Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

[Locked] Warzone REQ Packs Are Pay to Win.

OP F4LL3N 999

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 4
After seeing the battlefront 2 controversy, I can't help but be disgusted how many games are slowly being overtaken by microtransactions. I have played Halo 5 for the two years it has been out, but always viewed the REQ packs as a solid microtransaction system that didn't have too much of an effect on the gameplay. Recently, I have been comparing the relationships between REQs and warzone, and realized that there are not many differences between the Battlefront 2 loot boxes and Halo's. A player who sinks money into gold packs can pack their arsenal with legendary weapons. While all of these weapons and vehicles are usually expendable, they give the player who sinks money in a distinct advantage, requiring that they achieve the in game REQ level. This is more benign than the current Battlefront system, but I don't see how it isn't 100% pay to win. What do others think? Also, I am aware I am not the first genius to bring this up, but it seems relevant now.
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
After seeing the battlefront 2 controversy, I can't help but be disgusted how many games are slowly being overtaken by microtransactions. I have played Halo 5 for the two years it has been out, but always viewed the REQ packs as a solid microtransaction system that didn't have too much of an effect on the gameplay. Recently, I have been comparing the relationships between REQs and warzone, and realized that there are not many differences between the Battlefront 2 loot boxes and Halo's. A player who sinks money into gold packs can pack their arsenal with legendary weapons. While all of these weapons and vehicles are usually expendable, they give the player who sinks money in a distinct advantage, requiring that they achieve the in game REQ level. This is more benign than the current Battlefront system, but I don't see how it isn't 100% pay to win. What do others think? Also, I am aware I am not the first genius to bring this up, but it seems relevant now.
Well sure H5's warzone is P2W, kind of surprised you didn't think this until SWB2. The packs in H5's warzone gives people ways to boost and gain an advantage...with things like over-shield's spam against players who has none or a low amount of them...Turbo for an example is the best example of P2W since it's all about who has the most vehicles, etc... As for the SWB beta well I didn't notice the unbalanced modes much but due to the 'boost' to weapons, etc...well that's also P2W too but oddly I don't think it's anywhere near as unbalanced as Halo 5 Warzone is. It's really depressing to see company's like 343i thinking micro-transactions are ok...when a majority of gamers hate the P2W model while there are some that try to rationalise it.
ronnie42 wrote:
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
After seeing the battlefront 2 controversy, I can't help but be disgusted how many games are slowly being overtaken by microtransactions. I have played Halo 5 for the two years it has been out, but always viewed the REQ packs as a solid microtransaction system that didn't have too much of an effect on the gameplay. Recently, I have been comparing the relationships between REQs and warzone, and realized that there are not many differences between the Battlefront 2 loot boxes and Halo's. A player who sinks money into gold packs can pack their arsenal with legendary weapons. While all of these weapons and vehicles are usually expendable, they give the player who sinks money in a distinct advantage, requiring that they achieve the in game REQ level. This is more benign than the current Battlefront system, but I don't see how it isn't 100% pay to win. What do others think? Also, I am aware I am not the first genius to bring this up, but it seems relevant now.
Well sure H5's warzone is P2W, kind of surprised you didn't think this until SWB2. The packs in H5's warzone gives people ways to boost and gain an advantage...with things like over-shield's spam against players who has none or a low amount of them...Turbo for an example is the best example of P2W since it's all about who has the most vehicles, etc... As for the SWB beta well I didn't notice the unbalanced modes much but due to the 'boost' to weapons, etc...well that's also P2W too but oddly I don't think it's anywhere near as unbalanced as Halo 5 Warzone is.
Warzone Turbo is kind of P2W, but i haven't bought any packs and have plenty of REQs to burn through during Turbo (i'm level 149). Warzone turbo is meant to be crazy, wild and burning through REQs. But being a lower level makes it tough during Turbo. If you look at regular warzone, you still have to build your REQ level regardless of how many you have.
ronnie42 wrote:
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
After seeing the battlefront 2 controversy, I can't help but be disgusted how many games are slowly being overtaken by microtransactions. I have played Halo 5 for the two years it has been out, but always viewed the REQ packs as a solid microtransaction system that didn't have too much of an effect on the gameplay. Recently, I have been comparing the relationships between REQs and warzone, and realized that there are not many differences between the Battlefront 2 loot boxes and Halo's. A player who sinks money into gold packs can pack their arsenal with legendary weapons. While all of these weapons and vehicles are usually expendable, they give the player who sinks money in a distinct advantage, requiring that they achieve the in game REQ level. This is more benign than the current Battlefront system, but I don't see how it isn't 100% pay to win. What do others think? Also, I am aware I am not the first genius to bring this up, but it seems relevant now.
Well sure H5's warzone is P2W, kind of surprised you didn't think this until SWB2. The packs in H5's warzone gives people ways to boost and gain an advantage...with things like over-shield's spam against players who has none or a low amount of them...Turbo for an example is the best example of P2W since it's all about who has the most vehicles, etc... As for the SWB beta well I didn't notice the unbalanced modes much but due to the 'boost' to weapons, etc...well that's also P2W too but oddly I don't think it's anywhere near as unbalanced as Halo 5 Warzone is.
