I don’t have much to say about infinite, as long as it is not a freaking live service game. 343i better not pull the same crap Bungie, BioWare and EA pulled on us. Halo cannot continue following the cash grab trends like Halo 5 did with the Req packs. I love Halo, and I want to see it do good. This may seem harsh, but 343i shouldn’t make a “Live service game”. This usually means to release an incomplete game, scramble to finish it, and throw together 4 to 5 30$ expansions to fix your lump of gameplay and “Story” Cough<Destiny, D2 And anthem> Cough. My point is that live service games make money, but that doesn’t mean that they are good enough to play eight, ten, thirteen, and eighteen years after release like the Bungie Halo games. I had a great time with H4 and H5, and I hope that H infinite continues to build on the excellent ideas and missteps of those games.
You had a great time in Halo 4? You must mean the campaign. I don’t see 343 doing a GAAS (game as a service). They didn’t even do the real looting system which makes Halo 5 better, as most of everything can be unlocked by not paying, and you can only get one of an item. Unlike other games where you would pay to unlock items and possibly get duplicates. You’re right it would not be great if they went down that route. With as far away as the release date is, they can see what is working and what is not. If they decide to finally listen to the community. While you speak about > 8 years away, the one thing that is stopping this is on the digital side for license renewals. All digital games face this. (correct me if I am wrong but that’s what the ambassadors have told me publicly over Twitter)
At this point it’s too early to speculate how Infinite is going to develop over time, but I just want to remind you folks that “GaaS” does not equal “Lootershooter”. Granted, games like Destiny, Anthem, and The Division are probably the most prominent examples of this kind of game, but GaaS has a far broader meaning than that. In the case of Halo: Inifnite, GaaS can simply be a continuation of what we already had with Halo 5: free content updates every 2 or so months being supported by micro-transactions. As long as they dial down the REQ system and shift the focus more towards cosmetics, I would be absolutely fine.
But then again, it really is all speculation at this point. Infinite could just as well end up being a traditional release with 3 or 4 paid DLC packs ala Bungie’s Halo games.
> 2533274871590643;2:
> 1) I don’t see 343 doing a GAAS (game as a service).
>
> 2) While you speak about > 8 years away, the one thing that is stopping this is on the digital side for license renewals. All digital games face this. (correct me if I am wrong but that’s what the ambassadors have told me publicly over Twitter)
-
I would not be so sure about that, there was a 343i job advert looking for someone with experience in live service, micro transactions and player psychology, add that to the links I’ve provided for you below and it seems it could be happening, however 343i have not confirmed anything yet.
-
As for the ambassador comment, I am one. I don’t know what you’re getting at or what they told you, but we’re not privvy to things like license renewals and the inner workings at Microsoft. We’re just gamers that are there to help with minor issues or to direct you to the best point of contact, we do not get paid by or work for Microsoft and it’s my finding that many dont know what they’re talking about. I have had many questions I cannot answer and I tell those players to contact Microsoft direct and I provide them with details freely available to everyone by a simple search.
I stand corrected. As for the ambassadors, that irritates me a little as I tagged Microsoft and Xbox Support to have someone who doesn’t know speak on their behalf and not one rep stepped up. I almost want to screenshot it and post it just to throw the person under the bus. I would like to think I’m better than that.
Part of what works with the live service is you have a game that updates over time and keeps giving people reasons to go back. The story may be a little hollow at first, but like with the Anthem model, you’re paying up front for some of the things that will be released later, and then some. The problem is: gamers keep raising the bar on performance and graphics for developers. Developers have to put huge amounts of money on the line to reach the standards modern gamers demand. There is competition between developers to “impress” the audience either for the platforms like Xbox, PC or PS, or for their publishers. To reach these standards, many of the developers become publicly traded companies. As a publicly traded company, you have a legal obligation to your investors. Your investors don’t care if you make a good game—they’re not going to play it. They just need the company they’ve invested in to reach their bottom line. And if a game doesn’t sell all that well, then developers are at least pressured to prove that a decent number of people play their game regularly and would buy another one. With the current popular gaming trend being gamers fleeting to the next big fad, or quickly finishing games and moving on, developers have been pressured to find ways to create stable userbases, of which the live service has become a favorite. That’s why you see a lot of the “daily log-in reward” schemes: they’re meant to bump the numbers who logged in that day to show to their investors.
