I have to wonder how worthwhile the results of this experiment are going to be. The point of DLC required play lists is to get enough people to get people to purchase the DLC and make it playable.
By monitoring the population with this restriction in place you are essentially getting two pieces of data:
1)the relative size of the population with DLC: surely you already have this since matchmaking scans for it
- how persuasive it is in getting people to purchase DLC
I assume that number 2 is the priority here. The heavy emphasis that it is an experiment that could be revoked will lead to many people that don’t wish to purchase DLC but would if forced not purchasing it. The fact that it might be temporary will lead to people holding out for it to be reverted or even refusing to purchase it explicitly to influence the results.
I understand why 343 is trying to soften the edges of this, as many people will receive the inconvenience as a slap in the face. Unfortunately I think the result is a slap in the face that doesn’t accomplish its goal.
I didn’t even know that they were going to do this.
It does seem a little flawed to do it that way, when people will expect to be able to play them again eventually without the DLC.
From their point of view, I’m guessing the possible end result is too tempting not to explore; the end result being money of course.
They will also measure how it will improve the # of DLC maps gets shown, also an important metric. Making it required for a decent sized playlist like this can do wonderful things for a matching algorithm, or so i hear.
Short of making maps free, I don’t see what else they can do for now. Certainly worth a try IMHO.
Cutting the price of Majestic might also go a long way in improving uptake. I mean, some money is better than no money, right?
i think that this experiment is a good thing that halo needs.
if this experiment works good then they have fix this problem also for the future halo game’s.
in halo 3 has it work if you make 1 or 2 playlist dlc maps required.
and in halo reach you have 0 playerlist that was dlc required and you see what players are telling about that they have not play on the dlc maps.
i am thinking that this experiment is gone work good.
halo need 1 or 2 dlc required playlist in matchmaking.
It feels more like Halo to me when I am playing on futuristic maps like those in the Majestic map pack. I honestly don’t know why players wouldn’t want to play on such great maps such as Skyline, that was used in the Global Championship final, everyday in matchmaking.
This is simply to monitor what the result of a DLC restriction will be on the population of the playlist. If it stays roughly the same then the DLC restriction is probably not a bad idea. If it plummets then they know it’s a bad idea.
> This is simply to monitor what the result of a DLC restriction will be on the population of the playlist. If it stays roughly the same then the DLC restriction is probably not a bad idea. <mark>If it plummets then they know it’s a bad idea.</mark>
They will know implementing the requirement nearly a year after launch is a bad idea. That’s all this experiment can prove. We won’t learn jack squat about how people would act if they always had to buy the DLC to play.
On the other hand, not doing it earlier makes it clear that those who did pay for DLC aren’t likely to get to use it. Considering the people who paid for all the DLC (like myself) are the ones most likely to do the same for Halo 5, not giving us the opportunity to enjoy what we paid for will certainly put off some people from buying any future content.
> This is simply to monitor what the result of a DLC restriction will be on the population of the playlist. If it stays roughly the same then the DLC restriction is probably not a bad idea. If it plummets then they know it’s a bad idea.
The fact that they have emphasized it is a test undermines the results. Many people that would have purchased the maps if required to will now just wait it out while playing other play lists.
So you aren’t measuring how people would react if it were a requirement. You are measuring how they react when they know their behavior effectively counts as a vote for or against this system.
> So you aren’t measuring how people would react if it were a requirement. You are measuring how they react when they know their behavior effectively counts as a vote for or against this system.
Sigh. I can see this ‘experiment’ is doomed to fail already…
> > So you aren’t measuring how people would react if it were a requirement. You are measuring how they react when they know their behavior effectively counts as a vote for or against this system.
>
> Sigh. I can see this ‘experiment’ is doomed to fail already…
Well, take me for example. If they made the first one or two map packs required, I would be 50/50 on buying it. Since I know there is a good chance for it to be reverted, there ain’t no chance in heck. I can just wait it out and play some Reach.
> Well, take me for example. If they made the first one or two map packs required, I would be 50/50 on buying it. Since I know there is a good chance for it to be reverted, there ain’t no chance in heck. I can just wait it out and play some Reach.
I have been playing Reach as well simply because it seems to run better for me but Infinity Slayer has always run quite well due to its high population and I am excited that it is receiving a DLC requirement so I will be back on Halo 4 once the consolidation has taken place. Legendary BRs on Skyline. Hell yea!
> halo need 1 or 2 dlc required playlist in matchmaking.
That isn’t what they are doing, though. They could have left it as-is, then just added playlists for DLC BTB, DLC Infinity Slayer, and DLC Objective. It doesn’t have as-wide of a spread for game types, but it gives those who want to play DLC options. Instead, they do something that locks part of the community out of Infinity Slayer. This means I’ll either have to play a different game type (not a big deal at the moment), or I’ll have to play Call of Duty or another (when I’m bored of Ricochet).
It’s something of a silly experiment because it’s questionable if it’ll even lead to more sales, while it could drive folks off of the servers.
> > halo need 1 or 2 dlc required playlist in matchmaking.
>
> That isn’t what they are doing, though. They could have left it as-is, then just added playlists for DLC BTB, DLC Infinity Slayer, and DLC Objective. It doesn’t have as-wide of a spread for game types, but it gives those who want to play DLC options. Instead, they do something that locks part of the community out of Infinity Slayer. This means I’ll either have to play a different game type (not a big deal at the moment), or I’ll have to play Call of Duty or another (when I’m bored of Ricochet).
>
> It’s something of a silly experiment because it’s questionable if it’ll even lead to more sales, while it could drive folks off of the servers.
and if they bring it back from last week then you know what for topic’s you see on the forum again the most.
that dlc users wane have they own play list to play they dlc maps.
its not all time about the free users can play more on standard maps.
and who tells you that you most play cod if you cant play slayer game type for free.
they are other game type’s you can also play like SWAT and Team Dual.