectives, weapons, etc.

For me personally, I didn't buy Halo 5 at all since 343 Industries still haven't fixed the Master Chief Collection to 100% as promised by Bonnie Ross in December of 2014, but in addition to that as soon as I heard microtransactions and an RNG system would be how you got weapons and armor, as soon as I heard that I once again vowed never to buy another 343 product until they reverse that decision. So essentially microtransactions typically equals an automatic no purchase from me.
It has no effect on my experience in the game. Still not seeing any influx of mythic weapons in Warzone after the month of mythic. Just people whining for the sake of whining.
To expand your point about Warzone Firefight, microtransactions also seem to encourage 343i to leave out certain features like custom Firefight matches where user's have a full control of the game options including enemy spawns, difficult, wave traits, objectives, weapons, etc.

For me personally, I didn't buy Halo 5 at all since 343 Industries still haven't fixed the Master Chief Collection to 100% as promised by Bonnie Ross in December of 2014, but in addition to that as soon as I heard microtransactions and an RNG system would be how you got weapons and armor, as soon as I heard that I once again vowed never to buy another 343 product until they reverse that decision. So essentially microtransactions typically equals an automatic no purchase from me.
Yeah, that sucks :/
There's been some great points made thus far! One thing I have noticed is how few people on this thread have actually mentioned spending money on REQ packs. I'm curious to see their sales numbers through the year from REQs. I remember seeing articles within months of Halo 5's release saying how millions have been spent of REQ packs. I wonder if those numbers have slowed down greatly as time progressed with the game and if something like that would affect how they move forward with the system. Does anyone know where I might find those sales numbers?
To be honest. I am fine with Halo 5's Microtransactions. I bought a few REQ packs with my own money. But that is only because I love Halo enough to spend extra money on it. But I guess it overall did not help Halo.
Justima wrote:
Chipmmunk wrote:
I don't mind micro-transactions AS LONG as they don't alter the game-play or focus of a game.

You can probably tell how I feel about them in Halo 5
It's such tragedy that most people here ignore how REQ is affecting the game fundamentally. When they are out of argument, they justify its existence by "it provides free DLC!" Not to long ago, I was shocked by some people even stating post-launch DLC is "mandatory" for video game these days and having broken system like REQ is fine as long as they get free stuff.
Or people don't see it like you do. I still don't a year later, I know the positives and the negatives, I know solutions to improve it or ideas to completely replace it. Am I ignoring it just cause I disagree with you?or do you think I truly don't understand? Once it makes its way past warzone is when I'll have a different stance, so I don't see it changing the fundamentals of the game nor does it take away from arena which is the sole reason I play. I disagree and don't see anything altering the gameplay of halo when it directly effects one game mode. So it comes off ignorant to me when people make it bigger than it actually is. So taco and you justima , is the campaign touched by it? Arena? Btb? Infection? Customs? Are the reqs a necessity in those categories? If we look at strictly warzone I agree. Guess we'll see how h6 handles it.

next is the free dlc claim. Would you not like free content? That's a very good and justified reason lol. The issue here is people mix the actual dlc with stuff that's late. Btb isn't a part of the dlc plan, nor was forge, they were simply delayed as 343 admitted to it. But you then have firefight which was never intended to be in the game, a custom server browser coming out soon, and a lot of redundant crap for the warzone kids and maps (could argue some were late as well) that everyone has access to without paying themselves. It's a take what you will scenario I guess but free dlc is most definitely a justified reason. I'd be happy halo isn't doing what gears is doing with 1.the base $60 price tag 2. A$50 season pass and 3. They're own little microT system that also does what halo 5 does but slightly better to an extent.

Post launch dlc is mandatory tho. Many games rely on it just to keep people coming back to it. I played the witcher, stopped, dlc came out and I was back. That's just one game. People no longer stick to just one game so devs have to have road maps for post launch support to keep people playing them. What I don't like is map packs being a part of the road plan cuz maps are not worth a dime to me at all. Real dlc adds replay value, adds something completely new to the game, and can be easily accessible by everyone. I have no issue with how 343 are handling it but I do have an issue with the quality of what they're putting out.
I'm just as much a Gears fan as I... was... a Halo fan and I can tell you that I'm much happier straight out of the gate (albeit early) with GOW4. There are plenty of game types with some old favorites and from what I saw in the MP menu... I won't be wishing there were more in a few weeks. But I haven't even gotten to them yet. I played through the campaign first and... loved. every. single. minute. That... is how to do a story.