Warzone Turbo is kind of P2W, but i haven't bought any packs and have plenty of REQs to burn through during Turbo (i'm level 149). Warzone turbo is meant to be crazy, wild and burning through REQs. But being a lower level makes it tough during Turbo. If you look at regular warzone, you still have to build your REQ level regardless of how many you have.
True, but that feeling of hesitation to use that legendary that you have 3 of isn't there if you have 17. I see some players who will just be pulling out banshees over and over again and wonder if they are one of the players that lay down so much money on req packs. I am sure so many people have utilized the system, which is unfortunate.
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
After seeing the battlefront 2 controversy, I can't help but be disgusted how many games are slowly being overtaken by microtransactions. I have played Halo 5 for the two years it has been out, but always viewed the REQ packs as a solid microtransaction system that didn't have too much of an effect on the gameplay. Recently, I have been comparing the relationships between REQs and warzone, and realized that there are not many differences between the Battlefront 2 loot boxes and Halo's. A player who sinks money into gold packs can pack their arsenal with legendary weapons. While all of these weapons and vehicles are usually expendable, they give the player who sinks money in a distinct advantage, requiring that they achieve the in game REQ level. This is more benign than the current Battlefront system, but I don't see how it isn't 100% pay to win. What do others think? Also, I am aware I am not the first genius to bring this up, but it seems relevant now.
Well sure H5's warzone is P2W, kind of surprised you didn't think this until SWB2. The packs in H5's warzone gives people ways to boost and gain an advantage...with things like over-shield's spam against players who has none or a low amount of them...Turbo for an example is the best example of P2W since it's all about who has the most vehicles, etc... As for the SWB beta well I didn't notice the unbalanced modes much but due to the 'boost' to weapons, etc...well that's also P2W too but oddly I don't think it's anywhere near as unbalanced as Halo 5 Warzone is.
Warzone Turbo is kind of P2W, but i haven't bought any packs and have plenty of REQs to burn through during Turbo (i'm level 149). Warzone turbo is meant to be crazy, wild and burning through REQs. But being a lower level makes it tough during Turbo. If you look at regular warzone, you still have to build your REQ level regardless of how many you have.
True, but that feeling of hesitation to use that legendary that you have 3 of isn't there if you have 17. I see some players who will just be pulling out banshees over and over again and wonder if they are one of the players that lay down so much money on req packs. I am sure so many people have utilized the system, which is unfortunate.
I have come to the understanding that if i don't use it, i'll lose it. I Currently don't have a single temple or ultra banshee due to use. Same with ONI and Hannibal Variants of everything. I know it's tough, but you will never find a "good" time to pull out one of those REQs
ronnie42 wrote:
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
Warzone Turbo is kind of P2W, but i haven't bought any packs and have plenty of REQs to burn through during Turbo (i'm level 149). Warzone turbo is meant to be crazy, wild and burning through REQs. But being a lower level makes it tough during Turbo. If you look at regular warzone, you still have to build your REQ level regardless of how many you have.
I have never bought any pack with real money because I'm against it but I have seen enough people spamming abilities like the sprint boosts to give an unfair advantage...to a point where the game breaks, unable to get a kill. Of course Turbo is supposed to be crazy...but the same applies to any other modes related to Warzone. I remember when Halo 5 first started and anyone with a lot of money could have easily taken control of the game by spamming banshee's, etc... against people who barely had pistols/dmr's, even now anyone just starting the game while have a serious disadvantage over paying customers or anyone luck us with high ranks with a healthful about REQ items saved up.
ronnie42 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
Warzone Turbo is kind of P2W, but i haven't bought any packs and have plenty of REQs to burn through during Turbo (i'm level 149). Warzone turbo is meant to be crazy, wild and burning through REQs. But being a lower level makes it tough during Turbo. If you look at regular warzone, you still have to build your REQ level regardless of how many you have.
I have never bought any pack with real money because I'm against it but I have seen enough people spamming abilities like the sprint boosts to give an unfair advantage...to a point where the game breaks, unable to get a kill. Of course Turbo is supposed to be crazy...but the same applies to any other modes related to Warzone. I remember when Halo 5 first started and anyone with a lot of money could have easily taken control of the game by spamming banshee's, etc... against people who barely had pistols/dmr's, even now anyone just starting the game while have a serious disadvantage over paying customers or anyone luck us with high ranks with a healthful about REQ items saved up.
Yeah this was definitely more of a problem early on. I am a level 143, so I have most of the items unlocked. I haven't played Turbo, but I noticed that Firefight is designed for you to just burn through reqs as well. It is a fairly devious system when you look from the distance.
I may not have played Halo 5 on Xbox One, but I know for sure that Warzone is purely P2W. If you don't want that just go to arena. If you don't like P2W, just play arena, but if you prefer the large-scale battles more than the smaller-scaled battles... I don't know, try to get used to it?
