I think that Halo Infinite’s microtransactions should only allow you to unlock weapon skins, if they ever add weapon cases into the game… and no im not talking about loot boxes im talking about weapon cases, like in CS:GO where you buy a case and you unlock a certain skin for a random weapon or a SUPER rare cosmetic item.
How 343i should translate this to Halo is by having your weapon case unlock a certain weapon skin (also have different rarities for skins) and for the rarest item you could unlock would be some type of weapon charm. It’ll also be nice to have different types of cases lets say there’s a weapon case for UNSC weapons only and another for Covenant weapons and so on and so forth. I was also thinking about having skins for vehicles I think it would be SICK if you were to get a white wraith with gold stripes skin from a vehicle case.
This could help 343i introduce a custom skin workshop like in rust or CS:GO where fans can create their own skins and have them uploaded into some type of voting system to be featured in up coming cases.
TBH i’d love to have a plasma grenade charm attached to my BR.
What do you guys think? bad idea or could use some work?
I don’t like that there are microtransactions or loot boxes, I HATE THAT. but I would like some DLCs to expand the game, obviously having quality content and not just skins or nameplates
> 2533275020115329;3:
> I don’t like that there are microtransactions or loot boxes, I HATE THAT. but I would like some DLCs to expand the game, obviously having quality content and not just skins or nameplates
If it is quality DLC , I’m good with that. Sell single player expansions , use skins (Armor , weapon and vehicle) as Direct MT (no random loot boxes) to fund map pack development. Sounds like a solid business plan. Then people pay for what they want to play.
343 said that that there would be no loot boxes that can be purchased using real world money. Perhaps the old credit system might return. The micro transaction can be like buying more credits for fast unlock like the helix credit system in assassin’s creed
> 2533274935834633;7:
> > 2533274898981042;2:
> > I don’t think there should be any microtransactions whatsoever in Halo Infinite. The unlockables should be progress based only
>
> Then Infinite would likely have to cost more than $60. N64 games cost $60 back in the 1990s…and game development hasn’t gotten cheaper.
>
> If the rumored development costs of Infinite are even close to accurate, 343i needs a way to earn more than $60 from a player.
>
> As long as those methods of extra income have no bearing on actual gameplay (cosmetics, skins, etc), then I’m fine with them.
You used to get a complete game, so yeah - the 60 dollars you pay today gets you a lot less ‘game’ than it did in the 90s. The price didn’t change, but it did in an artificial way.
I don’t know how games like Doom Eternal or Doom exist at all going by the excuse companies like to throw around - like they can barely keep the lights on and how a loot box a day helps feed a starving homeless developer. Meanwhile the likes of Kotic is one of the richest people on the planet.
They are feeding you bull poop and you’re eating it up. Stop.
> 2533274818084099;8:
> You used to get a complete game, so yeah - the 60 dollars you pay today gets you a lot less ‘game’ than it did in the 90s. The price didn’t change, but it did in an artificial way.
In the 90’s they just released the game and started work on the next one.
Nowadays we expect the game to be nutured for 3 to 5 years. Expensive servers set up to allow us to play online. DLC to extend the game’s life. Social media set ups. Nurturing of E-Sports. We expect them to fine tune sandboxes to keep the game humming and stop exploits.
> 2533274818084099;8:
> > 2533274935834633;7:
> > > 2533274898981042;2:
> > > I don’t think there should be any microtransactions whatsoever in Halo Infinite. The unlockables should be progress based only
> >
> > Then Infinite would likely have to cost more than $60. N64 games cost $60 back in the 1990s…and game development hasn’t gotten cheaper.
> >
> > If the rumored development costs of Infinite are even close to accurate, 343i needs a way to earn more than $60 from a player.
> >
> > As long as those methods of extra income have no bearing on actual gameplay (cosmetics, skins, etc), then I’m fine with them.
>
> You used to get a complete game, so yeah - the 60 dollars you pay today gets you a lot less ‘game’ than it did in the 90s. The price didn’t change, but it did in an artificial way.
