I see a lot of people hating Halo 5 for requistions and for staggered content release. But these are parts of a wider business model that makes more sence for developers and publishers to be used as they’re more profitable.
They used to make triple A games by just giving a developer a huge budget and letting them make the game. The game is released and the publisher hopes that they’ll make the money back. Game development costs were running into the tens of millions of dollars and if they flopped, it was a huge loss for the publisher so they looked around for other business models to protect their profits.
Hence we see the Halo 5 model. Microsoft funded the creation of a campaign and core multiplayer experience with an additional microtransaction service to fund further development. This actually has the benefit of decreasing development time, allowing them to release games more often but also the benefit of funding a developer long term through the microtransactions. This adds stability to the business model overall and increases job security too. In terms of profitability, the publisher sees a return on their investment quicker and probably higher. If the game flops, the publisher loses less, cuts additiona content plans and can invest in a new game.
Some people are so mad beause they’re used to the old skool style content binge every couple of years rather than this drip feeding of content annually. Sadly, this is how most games will probably be made in the future and we should enjoy the benefits!
Another benefit for the deveoper to this business model is that players that get quickly bored of a game and abandon it for another don’t enjoy all the content the developer has created. As creative types this is really bad. Like buying an expensive Picasso and only looking at the top left hand corner.
Microsoft funded an advertisement campaign that bared no similarity to the finished product (single player wise)
Microsoft could take a loss on halo 5 it wouldnt bankrupt them, however the lack of content has ment that this come has thousands of used copies flooding the market thus driving down the cost, the population has not been retained to purchase REQS in volume that may or may not be classed as sucessful.
Example , nintendo who I would say (dont quote me ) are smaller then microsoft , release splatoon, a new IP with no fan base , on a console that is considered a flop, yet provide free content , maps and weapons for over 6 months…
so is halo 5 a buisness model or an exploitation of an existing fanbase?
It also makes sense to let community feedback drive what is developed post launch updates. Problem is that the turnaround for idea to deliverable takes so long that players (like myself) get frustrated with 343.
I would agree with you if they made the game in less time compared to the previous games, but they are still keeping the same game development timeline, meaning three years between the games. So in reality, they are releasing games with less content compared to the previous titles, in the same amount of time, to then micro transaction the customer to then get content that should have been released at the launch of the game. This is a business model to make less and get paid more for it. Nothing else.
> 2535409921983737;2:
> Microsoft funded an advertisement campaign that bared no similarity to the finished product (single player wise)
> Microsoft could take a loss on halo 5 it wouldnt bankrupt them, however the lack of content has ment that this come has thousands of used copies flooding the market thus driving down the cost, the population has not been retained to purchase REQS in volume that may or may not be classed as sucessful.
>
> Example , nintendo who I would say (dont quote me ) are smaller then microsoft , release splatoon, a new IP with no fan base , on a console that is considered a flop, yet provide free content , maps and weapons for over 6 months…
>
> so is halo 5 a buisness model or an exploitation of an existing fanbase?
Of course Nintendo are going to offer loads of free content - to tempt you into buying the game and their console - they need you to.
I think req purchasing is classed a successful as they’re continuing to deliver the content.
> 2601632999026533;1:
> I see a lot of people hating Halo 5 for requistions and for staggered content release. But these are parts of a wider business model that makes more sence for developers and publishers to be used as they’re more profitable.
>
> They used to make triple A games by just giving a developer a huge budget and letting them make the game. The game is released and the publisher hopes that they’ll make the money back. Game development costs were running into the tens of millions of dollars and if they flopped, it was a huge loss for the publisher so they looked around for other business models to protect their profits.
>
> Hence we see the Halo 5 model. Microsoft funded the creation of a campaign and core multiplayer experience with an additional microtransaction service to fund further development. This actually has the benefit of decreasing development time, allowing them to release games more often but also the benefit of funding a developer long term through the microtransactions. This adds stability to the business model overall and increases job security too. In terms of profitability, the publisher sees a return on their investment quicker and probably higher. If the game flops, the publisher loses less, cuts additiona content plans and can invest in a new game.
>
> Some people are so mad beause they’re used to the old skool style content binge every couple of years rather than this drip feeding of content annually. Sadly, this is how most games will probably be made in the future and we should enjoy the benefits!