I’m not saying it’s a good model. I don’t know whether I think it’s a bad one or not. But what I’m saying is, the gaming community right now is putting a lot of pressure on game developers to have two things that can not co-exist.
You forgot to add Ubisoft to that list (The Division).
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the games as a service concept, it just hasn’t been done well yet. I don’t see anything wrong with 343i continuing to support the game with content updates post launch, as long as that means content doesn’t get cut from launch. H5 was essentially a live service game on the MP side and the updates were free, the problem is much if the stuff that was added should’ve been there from the beginning. As long as H6 feels like a full, not rushed game at launch, I am all for them coming out with more content.
By the way, Anthem doesn’t charge for expansions like Destiny does. Not saying the game is good, just thought I’d point that out.
Does anyone have anything wrong with the way they did Halo 5?
- We all know warzone subsidized all other game types. The money spent on req packs went to fuel new maps, game modes, and more content. Thanks to a minority of people who are willing to pay more money to get armor/reqs/skins without having to put more time into the game. - It did not affect arena game play. Nothing available for purchase could affect arena games. There is an argument for saying that req pack purchases could affect warzone game play in that people could spend a lot of money to buy high reqs and use them in warzone. I say “could” because even if people do spend money to get high reqs, they still have to earn the req in game and can only use the req once. Plus, the insane reqs are so rare that someone would have to spend A LOT of money to get multiple of them. So who is really winning in that scenario? A person who spends hundreds of dollars buying reqs or you and a few friends killing them with reqs you earned by playing? - The player base was able to stick together. There wasn’t any division in Halo 5! My friends that came into Halo 5 later were able to play every game type and on every map. - Decent updates. They could have been meatier and more frequent, but Halo 5 was supported after launch. They had multiple FREE DLC packs that made Halo 5 better. We all know free is better. Just look at the models set by Fortnite and Apex. Monthly season passes that add new content that is totally OPTIONAL. Halo 5’s model was even better because you could actually earn everything in the game. It would take you a thousand hours, but you could still do it.These are just a few things to think about.
No, 343 isn’t perfect. They didn’t launch a perfect game, but they did a pretty good job. If 343 launches Infinite with: Campaign, Arena, BTB, Warzone, Forge, and Theater, I feel like that is a good base for an amazing experience. Let them give us monthly updates after that with game modes and new content. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
> 2533274817390757;8:
> Does anyone have anything wrong with the way they did Halo 5?
>
>
> - We all know warzone subsidized all other game types. The money spent on req packs went to fuel new maps, game modes, and more content. Thanks to a minority of people who are willing to pay more money to get armor/reqs/skins without having to put more time into the game. - It did not affect arena game play. Nothing available for purchase could affect arena games. There is an argument for saying that req pack purchases could affect warzone game play in that people could spend a lot of money to buy high reqs and use them in warzone. I say “could” because even if people do spend money to get high reqs, they still have to earn the req in game and can only use the req once. Plus, the insane reqs are so rare that someone would have to spend A LOT of money to get multiple of them. So who is really winning in that scenario? A person who spends hundreds of dollars buying reqs or you and a few friends killing them with reqs you earned by playing? - The player base was able to stick together. There wasn’t any division in Halo 5! My friends that came into Halo 5 later were able to play every game type and on every map. - Decent updates. They could have been meatier and more frequent, but Halo 5 was supported after launch. They had multiple FREE DLC packs that made Halo 5 better. We all know free is better. Just look at the models set by Fortnite and Apex. Monthly season passes that add new content that is totally OPTIONAL. Halo 5’s model was even better because you could actually earn everything in the game. It would take you a thousand hours, but you could still do it.These are just a few things to think about.
