Emphasis added. Why would microtransactions be necessary to fund premium content? Surely the cost of the content would be what funds it. And yes, I know that purchases of cosmetics will help fund the development of… more cosmetics.
The MCC did just fine without microtransactions.
That’s not a bad idea, assuming the bots are well-made enough to provide an enjoyable experience.
I don’t know what those are, and searching didn’t help me find out.
The company is owned by Microsoft. Microsoft is presumably sitting on a mountain of cash. They have more than enough to pay the developers without having to pull from microtransaction funds. They pay the developers, and in return, they get to keep the money from the microtransactions, presumably way, way more than they paid the developers.
Line reviews are like performance evaluations. Measurement of P/L of a given product or service, how well it is received, and how much revenue it generates. These types of evaluations are pretty standard for pay rate increases.
The purchase of cosmetics, which are the microtransactions, goes to fund the development of more cosmetics, but then you say they pay the developer doing that development without having to pull from those microtransaction funds?
And also, the purchase of cosmetics will go toward funding the development of free content such as new maps, new game modes, and so forth, not just more cosmetics.
I believe that Pie means that a share of the money coming in from multiplayer will be used to also fund more content that will be released in a premium manner, like new expansions and new campaigns for the single-player side of Halo Infinite.
That’s another key thing here. Money being brought in by this or that that 343i is putting out isn’t gonna be spent 1:1 on developing more of what brought that money in. In the long tail, sales of the Infinite campaign will slow. It’s prolly gonna be a combo of money from Infinite’s sales, Game Pass subscription money, and money from the microtransactions of Infinite’s multiplayer that fund future Halo game campaigns. Microsoft’s execs using a huge blob of money at the very top to pay workers to create content, and then pocketing the money that comes from people paying for what the workers make, is a super simplistic and flawed way to look at this.
That’s why asking the devs for an option to turn off the stuff that’s gonna be a crucial way of generating revenue to fund continued development of Halo game content of all kinds is flawed.
Huh? The only paid DLC that’s part of the MCC is the games. You either paid $40 for the entire collection, or bought the games a la carte for $10 each, except for ODST, being only $5. And when the game is on sale, you can get all that half off. So it’s more like “MCC had a base entry price or paid DLC.” Not both.
Thanks for clarifying.
What I said may have been somewhat contradictory, but I don’t really believe that developers will be seeing a cent from microtransactions. If the company earns money from people buying cosmetics, then it will continue to be profitable for them to continue to make cosmetics, so they’ll continue paying the developers to make the cosmetics. In the end, we don’t know exactly where they pull from to pay the developers, but the amount of money earned from microtransactions is likely very weakly correlated with how much money the developers get paid, and very highly correlated with how much the suits get paid. Basically, by buying cosmetics, you’re lining the higher-ups’ pockets, not ensuring the future of Halo.
I disagree. I won’t be buying cosmetics either way, and I don’t believe having the option available should reasonably disincentivize people who do like the cosmetics from buying them. Especially since the option would be set to “show cosmetics” by default and would likely be buried in some menu that the majority of casual players would never see.
As far as single player goes, actual game content, like new campaigns and whatnot, can be paid DLC. For multiplayer, it remains to be seen how much of the “new content” will be cosmetics and how much will be new gameplay, like maps and game types, but I strongly suspect they’ll be prioritizing the thing that makes them more money, cosmetics.
Upon MCCs release, there was no complete bundle. You got 1-4 for $60. Reach and ODST were additional paid content to be added later, and Gamepass wasn’t fully encompassed at that point of its life cycle.
I looked this up. ODST was added for free. Reach’s multiplayer was also added for free, but existing owners of the game had to pay up for the campaign.
Anyway, Infinite’s campaign will also have a base price and paid DLC. And then microtransactions on top of that.
ODST was added for free for all early adopters of MCC that preordered and suffered through the bugs during the first month of release. Everyone else had to pay.
It’s important to note that Infinites campaign and Mutliplayer are two completely separate entities this time around. They will run completely separate apps from one another. MTX and battle pass will fund multiplayer. Any additional content for the campaign will most likely be paid DLC to fund that further.
I’m just skeptical about this, about how much funding the multiplayer’s actually going to need beyond the development of more cosmetics. I’m doubtful that they’re going to be regularly making significant changes or updates to the multiplayer.
And, of course, I still want the option to disable cosmetics, even though I know it’s not in their intere$t to give such an option.
New free maps my dude. Paid map packs haven’t been a thing for a while now because the industry has learned that segregation of the player base like that is a faux pa.
Not to mention things like Forge, Firefight, etc will all be coming free. But the funds to develop and upkeep those things needs to come from somewhere. Infinity is slated to have a 10 Year life cycle. To think it’s going to be nothing but a decade of silly armors is fool-hearted.
With it being split, and the funds for things like forge and firefight coming from the multiplayer side according to you, then shouldn’t the campaign not be $60? That was once the cost of the entire game, campaign, multiplayer, forge, firefight and all. And the previous games did just fine with that revenue model.
Ideally yes, but they are advertising a non linear open world experience that’s unlike anything we’ve seen in the Halo Universe before. That’s their justification. And unfortunately until it is released or early preview reviews come out, we don’t have much to go on whether or not it is worth that price to consumers.
This is a hefty assumption, and I believe it’s incorrect. People aren’t just “Lining the higher-ups’ pockets” when they buy stuff. When people subscribe to Xbox Game Pass, their money doesn’t go straight into the pockets of the Microsoft execs. A good chunk of the money goes to securing deals with third-party games to put them on Game Pass, and also the development of Xbox Game Studios games that’ll be on Game Pass at their launch.
A good chunk of the money spent on Halo Infinite and the cosmetics in Halo Infinite’s multiplayer is gonna go to paying developers to work on more stuff for Halo Infinite, and that “more stuff” includes a lot more than just armor. It also includes, like Pie said, the continued development and polish to be put on the co-op and Forge modes which are releasing at a later date.
Revenue models change. AAA games cost a lot more money to make now. The definition of a complete game is, and always has been changing ever since devs released ultra-tough-to-disguise-their-short-length games on the NES and SNES for some pretty crazy prices, even in 80s and 90s money. Early Access games are wildly successful.
Plenty of other games have used the same model that Infinite is using, and they’ve found success. I think that asking 343i to throw a wrench in that model, like you’re asking for with this toggle, is bad.
I feel it’s a fair statement to make. When it comes to F2P games, if you have no intention of supporting the developer, they likely will have no intention of supporting your demands.