The game looks fantastic, but please reconsider the microtransactions. I’ll pay for the Map Packs again.
That is all.
Why? The micro transactions are 110% optional. Nothing is gated behind a pay wall. You can get everything without spending a penny. Why would you want to spend more money on maps than you have to?
As long as its just a few skins, the transactions are fine. If they start selling req packs, or armor sets, then i have a problem with it.
> 2533274932540799;2:
> Why? The micro transactions are 110% optional. Nothing is gated behind a pay wall. You can get everything without spending a penny. Why would you want to spend more money on maps than you have to?
I understand that, but I just find it annoying when players who decided to purchase them (MTs) gain an early advantage on players who decided not to purchase them. However they’re likely to have a very minor effect on my experience of the game, so I won’t go up in arms over them like how I know others here will. Still ― better not to have 'em.
Pay/ earn to be Fancy.
All the micro transactions r for weapon skins, assassinations, vehicles, legendary weapons, armor, armor skins for warzone only. Plus all the microtransactions can be earned freely. If you want to boost ahead instead of earning these then you can pay.
Only assassinations and skins are allowed in arena playlists.
Here is my thread for detail.
https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/forums/6e35355aecdf4fd0acdaee3cc4156fd4/topics/req-system-pay-earn-to-be-fancy/1ad0e6ac-b994-4cc0-8bee-2a8a46557a9d/posts
> 2535408812723049;3:
> As long as its just a few skins, the transactions are fine. If they start selling req packs, or armor sets, then i have a problem with it.
They are selling Req packs; they’re used to buy skins and armor for Arena and Warzone or to “req” weapons/vehicles in Warzone. The option to buy them is described as a method of pure convenience, you will never need to buy anything as long as you play the game(They give absolutely no advantage in Arena).
> 2535408812723049;3:
> As long as its just a few skins, the transactions are fine. If they start selling req packs, or armor sets, then i have a problem with it.
The only thing that would cause me to lose my sh** would be the addition of a pay wall. Would still rather no microtransactions at all, though.
Hell no! map packs are stupid I don’t mind the req system cause it’s optional and it doesn’t split the community. You have to earn points by killing ppl to even use them you’re not paying to win…
> 2533274853805397;8:
> Hell no! map packs are stupid I don’t mind the req system cause it’s optional and it doesn’t split the community. You have to earn points by killing ppl to even use them you’re not paying to win…
I mean, I guess. I’m kind of starting to be swayed.
Why? Free map packs will help the community, especially those who don’t typically go to by map packs. And making the Req cards purchasable helps them make money. It’s not like you HAVE to buy them. You can just earn them and you’re pretty much getting the same things that the person that buys them gets. It’s not that big a deal bro. People need to stop freaking out over this.
> 2533274836465274;4:
> > 2533274932540799;2:
> > Why? The micro transactions are 110% optional. Nothing is gated behind a pay wall. You can get everything without spending a penny. Why would you want to spend more money on maps than you have to?
>
>
> I understand that, but I just find it annoying when players who decided to purchase them (MTs) gain an early advantage on players who decided not to purchase them. However they’re likely to have a very minor effect on my experience of game, so I won’t go up in arms over them like how I know others here will. Still ― better not to have 'em.
The only people idiotic enough to actually spend money on Requisition Packs are those that are bad at the game, so don’t worry.
I logged in here to post a suggestion that I think would satisfy most people, and restore a lot of the good will between 343/Xbox and the players. Especially important after MCC. It wouldn’t alienate those who already payed for a full-priced copy of Halo 5.
Step 1: Remove the micro-transaction option from Halo 5.
Step 2: Make it rain requisitions in the game more frequently, to reward those who’ve bought Halo 5.
Step 3: Release a Halo 5 free-to-play “demo”. A free version of Halo 5 available to any Xbox One owner to try out, which includes Warzones (and let’s say… a single demo level of Campaign for good measure, to get them hooked on the story).
Step 4: In this free version, play time is capped and requisitions are granted at a trickle, encouraging those enjoying the game to either buy requisition packs (so they can pay as little or as much as they want). Or they would of course have the option to upgrade to the full version of Halo 5 if they like what they see. Their progress can be transferred across to the full game. If they’ve bought a ton of requisition packs, they would also be given the option to upgrade for free.
So this micro-transaction system would go from being a slap in the face, and an attempt to milk already-paying / loyal customers… to a way of introducing Halo to potential new customers and monetising outside of the game’s already loyal player base. It would go from an unsustainable, short-term money grab that will hurt the Halo brand, to a long-term expansion of the Halo fan base. Additional benefits of this are also obvious. For example, the population in Warzones would increase.