>
> Another benefit to this business model is that players that get quickly bored of a game and abandon it for another don’t enjoy all the content the developer has created. As creative types this is really bad. Like buying an expensive Picasso and only looking at the top left hand corner.
>
> My two cents guys.
How is that a benefit?
Also, I doubt it’ll be a practice for future games.
Destiny saw it and got huge backlash, now Halo 5 tried it, and it was a huge backlash.
There’s nothing beneficial with this method over a “finished” game for the consumer.
Atleast I hope this little experiment will die out quickly.
I pretty much hate triple-A gaming in general, but aside from that…
I don’t see how it decreases development time? Halo 5 has been in development for three years.
Some of the other claims are a bit sketchy. If the game flops…who is going to be left playing it to even want to buy microtransactions in the first place? What return are the publishers actually getting?
“Another benefit to this business model is that players that get quickly bored of a game and abandon it for another don’t enjoy all the content the developer has created.” I’m…struggling to see what exactly the benefit is here.
If I had to pay more for games with the acknowledgement I get a full plethora of content on release, that would be fine by me. This delayed release -Yoink- is getting tiresome very fast.
Also, I don’t understand how implementing a small amount of content that has barely any replayability then drip-feeding small chunks is supposed to retain players better than giving everyone all the tools right from the get-go. If the game is fun to play, people will stick around longer than coming back once a month for the new drip of rehashed maps and eyesore weapon skins. Sorry, but this business model is precisely what led me to sell destiny and halo 5, I expect to have content on launch worth what I paid for, not six months down the line. The fact that Halos 3 and Reach all launched with more content and options than 5 and were still in the top ten most played 3+ years after launch says something, doesn’t it? The sad truth is, people didn’t stick around for Halo 4 because there were better options out there. People didn’t stick around for MCC because it was broken and people aren’t sticking around for Halo 5 because they feel cheated out of their money, and rightly so. A game should surive on it’s merits as a fun game, not by artificially lengthening the game by restricting its content release schedule.
Ultimately, the “If you release it all on launch then people will burn through it quicker” attitude is a pathetic attempt by those who have been suckered into this business model by the likes of Destiny, Battlefront, Halo 5 and a plethora of other (Relatively) recent titles to justify their continued purchase of these games and their willingness to have less content for the same price as before. Sorry, but if I wanted to play early-access games, I’d go look on Steam or Kickstarter. If I’m paying a premium price, I expect the best quality games, not half–Yoinked!- attempts to rush out a functional piece of software before christmas. If a higher price and a longer wait to buy games is needed to make this happen, I’m all for it. Right now, I will not be buying Halo 6 until I can guarantee the campaign isn’t a blatant lie and it launches with a substantial amount of content. If it goes the same way as Halo 5, I’ll probably just watch the story on YouTube or borrow the disc froma friend or somethng. I do not feel comfortable giving 343 my money right now.
> 2533274795123910;6:
> > 2601632999026533;1:
> > I see a lot of people hating Halo 5 for requistions and for staggered content release. But these are parts of a wider business model that makes more sence for developers and publishers to be used as they’re more profitable.
> >
> > They used to make triple A games by just giving a developer a huge budget and letting them make the game. The game is released and the publisher hopes that they’ll make the money back. Game development costs were running into the tens of millions of dollars and if they flopped, it was a huge loss for the publisher so they looked around for other business models to protect their profits.
> >
> > Hence we see the Halo 5 model. Microsoft funded the creation of a campaign and core multiplayer experience with an additional microtransaction service to fund further development. This actually has the benefit of decreasing development time, allowing them to release games more often but also the benefit of funding a developer long term through the microtransactions. This adds stability to the business model overall and increases job security too. In terms of profitability, the publisher sees a return on their investment quicker and probably higher. If the game flops, the publisher loses less, cuts additiona content plans and can invest in a new game.
> >
> > Some people are so mad beause they’re used to the old skool style content binge every couple of years rather than this drip feeding of content annually. Sadly, this is how most games will probably be made in the future and we should enjoy the benefits!
> >
> > Another benefit to this business model is that players that get quickly bored of a game and abandon it for another don’t enjoy all the content the developer has created. As creative types this is really bad. Like buying an expensive Picasso and only looking at the top left hand corner.
> >
> > My two cents guys.
>
>
> How is that a benefit?
