If prices are adjusted: Reimburse us the difference in Credits

[ODST_Blues]

Also these transactions are happening through the Microsoft store, no? I think if you go to the Microsoft support web page you can post a thread there and have an actual Microsoft agent respond. I tried looking it up and someone wanted a refund on micro transactions through the Microsoft store and an agent replied saying you’d have to personally take that up with the “seller”?

So maybe somewhere on waypoint there’s a support page where you can get a true response. If you really want to get down to it. I know this thread is just a suggestion or opinion or what not. It’s still a good question/topic and I’m sure the answer is lying around somewhere

For the record, i’m not a Microsoft agent or work for 343. I’m just coming up with this stuff out of my -Yoink!-

[KCD0DGER]

@Naqser

I think the biggest question here regarding this topic is. Would you have done anything differently regarding your purchases you’d like a reimbursement on?
You state prices are high as they are, and yes, they are. Would you then, if you could redo it, not purchase the items or would you change nothing?

Seeing as it is the only way to get an essential armor piece at the moment, no. But I’m not happy about it.

[Wheelaa1]

No video game cosmetics are ‘essential’. First world problem at its finest.

[CuriousGalaxy91]

This is dependent on how the laws are written and if they apply to online purchases. It wouldn’t surprise me if there exist some consumer protection rights in regards to purchasing digital items (digital tokens like an in game currency) for real world money.

[Naqser]

@CuriousGalaxy91

It wouldn’t surprise me if there exist some consumer protection rights in regards to purchasing digital items (digital tokens like an in game currency) for real world money.

Purchase tokens, credits, digital currency: most likely protected with laws for the benefit of the consumer.

Purchase digital items with token, credits, digital currency: unclear if laws go so far as to give rights to the consumer.

It’d be one thing to purchase the Hazop directly for X amount of whatever real world currency you use.
But it’s an entirely different thing to first purchase premium currency for real money, and then use that currency to purchase the Hazop set.

[Naqser]

@KCD0DGER

Seeing as it is the only way to get an essential armor piece at the moment, no. But I’m not happy about it.

So you wouldn’t change anything at all?
We’re now entering “actions speak louder than words”.

[ShinoKeiyakusha]

@Nohr_Tenko

They’re not “screwing” anyone over, I will admit, I would prefer they didn’t support the system but as it currently stands:

They actually are.

@Nohr_Tenko

The amount of backlash from the system is more than enough to warrant a change, after all, it’s not like they can sustain the game when only a 1/10th of the players are using the store regardless of how much they spend, nor do they want every news article making them look bad.

It might not always be enough to get them to change things.

@Nohr_Tenko

They might just genuinely like the game and want to support it once and still support store changes.

Supporting it is the problem.
By buying high-priced items in the store, you’re basically saying that you’re against the people who want the store changed.

It’s like people telling their coworkers who are protesting that they support them and are against whatever is happening at their job, but then they tell the boss that they’re okay with what’s happening.

If the changes happen despite how they undermined them, do you think their co-workers are going to be happy with them also getting the benefits when they know that they did that?

That said, my opinion is that it would be okay for them to also get the benefits despite what they did, but I wouldn’t say their actions were good or even okay.

@Nohr_Tenko

Being spiteful and providing literally no contributions to a conversation other than “Lmao, you suck” is literally the definition of toxic person, helps literally no one, and does literally nothing but make the community look bad.

Saying you don’t support the system and would like to see if changed in a certain way = good

Sending hate mail to people who might have used microsoft reward points, made a one time purchase for support, just really liked a certain cosmetic item = Not good, toxic, unhelpful.

I agree.
Some people probably want to help or they’re angry, but they’re really not helping to get things changed.

[ShinoKeiyakusha]

@BabyMango20XX

When a store has sales or lowers prices. Do they give you the difference back?

You could ask about it.
It probably wouldn’t be something they do for you every time though.

@BabyMango20XX

Microsoft owes me the hundreds back

It’s not really that they owe you, rather it’s a courtesy.

@Wheelaa1

No video game cosmetics are ‘essential’. First world problem at its finest.

Being gouged in a video game isn’t that important compared to other aspects of life, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a problem worth talking about.

[Nohr_Tenko]

For points 2, and it might be enough already, we’re talking hypothetically at this point, we won’t know until later, if nothing changes, we get louder, bad publicity can kill an online service, this is one of those things where we have to wait and see what they do.

Point 3, Halo Infinite MP is free to play, like it or not 343 made it that way this time around, if someone is playing for the first time and they want to see the game grow and develop, change and improve, you support it… if, after a while 343 still doesn’t change and improve then you stop supporting it.