Not to mention, I can play Horde mode at launch because it actually shipped with the game and it isn't so drastically different than previous Horde that they had to call it something else. JMO... but I'd say the deployment of a MT system that doesn't require me to stop what I'm doing right in the middle of a Horde match to monkey fart around in a menu and choose what I want to use next isn't "slightly better"... it's monumentally better.

The game plays excellently as well. It feels natural, it feels good. It doesn't feel completely reworked to the point that I'd say something like "doesn't feel like Gears". They did it right, IMO, they took what they knew worked well and built upon it/added to it. New abilities feel built in, not bolted on. The game also doesn't reek of sacrifice for the sake of 60fps either.

Anyway, as I said, it's early in my Gears experience so my feelings may change... but thus far, I can honestly say that I only purchased the base version of the game and the fact that campaign has replay value (to me) in addition to Horde feeling 'right', I'm going to play some vs MP eventually. If that holds up to previous experience... I'll have no problem shelling out for a season pass or whatever when the budget allows. And that's because I feel like both the quality and quantity are there from the beginning. I'll do so in full recognition that there is also a (less intrusive) MT system, as long as I'm still having fun and enjoying the game. If a gaming experience is worth adding to and enhancing, it's worth paying to do that.

In short, I have no problem paying to add to that kind of game experience. To me, if Gears is a good example of what we can now expect from a "paid DLC" launch title in comparison to Halo's "free" DLC... or title update... or whatever people want to call it... well... thus far, Gears wins by a landslide... and that's coming from someone on a limited gaming budget. Despite it being early, I think I'll be getting what I paid for with Gears, not waiting for it and it has enough already to keep me engaged until they release more.
Richnj wrote:
Warzone and RNG rewards are the effects.

In order to sell REQs there has to be incentive to buy. By creating an entire mode around an on going system that tasks the player with using the rewards to win and winning to earn rewards. It creates a cycle. That way players aren't just buying the set of armour they need and then no longer using the REQ system. You have to use REQs to earn boosts, then use REQs in Warzone to give you an advantage during the game. All so that you can earn REQs back and potentially some permanent unlocks as well.

This system makes spending real money for the rewards an advantageous thing. It also doesn't limit itself to just perma-unlocks. You will always need boosts, weapons and vehicles to play Warzone.

For example. If Warzone didn't exist, the whole REQ system would depend on Arena. People use far less REQs during an Arena game. So people would need less REQs, meaning less potential money spent on REQ packs. And once players hit max level, or unlock everything, or even just the armour they want, they will have less incentive to want REQs, and therefore purchase less REQs.

RNG is also needed. If you could pick and choose the unlocks you received you would again need less of them because you could avoid the useless stuff and spend more credits on just the items you wanted. This again would have the effect of causing real money sales to drop, because people wouldn't need to gamble to get the items and get half good and half bad items. They could outright buy only the items they wanted without an RNG element.

That's the effect microtransactions have on Halo. An entire gamemode dedicated to it and the unlock system completely changed to suit it.
True but once you max you get 6K points back per back, so your gold packs are only effectively 4K points each. So ur hardly gonna be short on packs.
Justima wrote:
Chipmmunk wrote:
I don't mind micro-transactions AS LONG as they don't alter the game-play or focus of a game.

You can probably tell how I feel about them in Halo 5
It's such tragedy that most people here ignore how REQ is affecting the game fundamentally. When they are out of argument, they justify its existence by "it provides free DLC!" Not to long ago, I was shocked by some people even stating post-launch DLC is "mandatory" for video game these days and having broken system like REQ is fine as long as they get free stuff.
Or people don't see it like you do. I still don't a year later, I know the positives and the negatives, I know solutions to improve it or ideas to completely replace it. Am I ignoring it just cause I disagree with you?or do you think I truly don't understand? Once it makes its way past warzone is when I'll have a different stance, so I don't see it changing the fundamentals of the game nor does it take away from arena which is the sole reason I play. I disagree and don't see anything altering the gameplay of halo when it directly effects one game mode. So it comes off ignorant to me when people make it bigger than it actually is. So taco and you justima , is the campaign touched by it? Arena? Btb? Infection? Customs? Are the reqs a necessity in those categories? If we look at strictly warzone I agree. Guess we'll see how h6 handles it.

next is the free dlc claim. Would you not like free content? That's a very good and justified reason lol. The issue here is people mix the actual dlc with stuff that's late. Btb isn't a part of the dlc plan, nor was forge, they were simply delayed as 343 admitted to it. But you then have firefight which was never intended to be in the game, a custom server browser coming out soon, and a lot of redundant crap for the warzone kids and maps (could argue some were late as well) that everyone has access to without paying themselves. It's a take what you will scenario I guess but free dlc is most definitely a justified reason. I'd be happy halo isn't doing what gears is doing with 1.the base $60 price tag 2. A$50 season pass and 3. They're own little microT system that also does what halo 5 does but slightly better to an extent.

