Forums / Community / Poll Discussions

Are Halo 5 REQ packs bad?

OP Skullclash

Do REQs turn Halo 5 into a pay to win game?

Poll Ended

The answer is a flat-out no. Warzone is pay to win, because players who pay for REQ packs gain an advantage over those who don't. However, in Arena, REQs do not affect the gameplay itself at all except for assassinations, but all players have the option of beating down their opponents instead. Since most of the gameplay is not affected by microtransactions, Halo 5 in its entirety is not a pay-to-win game.
Even though it is all based on one game type, I'm going to have to argue Yes as many of the challenges 343i have dished out are Impossible without the proper REQ gear, promoting the purchase of REQ packs for anyone who doesn't have time to grind and grind and grind.
H3ll yes! These are the -Yoinking!- worse! Need to be able unlock things the REACH way!!!
REQs are bad and serve no purpose other than cramming microtransaction down our throats. If you could ONLY purchase them using in-game currency (none of that "spend real money to get game money" BS either ) then it might be okay, because then it'd actually encourage people to play the game, and not let little, spoiled kids use their mum's credit cards to get them.
Not exactly, they are still better than most other microtransactions. But i still hate them, so yes.
I don't like Microtransactions but I feel like they are likely here to stay. A ton of "free to play" games wind up costing a lot of consumers $200+ when the dust settles. Some gladly plop their $200 to get an edge and some don't even realize they hit that total a year later. The only good news is that microtransactions have not entered Arena. When that happens I will officially lose my effin mind. The purity of FPS competitive shooting would officially vanish.
I’m going to say yes. It’s not as bad as other microtransaction systems, but it has still led to lackluster armor customization, most rewards being random rather than earned, and a mode that has potential to be great being held back by the fact that it has to be designed to accommodate the req system.
While I agree with Riprollonect13 (i.e. that REQs don't turn most of Halo 5 into a pay to win game), I still strongly dislike microtransactions. In Halo, they only exist as a misguided way to squeeze more revenue out of the game, and completely ruin the sense of accomplishment that you had in previous games when you unlocked different armors either through challenges (Halo 3) or by saving your in-game currency (Halo Reach).

All of this is just the tip of the iceberg, as recent events with Star Wars Battlefront 2 and EA show that microtransactions will not be good for publishers/developers for much longer. EA's stock took a nosedive after the backlash started against Battlefront 2's "Star Card" RNG system. I think that other companies will start to take note of this and will think twice about implementing MTs in the future.
I voted no because while they do add a little bit of a pay to win aspect, I don't feel as if it's predominant. It gives you no advantage in arena, and the advantage in Warzone isn't all that huge since you still have to earn req level increases. The packs are easy enough to earn that I don't feel pressured to buy any, and the no loot duplicates feature is nice. That being said I still prefer Reach's version.
Imo reqs are loaded with stuff for a game mode with them in mind, plus a few cosmetics thrown in. Not a bad system, and the trade off isn't just free dlc, it's dlc that 343 knows everyone will have, meaning that it can be incredibly expansive. New weapons, vehicles, forge objects, ECT can be added without fear of leaving a bunch of players behind.
I've seen this poll lots, but here my opinion: I think they're kind of cool because it's random but at the same time you can't get what u want. I've been trying to get the wrath helmet since March 2017
I and some friends spend in the first the three months of Halo 5 about 500€ each. We just lost against other hard pay to win teams
There are two questions here, so I'll address them individually.

Quote:
Do REQs turn Halo 5 into a pay-to-win game?
No. The contents of REQ packs are mainly cosmetic, and the weapons and vehicles gained from them only affect Warzone, so that's half the game left unaffected (2/3rds if you count custom games.) Even then, last time I checked 343 set up Warzone's matchmaking to pair people with similar REQs. Assuming that their system is working as intended, a team of new players won't get paired against a team that can spawn legendary and mythic weapons willy-nilly. And honestly, even if the system isn't perfect no REQ can best the inherently dominant strategy of team-shooting (save for The Answer with a bit of luck.)

Quote:
Are Halo 5 REQ packs bad?
Possibly, but not sure. As gamers, we've always had a clear stance against microtransactions no matter what game it is; we don't want corporations to milk our wallets as much as possible, especially after paying full price for the game and DLC. This is where Halo 5 strays somewhat from what most microtransaction games do. 343 used the revenue to fund their efforts in creating new content for Halo 5, added regularly and free of charge for everyone. They also used the revenue to fill up prize pools for Halo tournaments. I can't say I care much about competitive Halo, but it does help raise awareness of the franchise and potentially draw more people into it, so that's good in my book. But at the same time, having RNG dictate everything I get in REQ packs isn't fun. I'm sure that most people here remember how back in Halo 5's early days the REQ system was super-stingy about giving anyone a DMR, and how even now some REQs are incredibly hard to get even if you've unlocked everything.

So while the money generated by REQs is put to good use, the RNG behind it all is not fun. So I think for Halo 6 we could still use it, but have it applied in a different way. Instead of unlocking things at random, we could have a REQ store where we could buy the things we want individually. For example, if you wanted to buy the Mark V helmet or stock up on 5 sniper rifles, you could buy them directly with REQ points instead of grinding and waiting in uncertainty. 343 could still earn money with this system by selling packs of REQ points, rather than packs of REQ cards. We could also have a system in place where certain weapons and armor aren't available for purchase until the player reaches a certain rank, just like Halo Reach.
Rhydon65 wrote:
...
Quote:
Are Halo 5 REQ packs bad?
So while the money generated by REQs is put to good use, the RNG behind it all is not fun. So I think for Halo 6 we could still use it, but have it applied in a different way. Instead of unlocking things at random, we could have a REQ store where we could buy the things we want individually. For example, if you wanted to buy the Mark V helmet or stock up on 5 sniper rifles, you could buy them directly with REQ points instead of grinding and waiting in uncertainty. 343 could still earn money with this system by selling packs of REQ points, rather than packs of REQ cards. We could also have a system in place where certain weapons and armor aren't available for purchase until the player reaches a certain rank, just like Halo Reach.
I especially agree on the last part. All your points were valid in fact. However I would also get rid of burnable items. The fact that certain items are extremelly rare and locked behind a gamble system is bad enough, but than you got it and might use it only once if ever? That is beyond stupid imho!

343i should get rid of burnable cards in H6, it's the worst part of REQs and the main reason why I hate those MTs in H5 even though the impact is fairly low compared to other games. It's not fun to grind such a RNG system to begin with, and if the item is a one-use card it feels even less rewarding. CA already got rid of them in HW2, I hope that's a good sign.
Idk, it's all for a single game mode built with the req system in mind