> 2533275031939856;18:
> Would you be okay with paid DLC aka paid map packs?
Yes and no, I would only be okay to non-multiplayer DLC, so that the fanbase is not split 
so, that would mean “Campaign” DLCs, and nothing more, no PvP DLCs, maybe Firefight DLCs?
> 2533274967369999;17:
> I don’t understand why people can be upset about this. You don’t even need to buy req packs with real money, its easy to get req packs with firefight and its just a matter of patience. I have put over 56 days of Halo 5 and I liked the system. I understand that it was bad at the start, but with multiple updates to make it easier its fine now.
> Halo Reach made me think small, but Halo 5 made me think big, because on the surface we say we want a specific armour set but deep down we want everything.
- I have a life aside from gaming, if I would only play in the weekends how could I hope to get something from a RNG system? - a RNG system created on purpose to be invasive and grindy - - I don’t want “everything”, and even if I would it would only be earned in a system not based on pure luck or BIG money spending, it is better to earn everything Reach’s armory has to offer by leveling up instead of grinding through REQs.
> 2533274861977278;15:
> > 2535419441797248;3:
> > If Warzone is in Infinite, in some form or another, I’d be fine with the Req system for weapons and vehicles. But it shouldn’t include armour and emblems.
>
> I agree with this statement. You can keep the req. System for weapons and vehicles but let us EARN our armour like in Halo 3, reach, and 4 as well as emblems. I want to be motivated to complete challenges. The challenges in Halo 5 were only req packs that had some low tier weapons/vehicles and sometimes an emblem. Only now am I motivated to complete these challenges because I need that extra XP to reach level 152. But it isn’t much so I’m sorta semi motivated. 100, 500, and 1000 xp is nothing compared to how much is need to level up when you’re a really high level player.
Halo’s customization was fully free before Halo 5, it has always been and that’s how I want it!
> 2533274921439839;14:
> I wholeheartedly agree. Building a good game should pay for itself. That’s game development. If you require secondary ways of generating revenue in game, you’ve already built a terrible game. End of discussion. Theirs a reason Halo 3 sold 14.5 million copies. I think the underlying problem is that game developers try to artificially create a steady and sustainable stream of revenue. Coincidentally, the game dies off quick because it relied so heavy on generating a steady revenue, instead of making the game fun. Thus, the revenue stream depletes and your stuck with the same amount of overall revenue, if not less, as you would if you just sold a really good game. I know there are exceptions to this but those are simply wildcards who managed to make a game that sells, and is able to double dip into your pocket. Disclaimer: This doesn’t directly apply to paid downloadable content, though some problems it has may share this parallel, its model is fundamentally different. A common argument is that the cost of game development has increased and game studios need extra funds to accommodate the extra spending. I would say, operate within your means or go bankrupt like the rest of the businesses in today’s economy. You see low budget indie titles, whom have designed their game to be fun, sell like hot cakes. It’s basic guys.
1000% agree.
> 2535406126289417;13:
> > 2592250499819446;12:
> > > 2533274904158628;11:
> > > > 2576836393959214;4:
> > > > Honestly, the way 343 did micro transactions in Halo 5 was fine with me. Armor unlocking was annoying. But it got us all free DLC and kept the player base together, and only affected one game mode.
> > >
> > > Two issues with this post:
> > > - “It got us free DLC”. You think those monthly content updates that Halo 5 got in its first year after release couldn’t have been done without revenue from the req system? Let’s remember the things that were in those content updates, which you are referring to as “free DLC”, included things such as Infection, Big Team Battle, and freaking post-game carnage reports. I highly doubt the budget they had for the base Halo 5 game wasn’t enough to include such basic, essential things, which other Halo games had managed to have at launch despite not having a req system. And more importantly, even if they somehow did need the extra revenue from microtransactions to give us that “free DLC”, they didn’t necessarily need to implement a req system to get it. They could have had something less intrusive, such as simple purchaseable cosmetics. - “It only affected one game mode”. Sure it only directly affected one game mode. But the entire game was clearly designed around trying to get players to play that one game mode, to the detriment of other game modes, particularly BTB. So no, it didn’t only affect one game mode. It was highly intrusive, and affected everyone’s experience with Halo 5, even people like me who generally don’t touch Warzone.
> >
> > I cannot agree more. The req system in Halo 5 was one of the most invasive systems I’ve seen. You cannot get away from it, it’s rammed down your throat the moment you boot up the game, and everthing is unlocked through it, you cannot ignore it if you wanted to. If there’s any rng shenanigans in Halo Infinite I walk. I will not tolerate them anymore. I’m sure Halo Infinite will be monetised, but I’m not supporting anything more than buy what you see cosmetics.
>
> There is no credible argument for there inclusion except greed, it really is that simple, there is no upside for the player at all. if the dev /publisher can’t make a profitable game without them do something else.
1000% agree.
> 2533274903673413;10:
> the req system in H5 was the reason why we had thousands of useless, uninspired junk for armor that we gained through simple chance requiring nothing but luck,no skill and no time invested in the game mattered, because the loot boxes existed then the devs felt the need to give us lots of armors as incentives for us to get the loot and since they needed soo many stuff then most of it was simple useless filler which added nothing to the game.
>
> if you want to keep the player base together by making the DLC free then find another way to make that happen, one idea would be to have weapon and vehicles camos and ONLY camos i.e.: colors, be monetized where you buy the camo you want instead of buying a chance to get it. or simply dont make the DLC free, I would gladly pay for the DLC’s if it means that there will be no micro-transactions whatsoever.
>
> but if 343i is absolutely determined to implement micro-transactions in infinite please make a system like Titanfall and make it so that only cosmetic items like camo, visors and vehicle colours, NOT ARMOR PIECES can be bought.
1000% agree.
> 2666640315087182;9:
> > 2576836393959214;4:
> > Honestly, the way 343 did micro transactions in Halo 5 was fine with me. Armor unlocking was annoying. But it got us all free DLC and kept the player base together, and only affected one game mode.
>
> You might want to rephrase that.Or are you the one that buys the lie that Surprise Mechanics are player focused
1000% agree.
> 2585548714655118;8:
> Micro-transactions are a fact of life.
>
> It’s how games companies fund their free DLC / server set up / maintenance etc.
>
> And it’s a far better model than paid DLC which just fractures the player base.
>
> It’s coming. And my wallet is ready
Not everyone has access to your wallet rich boy XD