>
> Also, I doubt it’ll be a practice for future games.
> Destiny saw it and got huge backlash, now Halo 5 tried it, and it was a huge backlash.
> There’s nothing beneficial with this method over a “finished” game for the consumer.
>
> Atleast I hope this little experiment will die out quickly.
>
> Triple A game development crash anyone?
give it a few years and it will hopefully go the same route as motion controls and online passes.
> 2533274800383882;4:
> I would agree with you if they made the game in less time compared to the previous games, but they are still keeping the same game development timeline, meaning three years between the games. So in reality, they are releasing games with less content compared to the previous titles, in the same amount of time, to then micro transaction the customer to then get content that should have been released at the launch of the game. This is a business model to make less and get paid more for it. Nothing else.
people will try to counter your argument with “It’s the first full game developed on the xbox one you entitled loser”. Well guess what halo 3 was the first halo game on thee 360 and the 360 is harder to develop for than the xbox one (the one supports pc development tools better than the 360) Why is it that halo 3, a 7 year old game has more content if the xbox one is as powerful as they say it is. This -Yoinked!- up buisness model sucks and i hope they deliver a full game at launch with halo 6, If these “free” updates had any worthwhile content I wouldn’t be so mad but all it is, is 343 gradually giving us back the stuff we should have had at launch! pluss some pointless reqs that we’ll never get! And don’t get me started with the remixes, JUST MAKE NEW MAPS! Think of maps from previous games. What halo 5 map holds a candle to them? none… So why would you want to remake them? haven in halo 4 was memorable, you did a good job with that 343! I know 343 are passionate about halo but these slip ups need to stop. this week we get some new reqs, a remix, a warzone assault map (that should have come in the last update) BUT PIZZA SKIN! funny joke 343 but where is infection, griffball, a permanent snipers or doubles playlist? I love halo so please don’t think im hating, I criticise 343 because i love halo and I know 343 can do better. You nailed the gameplay 343 now give us stuff to do, preferably sooner rather than later.
Personally I prefer the old model of making an amazing game and releasing it in a finished state! There’s way too many instances of games being released in buggy states, or released without much content. Halo 5 is the latter - while it’s a solid fps, there’s not enough maps and playlists. And the fact that they have removed a few of them, or only kept them on for holidays or weekends is sickening. There is no valid reason that we can’t play team doubles, the game is already created!
I have no problem with the steady trickle of dlc, it keeps things interesting. I just wish they’d got the game right first, then add more, instead of adding stuff that should already be there.
And tbh, I think 343 are borderline fraudulent with some of their claims. Such as saying there’ll be regional server selection, then there isn’t. This sort of thing is 100% unacceptable.
You guys are all pointing out the problems with the business model for gamers but does this have enogh of an impact on the bottom line to discourage the publisher from doing the same again? With cheaper development costs, the ability to cut losses early and the microtransactions, plus investing in a clever marketing campaign - have Microsoft made enough profit to justify continuing with this model?
It’s working for a lot of mobile game developers, Supercell have made a small fortune and the big publishers want a slice. I see this business model being used again and again.
> 2601632999026533;12:
> You guys are all pointing out the problems with the business model for gamers but does this have enogh of an impact on the bottom line to discourage the publisher from doing the same again? With cheaper development costs, the ability to cut losses early and the microtransactions, plus investing in a clever marketing campaign - have Microsoft made enough profit to justify continuing with this model?
>
> It’s working for a lot of mobile game developers, Supercell have made a small fortune and the big publishers want a slice. I see this business model being used again and again.
If it becomes a long term problem for gamers, they’ll probably stop consuming these problem products, meaning it will be a problem for the businesses.
Mobile game developers are on an entirely different price range than triple A gaming.
It’ll probably be used a lot, but seeing the dawn of it and the major backlash that it has seen, I really doubt it’ll go well in the end.
> 2533274795123910;13:
> > 2601632999026533;12:
> > You guys are all pointing out the problems with the business model for gamers but does this have enogh of an impact on the bottom line to discourage the publisher from doing the same again? With cheaper development costs, the ability to cut losses early and the microtransactions, plus investing in a clever marketing campaign - have Microsoft made enough profit to justify continuing with this model?
> >
> > It’s working for a lot of mobile game developers, Supercell have made a small fortune and the big publishers want a slice. I see this business model being used again and again.