ronnie42 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
Warzone Turbo is kind of P2W, but i haven't bought any packs and have plenty of REQs to burn through during Turbo (i'm level 149). Warzone turbo is meant to be crazy, wild and burning through REQs. But being a lower level makes it tough during Turbo. If you look at regular warzone, you still have to build your REQ level regardless of how many you have.
I have never bought any pack with real money because I'm against it but I have seen enough people spamming abilities like the sprint boosts to give an unfair advantage...to a point where the game breaks, unable to get a kill. Of course Turbo is supposed to be crazy...but the same applies to any other modes related to Warzone. I remember when Halo 5 first started and anyone with a lot of money could have easily taken control of the game by spamming banshee's, etc... against people who barely had pistols/dmr's, even now anyone just starting the game while have a serious disadvantage over paying customers or anyone luck us with high ranks with a healthful about REQ items saved up.
To this day, I simply open the daily REQ packs. I actually got a good amount of stuff, including Legendary stuff. Just need to have luck when I get to the "real" battlefield XD
ronnie42 wrote:
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
It's really depressing to see company's like 343i thinking micro-transactions are ok...when a majority of gamers hate the P2W model while there are some that try to rationalise it.
Not to make it even more depressing...but the majority of gamers do not actually hate the P2W model. Gamers like us who comment on forums and keep up with gaming-specific news are the extreme minority compared to the oftentimes millions that play each video game. Even a 2-year-old game's (Halo 5) multiplayer sub-mode's (Warzone) loot box system's (Reqs) temporary promo Relief & Recovery Pack was purchased by over 15,000 people within days (the last Community Update noted $150,000 earned at that time; the Pack is $9.99). Microtransactions are overwhelmingly profitable and have become a primary driver of major public companies' game development, so they aren't going anywhere. I just have to increase my gaming budget accordingly.
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
Yeah this was definitely more of a problem early on. I am a level 143, so I have most of the items unlocked. I haven't played Turbo, but I noticed that Firefight is designed for you to just burn through reqs as well. It is a fairly devious system when you look from the distance.
Sadly that's the REQ's fault, kind of wish we had proper Firefight mode like what HW2 did with Firefight but with H5 to get players to work together so they can try to survive as long as possible because Warzone Firefight just feels nothing like Firefight.
The req system is not pay to win. The reqs only give you an advantage in 2 playlists that you can get the packs extremelly fast in with no money anyway. Im 144 and i rarely use any of the hundreds of reqs i have.
ronnie42 wrote:
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
It's really depressing to see company's like 343i thinking micro-transactions are ok...when a majority of gamers hate the P2W model while there are some that try to rationalise it.
Not to make it even more depressing...but the majority of gamers do not actually hate the P2W model. Gamers like us who comment on forums and keep up with gaming-specific news are the extreme minority compared to the oftentimes millions that play each video game. Even a 2-year-old game's (Halo 5) multiplayer sub-mode's (Warzone) loot box system's (Reqs) temporary promo Relief & Recovery Pack was purchased by over 15,000 people within days (the last Community Update noted $150,000 earned at that time; the Pack is $9.99). Microtransactions are overwhelmingly profitable and have become a primary driver of major public companies' game development, so they aren't going anywhere. I just have to increase my gaming budget accordingly.
True. Enough people contribute to warrant the bad PR move. EA has made 3 billion on mictrotransactions in their sports games, I believe. Halo's must have been fairly profitable, so I doubt they will be disappearing. Judging from the lack of super negative REQ press, we will probably see a more invasive system in Halo 6.
ronnie42 wrote:
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
It's really depressing to see company's like 343i thinking micro-transactions are ok...when a majority of gamers hate the P2W model while there are some that try to rationalise it.
Not to make it even more depressing...but the majority of gamers do not actually hate the P2W model. Gamers like us who comment on forums and keep up with gaming-specific news are the extreme minority compared to the oftentimes millions that play each video game. Even a 2-year-old game's (Halo 5) multiplayer sub-mode's (Warzone) loot box system's (Reqs) temporary promo Relief & Recovery Pack was purchased by over 15,000 people within days (the last Community Update noted $150,000 earned at that time; the Pack is $9.99). Microtransactions are overwhelmingly profitable and have become a primary driver of major public companies' game development, so they aren't going anywhere. I just have to increase my gaming budget accordingly.
Have to strongly disagree. It's one of the most hated things on the industry, has even have enough people complaining about it that people are trying to mark is gambling while leading packs like loot backs to be banned to a point where the government in the UK had to respond. Sure there are some that waste endless amounts of money on them but that doesn't mean that the entire community agrees with it or dev studio's like ID software wouldn't have refused to put them in the new Doom game. I get some people want to support charity's, I'm fine with that but just seems like an excuse to defend a system that has turned the game into mindless farming and destroyed any reason to challenges ourselves to brag about something we earned by doing something fun, I don't mean the mindless tasks to get Achiles...but like the challenges that got the community wanting to work together for the Vidmasters challenges.

