Is anyone else going to be really pissed if this game has microtransactions? And they’ve borderline confirmed that it will.
A few of the Xbox One launch titles already have them and I’ll be really bummed if Halo 5 does, which it almost certainly will. That’ll definitely put me off buying it. Anyone else feel the same?
First of all, two of the links you posted were from April 2013 and about Halo 4. 343i was probably creating the Champion’s Bundle at this time, which is, of course, a bundle of microtransactions. The other link was about Spartan Assault, which includes microtransactions that were changed in an update to be available to be unlocked through XP instead of just cR.
Secondly, if Halo Xbox One has unnecessary microtransactions, I will… not buy them. Easy fix.
Unless, of course, they offer a $3 pack of skins which includes an AR skin that I just have to have.
> If Halo Xbox One has microtransactions, I will… not buy them. Easy fix.
>
> Unless, of course, they offer a $3 pack of skins which includes an AR skin that I just have to have.
That depends on how they’re implemented. Not all games with microtransactions leave you with a choice. They either make certain items only available for purchase or give a massive advantage to anyone who spends money. Either of these would effectively ruin the multiplayer of a Halo game. When Spartan Assault first came out there were weapons that you could ONLY get by spending money (including the rocket launcher and spartan laser). They ended up fixing this due to massive backlash.
OP, here’s the thing.
Microtransactions are not all bad.
YES, I understand there are bad microtransaction models, I’ve seen them, I’ve heard of them, and I’ve seen the effects of them when a Free to Play Developer tries putting them into the game.
Microtransactions are okay as long as they do not effect gameplay in any way, shape, or form.
By this I mean SKINS, EMBLEMS, and Other optional cosmetic things. Things of that nature are okay, and really don’t make microtransactions evil. Microtransactions can be a good thing, they could drop the price of major DLC like map packs.
Most people hate microtransactions because they’re “Oh, I need to pay $30 for a car in this game, $5 for a rocket launcher in this game, and $15 to unlock this mission in this game.”
That’s BAD Microtransactions, BUT that’s not the ONLY form of microtransactions. Let’s take a Free to play Game that’s currently on the PC and PS4, and goes by the name of Warframe, the game has microtransactions. A very well designed system, everything that you can only get from spending real money, are cosmetic stuff, and even some of those items you can get in game. Boosters are only real money paid for, but aren’t really needed. Warframes and weapons can either be built using in game credit, and grinding, or paid for by real money, which gives you a free slot.
BUT, again you can get that free slot from doing a free referral program, plus there’s in game trading where you can sell things for plat or other things.
But for Halo, as a FPS, it should be only cosmetic items.
> OP, here’s the thing.
>
> Microtransactions are not all bad.
>
> YES, I understand there are bad microtransaction models, I’ve seen them, I’ve heard of them, and I’ve seen the effects of them when a Free to Play Developer tries putting them into the game.
>
>
> Microtransactions are okay as long as they do not effect gameplay in any way, shape, or form.
>
> By this I mean SKINS, EMBLEMS, and Other optional cosmetic things. Things of that nature are okay, and really don’t make microtransactions evil. Microtransactions can be a good thing, they could drop the price of major DLC like map packs.
>
> Most people hate microtransactions because they’re “Oh, I need to pay $30 for a car in this game, $5 for a rocket launcher in this game, and $15 to unlock this mission in this game.”
> That’s BAD Microtransactions, BUT that’s not the ONLY form of microtransactions. Let’s take a Free to play Game that’s currently on the PC and PS4, and goes by the name of Warframe, the game has microtransactions. A very well designed system, everything that you can only get from spending real money, are cosmetic stuff, and even some of those items you can get in game. Boosters are only real money paid for, but aren’t really needed. Warframes and weapons can either be built using in game credit, and grinding, or paid for by real money, which gives you a free slot.
>
> BUT, again you can get that free slot from doing a free referral program, plus there’s in game trading where you can sell things for plat or other things.
>
>
> But for Halo, as a FPS, it should be only cosmetic items.
I agree. I just think that as Microsoft owns 343, we should be a bit worried. Spartan Assault was full priced (for a mobile game) and still had gameplay items and weapons that could only be bought with real money. Not to mention the fact that certain Xbox One launch titles already have this bad implementation of microtransactions. Forza 5 is a full priced game that let’s players pay to advance faster. They can essentially buy better cars while everyone else has to earn them. This is exactly the kind of thing that would ruin a Halo game’s multiplayer.
> > OP, here’s the thing.
> >
> > Microtransactions are not all bad.
