all i see in lobbies is the basic mark 7 armour and the samurai with the free hcs colours, its very rare to see a whale in my games.
1 Like
I’ll just go back to Reach where I can earn it 
1 Like
Not even suggesting option 2 was an option, simply stating a hypothetical.
In your opinion, which of those options do you think would anger fans less?
Well better get on that, you don’t have much time left at all before the Reach servers shut down. Less than a month at this point based on what Microsoft is saying.
MCC dude.
Already unlocked it…
1 Like
Well see that’s not what you said though.
Reach and MCC have two entirely different unlock systems.
When you say “Reach” like you did, it suggests the credit system, so I gave you the appropriate heads up on the server shut down. 
Either or, still don’t have to pay for a basic feature.
1 Like
If included unlocks is what you prefer, the MCC is the perfect title for you and you should go enjoy it.
However understand that it was never an intended feature much like 80% of the game’s post launch development, and that title most likely didn’t even come close to turning a profit partially due to this fact.
MCC is a fan favorite, it does a lot of great things, but it’s a commercial failure and most likely only stayed afloat due to the profits made on Halo 5’s loot box system. This does need to be accounted for.
If 343 can’t make a product that can sustain itself without cutting out staple features from the franchise history, they shouldn’t be making games.
How did Halo CE - Halo 3 make profit then?
How does any RPG game make profit?
Single player adventure games?
Howcome Nintendo are still making games?
Howcome CD project made money from The Witcher?
Oh that’s right, they made games worth paying for, then people paid.
343 make a quarter of a game and people stick up for them as if it’s their first title.
It’s down to 343 and Microsoft to make a quality product. Which they have not. Instead they take the easy option and force players to pay for features in previous games.
3 Likes
Calling optional personalization a staple is a stretch.
Remove staples and the papers fall apart.
Remove player customization from Halo and multiplayer still plays like multiplayer, single player still plays like single player, forge still plays like forge, theater still functions like theater.
If staples hold things together, then player customization acts more like sprinkles or spices. Adds a bit of visual flair or variety, makes things taste a bit different. Truly unless you can prove to me how player customization keeps this game from falling apart, it’s a stretch at best to suggest it does.
There’s a lot of generalizations going on here, some of these can be grouped up, others need to explained individually. We can discuss this.
I’ll try to generalize a categorical approach the best I can to keep things concise.
Halo CE-3 can be explained as having commercial success in a time when games were cheaper to develop in a longer timeframe. Smaller teams meant work was rough, and hardware and infrastructure limitations meant full retail box copies were the status quo. Deadlines had to be met because you couldn’t get away with putting a unplayably broken game on a disc. Different era, different ‘rules’.
RPG’s, single player games, Nintendo can generally be summed up as a great example of keeping goals and budgets in check. There’s a ton of points that can branch off and we can go into really specific detail, Nintendo’s in house development teams for example reuse a ton of assets across many games and keep games very cheap to produce and more likely to turn a profit. In some cases in this industry, these games’ developments are actually knowingly subsidized by other commercial successes because they won’t turn a profit on their own, Square Enix is known to do this.
The Witcher is actually an interesting tidbit. The third game only achieved commercial success long after launch. It cost an estimated $81mil to make (budgeting and goal setting), and only netted $61mil in the first half of 2015 after it launched. For all intents and purposes, it was initially a commercial flop. Since launch it’s pulled in about $215mil, and that was from a post from about 3 years ago. Contrarily Halo Reach made $200mil its opening day with a $100mil development cost, and pulled in an additional $150mil by the end of that month.
It’s not simply about “making games worth paying for”, that’s a massively important aspect, but it’s also about making sure that budgets can met and exceeded profit wise. Which is where Halo Infinite has an incredibly steep mountain to climb with its $500mil budget.
Well because there are things about this title worth sticking up for. There’s plenty that needs to be addressed, tons of issues, nobody is denying this. But the game’s bones are pretty great, free AAA multiplayer is incredibly inviting for players and welcomes them into the game in droves which bolsters population sizes, which means they’re also more likely to spend money.