Of course micro-transactions are profitable...but I'm pretty sure that will kill the franchise slowly. It was so hated in Spartan Assault that they removed it and were removed in both the game, sequel so it's obvious that 343i knows fans hate them.
The problem is there is at least enough of a minority to make it ridiculously profitable. We will see what Battlefront 2 does with their system, but this will probably be the turning point in either direction due to the publicity ir has been getting. Halo got away with it, for the most part. They did have the excuse of "free dlc" but you can do that without making a game pay to win. I have seen videos about prophets bane and nornfang being for sale, so it could be a long, arduous road for those of us who don't like gameplay-affecting microtransactions.
Halo 5's REQ system isn't full-blown P2W, but it is a slippery slope. The fact that Warzone prevents players from calling in repeated high-level REQs over and over in rapid succession through generating REQ energy and hitting REQ levels means that advantages are generally temporary. Generally. Then there is the random aspect of it; there's no guarantee that spending money will get you all the good REQs, but statistically speaking it does increase your probability when you supplement REQs obtained through playing with real life money. Then someone whose dropped $100 on gold packs has a greater chance of having many copies of good REQs compared to the average player, meaning they'll be less inclined to save their good REQs when playing and more likely to call those REQs in during play, since they'll be less worried about running out.

The closest Halo 5 has gotten to P2W was with the introduction of the Mythic REQ Packs that let people spend $10 for guaranteed copies of a specific high-level REQ, like Nornfang or the Gavel. That removed all chance from the equation and gave players an opportunity to use real money to stock up on some of the most powerful weapons in the game. That was a terrible move by 343i/Microsoft/whoever decided to do it.