> 2533274836465274;4:
> > 2533274932540799;2:
> > Why? The micro transactions are 110% optional. Nothing is gated behind a pay wall. You can get everything without spending a penny. Why would you want to spend more money on maps than you have to?
>
>
> I understand that, but I just find it annoying when players who decided to purchase them (MTs) gain an early advantage on players who decided not to purchase them. However they’re likely to have a very minor effect on my experience of the game, so I won’t go up in arms over them like how I know others here will. Still ― better not to have 'em.
What do they gain early advantage wise? They can’t use any of it outside of Warzone, and in warzone they have to be at a certain level, or time in the game to be able to even USE them. WHY are you complaining?
They give no real advantage, and are all obtainable by simply playing the game. To even use the cards, you have to reach the appropriate level and energy in game before you can even use them…
Whats the big deal?
> 2533274938678576;13:
> > 2533274836465274;4:
> > > 2533274932540799;2:
> > > Why? The micro transactions are 110% optional. Nothing is gated behind a pay wall. You can get everything without spending a penny. Why would you want to spend more money on maps than you have to?
> >
> >
> > I understand that, but I just find it annoying when players who decided to purchase them (MTs) gain an early advantage on players who decided not to purchase them. However they’re likely to have a very minor effect on my experience of the game, so I won’t go up in arms over them like how I know others here will. Still ― better not to have 'em.
>
>
> What do they gain early advantage wise? They can’t use any of it outside of Warzone, and in warzone they have to be at a certain level, or time in the game to be able to even USE them. WHY are you complaining?
"They can’t use any of it outside of Warzone"
And? Last I checked, Warzone is a part of Halo 5. A big part of it. Saying “Oh, but only half of the multiplayer mode is pay-to-win” is a ridiculous argument.
Further, there just shouldn’t be payed-for aesthetic unlocks in Halo 5, full stop. They are a huge part of the overall game design too you know. They may not affect the competitive nature of the game, but they affect other parts of the game like player customisation and investment. Exploiting a fan’s desire to look cool in order to extract cash from them isn’t acceptable.
**“they have to be at a certain level, or time in the game to be able to even USE them”**What bearing does the timing of an item have? If you can use a bought item at the start of a match that’s pay-to-win, but if you can use a bought item at the end of a match that’s not pay-to-win? How have you come to this distinction?
If you’ve bought an extra pack that grants the use of a Scorpion tank… And I haven’t bought an extra pack… Then who cares at which point you get to use it? You still get a Scorpion tank and I don’t.
> 2533274809119265;14:
> They give no real advantage, and are all obtainable by simply playing the game. To even use the cards, you have to reach the appropriate level and energy in game before you can even use them…
>
> Whats the big deal?
To add to that, no good player would ever buy these, as long as you keep playing the game these req packs will keep dropping for you. So the only people who might want to buy these are people who doesn’t have the time or suck at the game, and I couldn’t care less because you actually got be good to be able to use power weapons and vehicles in any effective way. Anyone with a plasma pistol can take down a tank if the driver doesn’t know what they are doing. I know that the microtransaction won’t effect me in any way, but as soon as people hear the word, microtransaction just like the word free to play, people just need to complain. Keep it as it is 343, this game is shaping up to be the Halo game of my dreams.
> 2535452546998110;12:
> I logged in here to post a suggestion that I think would satisfy most people, and restore a lot of the good will between 343/Xbox and the players. Especially important after MCC. It wouldn’t alienate those who already payed for a full-priced copy of Halo 5.
>
> Step 1: Remove the micro-transaction option from Halo 5.
> Step 2: Make it rain requisitions in the game more frequently, to reward those who’ve bought Halo 5.
> Step 3: Release a Halo 5 free-to-play “demo”. A free version of Halo 5 available to any Xbox One owner to try out, which includes Warzones (and let’s say… a single demo level of Campaign for good measure, to get them hooked on the story).
> Step 4: In this free version, play time is capped and requisitions are granted at a trickle, encouraging those enjoying the game to either buy requisition packs (so they can pay as little or as much as they want). Or they would of course have the option to upgrade to the full version of Halo 5 if they like what they see. Their progress can be transferred across to the full game. If they’ve bought a ton of requisition packs, they would also be given the option to upgrade for free.
>
> So this micro-transaction system would go from being a slap in the face, and an attempt to milk already-paying / loyal customers… to a way of introducing Halo to potential new customers and monetising outside of the game’s already loyal player base. It would go from an unsustainable, short-term money grab that will hurt the Halo brand, to a long-term expansion of the Halo fan base. Additional benefits of this are also obvious. For example, the population in Warzones would increase.
