Had a sudden thought about how Infinite’s Req system could accommodate both those with (a) more time than cash and (b) more cash than time. H5 allows Reqs to be purchased with both cash and RP, but the Req system included cosmetics that were also earnable via gameplay milestones (e.g. Helioskrill).
Gaming has grown rapidly in the five years since H5–to the point where it is so widespread that it’s no longer a distinct hobby for a “gamer” but is now just “gaming”: something that is a common activity for the general population. Therefore, the range of consumption cases is accordingly broadened, with one of the biggest changes being the reduction in population percentage of players who are not of working age: they now form a minority of the player population. Simply put, time is no longer the reigning currency among the majority of players.
So it seems that a simple way to preserve the rightful recognition of gameplay achievement (e.g. Achilles), while not shortchanging Halo fans who happen to have families, long work hours, and other responsibilities, would be to abandon completionism in favor of multiple paths to acquire desired cosmetics.
-
Enlarge the pool of cosmetics earnable only by gameplay milestones.
-
This would allow a cosmetic reward earned via gameplay milestones to retain its value in recognition because the player can trust that the item will always be recognized in-game for that achievement alone and cannot be purchased with cash.- Add Req Point bonuses earnable only by gameplay milestones that can also be used to purchase items from the rest of the Req pool.
-
This would allow a cash-poor player to spend time earning Req Point bounties via gameplay milestones so they have an opportunity to obtain large amounts of RP just like how a time-poor player has an opportunity to substitute large amounts of RP with cash purchases of Req Packs. (Currently, H5’s Req bounties are specific Req Packs tied to gameplay milestones, with only minor RP awards.)- Add a [possibly rotating] pool of cosmetics only purchasable with cash.
-
This would allow time-poor players to still have access to a pool of more unique cosmetics and not just the normal Req pool, while preserving the special nature of the gameplay milestone-only cosmetics. A time-poor player would be resigned to never owning Helioskrill, but they would still have the opportunity to flaunt a special armor set that isn’t available in the Req pool outside of an item store rotation.These are just thoughts off the top of the dome, but this type of split-path system to obtain cosmetics has already received rigorous economic scrutiny and then been implemented successfully in games like Apex, etc. Certainly, one of the world’s most valuable companies must already be taking notes and crunching the numbers for how 343 will implement this. We can’t deny that making money is the prime objective of this product, but hopefully there will be an improvement over H5 to meaningfully reward as much of the range of players as possible.
Better yet pubs/devs could just stop deliberately wasting our time in an effort to spend more money on top of what we already spent to buy the game. If you want to sell a product sell a product, but don’t sell us solutions to problems you created in the first place.
No gambling, no deliberate frustration via grind, no FOMO, just quit it with the manipulative garbage that is already sketchy enough when if comes to free to play games let alone full price games.
My suggestions for ethical MTXs are as follows:
*MTXs are completely removed from the games design. The game has to be built to be played for years without considering MTXs or needing additional content to fill out a paper thin launch.
*MTXs can only be added after launch, but if there is even a sliver of a chance they will be included the game requires notice on packaging ala “May Contain Microtransactions”
*MTXs are limited to new, never before seen cosmetic items. No selling MK V armor back to you or holding content back from launch. Anything that is old or was in development before launch must be free content.
*Cosmetic MTX’s cannot be earned in game and can’t be a limited time offer(exceptions for charity items)
Just simple straightforward business transaction added after delivering a game that is filled to the brim with new content to begin with. You either think the new thing they made post launch is worth the money or you don’t.
> 2533274819446242;2:
> Better yet pubs/devs could just stop deliberately wasting our time in an effort to spend more money on top of what we already spent to buy the game. If you want to sell a product sell a product, but don’t sell us solutions to problems you created in the first place.
>
> Just simple straightforward business transaction added after delivering a game that is filled to the brim with new content to begin with. You either think the new thing they made post launch is worth the money or you don’t.
I think absolutely everyone agrees with this in principle. The reality however is that AAAA games (“AAAA” referring to the top-of-the-top AAA games) are first and foremost revenue-generating products made by companies whose prime objective is financial performance, and game development economics have changed drastically over the past decade in both cost of production and burden of post-launch sustainability. Publicly traded companies are beholden to investors that–in 2020–expect metrics indicating satisfactory extension of the revenue tail of a game post-launch. AAAA games are no longer like books, where you would buy a copy and receive the full experience. They are now like cars, where you pay the full purchase price of the vehicle and thereafter continue to pay to experience all that the game has to offer.
I honestly do not believe that there is any hope of changing the above, largely because those who want one-and-done purchases usually would not pay $100+ for the base version of a game. If games continue to cost only $60 at retail like they did a decade ago and yet cost exponentially more to develop since that time, the up-front purchase price would have to be proportional to that increase, and that increase is prohibitive to too many potential buyers. Added to this, Game Pass’s performance has now made clear that the purchase model itself is rapidly changing, with access-by-subscription slicing off large numbers away from traditional buy-to-own.
What we can hope for, however, is tailoring of the MTX structure to at least accommodate the widest range/largest segment of players, which is what ideas like the above attempt to do. And one step in a good direction: your suggestion of a MTX warning has already been finalized by ESRB, who will be incorporating into its ratings “In-Game Purchases (Includes Random Items)”.
343i already stated no paid loot crates in Halo Infinite, either with real money or in game currency bought with real money. I’m also very anti rng, I won’t be buying Halo Infinite if there is rng, especially if it’s tied to progression. I’m ok with buy what you see cosmetics, but only just.
Two sets of unlockables seems ok, but Gears5 did that in the most egregious way possible. It’s how 343i / Microsoft implement it that matters. I would prefer no microtransactions in a full priced game. Some games still do that thankfully, I’ll stick to those if 343i do a Gears 5, or an rng.