>
>
> If it becomes a long term problem for gamers, they’ll probably stop consuming these problem products, meaning it will be a problem for the businesses.
>
> Mobile game developers are on an entirely different price range than triple A gaming.
> It’ll probably be used a lot, but seeing the dawn of it and the major backlash that it has seen, I really doubt it’ll go well in the end.
I think this “major backlash” that a lot of people talk about is perception more than fact. The millions of people that bought and enjoy Halo 5 aren’t going to complain as they’re happy. This forum is full of the disgruntled minority which makes people think there’s a massive backlash. They’ve sold millions of copies, raised millions through REQs and the population look steady. This also is true of Battlefront and Destiny. This model is here to stay.
> 2601632999026533;14:
> > 2533274795123910;13:
> > > 2601632999026533;12:
> > > You guys are all pointing out the problems with the business model for gamers but does this have enogh of an impact on the bottom line to discourage the publisher from doing the same again? With cheaper development costs, the ability to cut losses early and the microtransactions, plus investing in a clever marketing campaign - have Microsoft made enough profit to justify continuing with this model?
> > >
> > > It’s working for a lot of mobile game developers, Supercell have made a small fortune and the big publishers want a slice. I see this business model being used again and again.
> >
> >
> > If it becomes a long term problem for gamers, they’ll probably stop consuming these problem products, meaning it will be a problem for the businesses.
> >
> > Mobile game developers are on an entirely different price range than triple A gaming.
> > It’ll probably be used a lot, but seeing the dawn of it and the major backlash that it has seen, I really doubt it’ll go well in the end.
>
>
> I think this “major backlash” that a lot of people talk about is perception more than fact. The millions of people that bought and enjoy Halo 5 aren’t going to complain as they’re happy. This forum is full of the disgruntled minority which makes people think there’s a massive backlash. They’ve sold millions of copies, raised millions through REQs and the population look steady. This also is true of Battlefront and Destiny. This model is here to stay.
“Millions” enjoy Halo 5?
The only somewhat population steady game at the moment is CoD.
The initial player base at launch for Destiny was smaller than those who tried the beta, and it too dwindled down.
I then again have no experience with BF, but as far as I’m concerned it isn’t doing all too well in terms of population retention either.
Millions of copies sold means little if player retention is bad. Especially if there’s going to be a sequel or expansion.
I’m not saying the model is going away any time soon, I’m saying that if they keep up, we might see a game crash.
Stagnation in the genres and long development times for barebone experiences with content drip feed, we are not heafing for good times. Even the indie market looks bleak.
We’ll see with Halo 6 though. Thinking it might be my last main Halo title if they keep up with what they’re doing. Misleading marketing, barebone experience, same-same gameplay, lackluster drip feeding. Even worried about HW2 as it’s the same developer who put an entire race, and important race no less, as a pre-order bonus for their upcomming Warhammer game.
> 2601632999026533;14:
> > 2533274795123910;13:
> > > 2601632999026533;12:
> > > You guys are all pointing out the problems with the business model for gamers but does this have enogh of an impact on the bottom line to discourage the publisher from doing the same again? With cheaper development costs, the ability to cut losses early and the microtransactions, plus investing in a clever marketing campaign - have Microsoft made enough profit to justify continuing with this model?
> > >
> > > It’s working for a lot of mobile game developers, Supercell have made a small fortune and the big publishers want a slice. I see this business model being used again and again.
> >
> >
> > If it becomes a long term problem for gamers, they’ll probably stop consuming these problem products, meaning it will be a problem for the businesses.
> >
> > Mobile game developers are on an entirely different price range than triple A gaming.
> > It’ll probably be used a lot, but seeing the dawn of it and the major backlash that it has seen, I really doubt it’ll go well in the end.
>
>
> I think this “major backlash” that a lot of people talk about is perception more than fact. The millions of people that bought and enjoy Halo 5 aren’t going to complain as they’re happy. This forum is full of the disgruntled minority which makes people think there’s a massive backlash. They’ve sold millions of copies, raised millions through REQs and the population look steady. This also is true of Battlefront and Destiny. This model is here to stay.
All three games have had backlash outside of these forums too. Even worse is that Halo 5 does not have the same level of population Destiny and Battlefront has.