> >
> > YES, I understand there are bad microtransaction models, I’ve seen them, I’ve heard of them, and I’ve seen the effects of them when a Free to Play Developer tries putting them into the game.
> >
> >
> > Microtransactions are okay as long as they do not effect gameplay in any way, shape, or form.
> >
> > By this I mean SKINS, EMBLEMS, and Other optional cosmetic things. Things of that nature are okay, and really don’t make microtransactions evil. Microtransactions can be a good thing, they could drop the price of major DLC like map packs.
> >
> > Most people hate microtransactions because they’re “Oh, I need to pay $30 for a car in this game, $5 for a rocket launcher in this game, and $15 to unlock this mission in this game.”
> > That’s BAD Microtransactions, BUT that’s not the ONLY form of microtransactions. Let’s take a Free to play Game that’s currently on the PC and PS4, and goes by the name of Warframe, the game has microtransactions. A very well designed system, everything that you can only get from spending real money, are cosmetic stuff, and even some of those items you can get in game. Boosters are only real money paid for, but aren’t really needed. Warframes and weapons can either be built using in game credit, and grinding, or paid for by real money, which gives you a free slot.
> >
> > BUT, again you can get that free slot from doing a free referral program, plus there’s in game trading where you can sell things for plat or other things.
> >
> >
> > But for Halo, as a FPS, it should be only cosmetic items.
>
> I agree. I just think that as Microsoft owns 343, we should be a bit worried. Spartan Assault was full priced (for a mobile game) and still had gameplay items and weapons that could only be bought with real money. Not to mention the fact that certain Xbox One launch titles already have this bad implementation of microtransactions. Forza 5 is a full priced game that let’s players pay to advance faster. They can essentially buy better cars while everyone else has to earn them. This is exactly the kind of thing that would ruin a Halo game’s multiplayer.
But you can now get those weapons in SA by using xp and in Forza five you can easily get better cars by playing the game (especially with the how often you get credits) and unlike games cars arent like: this is better than this which is better than this which is better than this etc. and more than likely the car on offer isnt the best one out there and similar ones can be upgraded/tuned to do as good as the other car. Plus the rank up faster just allows them to buy more expensive cars which arent really the best ones in most cases and you dont need them to win and rank doesnt mean anything at all in Forza unlike halo in which it does, hence why rank up boosters shouldnt be buyable (or at least buyable only like in BF4)
KI is the only other which has the MT quite bad but what can you expect from a free to play game? The only bad thing about MT is when things released with the game such as skins etc. are made to be bought when they could of been in the game (GOW3 and most EA games like ME3 did this) to start with. Only things released afterwards should be MT’d.
If a Halo game had micro-transactions they would likely just consist of weapon/ armour skins. That’s what happened in Gears of War 3 and there was no harm done there.
> If a Halo game had micro-transactions they would likely just consist of weapon/ armour skins. That’s what happened in Gears of War 3 and there was no harm done there.
As long as when the game releases these arent in sale and are part if the game and any added after the game are the ones I have to buy. Other than that Im all for it =]
I can fully respect both your stance on the issue and your protest of it.
But I simply don’t care that much so long as they aren’t game changing microtransactions.
Let’s see what they are first, yes?
As long as they leave it to the aesthetic stuff like armor, stances, skins, firefight voices…
I sincerely hope they learned their lesson from the past two titles and will stop charging for maps. Maps as microtransactions would be terrible - why would they want to splinter the population yet again?
> Let’s see what they are first, yes?
>
> As long as they leave it to the aesthetic stuff like armor, stances, skins, firefight voices…
>
> I sincerely hope they learned their lesson from the past two titles and will stop charging for maps. Maps as microtransactions would be terrible - why would they want to splinter the population yet again?
All of that stuff is unlockable in Halo 4 (and past Halos) through gameplay. You really want to start having to pay for them separately? That’s just even more content we don’t get for the full price of the game.
> > Let’s see what they are first, yes?
> >
> > As long as they leave it to the aesthetic stuff like armor, stances, skins, firefight voices…
> >
> > I sincerely hope they learned their lesson from the past two titles and will stop charging for maps. Maps as microtransactions would be terrible - why would they want to splinter the population yet again?
>
> All of that stuff is unlockable in Halo 4 (and past Halos) through gameplay. You really want to start having to pay for them separately? That’s just even more content we don’t get for the full price of the game.
I think he means what I said that any added after release get out on sale, thise made before release are part of the game.
> > Let’s see what they are first, yes?
> >
> > As long as they leave it to the aesthetic stuff like armor, stances, skins, firefight voices…
> >
> > I sincerely hope they learned their lesson from the past two titles and will stop charging for maps. Maps as microtransactions would be terrible - why would they want to splinter the population yet again?