>
> I don’t know how games like Doom Eternal or Doom exist at all going by the excuse companies like to throw around - like they can barely keep the lights on and how a loot box a day helps feed a starving homeless developer. Meanwhile the likes of Kotic is one of the richest people on the planet.
>
> They are feeding you bull poop and you’re eating it up. Stop.
This is a textbook example of the logical error known as survivorship bias. You’re staring at one of the highest paid individuals in an industry (Bobby Kotick) and jumping to the conclusion that “see, everyone is making tons of money!”
No they’re not. Videogame developers go bankrupt all the time. THQ, Lionhead, etc. all closed up shop because of poor choices, resulting in the firing of hundreds/thousands of individuals. There is literally an entire wiki page dedicated to all of them (there are over 700 of them). You haven’t even heard of most of them because of the aforementioned survivorship bias.
You don’t get less “game” today than you did in the 90s. Games are orders of magnitude more complex today. DOOM (1993), one of the most beloved shooters of all time, was made by a few dozen people. Games today have hundreds, or even thousands, of people involved in their development. If people in 2020 would accept the standards of a game from the 90s, then it would be easy to make games with “more game” in them. But they won’t. They expect games to have bleeding edge graphics, physics, level complexity, sound effects, etc. Thus the average cost of producing a AAA-tier game increased over 10x between 2000 and 2010. You have to recoup that investment somehow. Gamers have decided that games shouldn’t cost more than $60 (because basic economic principles like inflation simply don’t apply to games for some reason) so developers will find alternative methods to reach the expected profit margins that their investors set. If these profit margins aren’t routinely met, investors will take their money elsewhere and gamers will have to settle for more indie titles.
You can either try to sell more copies (thus leading to “casualization” that gamers are always bloviating about) or try to make more money from each customer.
“games like Doom and Doom Eternal” exist because they are the games that succeeded. Lots of other games don’t succeed. ZeniMax Media may have also set lower profit expectations for those games. Investors set sales expectations, not gamers. Some investors may accept less and thus fund a portion of the gaming industry. Others won’t and will take money elsewhere. That’s why there are more games like Call of Duty than Doom 2016.
> 2533274935834633;10:
> > 2533274818084099;8:
> > > 2533274935834633;7:
> > > > 2533274898981042;2:
> > > > I don’t think there should be any microtransactions whatsoever in Halo Infinite. The unlockables should be progress based only
> > >
> > > Then Infinite would likely have to cost more than $60. N64 games cost $60 back in the 1990s…and game development hasn’t gotten cheaper.
> > >
> > > If the rumored development costs of Infinite are even close to accurate, 343i needs a way to earn more than $60 from a player.
> > >
> > > As long as those methods of extra income have no bearing on actual gameplay (cosmetics, skins, etc), then I’m fine with them.
> >
> > You used to get a complete game, so yeah - the 60 dollars you pay today gets you a lot less ‘game’ than it did in the 90s. The price didn’t change, but it did in an artificial way.
> >
> > I don’t know how games like Doom Eternal or Doom exist at all going by the excuse companies like to throw around - like they can barely keep the lights on and how a loot box a day helps feed a starving homeless developer. Meanwhile the likes of Kotic is one of the richest people on the planet.
> >
> > They are feeding you bull poop and you’re eating it up. Stop.
>
> This is a textbook example of the logical error known as survivorship bias. You’re staring at one of the highest paid individuals in an industry (Bobby Kotick) and jumping to the conclusion that “see, everyone is making tons of money!”
>
> No they’re not. Videogame developers go bankrupt all the time. THQ, Lionhead, etc. all closed up shop because of poor choices, resulting in the firing of hundreds/thousands of individuals. There is literally an entire wiki page dedicated to all of them (there are over 700 of them). You haven’t even heard of most of them because of the aforementioned survivorship bias.