Post launch dlc is mandatory tho. Many games rely on it just to keep people coming back to it. I played the witcher, stopped, dlc came out and I was back. That's just one game. People no longer stick to just one game so devs have to have road maps for post launch support to keep people playing them. What I don't like is map packs being a part of the road plan cuz maps are not worth a dime to me at all. Real dlc adds replay value, adds something completely new to the game, and can be easily accessible by everyone. I have no issue with how 343 are handling it but I do have an issue with the quality of what they're putting out.
I'm just as much a Gears fan as I... was... a Halo fan and I can tell you that I'm much happier straight out of the gate (albeit early) with GOW4. There are plenty of game types with some old favorites and from what I saw in the MP menu... I won't be wishing there were more in a few weeks. But I haven't even gotten to them yet. I played through the campaign first and... loved. every. single. minute. That... is how to do a story.

Not to mention, I can play Horde mode at launch because it actually shipped with the game and it isn't so drastically different than previous Horde that they had to call it something else. JMO... but I'd say the deployment of a MT system that doesn't require me to stop what I'm doing right in the middle of a Horde match to monkey fart around in a menu and choose what I want to use next isn't "slightly better"... it's monumentally better.

The game plays excellently as well. It feels natural, it feels good. It doesn't feel completely reworked to the point that I'd say something like "doesn't feel like Gears". They did it right, IMO, they took what they knew worked well and built upon it/added to it. New abilities feel built in, not bolted on. The game also doesn't reek of sacrifice for the sake of 60fps either.

Anyway, as I said, it's early in my Gears experience so my feelings may change... but thus far, I can honestly say that I only purchased the base version of the game and the fact that campaign has replay value (to me) in addition to Horde feeling 'right', I'm going to play some vs MP eventually. If that holds up to previous experience... I'll have no problem shelling out for a season pass or whatever when the budget allows. And that's because I feel like both the quality and quantity are there from the beginning. I'll do so in full recognition that there is also a (less intrusive) MT system, as long as I'm still having fun and enjoying the game. If a gaming experience is worth adding to and enhancing, it's worth paying to do that.

In short, I have no problem paying to add to that kind of game experience. To me, if Gears is a good example of what we can now expect from a "paid DLC" launch title in comparison to Halo's "free" DLC... or title update... or whatever people want to call it... well... thus far, Gears wins by a landslide... and that's coming from someone on a limited gaming budget. Despite it being early, I think I'll be getting what I paid for with Gears, not waiting for it and it has enough already to keep me engaged until they release more.
My only issue with gears setup is the output of materials you get each game to buy skins/characters/etc etc. on average you get about 20 a game. The packs cost 1k, 2k? I haven't played gears 4 since the first day it was available to limited edition owners. My point was I like gears better but only cause you can actually scrap stuff to get a specific item, something halo lacks. Halo has a much faster output tho on what you gain game by game. I also don't see why you'd have to stop in the middle of a game to use the req menu, I only ever use it when I'm dead and my resoawn timer is going as I won't invite people to get a freebie off me when I'm looking for a weapon/vehicle.

I'm also new to gears as a whole and just bought the entire franchise in terms of each game. I've heard it was a good series but was coming to the same conclusion as halo was with 343 but with gears4 people are more optimistic cuz the coalition are going back to the roots and not following judgements path. So I pretty much lack experience when it comes to gears.

to the last paragraph. I don't necessarily mind spending a lot of money so long as it's worth it. But 90% of the industry isn't worth season passes or map packs to me. I could definitely elaborate on what I think is truly worth money and what isn't but it'll be my perspective. In short they need to add value in replayability, needs to be something new to the game, and it needs to be worth its value in money.. H5 should be doing it for free cuz they're crap doesn't meet anything I listed. Most multiplayer games don't meet the season pass value (we'll see with gears) and most are just maps (which I strongly dislike).
Justima wrote:
Chipmmunk wrote:
I don't mind micro-transactions AS LONG as they don't alter the game-play or focus of a game.

