If I’m not mistaken, even for those who purchase the game full price, won’t have access to like half of the customization options unless Battle Pass Premium is purchased too?!
I’m confused as to what exactly I paid for then. $60 for just the campaign? If I can’t access half the stuff in the game, regardless of the grind, what’s the point?
I just want to make sure I’m not the only one who sees this as scummy monetization tactics.
since when does your purchase ever come with the Battlepass? Not a single game has done that. It’s always an addon.
Multiplayer is free.
Campaign is separate.
The campaign and multiplayer suite are entirely separate entities. The campaign has a price, the MP suite is FTP with a paid seasons pass model for cosmetics. While it doesn’t make sense to expect the first season to be included in the base campaign purchase, it would have been nice to see it as a bonus for premium editions or the console edition.
You’re missing the point. $60 for half a game is scummy tactics. I don’t mine paying for additional dlc content. But to make people who paid full price for the game also buy the balls pass is scummy tactics.
Do you not remember when a game costs $60 and it came with campaign and multiplayer?!
You knew what you were getting, nobody forced you to pay $60. If someone hands you a gun and you decide to shoot yourself in the foot it’s not their fault
Tons of games are $60 for campaign and no multiplayer. So it’s not really any different.
I do understand what your saying.
What matters is if the campaign is long enough and/or whatever DLC is added, for free, before we can judge if it’s a worthy price.
You’re right, spending $20 on a color coating is well worth it. These monetization tactics are beautiful, just like you sweetheart. You’re my hero 
Btw, if you purchased the MCC and it forced you to pay $10 for each season pass, to have access to all the content, you’d be more than willing to pay for that?
Who said I agreed with that?
Putting words in my mouth. Don’t assume I’m ok with something. You asked a question I answered. Now your changing the subject to another complaint. A complaint I totally agree with, $20 bucks is insane.
Don’t be like that, you can’t blame them that you bought the campaign at $60 knowing full well that it ONLY contains the campaign, and then complain that the only thing you’re getting is… THE CAMPAIGN.
yes things are expensive and it’s predatory, but it still doesn’t change the fact that you are 100% at fault for this.
Accept it or refund it.
That’s what I did with Fortnite, that’s what I did with Call of Duty, that’s what I did with Apex Legends, that’s what I did with Rainbow Six: Siege, that’s what I did with Destiny 2.
In short, do I want developers to be paid for their work? Yes.
It’s not free constantly making new content for a game you know.
Again, you miss my point. I’ll happily pay for new seasons. $5, $10, that’s fair if the original games content is fulfilling. But full price for half a game, and it’s not mentioned anywhere that content wouldn’t be available for people who paid full price.
Whatever, your mind is concluded. Thanks for arguing with me
Stop being rude. It’s completely unnecessary.
You looked at Halo Infinite(Campaign) and you thought, ‘‘wow this includes the Campaign AND the Battle pass!’’ That’s what I’m saying.
No, I said it’s THE game, not half. You don’t think or speak for me, sassy pants.
You’re going to have to explain this to me because you’re making no sense. ‘‘Sassy pants’’
Thanks for pointing out the increasingly disfavorable way in which customers are treated by many game developers these days. It is disappointing to learn that the multiplayer essentially is not included in the purchase of campaign game. It should be. That it isn’t means I’m rethinking purchasing the campaign at all. If it comes out on games pass this one’ll play it, but otherwise… well… some of us remember the days when customers time/money was treated with more respect than this.
There are single player games with no multiplayer. Those cost… let’s say $60. People pay or don’t based on the value proposition.
There are multiplayer games that are free. Cosmetic content is paid. People pay or don’t based on the value proposition.
You bought a game with no multiplayer. It’s either worth it to you or it isn’t. There’s a FTP multiplayer game from the same IP. You decide if it’s worth it to buy the cosmetics or not.
Would it be a good marketing move to give people who bought the single player game some extra in game stuff when the play the FTP? Absolutely. Is the current model of monetisation in the FTP really awful? Absolutely. But they’re not the same product. They are two different games.
I’ll give you half of my explanation, even though you want it in full. Seem fair?