>
> You don’t get less “game” today than you did in the 90s. Games are orders of magnitude more complex today. DOOM (1993), one of the most beloved shooters of all time, was made by a few dozen people. Games today have hundreds, or even thousands, of people involved in their development. If people in 2020 would accept the standards of a game from the 90s, then it would be easy to make games with “more game” in them. But they won’t. They expect games to have bleeding edge graphics, physics, level complexity, sound effects, etc. Thus the average cost of producing a AAA-tier game increased over 10x between 2000 and 2010. You have to recoup that investment somehow. Gamers have decided that games shouldn’t cost more than $60 (because basic economic principles like inflation simply don’t apply to games for some reason) so developers will find alternative methods to reach the expected profit margins that their investors set. If these profit margins aren’t routinely met, investors will take their money elsewhere and gamers will have to settle for more indie titles.
>
> You can either try to sell more copies (thus leading to “casualization” that gamers are always bloviating about) or try to make more money from each customer.
>
> “games like Doom and Doom Eternal” exist because they are the games that succeeded. Lots of other games don’t succeed. ZeniMax Media may have also set lower profit expectations for those games. Investors set sales expectations, not gamers. Some investors may accept less and thus fund a portion of the gaming industry. Others won’t and will take money elsewhere. That’s why there are more games like Call of Duty than Doom 2016.
So you are saying that game studios WILL fail unless they have post-launch monetization and/or transactions with no upper limit?
Tell me again how Call of duty needs lootboxes, DLC and season passes to get by. Tell me again how a Star Wars game can’t feed its employees unless it has randomized loot with no upper limit.
And you absolutely get less game. Look at what Reach launched with vs Halo 5. The issue here is not how they get their money post launch, its that launches are meant to please share-holders and not customers. Deadlines are far more important than a complete product.
> 2533274818084099;12:
> > 2533274935834633;10:
> > > 2533274818084099;8:
> > > > 2533274935834633;7:
> > > > > 2533274898981042;2:
> > > > > I don’t think there should be any microtransactions whatsoever in Halo Infinite. The unlockables should be progress based only
> > > >
> > > > Then Infinite would likely have to cost more than $60. N64 games cost $60 back in the 1990s…and game development hasn’t gotten cheaper.
> > > >
> > > > If the rumored development costs of Infinite are even close to accurate, 343i needs a way to earn more than $60 from a player.
> > > >
> > > > As long as those methods of extra income have no bearing on actual gameplay (cosmetics, skins, etc), then I’m fine with them.
> > >
> > > You used to get a complete game, so yeah - the 60 dollars you pay today gets you a lot less ‘game’ than it did in the 90s. The price didn’t change, but it did in an artificial way.
> > >
> > > I don’t know how games like Doom Eternal or Doom exist at all going by the excuse companies like to throw around - like they can barely keep the lights on and how a loot box a day helps feed a starving homeless developer. Meanwhile the likes of Kotic is one of the richest people on the planet.
> > >
> > > They are feeding you bull poop and you’re eating it up. Stop.
> >
> > This is a textbook example of the logical error known as survivorship bias. You’re staring at one of the highest paid individuals in an industry (Bobby Kotick) and jumping to the conclusion that “see, everyone is making tons of money!”
> >
> > No they’re not. Videogame developers go bankrupt all the time. THQ, Lionhead, etc. all closed up shop because of poor choices, resulting in the firing of hundreds/thousands of individuals. There is literally an entire wiki page dedicated to all of them (there are over 700 of them). You haven’t even heard of most of them because of the aforementioned survivorship bias.
> >
> > You don’t get less “game” today than you did in the 90s. Games are orders of magnitude more complex today. DOOM (1993), one of the most beloved shooters of all time, was made by a few dozen people. Games today have hundreds, or even thousands, of people involved in their development. If people in 2020 would accept the standards of a game from the 90s, then it would be easy to make games with “more game” in them. But they won’t. They expect games to have bleeding edge graphics, physics, level complexity, sound effects, etc. Thus the average cost of producing a AAA-tier game increased over 10x between 2000 and 2010. You have to recoup that investment somehow. Gamers have decided that games shouldn’t cost more than $60 (because basic economic principles like inflation simply don’t apply to games for some reason) so developers will find alternative methods to reach the expected profit margins that their investors set. If these profit margins aren’t routinely met, investors will take their money elsewhere and gamers will have to settle for more indie titles.
