Have you a single counterpoint?
Pay-To-Win is a Gaming Sin when it is not a mobile game.
1 Like
And Halo 5 Warzone is not Pay-to-win.
So you’re saying that a team with no REQs or very few REQs can win against a team with a LOT of REQs?
It is probably similar to how Blitz Packs and Blitz mode of Halo Wars 2 was not that very well received and hardly played - It was a Pay-To-Win experience.
1 Like
Did you even read any of my previous comments?
Ugh. I’m going to bed.
Goodnight and learn that Paying for the ability to play a game-mode even better is a sin.
I agree. Warzone isn’t one of those.
You pay money for packs that give you better weapons.
Ergo, it is pay to win.
Literally read my previous comments. They address exactly that.
It’s like you’re being wilfully ignorant.
“Hey kid. You wanna increase your chances of victory in this game? Pay money to get REQ Packs! They give you better weapons and vehicles to use in your fights against players in War Zone and against A.I.s in War Zone Firefight!”
It significantly increases your odds of success.
Pay
To
Win
1 Like
Except.
It.
Does.
Not.
Increase.
Your.
Chances.
Of.
Success.
Due.
To.
The.
Aforementioned.
Points.
Made.
In.
My.
Previous.
Comments.
Why should I have to repeat myself?
It may have sold well, but that initial selling also tipped off all the people who bought into the game to just how deplorable Halo has become. If anything, that initial success might actually have come as more of a detriment to Halo in general, because now more people are aware of just how low the ship has sunk.
It might be, but since so many people’s first impressions of this game were subverted so hard, there might not be enough people around to actually appreciate that.
Subjectivity wasn’t the main point of the post.
The main point is how paywalls negatively impact gameplay by simply existing. You’re encouraged to spend money if you want to bypass grind to get more powerful weapons for use in Warzone.
That’s not how it should be and I hope 343 realizes that.
“By simply existing” is not an argument.
That’s because that was a startup sentence to indroduce my point which is this:
Except, due to the points I made previously that it seems no one wants to digest, Warzone is NOT Pay-to-win.
You’re argument suggests that you have concessions with the micro-transactions in the first place, yet you haven’t presented a single counterpoint to what I said earlier.
You called those points “my opinion” when they are all verifiable facts you can find by simply booting Halo 5. It’s impossible for any of this to be subjective. Whether a game is pay-to-win or not cannot be argued as subjective.
it do.
1 Like
Considering you’re not over-typing your comments, this suggests to me that you’re just trolling now.
1 Like
Nope.
Just busy writing a report at work today because a patient on SW decided to aggressively elope from his room, assault my staff, and was put into police custody.
Extensive report.
But my point on the subject at hand is that IF you can pay money to get better guns in a game to make it easier to kill opponents, THEREFORE it is a pay-to-win experience.
My previous comments refute that idea.
Can you recite what I said?