Store update from Jerry Hook. Changes incoming

This game should NEVER have been free to play.

Should have been a full AAA release and blown us away with a massive story and loads of MP content to last an age but instead we got this shell of a game and a hand out asking for money over and over again.

They couldve still made a free to play MP version with everything locked to entice people to buy it but no instead we got what we got.

Sooo dissapointed with this “free” game :weary:


Guys this is a statement made like 3 or 4 days in advance, I would be shocked if it were not true.

Regardless, it will never be low enough. Expect just as much whining and complaining months from now as in the current.

Edit: People like free stuff. Nature of the world.

I want free stuff too, but I also am willing to buy if the prices are right. I feel lack of free content and store prices not being worth it are separate issues. Maybe other people will never be okay with the store, but they need to understand it’s not going away, for better or worse.


I wait. Cause 343 is an expert with saying one thing and doing the totally opposite.


I’d like to see the actual changes before celebrating.
Don’t forget, Jerry Hook also said previously that they recognized that people didn’t want emblems as ultimate rewards and they were going to change that. We have received the EXACT same emblem TWICE since that interview alone.
I’ll believe in the changes once I see them.


So what about us people who bought the whole sets of things? will we get some credits for buying before hand if items we buy are suddenly price dropped?

I’ll be glad if this turns out to be good.

That and the ability to change the coating of each armor piece and attachment would help a lot.

Yeah, if it’s not less than $3 for a full armor set, that’s still not good.

In my opinion, they should make it so that the MCC unlocks all legacy armors and other cosmetics from those games, and so that a lot of armor is unlocked for those who bought Infinite’s campaign (not just played it through Game Pass).

If they changed it like I’ve said before and kept it that way, you wouldn’t hear a peep out of me about pricing.
I’d probably just make topics about features I’d like to eventually see, and I’m thinking a lot more people would defend the pricing if it was reasonable.

I haven’t bought anything yet, but I think if they lower the prices without giving credit to those who bought them before the price changes, they’re going to lose quite a few players.


yeah credits should be given not money back i can fully understand that they won’t give money back but giving us credits tor paying the full price at least at a decent percentage or full worth of the change in price should be done.

I bought a few things but i’m holding back on campaign for a few things co-op being the big one.

1 Like

Fair price for whom? Only person $60 in the today’s market is “fair” for is the consumer. The AAA price point has seen very little fluctuation over the last 15 years, while costs have only risen. Even before adjusting for inflation, $60 is cheaper than some high profile cartridge releases were.

I don’t like FTP, but the reality is that gamers are an incredibly entitled consumer base. If they were gonna push back against a sticker price increase, which they do whenever it happens, of course these publishers were gonna look for other ways to make more money, and MTX are a proven practice. Even people that complain about a $60 game with $20 dlc in the first 3 months will drop more than $100 on incremental MTX.

1 Like

Whats your point? It was an example of every other AAA game released today and years gone. Up it to $70usd then i dont care but the point was theyre asking insane amounts of money for what content usually comes in a $60 ($70) game of which IS a standard fair price.

Scratch that theyr asking ansane amounts for mere crumbs of content compared to other AAA full release games. Fixed

Halo 5 made what $500 million in sales in its first week or something? This is still a proven way to recover costs of game development and make profit.

All 343i had to do was make a halo game and sell it like normal and theydv made bank and then some. Its halo were talking about it was never going to struggle to sell. This ftp was not needed and merely exists out of pure greed.

They couldv still had a store for NEW dlc armors, had a battle pass and still given us a full game with all the trimmings as well, just saying. It didnt need to be like this.


You can bemoan that some games sold at $60 will lose money and not recoup the cost.
But that doesn’t exist in 343’s halo, not to mention that this time he brought us a 60% half-finished halo.
Those who clamor that $60 is too low are some big companies, most of whose games have big IP and can make money steadily For example 2k EA Sony.
Even 2042 and 2077 such management failure works can quickly recover their costs.
Yes, it’s been a long time since the price of games has gone up, but there are a lot of decorations for microtransactions and DLC fees. Activision 2K, a near-monopoly, and Sony are clamoring for a price increase in games.
Many small companies do have a high risk of not recovering the cost of their games, but they dare not rush to raise prices, even Ubisoft dare not.
Only activision ea 2K Sony, doesn’t deserve your sympathy. Their promotional expenses are higher than their development costs, and AAA games are their sick products,Now they want to make money in advance with semi-finished products.
No, I won’t pay for it.