>
> No, 343 isn’t perfect. They didn’t launch a perfect game, but they did a pretty good job. If 343 launches Infinite with: Campaign, Arena, BTB, Warzone, Forge, and Theater, I feel like that is a good base for an amazing experience. Let them give us monthly updates after that with game modes and new content. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
This right here is why Infinite as a live service should work. 343i went above and beyond to make Guardians an experience that lived or died by its player base, and was fueled by player interaction. It wasn’t broken at launch, but the content was provided through the years to make it a something of a proto-live service game, something that Infinite can be born from.
As long as loot boxes are kept off the table, and battle royale is kept out, Halo Infinite looks to be promising.
I read like half of the replies, but
. True gamers would rather play a FULLY OFFLINE CAPABLE game, where the Campaign, Multiplayer, and Creative sides are playable during the apocalypse and not locked behind ONLINE ONLY services, I’m sure anyone reading this has one or more titles popping up in their mind like the Crew or Destiny. Why make your game online only? You’re preventing people with bad internet and/or no internet from playing said game. It might be the cool trendy thiing to do nowadays, but it’s not cool to me and other players who want the content they paid $60 for; we expect a full fledged game, not an empty disc that requires internet PLUS the extra cash you’d need to access Xbox Live Gold content that used to come free with older games, like H3,4,& R. The next best thing is not gaas, it’s your community: I stopped having an interest in Destiny 2 when I started having bad internet, because it’s NOT WORTH IT if I get disconnected from my CAMPAIGN because I’m NOT ONLINE. The overall gaas of today is horrid and I’m trying to push a MP system like Forza in a game I’m creating with a friend. (Online or offline gameplay in the campaign/multiplayer/creative modes. And if you’re disconnected from your friends because your internet went down, you WILL NOT be sent to the menu.)
> 2533274871590643;5:
> I stand corrected. As for the ambassadors, that irritates me a little as I tagged Microsoft and Xbox Support to have someone who doesn’t know speak on their behalf and not one rep stepped up. I almost want to screenshot it and post it just to throw the person under the bus. I would like to think I’m better than that.
You don’t stand corrected imo. 343i have confirmed nothing and we’re each taking our different ideas from these interviews. You could be correct and they don’t go gaas. As for ambassadors, good on you for not naming and shaming, that would have landed you in hot water. Don’t be disappointed though, the ambassador programme is great imo, and whilst there are some poor ambassadors there are many more excellent ambassadors out there.
Edit = Lol, just read that last bit after posting, Commandant Lassard much ? rofl. (Police Academy)
I highly doubt Halo Infinite will be a “live-service” game. 343 has been listening to its fans very closely and are doing their best to make Infinite the best Halo to date. Their doing that by sticking to the script and not following the crowd.
It could work. Anthem pulled a Destiny in every sense of the word and has been Fallout 76 levels of broken since it released (that’s more due to shoving a GAS game into Frostbite). It was rebooted during development and chopped up to drip feed out after launch. There’s a very real possibility it will be Bioware’s last game.
Destiny seems to have set the very, very low bar for live service and eventually someone will get it right… maybe. Live service doesn’t mean it has to follow a failed formula, it could very easily be a traditional game that gets new updates and modes for years. I personally would love a GAS Halo (with a traditional campaign/modes), so long as the game is finished/complete (i.e. not needing patches every other day).
But at this point I’d settle for a gameplay trailer.
Literally anything 343i.
> 2533274817390757;8:
> Does anyone have anything wrong with the way they did Halo 5?
>
>
> - We all know warzone subsidized all other game types. The money spent on req packs went to fuel new maps, game modes, and more content. Thanks to a minority of people who are willing to pay more money to get armor/reqs/skins without having to put more time into the game. - It did not affect arena game play. Nothing available for purchase could affect arena games. There is an argument for saying that req pack purchases could affect warzone game play in that people could spend a lot of money to buy high reqs and use them in warzone. I say “could” because even if people do spend money to get high reqs, they still have to earn the req in game and can only use the req once. Plus, the insane reqs are so rare that someone would have to spend A LOT of money to get multiple of them. So who is really winning in that scenario? A person who spends hundreds of dollars buying reqs or you and a few friends killing them with reqs you earned by playing? - The player base was able to stick together. There wasn’t any division in Halo 5! My friends that came into Halo 5 later were able to play every game type and on every map. - Decent updates. They could have been meatier and more frequent, but Halo 5 was supported after launch. They had multiple FREE DLC packs that made Halo 5 better. We all know free is better. Just look at the models set by Fortnite and Apex. Monthly season passes that add new content that is totally OPTIONAL. Halo 5’s model was even better because you could actually earn everything in the game. It would take you a thousand hours, but you could still do it.These are just a few things to think about.