>
> All of that stuff is unlockable in Halo 4 (and past Halos) through gameplay. You really want to start having to pay for them separately? That’s just even more content we don’t get for the full price of the game.
Why would they lock all armors behind a microtransaction system? That just seems absurd.
Initial game launches with a set of armors, plenty. Then as the game ages new armors, weapon skins and so forth, only cosmetic stuff, gets made and released for a small sum that the player optionally pay to get the thing.
I wouldn’t really mind if there are micro transactions in halo 5, provided that if the things that could be bought don’t benefit the user and cause him/her to have an unfair advantage over those that don’t have it. It wouldn’t bother me if it was just something like weapon or armour skins
Wow… I honestly did not expect the reactions I got, the last few times I posted my opinion on the topic of microtransactions, I had to fight tooth and nail to explain my point to others.
But, that was months ago, I guess people’s opinions have soften some.
But someone did point out boosters, and I say boosters should not be buyable, UNLESS said boosters are also rewards for getting certain objectives. IE like Reach’s challenges, if you complete all of the daily challenges you get double XP until the next set of challenges. If you complete the Weekly challenges, you get 2.5 XP until next week’s challenges.
The buyable XP booster should not be more than double XP, that way, if people do spend money on it, it’s by choice not because they need to.
A good microtransactions model, is one where you offer two things, one is extremely optional content that don’t affect the game, the other is where you offer the exact same thing that they can get without spending a cent.
Now, like others have pointed out, Armors/armor skins, shouldn’t be 100% behind a microtransaction wall, you need to have a good number free for people to get on game’s release, or for new players. Plus I strongly believe that 343i should do contests, where winners earn a small amount of credits or what have you, for the market place, to spend on Halo microtransactions. Digital Extremes, that creators of Warframe, do this, they have contests that winners get plat for their market place, live streams they give out a 1000 plat at random to people who are logged into their twitch accounts watching the live streams.
I think what the 343i employee meant by “micro transactions” in Halo 4 was the Champioship Bundle. As long as the “micro transactions” don’t give certain players an advantage (such as giving them powerful perks) I don’t really think they should be called that, just Armor Packs, Skin Packs and Map Packs. Which I’m totally fine with. But if you can buy weapons and -Yoink- like that, it would be really bad.
If the game is f2p and the micro-transactions are only cosmetic, then no problem.
> Why would they lock all armors behind a microtransaction system? That just seems absurd.
>
> Initial game launches with a set of armors, plenty. Then as the game ages new armors, weapon skins and so forth, only cosmetic stuff, gets made and released for a small sum that the player optionally pay to get the thing.
To clarify, I never meant all armor would be locked… of course you’d have a launch set. But people will pay for the cool extra skins, poses, stances, bells, whistles, attachments, etc. But it doesn’t really have to be armor; the point microtransactions work best when they do not fragment the player pool. Armory stuff is an example of this because having a rare chest piece will not exclude you from other players in matchmaking. We don’t want Halo 4’s DLC map fiasco again, do we?
Plus, there’s a good chance that offering armor for 99 cents per piece, 343 will make even more money than bundling up things and selling it for a flat 10 bucks. It’s the iTunes model of purchasing. people spend more when they can get exactly what they want (individual songs and not entire albums).
> If the game is f2p and the micro-transactions are only cosmetic, then no problem.
Obviously the game isn’t going to be free to play.
> First of all, two of the links you posted were from April 2013 and about Halo 4. 343i was probably creating the Champion’s Bundle at this time, which is, of course, a bundle of microtransactions. The other link was about Spartan Assault, which includes microtransactions that were changed in an update to be available to be unlocked through XP instead of just cR.
>
> Secondly, if Halo Xbox One has unnecessary microtransactions, I will… not buy them. Easy fix.
>
> Unless, of course, they offer a $3 pack of skins which includes an AR skin that I just have to have.
I’m aware of the content of my links. The point of the articles that I posted was to show that they are open to adding microtransactions in Halo and that they are already trying to get away with locking important things (like weapons) behind a paywall. I know they eventually changed it in Spartan Assault, but that was due to massive backlash. And I wanted to point out that they’re already adding game changing microtransactions to Xbox One games. I was trying to show some evidence that points out what they might have in mind for Halo 5.
Ps. You’re right. They may have been talking about the champions bundle, which, if you’ll remember, included armor abilities that gave anyone who bought them an unfair advantage for months before they became free to everyone. That “survive your vehicle being blown up” one was one of the worst ideas in recent Halo history. So my point, that MS isn’t above charging people for an advantage in a Halo game, stands.