> >
> > You can either try to sell more copies (thus leading to “casualization” that gamers are always bloviating about) or try to make more money from each customer.
> >
> > “games like Doom and Doom Eternal” exist because they are the games that succeeded. Lots of other games don’t succeed. ZeniMax Media may have also set lower profit expectations for those games. Investors set sales expectations, not gamers. Some investors may accept less and thus fund a portion of the gaming industry. Others won’t and will take money elsewhere. That’s why there are more games like Call of Duty than Doom 2016.
>
> So you are saying that game studios WILL fail unless they have post-launch monetization and/or transactions with no upper limit?
>
> Tell me again how Call of duty needs lootboxes, DLC and season passes to get by. Tell me again how a Star Wars game can’t feed its employees unless it has randomized loot with no upper limit.
>
> And you absolutely get less game. Look at what Reach launched with vs Halo 5. The issue here is not how they get their money post launch, its that launches are meant to please share-holders and not customers. Deadlines are far more important than a complete product.
No, game studios fail if they don’t make enough money to satisfy their shareholders. If they can generate enough income to satisfy them, they succeed.
Microtransactions are an available option to increase revenue and please shareholders. MTXs can allow a studio to make a more niche title but still satisfy revenue requirements. Otherwise, AAA games will be designed to appeal to the largest possible demographic with the lowest possible learning curve.
Call of Duty “needs lotboxes, DLC and season passes” to get by because Activison shareholders say it does. It doesn’t matter if it makes a billion dollars in gross sales if MTXs can net the game another 500 million. It doesn’t matter what you or I think about it. It’s not about Star Wars “feeding its employees”. It was never about that. It’s about Disney shareholders making as much as is humanly possible. MTXs and other predatory practices were seen as a way to achieve that end. The community spoke up with Battlefront 2 and proved to EA that the financial damage to their brand/reputation would be greater than the revenue from the MTXs in the game. That’s the only reason it stopped. They don’t care if gamers think “you guys have made enough money”. Our opinions are irrelevant.
Launches have always only been about pleasing shareholders. That’s the only reason the professional gaming industry exists. AAA games in 1998 could be made with 20 people in 2 years. Today they can’t. Post-launch updates/DLC weren’t technically possible on consoles in the 90s either. Gamers complain about the prospect of directly funding games via Kickstarter or other platforms because “I don’t want to pay for something before I’ve seen it”. What do you think shareholders are doing every time a new AAA game is developed?
In a perfect world, we would have all of the Armor from past games and more at launch. But it is not a perfect world. Shareholders and investors are greedy and budgets are high. But I have a solution:
No Micro-transactions at launch. Give us two weeks. That’s all I ask. (Well, it’s not, but still.)
No, (Clears throat.) LoOt BOXeS. I swear to The Didact, if Infinite has loot boxes, Halo will be dead. (To me.)
All Armor from Halo 3 and a select few from the other games (1 or 2.) at launch, AT LEAST. And if there are no Elites, lets change that to all the Armor from Reach as well. And all these are for FREE. In a merger of the progression system from Halo 3/Reach.
Don’t put a timer on ANYTHING. Yes, I want to buy a snow man Weapon Skin in summer.
Have the way to buy things be though a item shop, that has fair pricing, plus a Battle Pass, that is primarily made out of Armor and Weapon Skins.
The pricing for things (In GBP.) be around:
Emblems: £0.49
Weapon Skins: £0.49
Weapon Ascetics: (Essentially, imagine if Infinite’s Battle Rife looks like Halo 3’s. A Weapon Ascetic would make it look like Halo 5.) £0.99
Armor Set: £1.99
Battle Pass: £4.99
Have a thing called Armor points. These cost £1.99 and a have 1 or 2 in the Battle Pass. These are basically where you choose different pieces from different Armor. For example you can choose a ODST helmet and EVA Chest and shoulders. (By the way, both of those should be in the free progression system.