>
> No, 343 isn’t perfect. They didn’t launch a perfect game, but they did a pretty good job. If 343 launches Infinite with: Campaign, Arena, BTB, Warzone, Forge, and Theater, I feel like that is a good base for an amazing experience. Let them give us monthly updates after that with game modes and new content. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
you are correct that it didn’t affect arena gameplay, but it affected warzone, an entire fifth of the game. you can’t reward them for only making part of the game pay to win. it is like saying “oh well at least the battlefront two campaign isn’t paying to win.” The entire multiplayer was pay to win until everyone complained enough and they fixed it.
> 2535457118421319;14:
> > 2533274817390757;8:
> >
>
> you are correct that it didn’t affect arena gameplay, but it affected warzone, an entire fifth of the game. you can’t reward them for only making part of the game pay to win. it is like saying “oh well at least the battlefront two campaign isn’t paying to win.” The entire multiplayer was pay to win until everyone complained enough and they fixed it.
I understand what you are saying, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, but in order for 343 to add more stuff to the game post-launch they have to have some monetization be it microtransactions or DLC purchases. They can’t make stuff for 100% free, no strings attached forever and ever. While Halo 5’s REQ system was something I hated when it came to the armor unlocks, filler emblems and visor colors, and sheer grind, at least if you play long enough pretty much everything is guaranteed to be unlocked without paying a single penny (took me to around rank 114 or so).
I hate games as a service too, but money makes the world go round. Halo Infinite should launch complete (unlike Halo 5) and have a wealth of content, but for the content to continue post launch they need to have some kind of incentive. I hope they can figure out a more fair method than the REQ system that still gives them enough profit for free updates with content.
I also hope they do a little better with the updates than Halo 5. Some of Halo 5’s updates were great such as Infection, Forge, Firefight, and a few of the maps, but a lot of the maps and armor were bland recycles or minor modifications of what we had already seen.
You mean like halo 5 where they released a game with fewer features than ce and told us req packs would pay for the rest of the game
> 2533274817390757;8:
> Does anyone have anything wrong with the way they did Halo 5?
>
>
> - We all know warzone subsidized all other game types. The money spent on req packs went to fuel new maps, game modes, and more content. Thanks to a minority of people who are willing to pay more money to get armor/reqs/skins without having to put more time into the game. - It did not affect arena game play. Nothing available for purchase could affect arena games. There is an argument for saying that req pack purchases could affect warzone game play in that people could spend a lot of money to buy high reqs and use them in warzone. I say “could” because even if people do spend money to get high reqs, they still have to earn the req in game and can only use the req once. Plus, the insane reqs are so rare that someone would have to spend A LOT of money to get multiple of them. So who is really winning in that scenario? A person who spends hundreds of dollars buying reqs or you and a few friends killing them with reqs you earned by playing? - The player base was able to stick together. There wasn’t any division in Halo 5! My friends that came into Halo 5 later were able to play every game type and on every map. - Decent updates. They could have been meatier and more frequent, but Halo 5 was supported after launch. They had multiple FREE DLC packs that made Halo 5 better. We all know free is better. Just look at the models set by Fortnite and Apex. Monthly season passes that add new content that is totally OPTIONAL. Halo 5’s model was even better because you could actually earn everything in the game. It would take you a thousand hours, but you could still do it.These are just a few things to think about.
>
> No, 343 isn’t perfect. They didn’t launch a perfect game, but they did a pretty good job. If 343 launches Infinite with: Campaign, Arena, BTB, Warzone, Forge, and Theater, I feel like that is a good base for an amazing experience. Let them give us monthly updates after that with game modes and new content. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
It may not have directly affected Arena gameplay, but it did have consequences.
