Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

Why are people upset about free DLC?

OP Jonah48532

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 17
Why are people upset about free DLC would you rather have to spend money on buying new content?
Because someone dosen't get exactly what they want.
mostly because the free DLC is putting things in the game that should have been in at launch. it's kinda like they're holding back stuff that was already in the game and just putting it in monthly updates (this does not apply to all things, but griffball, infection, the UI, ect)
Because people are going to say "it should have been in at launch" like everything they had in their MCC fever dreams was going to magically materialize.
Because they are whining about how everything isn't 100% perfect and up to their standards
EndersEye wrote:
mostly because the free DLC is putting things in the game that should have been in at launch. it's kinda like they're holding back stuff that was already in the game and just putting it in monthly updates (this does not apply to all things, but griffball, infection, the UI, ect)
The fact that people still say that makes me think that we're going to be well into Halo 6 and people will still say "X should have been in Halo 5 at launch!" heheheh. Back on topic, another reason is that they feel that the DLC adds a bunch of stuff to the REQ system which over-saturates it and makes it more likely that someone impatient will buy a pack with real money, and those are the people who hate microtransactions altogether.
One-

It isn't free, you paid $60 for an unfinished game. And if you don't like that, it is microtransaction funded (paid for by someone else)

Two-

Bad quality; Halo 3 offered is quality maps every three months or so for like $10 each. Halo 5 offers us microtransaction funded crap (remix maps of ones we already have, easy to make emblems and weapon skins, and one or two weapons along with an armor set that may or may not be good looking).

I'd rather pay $10 every 3 months for quality material than have something that should've been in the game in the first place over the course of 9 months at a price to others/myself ($60 purchase)
Rhydon65 wrote:
EndersEye wrote:
mostly because the free DLC is putting things in the game that should have been in at launch. it's kinda like they're holding back stuff that was already in the game and just putting it in monthly updates (this does not apply to all things, but griffball, infection, the UI, ect)
The fact that people still say that makes me think that we're going to be well into Halo 6 and people will still say "X should have been in Halo 5 at launch!" heheheh. Back on topic, another reason is that they feel that the DLC adds a bunch of stuff to the REQ system which over-saturates it and makes it more likely that someone impatient will buy a pack with real money, and those are the people who hate microtransactions altogether.
oh i dont really care about the "it should have been at launch" people who moan about it constantly but i was just stating what i thought the reason behind it was.
They say it here - but I'm sure they will buy that CoD: IW season pass for the 5 maps that could have been there at launch but will only come out a month later. I'd love to see them complain about that...
One-

It isn't free, you paid $60 for an unfinished game. And if you don't like that, it is microtransaction funded (paid for by someone else)

Two-

Bad quality; Halo 3 offered is quality maps every three months or so for like $10 each. Halo 5 offers us microtransaction funded crap (remix maps of ones we already have, easy to make emblems and weapon skins, and one or two weapons along with an armor set that may or may not be good looking).

I'd rather pay $10 every 3 months for quality material than have something that should've been in the game in the first place over the course of 9 months at a price to others/myself ($60 purchase)
I bought legendary so 100 bucks and I don't think the maps are bad I enjoy some of them.
Because someone dosen't get exactly what they want.
This essentially.... but also there is the argument that paid dlc would mean we would get better content with the dlc. If the have to sell the dlc they would have to make it good enough for people to be willing to buy. For example they wouldn't get away with remixed maps in dlc map packs. People would see remixes and say.... I am not getting that I pretty much have that map. The community loses out either way..... free dlc where every one gets the maps or paid dlc where we get to different populations in a already dwindling community.
Nothing is going to change content not being present at launch. I'd still rather get content "we should have had" for free than to have to pay for it later.
There is an astounding level of misunderstanding and straw man arguments in this thread.

For an issue that has been around for half a year, you guys don't seem to understand your opposition very well.

I'd love to explain it but frankly explaining something dozens and dozens of times gets old.
EndersEye wrote:
Rhydon65 wrote:
EndersEye wrote:
mostly because the free DLC is putting things in the game that should have been in at launch. it's kinda like they're holding back stuff that was already in the game and just putting it in monthly updates (this does not apply to all things, but griffball, infection, the UI, ect)
The fact that people still say that makes me think that we're going to be well into Halo 6 and people will still say "X should have been in Halo 5 at launch!" heheheh. Back on topic, another reason is that they feel that the DLC adds a bunch of stuff to the REQ system which over-saturates it and makes it more likely that someone impatient will buy a pack with real money, and those are the people who hate microtransactions altogether.
oh i dont really care about the "it should have been at launch" people who moan about it constantly but i was just stating what i thought the reason behind it was.
It's still a funny idea, though. Everyone would be posting about whatever controversies Halo 6 will bring to the forums and then one guy will be all like "X should've been in Halo 5 at launch!"
They say it here - but I'm sure they will buy that CoD: IW season pass for the 5 maps that could have been there at launch but will only come out a month later. I'd love to see them complain about that...
Except CoD: IW will, from looking at previous launches, release with a full suite of multiplayer game modes, most being staples from previous games. Halo 5 released with Slayer variants, a new Territories mashup and CTF. Oh, and Breakout, although that can just be labelled Hardcore Neutral Flag. That isn't the same. The reason people complain on Halo and they don't on Call of Duty or Battlefield is because COD and BF release with game modes from games past. Halo 5 didn't, and was bare bones from the start and kind of still is.
Nothing is going to change content not being present at launch. I'd still rather get content "we should have had" for free than to have to pay for it later.
But how well would that really work?

"Give us money to play gametypes that have been standard since the franchise launched!"
I think people just need to quit feeling entitled to everything and work with what you have.
Nothing in this world is ever free. Deciding to add the content cost them money which is just being taken from the sales to try to get free sales. If they didn't announce
"free" updates sales would have come to a screeching halt. I honestly just believe that they agreed to a release date and instead of missing it they decided to handle it this way.
Because crap is still crap even if it's free.
Jonah48532 wrote:
I think people just need to quit feeling entitled to everything and work with what you have.
If Halo 6 ships with nothing but Slayer, I'm totally going to quote you with this.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 17