It is up to 343 to make a quality product, which is still far from the case. Reminds me of the MCC, except Infinite is actually playable a month after launch. Which lends itself much better to attaining successful support and development over the next few years.
So I’m gonna throw a little hypothetical dichotomy your way (I think I’ve earned the right to do so after my meticulous and logical breakdowns), you choose which one you’d rather hypothetically have:
Which one seems like it would “force” players to pay for more?
All of that and you still can’t actually give me a good enough reason other than 343 needs to make money.
1 Like
It’s all about money, always been about money, nobody was ever trying to argue that it wasn’t and isn’t and isn’t going to be. There’s no need to strawman.
Looks like you need to spend some time and actually read the post my guy. All your points addressed, and you can’t even be bothered to discuss them, only followed up with a single sentence strawman.
Didn’t even answer the specific question at the bottom, now that’s a bit rude 
I just think it’s pretty gross how, even if you wanted to buy it, you can’t even wear it unless you bought the battle pass to get the Mark V(B) armor core. So it’s $30 actually. Not really going to affect me since I am buying neither until improvements to the shop are made, but it’s amazing how for $30 I can get a brand new dungeon, an exotic weapon, and instant access to cosmetics in Destiny 2’s Bungie 30th anniversary bundle whereas one set of armor and filler is worth that much to 343.
1 Like
It took Bungie Destiny 2’s entire post development cycle to fine tune the game’s monetization system and it’s clear it’s not even close to being perfect yet. You can say this now because it ignores the egregious issues and controversy that the game faced early on with these systems, much like what’s going on in Infinite now.
And 343 had years to learn from the missteps of past developers and publishers yet chose the current system. Sucks to be them. Guess requiring people to buy the season pass before being able to use items they pay for was just what they were forced to do.
3 Likes
And Bungie had years prior to learn from the missteps of their own endeavors, yet they made it worse in the first few years Destiny 2 when they literally repeated D1 with less to do, yet they learned from these mistakes (that were already been learned by the end of Rise of Iron, but went completely ignored) and turned a smelly pile of excrement into something worth playing and worth spending money on.
It’s almost as if changes can be made over time to a game to rectify egregious mistakes and correct missteps that lead to a better experience in the long run. 
Customization has been a fan favourite feature in games pre-dating Halo CE.
It’s part of the whole package, a part of the experience. When you start messing with one part the whole thing suffers. No, poor customization doesn’t directly affect the gameplay but the overall impression is affected.
There’s a reason it’s so heavily monetized.
Yeah… Since the digital era with game downloads, quality has suffered, day one patches the norm, less content, and far lower standards with gamers. But no, there are still games launched quite broken in so many meanings of the word, and they still don’t get away.
The bar is just lower than before, and many keep their head just above the surface of that.
Barely passing the bar isn’t an achievement to celebrate.
But, perhaps it’ll become one because as the bar of “passable” has sunk, so has standards.
Not to mention the current work ethics in game development making headlines on an almost constant basis today.
Remember when game publishers tried to tout “single player games are dead”? Because that was a thing.
The take away here though, some companies manage to make games well and make a profit, keeping costs down.
Others fail miserably and let the money fly, then justify manipulative means of tricking money out of whales by that.
“Oh the costs are so high”.
How’s that our problem? Why make it our problem?
Then we get the guilt tripping fans.
“If you want to have more you need to spend money on it so they get to continue”. “If you want it to improve, you need to spend money on it” etc.
Witcher 3 never rode on the same previous success wave many of the popular games rely on today. Yes, the previous games were popular but they weren’t mass known like say Elder Scrolls or CoD. Not to mention a higher age rating.
How big is the marketing of that? A part which has blown “out of proportions as of late”.
Either way, larger budgets is not something which should go out over the players.
4 Likes
The shop almost got me today with their red and gold coating. If the colors were to had been inversed I would have slapped $20 down so fast.
I Did not mean to reply to you Mr fox. My bad. Wrong number.
No issue… These forums are rather over complicated and confusing to use at times lol.
Didn’t the MCC sell 81 million units it’s a $40 game that sold 81 million units I’d say it made them a decent profit
2 Likes