Now I'm not interested in Battlefront EA 2 but I have heard of the controversy surrounding it. I think initial impressions of BF2's lootbox system are worse because player progression is entirely tied to them. In Halo 5, at least Arena is a separate experience unaffected by the REQ system (at least in terms of combat). And for the most part, Halo 5 starts everyone off on the same page (this changes a bit in Warzone with the different loadout weapons but just a bit). Staring a game as SR 152 doesn't give you increased accuracy or stability compared to a SR 20, even in Warzone (once you reach REQ level 3, then things change based on what loadout weapons are unlocked). This won't be the case in BF2 with the Star Cards. Granted, BF2 lootboxes still follow a random award system, but using real money will still give players higher chances at the good cards compared to players who don't use real money. That's the trouble with tying a progression system where your characters actually get better to random chance. At least in Overwatch, the lootboxes are completely cosmetic; that cool Tracer skin doesn't change how she plays.
Chimera30 wrote:
Halo 5's REQ system isn't full-blown P2W, but it is a slippery slope. The fact that Warzone prevents players from calling in repeated high-level REQs over and over in rapid succession through generating REQ energy and hitting REQ levels means that advantages are generally temporary. Generally. Then there is the random aspect of it; there's no guarantee that spending money will get you all the good REQs, but statistically speaking it does increase your probability when you supplement REQs obtained through playing with real life money. Then someone whose dropped $100 on gold packs has a greater chance of having many copies of good REQs compared to the average player, meaning they'll be less inclined to save their good REQs when playing and more likely to call those REQs in during play, since they'll be less worried about running out.

The closest Halo 5 has gotten to P2W was with the introduction of the Mythic REQ Packs that let people spend $10 for guaranteed copies of a specific high-level REQ, like Nornfang or the Gavel. That removed all chance from the equation and gave players an opportunity to use real money to stock up on some of the most powerful weapons in the game. That was a terrible move by 343i/Microsoft/whoever decided to do it.
Not entirely true. In Warzone turbo players are allowed infinite energy and are allowed to spam as many REQ's as they want. The only difference in normal Warzone is it's just slower but the fact is it's P2W model, is technically gambling too but the point is no matter how 'lucky' someone is...the game still caters in those modes to whoever has the most REQ's.

Example: 1 team doesn't have plasma pistols then another another has plenty of tanks then the one paying to have an endless supply of tanks will surely win unless the players are extremely bad at the game.

The point is no matter what happens...if the items given is high/low REQ tier item's then that player has a near infinite supply of them to spam then they have a tactical advantage over anyone who is trying to play the game who either has started or trying to earn them...so it's still P2W. If someone has a lot money to waste on packs then it won't even matter what the chances of someone has of unlocking a specific item because the player would get it eventually regardless because there chance's would have increased based on much money they have wasted. Anyway gambling in loot box's is just as irritating as spending micro-transactions.
ronnie42 wrote:
Chimera30 wrote:
Halo 5's REQ system isn't full-blown P2W, but it is a slippery slope. The fact that Warzone prevents players from calling in repeated high-level REQs over and over in rapid succession through generating REQ energy and hitting REQ levels means that advantages are generally temporary. Generally. Then there is the random aspect of it; there's no guarantee that spending money will get you all the good REQs, but statistically speaking it does increase your probability when you supplement REQs obtained through playing with real life money. Then someone whose dropped $100 on gold packs has a greater chance of having many copies of good REQs compared to the average player, meaning they'll be less inclined to save their good REQs when playing and more likely to call those REQs in during play, since they'll be less worried about running out.

