Monetization Ideas

Games Halo Infinite
#1

Considering that “micro transactions” are going to be a part of Halo Infinite, we may as well have a system that everyone can agree on. After all, we will have to deal with them for the next 10 years considering that’s how long this next game is suppose to last. I figured I would implement my ideas and see what you all think.

Firstly the cost.
It doesn’t matter how fancy the armor is, you cannot charge people $20 or $10. Even $5 is pushing it. There is no supply and demand since these items are digital and the effort put into creating the armor pieces is very small. $20 is how much the entire multiplayer is worth, so why spend it on a singular armor set? Plus it’s a dirty move making people pay for canon gear regardless.

Charge people a maximum of $5 dollars for a bundle of gear. If the Zvesda (pardon the typo) costed $5 then much more people would purchase it, and you don’t have to worry about restocking or making more, because it’s digital. On top of that, if you make the armor either free to earn after 3-6 months, people who can’t afford it will still be able to get it. Or just make the credits something you can earn in-game like every other company does.

Lastly. Repurchasing armor we already own?
This one really upset me, since armor that we earned in other Halo games, needs to now be purchased for money. Re-earning armor is okay, because you updated it and made it look great! But if I have to purchase CQC, Security, or any other Halo: Reach armor then I’m gonna be severely disappointed.

343, some of us had faith in you. Most of us here on the website played Halo 4 and 5 religiously, despite the mistakes made. But if you continue these micro transactions that we should be calling macro transactions, then you will wind up killing Halo. Even Activision games have less predatory systems then this. I don’t wanna complain… but. I have to. We all have to.

3 Likes
#2

I don’t feel like complaining. I will agree that about $5 feels right for a set but that’s my personal preference. I don’t care if someone else wants to drop $10-20 on a set, it’s not my time they are using on it.

Also, stop it with the micro/macro transactions thing. This is neither of those. It’s options in a store.

None of this affects the gameplay, which is free to all.

3 Likes
#3

the less it cost, more I´ll buy
For example, pokemon go, 10 pesos (50 cents) for 100 pokecoins (more or less) I bought a prepaid card for 100 pesos (5 USD), overall I spend about 100 USD buying coins cause items are cheaper and don’t even play it anymore.

1 Like
#4

A micro transaction by definition refers to spending money within a game for items to use. Just because it isn’t a loot box, doesn’t mean it’s not a micro transaction. Look it up. Also while it does not effect if you win a match, it does effect gameplay. Armor is how the game rewards players for completing tasks. By making armor something you can only purchase from the store, you destroy replay value of the base product. (The Game Itself)

1 Like
#5

“a very small financial transaction conducted online.”, Oxford Languages for Microtransaction. That’s the closest thing I can find for a firm, formal definition. Past that it is all slang and slapped on anything nowadays.

The cosmetics do nothing to affect gameplay, you are projecting your personal grievances into the game itself. They do not alter hitboxes or increase your stats. They don’t absorb damage or affect your score. Armor is just an outside factor you can casually interact with, and is dependant on each player. If you don’t want to spend money on it, whatever. I don’t mind getting the battle passes. Other people want to buy a bunch of sets from the store.

Who cares. They get to look how they want. I still get to play games with them.

Get over yourself.

1 Like
#6

And I would too, but that is my decision based on my preferences, not some sort of communal standard I think should be applied to the entire industry.

#7

I never said that the armor did any of that. You’re warping everything I’m saying. Armor is a purely cosmetic item that is rewarded to us for playing the game, and I appreciate that you agree that they are too expensive. But just because it’s not pay to win, does not mean it’s okay for them to do this.

1 Like
#8

Tell me how else it can possibly affect gameplay than to have a legit change to the balance of the match, which it doesn’t.

#9

Thanks for the post, I’m not sure why these other folks are throwing hate your way. I agree that the prices are too high for me. I’d buy the pass for $5. Unfortunately, 343 isn’t interested in making a lot of transactions as much as they are interested in making a lot of money. I’m not sure what the market research is, but I know I have a bit of a tighter hold on my wallet than the average person.

#10

And that’s great for you.

#12

Sorry for expressing a dissenting stance in an echo chamber.

1 Like
#13

You’re forgiven now run along. 343 asked us for feedback and players are trying to give it.

#14

Then I’ll keep doing my job and give it as I see fit.

1 Like
#15

Telling someone their opinion is wrong isn’t feedback.

Alright no longer responding to the imp.

#16

Thank you for the distraction from the topic, then.

#17

Revisiting this post after a few months and may as well explain some things. When I mentioned gameplay I was referring to being within the games internal eco-system. Gameplay does not essentially mean being in a match. I know that goes against how other people use the word, but when you dissect the word it’s meaning isn’t exactly as people normally use it. When I play Halo and other titles, the cosmetics are the end-game, the goal. That’s why it’s important, at least to me. So when I mentioned how it changes gameplay, I meant that it changes the entire experience of playing Halo Infinite. Almost like how challenges force players to engage eachother in matchmaking via methods they hate. Hope this clarifies things for you Desiderium. If not, do let me know.

#18

Clearly you haven’t seen the demand for digital goods in other titles.