Yes, the store is awful and needs changing, but the store isn’t the only part of the game. The game is visually beautiful, unique, and has a lot going for it, if someone doesn’t buy the campaign, giving them a $10, $20 purchase won’t be the end of the world.

If someone is mindlessly purchasing everything, THEN, they are a part of the problem, but if someone buys a HCS skin to show support or a $20 bundle one time to show they really like the game, you don’t hate them for that, it’s not that they’re a turncoat or a sellout or whatever other crude thing people want to say, they just want to see the game succeed.

Sure, all these purchases might help them through the first couple of months, but what about a year? If it takes 343i a couple more months to realize that lowering the store prices would help make people happy and increase their revenue at the same time because the current system doesn’t contribute to long term sustainability, I can wait, but that’s something that comes down to each person individually, as I know some people want more immediate results.

[Spyra2005]

Only if prices are reduced.

[ShinoKeiyakusha]

@Nohr_Tenko

For points 2, and it might be enough already, we’re talking hypothetically at this point, we won’t know until later, if nothing changes, we get louder, bad publicity can kill an online service, this is one of those things where we have to wait and see what they do.

We’ll see, I suppose.

@Nohr_Tenko

Point 3, Halo Infinite MP is free to play, like it or not 343 made it that way this time around, if someone is playing for the first time and they want to see the game grow and develop, change and improve, you support it… if, after a while 343 still doesn’t change and improve then you stop supporting it.

I want to support the game, but I won’t support gouging and others shouldn’t either, since it has an effect on everyone, and not just the players for this game either.

@Nohr_Tenko

Yes, the store is awful and needs changing, but the store isn’t the only part of the game. The game is visually beautiful, unique, and has a lot going for it, if someone doesn’t buy the campaign, giving them a $10, $20 purchase won’t be the end of the world.

The game doesn’t have much going for it at the moment.
It looks good, and it has good gameplay, but everything else about it is mediocre at best.

@Nohr_Tenko

If someone is mindlessly purchasing everything, THEN, they are a part of the problem, but if someone buys a HCS skin to show support or a $20 bundle one time to show they really like the game, you don’t hate them for that, it’s not that they’re a turncoat or a sellout or whatever other crude thing people want to say, they just want to see the game succeed.

Paying $20 for 1 armor makes them a part of the problem.
I wouldn’t say the same of someone buying the Battle Pass.

@Nohr_Tenko

Sure, all these purchases might help them through the first couple of months, but what about a year? If it takes 343i a couple more months to realize that lowering the store prices would help make people happy and increase their revenue at the same time because the current system doesn’t contribute to long term sustainability, I can wait, but that’s something that comes down to each person individually, as I know some people want more immediate results.

That’s the problem.
It might not increase the revenue.
Also, people might still be buying in a year or even several.
With that being the case, why would they lower the prices?
If you had someone who was willing to give you $10 billion for the cars that you make, and they bought your cars at that price every month, would you sell your cars for a price that normal people could afford?

[Nohr_Tenko]

For the final point in particular (apologies, I don’t know how to do that quote thing):

It will increase revenue if the amount of people who want the prices adjusted are anything to go by, people are saying they want to spend money, but not THAT much money.

Yes, they run the risk of getting less income per week, but the opposite could is also true, and they’d also have more loyal consumers and better publicity on top of it, this would also make selling other things to them easier, after all, if they changed the price for the people, they must have the people’s interest in mind, right?

Yes, people are also going to buy things each week, sometimes it will be the same people (whales) but realistically speaking, not everyone has $20 they’re willing to spend each week on the same game, but $10? That’s a lot more plausible.

And your car analogy supports my prior argument, if 1 person is spending 10 billion each month, why are you targeting the person who spent $20, 3 months ago, they’re not the problem, it’s the person spending 10 billion each month, not the dude who spent $20 on a souvenir.

Edit:
If a person bought Zvezda, week 1, and has purchased nothing since then, has advocated against the store prices and for whatever reason, we know they won’t buy anything else, are they a part of the problem?

If you say “Yes” here, we should probably stop debating because this is a whole new can of worms I don’t think either of us will be able to convince eachother on anytime soon.

We seem to be on the same page for the most part, store prices bad, but we seem to be getting tripped up here.

[ShinoKeiyakusha]

@Nohr_Tenko

For the final point in particular (apologies, I don’t know how to do that quote thing):

No problem.
Highlight the text you want to quote, and it should show “Quote” above it.
When you do that, it either starts a new post or adds the text to an in-progress post.