> 2535466187264694;14:
> In a perfect world, we would have all of the Armor from past games and more at launch. But it is not a perfect world. Shareholders and investors are greedy and budgets are high. But I have a solution:
>
> 1) No Micro-transactions at launch. Give us two weeks. That’s all I ask. (Well, it’s not, but still.)
>
> 2) No, (Clears throat.) LoOt BOXeS. I swear to The Didact, if Infinite has loot boxes, Halo will be dead. (To me.)
>
> 3) All Armor from Halo 3 and a select few from the other games (1 or 2.) at launch, AT LEAST. And if there are no Elites, lets change that to all the Armor from Reach as well. And all these are for FREE. In a merger of the progression system from Halo 3/Reach.
>
> 4) Don’t put a timer on ANYTHING. Yes, I want to buy a snow man Weapon Skin in summer.
>
> 5) Have the way to buy things be though a item shop, that has fair pricing, plus a Battle Pass, that is primarily made out of Armor and Weapon Skins.
>
> 6) The pricing for things (In GBP.) be around:
>
> Emblems: £0.49
>
> Weapon Skins: £0.49
>
> Weapon Ascetics: (Essentially, imagine if Infinite’s Battle Rife looks like Halo 3’s. A Weapon Ascetic would make it look like Halo 5.) £0.99
>
> Armor Set: £1.99
>
> Battle Pass: £4.99
>
> 7) Have a thing called Armor points. These cost £1.99 and a have 1 or 2 in the Battle Pass. These are basically where you choose different pieces from different Armor. For example you can choose a ODST helmet and EVA Chest and shoulders. (By the way, both of those should be in the free progression system.
>
> Aaaaaaannnnnnnndddddddd, that’s about it.
>
> (1511 letters. Longest post I’ve done to date.)
So basically have a similar system to what Apex Legends has? but with 2 week timers or no timers at all? hmm… idk how I feel about a battle pass system it feels off on a non BR game, I mean look at Halo MCC having that linear system felt off and tedious and im pretty sure im not the only one who feels like this about a “battle pass” system in Halo. Now I know you stated we should have our base cosmetics and basically have that as a side thing… Here’s the thing though about battle passes, if you go ahead and spend $10 USD on a battle pass you are given a linear path to follow in order to unlock the cosmetics you want and if you get burnt out (maybe from grinding for all the base cosmetics) then you’ll probably end up getting bored and moving on to a different game therefore, leading you to lose valuable time to finish grinding to get all the cosmetics you paid for and if you don’t finish your battle pass then you lose whatever cosmetics you weren’t able to unlock in the battle pass. I feel like having weapon cases allows them to make more money in a way that engages with the community (ie featuring their skins in up coming cases.) my idea would be.
1.) At launch give us a full customization system like in Halo Reach.
2.) Introduce a weapon case system that features different types of cosmetics.(no armor tho)
3.) Now if they wish to add armor at a later date then they should have the armor added as DLC along with new map.
Also side note these cases shouldn’t have a key I dont want to spend money on cases and keys that’s just dumb, I mean I already payed 60 bucks for the game, I don’t want to throw another 60 bucks on keys just to open cases that I already threw another 60 bucks for.
none of that random reward stuff, especially if there is option to spend irl money on in-game purchases. It’s far more inferior mechanic to mechanics where you have clear goals & where it’s clearly visible how you can obtain those goals, whether working on the goal is challenge based or credit system based.
Though challenge based system does encourage increasing variation in gameplay, for completionists at least.
And even though Im for the idea of adding creativity to the game by increasing the in-game tools available for players, I doubt it will happen in Halo as it seems more the type that likes to censor creativity or rather restrict the possibility of creativity to avoid the bother to censor what is deemed worthwhile to censor.