They devoted resources to Warzone that took away from Arena. There was no BTB at launch and we never got any developer made BTB maps.
Armors were traditionally unlocked through campaign and Arena, but now were tied to rng lootboxes taking away the appeal of earning your armor.
> 2533274881560701;15:
> > 2535457118421319;14:
> > > 2533274817390757;8:
> > >
> >
> > you are correct that it didn’t affect arena gameplay, but it affected warzone, an entire fifth of the game. you can’t reward them for only making part of the game pay to win. it is like saying “oh well at least the battlefront two campaign isn’t paying to win.” The entire multiplayer was pay to win until everyone complained enough and they fixed it.
>
> I understand what you are saying, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, but in order for 343 to add more stuff to the game post-launch they have to have some monetization be it microtransactions or DLC purchases. They can’t make stuff for 100% free, no strings attached forever and ever. While Halo 5’s REQ system was something I hated when it came to the armor unlocks, filler emblems and visor colors, and sheer grind, at least if you play long enough pretty much everything is guaranteed to be unlocked without paying a single penny (took me to around rank 114 or so).
>
> I hate games as a service too, but money makes the world go round. Halo Infinite should launch complete (unlike Halo 5) and have a wealth of content, but for the content to continue post launch they need to have some kind of incentive. I hope they can figure out a more fair method than the REQ system that still gives them enough profit for free updates with content.
>
> I also hope they do a little better with the updates than Halo 5. Some of Halo 5’s updates were great such as Infection, Forge, Firefight, and a few of the maps, but a lot of the maps and armor were bland recycles or minor modifications of what we had already seen.
I can agree with you, and If they are going to add req packs, instead of putting weapons in them, you should put cosmetics and armor unlocks. Even better, no RNG, just currency you can buy, that you can use to choose what armor you buy. One final suggestion is to be like titanfall 2. Have most armor be unlocked by the grind but certain armor, weapon skins and designs can be purchased with money or VC. You’re right about how the new maps were great and the free add ons were great, but a lot of those things were stuff that should have been in the game at the beginning.
> 2592250499819446;11:
> > 2533274871590643;5:
> > I stand corrected. As for the ambassadors, that irritates me a little as I tagged Microsoft and Xbox Support to have someone who doesn’t know speak on their behalf and not one rep stepped up. I almost want to screenshot it and post it just to throw the person under the bus. I would like to think I’m better than that.
>
> You don’t stand corrected imo. 343i have confirmed nothing and we’re each taking our different ideas from these interviews. You could be correct and they don’t go gaas. As for ambassadors, good on you for not naming and shaming, that would have landed you in hot water. Don’t be disappointed though, the ambassador programme is great imo, and whilst there are some poor ambassadors there are many more excellent ambassadors out there.
>
> Edit = Lol, just read that last bit after posting, Commandant Lassard much ? rofl. (Police Academy)
can you not take this so seriously? this is just a discussion of our opinions on what we want or don’t want Halo Infinite to be like.
> 2535457118421319;19:
> > 2592250499819446;11:
> > > 2533274871590643;5:
> > > I stand corrected. As for the ambassadors, that irritates me a little as I tagged Microsoft and Xbox Support to have someone who doesn’t know speak on their behalf and not one rep stepped up. I almost want to screenshot it and post it just to throw the person under the bus. I would like to think I’m better than that.
> >
> > You don’t stand corrected imo. 343i have confirmed nothing and we’re each taking our different ideas from these interviews. You could be correct and they don’t go gaas. As for ambassadors, good on you for not naming and shaming, that would have landed you in hot water. Don’t be disappointed though, the ambassador programme is great imo, and whilst there are some poor ambassadors there are many more excellent ambassadors out there.
> >
> > Edit = Lol, just read that last bit after posting, Commandant Lassard much ? rofl. (Police Academy)
>
> can you not take this so seriously? this is just a discussion of our opinions on what we want or don’t want Halo Infinite to be like.
What am I taking so seriously ? I replied politely and on topic to another user, what issue do you have with that ? As for the topic, I think 343i will make Halo Infinite a gaas, time will tell though.