I've spent more $ on Infinite than any F2P game

Games Halo Infinite
22

Haven’t spent anything on this game, not even campaign.

Ridiculous to charge full campaign price while it provided less than a full campaign experience and none of the other features at the price point.

Yes the other features are ‘free’ aside customization (or non existent at this point in time)
BUT
Theres hardly any incentive financially to be a campaign holder if you don’t have game pass.

Halo Infinite should have either been all F2P or not at all for the price of the campaign and ridiculous costs of the microtransactions.

Its simultaneously the most expensive while providing the least amount of content

3 Likes
23

I see the logic of your first point, of course, although while your goal may be lowering the prices, you may also be pushing them to focus more on cosmetics alone.

I understand the flaws with the map pack system, but I would happily pay for a DLC map pack for infinite rn, and the content just isn’t there. At this point in Reach’s cycle we had what… 5 new mp maps, one new firefight? For the same price as you could get infinite’s campaign and both season passes, you got the (significantly better) campaign, firefight, forge, mp, co-op, plus 5 new maps post launch and 1 for firefight? Seems like a better deal to me. I wouldn’t mind shelling out $70-80 for the complete game, but the mtx model lets them keep pulling more and more money out of less and less content and the game suffers as a whole work of art/experience.

I have to disagree with your final point. To me, being a fan of Halo has meant sticking with it for the past 20 years, good times and bad. I imagine that the community complaining bitterly in the forums for years and not buying req packs etc contributed to the welcome change of direction for Infinite.

1 Like
24

Umm, there were no microtransactions to purchase when H4 came out. It was clearly 343’s decision to implement microtransactions themselves because the idea was beginning to blow up around H5’s release. I certainly know I never asked for it.

If they want to spend cash on the store, let em. It still won’t change the legitimacy of the criticism levied against it.

2 Likes
25

I haven’t been baited into anything.

I think I said quite clearly that I didn’t click the bits I thought were too expensive.

Probably. But isn’t that how a free market works?

1 Like
26

Proud to say I haven’t spent a dime on the game and don’t plan on it. It’s amazing the depth of customization in this game I just am locked out of, considering how much customization the MCC offers at just a fraction of the price for a single bundle in Infinite.

4 Likes
27

If money truly determined the future for Halo, we would’ve seen another Halo 5.

Infinite signaled the idea of a “return to form” unlike the 4 and 5 of which I sunk far more than $35 into for the limited edition (Halo 4 and DLC’s) and the base game (Halo 5) both individually and combined.

Infinite may not be a Halo 3, but it’s certainly closer to Halo Reach than Halo 4 and 5 were.

I don’t see how voicing concerns over a clear disparity between a content draught and the probable (large) amount of money MTX’s are making somehow mutually separate from each other.

It’s perfectly ok to suggest either more content should be delivered for the prices (and profits) the MTX’s are delivering…

…Or…,

…it’s perfectly ok to suggest that making MTX more attainable by lowering/bundling prices (thus potentially less profits) could result in less content.

As well as the focus on cheaper labor and/or employee health and wellbeing. A lot of people like to look squarely at the MTX as the issue when there are far more facets contributing to the issue of meaningful content delivery.

We need to stop viewing the past with rose tinted glasses like it was some sort of golden age. Older titles had their issues too, even if by comparison the issues we face now are arguably worse.

Halo Reach/3 didn’t deliver a “complete game”. In fact as DLC released, the “complete game” that was initially “complete” locked players out of content they had initially purchased access to such as access to base game modes in the multiplayer matchmaking arena unless they purchased the newest (post launch monetization scheme) DLC. It’s pretty diabolic honestly.

It’s also clear that you seem to focus in on the customization aspect between the titles as the ’obvious’ comparison without looking at the compromises that each game achieves. Such a commonly parroted, incapacious view continues to cheapen the conversation rather than contribute to it.

While Halo Infinite’s approach to monetization and content delivery is overtly far from perfect, villainizing (or vilifying) people within the community for a purchase (in my case, a purchase that was a fraction of the cost of the base copy of Halo 5) isn’t the appropriate or functional way to converse and bring about the change you (and we) want to see.

@xLEFx777x showing me again you don’t know what bait actually looks like.

6 Likes
28

Its funny when people who engage in the microtransactions system complain. They want no accountability for their poor impulse control.

A carrot is dangled and they can’t help but bite it.

2 Likes
29

Just for clarification’s sake, what would you consider the Infinity Armor Pack and Steel Skin Pack individually outside of the Champion’s Bundle for Halo 4?

1 Like
30

Damn, tear them a new one why don’t you, lol.

31

Skin packs and armor packs. Like the good old days.

I really wish we could go back to simpler times.

32

They think the willingness to do a text wall makes it super valuable.

Skin packs and armor packs are far more upfront to the consumer and more fair. Pay for what you get.

Would map packs work in this game? Probably not.
Would an armor pack? Definitely.

Current shop prices are far too high and definitely needs to be dropped. Absurd prices.

3 Likes
33

See, I don’t understand your logic here. You think that buying the optional cosmetics somehow pulls the budget and workers away from maps, sandbox, and performance issues? Despite there being only a limited amount of cosmetics per-season including the store? Also cosmetics are inherently easier than whole maps and such. They won’t dedicate a game to just being a dress-up simulator. So I don’t understand how you come to this conclusion. And if that isn’t what you mean then please clarify.