As generally when there is a system for the community to create something for online like embems or skins, some will use that to creatd something profane/controversial etc etc…
Which is not a problem in games directed towards “mature” audience in the first place. But Halo seems to go toward that “widening the audience” thing so it clashes with the idea of such system.
As to why it’s not that much of a problem in games directed towards “mature” audiences, it’s simply because there shouldn’t be the issue of effecting younglings given those products are clearly marked that it contains such things that it has the higher rating which means those who aren’t meant to see it shouldn’t be able to buy said profuct themselves, if someone, despite the clear markings, gets the product for younger than the audience that it’s directed for, is then responsible afterwards.
likely if some adult is browsing something community made, it’s likely something they have seen/heard or already know of.
Hence why M/18 etc rated products have, in addition to other creative freedoms, less doubts about making community custom options as lower rated products require more supervision to stay as such.
Unless someone designs the product so that the custom options are locked behind having an adult profile, excluding offline custom options obviously.
It’s quite obvious but just for the sake of clarification.
> 2533274890014309;16:
> none of that random reward stuff, especially if there is option to spend irl money on in-game purchases. It’s far more inferior mechanic to mechanics where you have clear goals & where it’s clearly visible how you can obtain those goals, whether working on the goal is challenge based or credit system based.
> Though challenge based system does encourage increasing variation in gameplay, for completionists at least.
>
> And even though Im for the idea of adding creativity to the game by increasing the in-game tools available for players, I doubt it will happen in Halo as it seems more the type that likes to censor creativity or rather restrict the possibility of creativity to avoid the bother to censor what is deemed worthwhile to censor.
>
> As generally when there is a system for the community to create something for online like embems or skins, some will use that to creatd something profane/controversial etc etc…
> Which is not a problem in games directed towards “mature” audience in the first place. But Halo seems to go toward that “widening the audience” thing so it clashes with the idea of such system.
>
> As to why it’s not that much of a problem in games directed towards “mature” audiences, it’s simply because there shouldn’t be the issue of effecting younglings given those products are clearly marked that it contains such things that it has the higher rating which means those who aren’t meant to see it shouldn’t be able to buy said profuct themselves, if someone, despite the clear markings, gets the product for younger than the audience that it’s directed for, is then responsible afterwards.
> likely if some adult is browsing something community made, it’s likely something they have seen/heard or already know of.
> Hence why M/18 etc rated products have, in addition to other creative freedoms, less doubts about making community custom options as lower rated products require more supervision to stay as such.
> Unless someone designs the product so that the custom options are locked behind having an adult profile, excluding offline custom options obviously.
> It’s quite obvious but just for the sake of clarification.
Yeah your right, they should have some type of mod team to review the skins/emblems that or make the game rated M again. The best Halo games were rated M after all so I don’t see how this would hurt them.
In all honesty I felt like H5 really limited your options when it came to customizing your Spartan.
I know loot boxes won’t be in Infinite but that doesn’t mean it’s fully sorted because look how gears 5’s microtransactions turned out to be. It’s awful.
> 2533274847627340;4:
> > 2533275020115329;3:
> >
>
> If it is quality DLC , I’m good with that. Sell single player expansions , use skins (Armor , weapon and vehicle) as Direct MT (no random loot boxes) to fund map pack development. Sounds like a solid business plan. Then people pay for what they want to play.
Honestly this is what I really hope it is. MTX is inevitable but this is one of the more fair models to replicate.
> 2533274879721941;18:
> I know loot boxes won’t be in Infinite but that doesn’t mean it’s fully sorted because look how gears 5’s microtransactions turned out to be. It’s awful.
I can also agree with this. Having skins is no problem when it comes to MTX, as long as they are fairly priced. I’m not going to pull numbers out of my head but we can’t have overpriced skins.
Im ok with microtransactions like H5, as long as they are only cosmetic (don’t think warzone guns should be unlockable with real money, as that creates pay to win) because microtransactions helped fund tons of new free content for H5 over the years.