The closest Halo 5 has gotten to P2W was with the introduction of the Mythic REQ Packs that let people spend $10 for guaranteed copies of a specific high-level REQ, like Nornfang or the Gavel. That removed all chance from the equation and gave players an opportunity to use real money to stock up on some of the most powerful weapons in the game. That was a terrible move by 343i/Microsoft/whoever decided to do it.
Not entirely true. In Warzone turbo players are allowed infinite energy and are allowed to spam as many REQ's as they want. The only difference in normal Warzone is it's just slower but the fact is it's P2W model, is technically gambling too but the point is no matter how 'lucky' someone is...the game still caters in those modes to whoever has the most REQ's.

Example: 1 team doesn't have plasma pistols then another another has plenty of tanks then the one paying to have an endless supply of tanks will surely win unless the players are extremely bad at the game.

The point is no matter what happens...if the items given is high/low REQ tier item's then that player has a near infinite supply of them to spam then they have a tactical advantage over anyone who is trying to play the game who either has started or trying to earn them...so it's still P2W. If someone has a lot money to waste on packs then it won't even matter what the chances of someone has of unlocking a specific item because the player would get it eventually regardless because there chance's would have increased based on much money they have wasted. Anyway gambling in loot box's is just as irritating as spending micro-transactions.
Aside from your points about WZT, you basically said everything I said and just called it full-blown P2W, where I called it a slippery slope. I'll grant you that Turbo combined with the availability of Mythic REQ Packs for $$ is pretty much full-blown P2W in Halo 5; you spend as much money as you want for guaranteed copies of 1-hit-kill weapon in a game mode that doesn't at all restrict their use. Normal WZ, not so much. Here's and example of what full-blown P2W is in my mind: "buy this gun attachment that grants you 2x accuracy/damage for $2.99!" or "spend $10 and become invisible to enemy radar!" and there is no other way to get those buffs other than buying them. No random chance, no game mechanics that prevent/limit the use of things that may have been attained through dropping cash; true P2W is just there, all the time, and only through microtransactions. There are models that approach this to varying degrees, like Halo 5, but I wouldn't call those models true P2W. Doesn't mean I support such models that approach P2W, but I also recognize that, like everything, microtransactions exist on a spectrum.
Chimera30 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
Chimera30 wrote:
Aside from your points about WZT, you basically said everything I said and just called it full-blown P2W, where I called it a slippery slope. I'll grant you that Turbo combined with the availability of Mythic REQ Packs for $$ is pretty much full-blown P2W in Halo 5; you spend as much money as you want for guaranteed copies of 1-hit-kill weapon in a game mode that doesn't at all restrict their use. Normal WZ, not so much. Here's and example of what full-blown P2W is in my mind: "buy this gun attachment that grants you 2x accuracy/damage for $2.99!" or "spend $10 and become invisible to enemy radar!" and there is no other way to get those buffs other than buying them. No random chance, no game mechanics that prevent/limit the use of things that may have been attained through dropping cash; true P2W is just there, all the time, and only through microtransactions. There are models that approach this to varying degrees, like Halo 5, but I wouldn't call those models true P2W. Doesn't mean I support such models that approach P2W, but I also recognize that, like everything, microtransactions exist on a spectrum.
Either way slippery slope or full blown p2w...can't stand micro-transactions since they dilute the game-play severely and forces the game to become about farming for items instead of skill. Of course gamers are restricted when it comes to packs...in a short time someone could use real money to gain a tactical advantage while a gamer who only uses in-game currency gains less over a longer period of time. The only reason the game makes the items random is just to try make it seem like less of a P2W game. Star Wars Battlefront 2 beta does the same as your example, the only difference between that and Halo 5's P2W model is instead of something like 25% more damage...they just get something like 'Golden wraith' to avoid making it sound like P2W, it's the same with the energy level which exists in a lot of mobile P2W games since it's a typical thing in mobile games that encourage the P2W model.
Chimera30 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
Chimera30 wrote:
Halo 5's REQ system isn't full-blown P2W, but it is a slippery slope. The fact that Warzone prevents players from calling in repeated high-level REQs over and over in rapid succession through generating REQ energy and hitting REQ levels means that advantages are generally temporary. Generally. Then there is the random aspect of it; there's no guarantee that spending money will get you all the good REQs, but statistically speaking it does increase your probability when you supplement REQs obtained through playing with real life money. Then someone whose dropped $100 on gold packs has a greater chance of having many copies of good REQs compared to the average player, meaning they'll be less inclined to save their good REQs when playing and more likely to call those REQs in during play, since they'll be less worried about running out.