Your “better deal” argument only holds for the people who play the campaign. Considering that the multiplayer is free, Forge is free (though delayed), leaked PVE game modes in development (that they know we want), and there are free cosmetics and events, then no. Halo Infinite has more in raw value. (That is if they don’t cancel the game). Once you do factor in campaign then the campaign is the only thing that is over priced. Like it or not the cosmetics have always been optional, even if I feel it is integral to Halo’s identity. It is subjective if we like the cosmetics or not, but even without paying for anything, you get alot.

As stated the end wasn’t aimed at you. More at the crowd that refuses to play, but still come here to complain as if they are still playing. Its why you see a few posts saying “Is the game good yet?” When players leave for months. And overwhelmingly we tell them to wait longer. Those people voice their concerns and see if it is safe to come back. I’m not saying “get out of our forums” and gatekeeping. What I mean is fans should take an indefinite break. Come back if things get better. If not, no harm done. Many have voiced their opinions and left until it is fixed. If that be an update or a whole new game, then that’s when you come back. That doesn’t diminish your status as a Halo fan. I came into Xbox Live during the Reach days, stuck around for Halo 4, tried 5 and bailed. I kept an eye on what they were doing, voiced some of my concerns on youtube before I left, but nothing Halo 5 did made me come back. I don’t want to play a game I don’t like. I still read the books because I enjoyed that. Then Infinite fixed most of my issues, so I’m back. I even came to the forums because I want the game to do better and I’m confident Halo Infinite will get there. I just think it is a waste of time to complain every week for months over the same issues when you don’t play. The people who are like “I won’t play Halo Infinite until the multiplayer is $60 and comes with all cosmetic, multiplayer, and campaign content.” Or when people refuse to play due to crossplay and their solution is to just remove it entirely. Despite crossplay becoming the standard in every other game. They aren’t going to retroactively turn a F2P game into full paid experience. And they aren’t going to turn a game that already has a population problem across multiple devices and storefronts and cut them off from each other when the rest of the industry is already all-in with crossplatform. If someone isn’t going to play the game until an unreasonable request is made then that person is wasting everyone’s time. That is something for the next game to do, if those topics can even be considered (F2P I would throw out, but crossplay won’t be gone that easy.)

1 Like
34

Not sure what you mean.

Fully agree.

35

Spending money on skins in a FPS game, success

36

Shop prices yes.
But to say it is more upfront is wrong. they are both just as upfront. They aren’t hiding anything from the consumer.
“You get skins for all guns for $6 in this bundle” Cool!
“You get 4 armor sets for $20” Cool!
“You only get skins for 3 guns for $6” Bad prices, but there’s no trick, they tell you what’s there.
“You only get one armor set for $12” Again, bad prices, but no trick.

1 Like
37

You wouldn’t consider a $2.99 purchase for skins to be a microtransaction?

Using a past tense lens, I’d certainly agree with you in 2013, but now it would be something akin to that of a true microtransaction especially when compared to similar offerings found in games at the time like Borderlands 2 prior to the term receiving widespread lexical use.

We can change the names, but the function is nearly identical to true microtransactions, not the $10-$20 packs we see now.

A armor/skin “pack” in Halo 4 and an armor/weapon “bundle” that we see in Halo Infinite offer nearly the same function of purchase. Aside from the obvious price difference between the two, I don’t see how changing the name within the scope of history does anything but provide a semantic argument.

What definitively makes a “pack” different from a “bundle” other than the prices they were/are offered at?

@xLEFx777x showing me again you don’t know what bait actually looks like.

38

Its more upfront for the development to cost ratio at least.

39

Well, when you put it that way. It is a microscopic price point and it involves a transaction in order to receive the item.

I’d say that skins and armor packs that weere featured in H4 were the more favorable way to approach MTX.

1 Like
40

The packs had multiple armor sets, the bundles have one… or less. They were also more fair value to the player.

Whatever answer you concoct to defend 343, I’m really not interested in. I’m not here to care about 343’s feelings. Their game is dying. They can learn or die.

1 Like
41

I wholeheartedly agree on the “price for value” aspect, I’m really trying hard to not come across as nitpicky with my question and statements either.

Personally I think calling what’s in the store, or what’s commonly accepted in modern gaming as “microtransactions” is a poor representation of what they cost and we as gamers really need to stop misusing the terminology as a catchall for in-game purchases. PayPal and Visa both have definitions of what a “micropayment” is (>~$5 PP, >~$10 Visa).

Not getting on your case or anyone’s for that matter, because I’m certainly actively guilty of it too. This dialogue just has me taking a different perspective on all of it.

As far as the functional purchase of the “pack” and “bundle” go, they’re nearly identical in what they provide albeit a price/quantity content difference, but it goes deeper than that which is why the words used don’t describe the content offered.

I honestly don’t think that the historical/modern difference in price/quantity is enough to differentiate between the terms “pack” (favorable) and “bundle” (unfavorable) especially when you factor in Halo 4’s “Champion’s Bundle” featured the two packs listed alongside the “Bullseye Pack” for a cheaper price than the individual three “packs” combined.

“Pack” and “Bundle” are simply different words used to describe the same mode of acquisition of content: an assortment of somewhat motif’d content available for purchase.

So again I ask because I truly don’t think there is an easy (or even valid) objective answer:

@xLEFx777x I’m sorry you missed the point, but thank you for letting me know.

1 Like