@Nohr_Tenko

It will increase revenue if the amount of people who want the prices adjusted are anything to go by, people are saying they want to spend money, but not THAT much money.

I doubt it’s actually enough to counter the amount of people who aren’t bothered by it.

@Nohr_Tenko

Yes, they run the risk of getting less income per week, but the opposite could is also true, and they’d also have more loyal consumers and better publicity on top of it, this would also make selling other things to them easier, after all, if they changed the price for the people, they must have the people’s interest in mind, right?

It seems like video game companies and companies in general couldn’t care less about loyal consumers if they aren’t spending billions on them each year.

@Nohr_Tenko

Yes, people are also going to buy things each week, sometimes it will be the same people (whales) but realistically speaking, not everyone has $20 they’re willing to spend each week on the same game, but $10? That’s a lot more plausible.

I doubt many have even that much each week, which is why I’ve been saying $5 is the most they should charge.

@Nohr_Tenko

And your car analogy supports my prior argument, if 1 person is spending 10 billion each month, why are you targeting the person who spent $20, 3 months ago, they’re not the problem, it’s the person spending 10 billion each month, not the dude who spent $20 on a souvenir.

That’s true, but spending $20 on an overpriced item is telling the publisher and higher-ups that people are willing to buy things at higher prices, even if it isn’t as often as others.

@Nohr_Tenko

If a person bought Zvezda, week 1, and has purchased nothing since then, has advocated against the store prices and for whatever reason, we know they won’t buy anything else, are they a part of the problem?

Why did they buy it when it was at that price if they minded the cost?

Now, if someone spent $20 and decided to not spend anything after they realized it’s too much or that it’s affecting others, that’s fine, but if someone kept spending knowing that, then they’re part of the problem.

We can’t know who exactly did that, so I’m guessing that some of the community thinks that it’s only possible to criticize those who did by berating everyone who they know bought things.

[KCD0DGER]

Of course I’d change things, but I want my stuff and I’m mad about it. You’re not as sharp as you think.

[Nohr_Tenko]

@ShinoKeiyakusha

That’s true, but spending $20 on an overpriced item is telling the publisher and higher-ups that people are willing to buy things at higher prices, even if it isn’t as often as others.

Even if it isn’t as often, it’s not the $20 every now and again that allows them to keep things the way they are, it’s the people dropping $20-$70 every week that gives them their steady income, that makes the unlovable system sustainable.

@ShinoKeiyakusha

Why did they buy it when it was at that price if they minded the cost?

@ShinoKeiyakusha

that’s fine, but if someone kept spending knowing that, then they’re part of the problem.

It’s not that they minded the cost, but it could be that item in particular was worth that much to them even when they knew the price was inflated, for the sake of example Clonely bear is tied to Halo legends, that could tug some heart strings, I know there’s a person out there who has the Anubis forge tattoo, so the Anubis set probably means more to him than others, and because of that, they are willing to make an exception.

They know they’re paying more than it’s worth, but they are willing to do so for that particular item, they also know not everyone is going to feel that way and despite how THEY value it, it is not a good value for the community or in general and still want to change the store as a whole.

That’s one of the reasons I disagreed with the OP, they valued what they bought at that price.

@ShinoKeiyakusha

I doubt many have even that much each week, which is why I’ve been saying $5 is the most they should charge.

That would be superb.

And thank you for the quote trick, I appreciate it!

[DrHalseyFan]

Thing is, even if they reduced prices, the people spending that $20-$70 per month will probably still do so. They’d probably just spread it out across more items and other people would have more options. Even just making things in the bundle individually purchasable would help.

[KCD0DGER]

I’d rather like if I could just purchase ONE of the shoulder pads that came with Zvezda, rather than the entire suit that I really don’t even like.

[Nohr_Tenko]

I have the exact same issue, the option to cherry pick what I want instead of having to buy a bundle chalk full of items when all I want is one peice would be a good system to implement.

[SLySLimSLimy]

Irrelevant to what I’m saying.

[SLySLimSLimy]

@Naqser

Now, could I get a refund for a an item in Halo Infinite which cost 1500…

You just refund your irl money. = )

@Naqser

What’s the timeframe here? A week? A month? A year?

This should be the only time this ever happens there shouldn’t be another price adjustment considering the daily yesterday was a reasonable price.

From launch to now is like a few weeks, but it’s a new game and that’s the only reason why anyone wants this to be a thing.