Millions bought these games but current less than 45 thousand people play Battlefront daily on the Xbone and even less play Halo 5.
Population retention is obviously key for continuing to profit from microtransactions for a freemium title. This isn’t freemium. Halo 5 has made more than $400 million in global sales. So that’s covered development costs just from initial sales plus costs for updates. So popultion retention isn’t key, however, it’s the loyal, hardcore player that sticks around and spends on REQs meaning the income continues. Frankly, to be brutal, why would 343i chane their approach now? They’ve made a ton of cash, making more everyday. They can happily delivered their vision, ignore complaints and go onto make Halo 6 - no worries. The people complaining here are a tiny percentage of the actual population.
While I appreciate your opinion, and your maturity in which you wrote this, whether it’s true or not is no excuse. Halo is a AAA title, if they lack so much confidence in the game to have the business model you described, then that’s the problem. MS knew 343s game would flop, so they created this ‘secure’ model, as you stated-if what you said is true- to secure their money. So in other words, MS lacks confidence in 343 to such an extent they would damage the franchise with this model, in order to make sure they get money.
Well, that’s how I see it, if this is true. If not, then it’s simply as describe in the above comments by other members.
> 2533274904944768;8:
> If I had to pay more for games with the acknowledgement I get a full plethora of content on release, that would be fine by me. This delayed release -Yoink- is getting tiresome very fast.
>
> Also, I don’t understand how implementing a small amount of content that has barely any replayability then drip-feeding small chunks is supposed to retain players better than giving everyone all the tools right from the get-go. If the game is fun to play, people will stick around longer than coming back once a month for the new drip of rehashed maps and eyesore weapon skins. Sorry, but this business model is precisely what led me to sell destiny and halo 5, I expect to have content on launch worth what I paid for, not six months down the line. The fact that Halos 3 and Reach all launched with more content and options than 5 and were still in the top ten most played 3+ years after launch says something, doesn’t it? The sad truth is, people didn’t stick around for Halo 4 because there were better options out there. People didn’t stick around for MCC because it was broken and people aren’t sticking around for Halo 5 because they feel cheated out of their money, and rightly so. A game should surive on it’s merits as a fun game, not by artificially lengthening the game by restricting its content release schedule.
>
> Ultimately, the “If you release it all on launch then people will burn through it quicker” attitude is a pathetic attempt by those who have been suckered into this business model by the likes of Destiny, Battlefront, Halo 5 and a plethora of other (Relatively) recent titles to justify their continued purchase of these games and their willingness to have less content for the same price as before. Sorry, but if I wanted to play early-access games, I’d go look on Steam or Kickstarter. If I’m paying a premium price, I expect the best quality games, not half–Yoinked!- attempts to rush out a functional piece of software before christmas. If a higher price and a longer wait to buy games is needed to make this happen, I’m all for it. Right now, I will not be buying Halo 6 until I can guarantee the campaign isn’t a blatant lie and it launches with a substantial amount of content. If it goes the same way as Halo 5, I’ll probably just watch the story on YouTube or borrow the disc froma friend or somethng. I do not feel comfortable giving 343 my money right now.
Agreed with this mate. Long post but explains things very well.
I miss the days when I was younger, buy the game from the store, put the disc in and that’s it. No need to get on the Internet to see when/if we are getting the rest of it months down the line. When I was younger I imagined how crazy good gaming would become, now I wish it stayed the way it was, as AAA gaming now is horrendous.
> 2533274875084332;18:
> While I appreciate your opinion, and your maturity in which you wrote this, whether it’s true or not is no excuse. Halo is a AAA title, if they lack so much confidence in the game to have the business model you described, then that’s the problem. MS knew 343s game would flop, so they created this ‘secure’ model, as you stated-if what you said is true- to secure their money. So in other words, MS lacks confidence in 343 to such an extent they would damage the franchise with this model, in order to make sure they get money.
>
> Well, that’s how I see it, if this is true. If not, then it’s simply as describe in the above comments by other members.
I don’t think MS thought this game would “flop”, it’s Halo. It also hasn’t flopped. It made $400m on launch and millions since. This business model is more secure and more profitable especially when you factor in the huge margin improvements gained from digital distribution. They haven’t damaged the franchise, there are hundreds of thousands of people who bought and played the game and still playing the game now. This forum is simply a small cross section of the vocal minority.