You can probably tell how I feel about them in Halo 5
It's such tragedy that most people here ignore how REQ is affecting the game fundamentally. When they are out of argument, they justify its existence by "it provides free DLC!" Not to long ago, I was shocked by some people even stating post-launch DLC is "mandatory" for video game these days and having broken system like REQ is fine as long as they get free stuff.
My only issue with gears setup is the output of materials you get each game to buy skins/characters/etc etc. on average you get about 20 a game. The packs cost 1k, 2k? I haven't played gears 4 since the first day it was available to limited edition owners. My point was I like gears better but only cause you can actually scrap stuff to get a specific item, something halo lacks. Halo has a much faster output tho on what you gain game by game. I also don't see why you'd have to stop in the middle of a game to use the req menu, I only ever use it when I'm dead and my resoawn timer is going as I won't invite people to get a freebie off me when I'm looking for a weapon/vehicle.

I'm also new to gears as a whole and just bought the entire franchise in terms of each game. I've heard it was a good series but was coming to the same conclusion as halo was with 343 but with gears4 people are more optimistic cuz the coalition are going back to the roots and not following judgements path. So I pretty much lack experience when it comes to gears.

to the last paragraph. I don't necessarily mind spending a lot of money so long as it's worth it. But 90% of the industry isn't worth season passes or map packs to me. I could definitely elaborate on what I think is truly worth money and what isn't but it'll be my perspective. In short they need to add value in replayability, needs to be something new to the game, and it needs to be worth its value in money.. H5 should be doing it for free cuz they're crap doesn't meet anything I listed. Most multiplayer games don't meet the season pass value (we'll see with gears) and most are just maps (which I strongly dislike).
I can understand that. Your issue with the skins and output and such (if I understand you right) is understandable, but I'd rather have it that way. Skins are cosmetic. That's no biggie for me, I can wait for those. So, if you're doing really well and not getting killed... you're willing to pass up several req opportunities to avoid the menu? Or are you willing to just go out and get killed to access the req menu? Not saying that matters to me if it doesn't bother you... but Gears doesn't ask me to make that kind of choice. Anytime I used the req menu, even if it was after getting killed, my respawn timer had expired long before I ever got out of that menu. Choosing to wait until I got killed felt as if I wasn't getting as much from reqs as I could have. That alludes to that intrusive, "interrupted" feeling of the whole system. It just doesn't feel natural, it disturbs the flow of the game and it feels clunky to me.

Possibly, part of the reason the output is less for Gears is that you'll still gain quite a bit after 50 waves of horde. I guess I'll have a better idea about that after I've played more, but if it's just cosmetic (IMO) who cares?

As far as season passes go, I generally wait and see. If playing the base game gives me the impression that I'll still be around I might... might get one shortly after release, but even with Gears... nowadays... I wait until content releases to see if I'm still engaged and playing regularly.

Don't know if you will bother with the MP experience in the early Gears games and I can tell you that it's a lot different now than it was then. Those who still play the OG game can probably play with their eyes closed lol. But if you do decide to play some MP on each game, I'd be willing to bet you'll see what I mean when I say how well the series progressed and how they did a great job of making the changes between titles feel like a natural evolution. The one exception is Judgment *spits*.

There's something to be said about the optimism people have over Gears going back to its roots. It was one of my all time favorite series. Judgment ruined it for me. Now, it has returned and thus far is restoring my faith in the potential it always had. Lessons to be learned... perhaps...
Ar5eNo wrote:
Ar5eNo wrote:
We are coming up on the anniversary of Halo 5, which of course included micro-transactions in its multiplayer modes to unlock all sorts of goodies, including Warzone weapons and vehicles, etc.

I was just curious as to how the community feels about the use of Micro-Transactions and the effect, if any, they have had on the game play experience and the Halo community, after a year.

Are you a fan of them? Do you wish they would disappear off the face of the earth? Don't care either way?

I want to know how it has affected your experience with Halo.
how do you post a thread?
Like how do you create a new thread? or share a link to an existing thread?
like create a new thread.
Ar5eNo wrote:
Ar5eNo wrote:
We are coming up on the anniversary of Halo 5, which of course included micro-transactions in its multiplayer modes to unlock all sorts of goodies, including Warzone weapons and vehicles, etc.

I was just curious as to how the community feels about the use of Micro-Transactions and the effect, if any, they have had on the game play experience and the Halo community, after a year.

Are you a fan of them? Do you wish they would disappear off the face of the earth? Don't care either way?

I want to know how it has affected your experience with Halo.
how do you post a thread?
Like how do you create a new thread? or share a link to an existing thread?
like create a new thread.
You go to the forum page you want to post in and at the top right there is an add new topic button. Thats it!
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 5