$8,000-$150,000 skins in CSGO (when the price is literally capped at $1,800) for in game items that cost $2.99

$30-$1,700 skins in Rust for items that cost $.99-$4.99

Now both of these examples are in games where there’s a functional and “legal” market for various in game items.

Mercy’s “Pink” skin in Overwatch was a BCRF donation exclusive for $15, accounts that have it are going for $590-$1,100. And account selling/buying is against Blizzard’s TOS. Players have been begging for 4 years to bring this skin back, there’s whole communities built around this one skin.

Let’s not forget the glaring elephant in the room either. 3 letters: N F T

You’re behind the curve if you’re trying to tell people that their digital goods aren’t worth anything because of the intangible reproduction nature of digital goods. Hell, I paid my mortgage and utilities for two months from my CSGO inventory sales.

I agree that prices should be lower and more accessible. I’ll admit first hand that most of my bad spending habits in other games in my younger days actually stemmed from true micro-transactions due to the benign cost of the service, players are more apt to spend money on lower cost goods. I would even argue that a lower cost would fit the game better as players have been used to acquiring these cosmetics for free for almost the entirety of the franchise.

#19

So what you’re seeming to tell me is. People are Morton’s? To be honest what you’re trying to say isn’t very clear, other then the fact that your apparently very upset at me for some reason. Okay. $1500 dollars a skin. That’s moronically expensive, like seriously. Like when people were bidding for a certain musicians hair. Let me be clear though, when I talk about these transactions, I don’t think about the worst possible situation. I’m aware people will pay thousands of dollars for something idioticly useless. Like NFTs. Or that people will try and sell hats in games for a ridiculous amount. But that’s the culture around PC. But let’s make something clear, I didn’t make this post so XD some dude could step in and say. “They could totally sell it for $1500.” Seriously dude? Sounds like you want the problem to get worse.

#20

*morons

And no that’s you jumping to conclusions.

What isn’t clear about stating prices of digital cosmetics that have factually sold and regularly sell for a premium? These aren’t prices established by the companies themselves, but rather what people have listed/paid in the secondhand market.

Dunno why you’d think I was upset with you, just challenging the belief that digital items “can’t be sold” for prices that exceed your own presuppositions.

Agreed that it’s ridiculously expensive, but it’s factual.

It’s the same reason that chunks of branded vintage plastic sell for hundreds of dollars, or why nickels are worth 1.6x their face value and you can no longer purchase them from financial suppliers.

Perceived value is assigned to everything whether it’s physical or digital, and it’s really down to the individuals who are willing to buy at the levels that individuals are selling.

Or people paying for literally functionally worthless action figures or playing cards. Or people selling antique or vintage dinner plates.

People will buy functionally radioactive uranium glass dinnerware from 1830’s-1950’s knowing full well that prolonged exposure from use is detrimental so it must be stored for display purposes only. Is it really a suspension of disbelief that players would spend money for something they can use?

That’s human nature, people want to acquire and show off things they are attached to.

Someone who spends a lot of time within a game might seek out a skin that sets them apart from other players in the same way a car enthusiast might redesign their vehicle from the ground up to stand apart from other Honda Civic owners.

It’s not a PC thing either look at how sought after Recon used to be, it was so ubiquitous to Halo’s premium cosmetics that it was a promo campaign for preordering Reach. I don’t have any record of accounts swapping hands for the few instances of Recon making their way into public hands before Vidmaster, but I have a friend who made a lot of money in high school pulling off Annual and Deja Vu for people as well as ranking up accounts to 50 in Competitive in 2007-2010.

If there’s an incentive to do something, there’s going to be people willing to pay to have it done. PC, Console, IRL.

Nope, just stating the reality of the marketplace of digital goods. If it’s still obtainable in some way, shape or form, people will pay. Not saying that the cosmetics in game could sell for $1,500 in game, that would be egregious on the part of 343/Microsoft. Similar to when Apex sold a knife in game for the base price of $170 but “you had to work to get it”. Players should be able to obtain these items as inexpensively as possible, but whatever happens after they’re no longer obtainable is left up to speculation, or more so the popularity of the title or cosmetic.

Whether you personally believe the item’s value or not doesn’t change the fact GameStop’s free promo “Red Shift” armor coating is selling for $46-$72 (1.9x-3x more than base in game prices) on eBay. Or that the XBL Game Pass skins are more expensive than a Game Pass subscription.

I’ve already stated that I’d actually prefer it if the items were cheaper. Hell, I’d actually prefer loot boxes to the individual monetization we see now. Hell let’s be honest I’d actually prefer if they were all free and the game was one flat price.

#21

Okay. Reading through all the individual responses you’ve made clear is few points. Seems like we can both agree that people have made a few stupid decisions across the board. Are they all directly connected, no. But I get your point. What I don’t understand is why you would address the $1500 skin issue. You had me convinced for a moment last night that these were colonies enforcing the prices. But why mention them to begin with if they were unrelated? When you mentioned that you would have liked if the game to be a fixed price with free content, that’s something I would have liked to see in the first post, common ground that hopefully 343 could have seen with their own eyes at some point. Not too shoot your other points down, because they made sense. I just feel like you’ve got good opinions that we could dig into.