This is a terrible idea and your description of the REQ system is knee-jerk reactionary nonsense. A slap in the face? Could you be any more dramatic? Milking loyal customers? Are you serious? For totally optional cosmetics that you get for playing multiplayer anyway? Really? It’s not a “money grab.” It’s a straightforward method of funding development after launch. You know? That stuff that isn’t free? Instead of charging for map packs and dividing the player base, they have an optional convenience purchase. Instead of REQUIRING you to pay more for the complete experience you have the OPTION to pay more for something you can get for free a bit faster (you get plenty of REQ packs and points through the normal course of play) and EVERYONE gets the complete experience. You’re talking about player population? That’s what this change accomplishes. And they are even putting a percentage of that towards HCS prize pools. There is literally nothing about this that is bad and it has exactly no effect on people who don’t invest in it. And your “solution” is a handicapped f2p style demo? What?
I don’t think it’ll be too noticeable past week 1. Its much better than map-packs which tend to impact all playlists, beyond only 1 specific playlist.
> This is a terrible idea and your description of the REQ system is knee-jerk reactionary nonsense. A slap in the face? Could you be any more dramatic? Milking loyal customers? Are you serious?
It wasn’t knee-jerk. Perhaps your impression of me while reading, was that I’m frantically tapping away at the keyboard like a mad man, red in the face. I can assure you that’s not the case. I didn’t post because I hate Halo. I want to love Halo. I even give 343 an A for effort, but admittedly a lower grade on competence, especially after MCC.
I didn’t post saying “THAT’S IT! HALO IS DEAD TO ME! blah blah blah”. I tried to think of a constructive post if they’re going to go through with microtransactions (something I would rather they stayed away from altogether). I tried to think of how they can monetise the game in this mobile-inspired way, without alienating those who have already forked out $60 to play the game. A way to monetise Warzones without hurting the Halo and Xbox brand, milking existing customers, and attracting new fans and generating new sales.
If you think that’s reactionary nonsense then I don’t think I’m the one being overly dramatic.
> 2535452546998110;12:
> I logged in here to post a suggestion that I think would satisfy most people, and restore a lot of the good will between 343/Xbox and the players. Especially important after MCC. It wouldn’t alienate those who already payed for a full-priced copy of Halo 5.
>
> Step 1: Remove the micro-transaction option from Halo 5.
> Step 2: Make it rain requisitions in the game more frequently, to reward those who’ve bought Halo 5.
> Step 3: Release a Halo 5 free-to-play “demo”. A free version of Halo 5 available to any Xbox One owner to try out, which includes Warzones (and let’s say… a single demo level of Campaign for good measure, to get them hooked on the story).
> Step 4: In this free version, play time is capped and requisitions are granted at a trickle, encouraging those enjoying the game to either buy requisition packs (so they can pay as little or as much as they want). Or they would of course have the option to upgrade to the full version of Halo 5 if they like what they see. Their progress can be transferred across to the full game. If they’ve bought a ton of requisition packs, they would also be given the option to upgrade for free.
>
> So this micro-transaction system would go from being a slap in the face, and an attempt to milk already-paying / loyal customers… to a way of introducing Halo to potential new customers and monetising outside of the game’s already loyal player base. It would go from an unsustainable, short-term money grab that will hurt the Halo brand, to a long-term expansion of the Halo fan base. Additional benefits of this are also obvious. For example, the population in Warzones would increase.
I disagree with your sentiment on “milking the fans”. If this were truly the case—milking the fans—wouldn’t it stand to reason that 343 would opt in regarding a fee for additional maps after launch instead of providing every additional map for free? I think that you took this way out of proportion, just as I expected some would. I mean, come on, “So this micro-transaction system would go from being a slap in the face, and an attempt to milk already-paying customers”… Really? Talk about hyperbole.
It’s also worth mentioning that your opinions on what 343 should do regarding some sort of “penance” really wouldn’t stand to help them at all… In fact, it would most likely hurt the sales of Halo 5 in the long run. I mean, do a demo — yeah. But make Warzone, probably the biggest selling-point of the game, free to the public.? Really? What then stops 100% of the people who previously only bought Halo for the multiplayer from sitting on the demo all day instead of buying the game? I doubt that capping the Req Packs would entice everybody on this hypothetical demo to pay for what they perceive to be the bulk-end of the value when they’re already getting it for free. Limiting Req Packs also seems like it would disrupt the balance of the game: half (the paying customers) would have Phaetons and Scorpions while the other half (demo players) would be stuck with Warthogs and Ghosts… Or some other analogy/ juxtaposition that has alluded me.
I get that the corporation always comes off as the bad guy, but what’s more likely:
a) You blew this entire thing way out of proportion and 343 are simply searching for a way to provide free maps in order to prevent player-split while still staying financially operable post-launch?
or
b) 343 are the devil?
There needs to be some delineation between “screwing the customer” and letting the customer screw the company (A.K.A entitled gamers).
Congrats’, you successfully changed my opinion.