The closest Halo 5 has gotten to P2W was with the introduction of the Mythic REQ Packs that let people spend $10 for guaranteed copies of a specific high-level REQ, like Nornfang or the Gavel. That removed all chance from the equation and gave players an opportunity to use real money to stock up on some of the most powerful weapons in the game. That was a terrible move by 343i/Microsoft/whoever decided to do it.
Not entirely true. In Warzone turbo players are allowed infinite energy and are allowed to spam as many REQ's as they want. The only difference in normal Warzone is it's just slower but the fact is it's P2W model, is technically gambling too but the point is no matter how 'lucky' someone is...the game still caters in those modes to whoever has the most REQ's.

Example: 1 team doesn't have plasma pistols then another another has plenty of tanks then the one paying to have an endless supply of tanks will surely win unless the players are extremely bad at the game.

The point is no matter what happens...if the items given is high/low REQ tier item's then that player has a near infinite supply of them to spam then they have a tactical advantage over anyone who is trying to play the game who either has started or trying to earn them...so it's still P2W. If someone has a lot money to waste on packs then it won't even matter what the chances of someone has of unlocking a specific item because the player would get it eventually regardless because there chance's would have increased based on much money they have wasted. Anyway gambling in loot box's is just as irritating as spending micro-transactions.
Aside from your points about WZT, you basically said everything I said and just called it full-blown P2W, where I called it a slippery slope. I'll grant you that Turbo combined with the availability of Mythic REQ Packs for $$ is pretty much full-blown P2W in Halo 5; you spend as much money as you want for guaranteed copies of 1-hit-kill weapon in a game mode that doesn't at all restrict their use. Normal WZ, not so much. Here's and example of what full-blown P2W is in my mind: "buy this gun attachment that grants you 2x accuracy/damage for $2.99!" or "spend $10 and become invisible to enemy radar!" and there is no other way to get those buffs other than buying them. No random chance, no game mechanics that prevent/limit the use of things that may have been attained through dropping cash; true P2W is just there, all the time, and only through microtransactions. There are models that approach this to varying degrees, like Halo 5, but I wouldn't call those models true P2W. Doesn't mean I support such models that approach P2W, but I also recognize that, like everything, microtransactions exist on a spectrum.
Pay to win also exists on a spectrum. You are not paying to automatically get great gear, but your ability to buy high level packs to give you more weaponry than someone who doesn't is pay to win. There are mechanics in place to help balance this, but some guy spending $1000 on gold packs is going to have an advantage against someone who is grinding them out. Like you said, it does exist on a spectrum, but the fact that it effects gameplay makes it pay to win.
>Claims Halo 5 is full-blown P2W
>Can get almost everything Halo 5 has to offer simply by playing the game.

So the only thing REQ packs affect is a Social playlist called Warzone. It's not ranked. Winning or losing doesn't affect anything. You still get XP and RP, win or lose. So why is it such a big deal that people might want to spend large sums of money to build up their arsenal again? This is a non-issue. Now, if it were a ranked game type, you'd have a more solid argument to make.

Best advice is to stop watching other people's pockets and let them spend their money however they want to. 343i has given them option. Stop being mad at them because people are throwing money at them.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 4