Unexpected given their previous resistance. I wouldn’t be surprised if the speculation about the price drop being knowingly small ends up being true. Regardless of the intent it is a step in the right direction.

My point is you said $60 was “fair” and thats just not realistic anymore. If that’s not exactly what you meant then fair enough, but I can only go off of what someone says. The $500 million figure for Halo 5 was including associated hardware sales. Halo 5 moved (reportedly) 5 million units in its first 3 months, even at $70 a pop (which they wouldn’t all have been) that’s only $350 million. Infinite had a reported $500mil budget, at $70 a pop they’d have to sell 7.14 million copies to break even, and thats just the development budget, not the persistent costs of what is intended to be a 10 year game.

Granted it’s been reported into the dirt by now that the AAA dev model isn’t sustainable (based on rising costs, rising expectations of what is considered “profitable”, and rising pushback against higher prices) these business still have investors to answer to.

All that said, I’m not defending FTP, but these games need to make money. If the majority of the consumer base isn’t willing to shell out $80 (just picking a number) then of course publishers are going to go with other, proven methods of printing money. People railing against 343i over Infinite continuously ignore that it’s competition have been printing money with MTX, even when the model isn’t FTP. At the end of the day I don’t know what the answer is, but acting like it’s still a decade ago (when talking about pricing or business practices) is simply out of touch.

I’m not telling you, or anyone to pay for it, only pointing out that rising costs from the development/publisher end will be recouped one way or another. If enough people keep insisting that things should still be cheap, and their buying habits reflect that sentiment, then AAA as we know it will collapse. But that honestly may not be a bad thing.

It was Sony that first argued that the $60 price was too low, which is understandable because most of its games on the console are stand-alone, without the opportunity to continue charging for in-purchase microtransactions.
But Activision 2K EA includes current 343, they are the main MP and have objective extra income, COD has been unencrypted on PCs for a long time, they don’t care about the profit of campaign game.
And 343 is priced more egregiously in Infinite than Activision ea, and doesn’t come up with better ornament richer content, so your argument doesn’t hold water.
Now there are FTB games and $6070 games, each with its own rules.
What I see in Infinity is 343 trying to sell their unfinished games with FTB and they are still updating at the same rate as when they did the 60$ game.

1 Like

I look at infinite and i dont see a $500 million budget game. So either 343 need to be shut down for being massively useless or its including marketing costs as well as developing the new engine.

Either way the $70 fixed price for a full game is still sustainable in todays market. Just look at the many other successful games being sold today its not hard to see.

MTX couldve still been implimented in halo and made them alot of money just like other games so if they were needed then fine, but the game didnt need to be completely gutted and every little thing sold at extortion level prices to do it.

Why couldnt they just have mtx for extra content ontop of the full game as well as charging $60-70??

Why did they have to ruin halo like this?

Heads need to roll at 343 for real. Absolute disgrace


Simply because the game is not finished, if it is released at a price of $6070, then they will receive the same barrage of criticism as 20772042.
Turning the game into FTB and releasing a half-finished but interesting campaign is genius.
But there is no reason to defend 343 at this point.
FTB games are more demanding of MP, but this generation of MP is worse, and people have reason to be angry about it.

1 Like

Well that’s an entirely different discussion isn’t it? It’s also one that people don’t really agree on. Lots of people rave about Infinites core gameplay, it is generally a very well received title and most critical outlets consider it one of the best releases of 2021. That all gameplay element of its MP are completely free means buys it a lot of credit for people who see customization for what it is, a tertiary feature.

I’d love to see an example of a recent “games as service” title that launched for a single flat fee (no seasons pass, etc). There are definitively insulated or smaller scope titles that have done this, but I can’t think of any recent apples to apples comparisons. CoD has been selling each installment individually while making money hand over fist with MTX for its paid MP and its FTP mode. EA attempted to drop a full price MP title that would have still had a seasons pass mechanic and MTX shop. This whole FTP approach for Infinite wasn’t just some shot in the dark, it was a decision supported by a few years of other games finding success in the practice.

My best guess? Because no one would ever agree on what would be appropriate for MTX vs what “should” have been included in the game. That argument has been around for more than 8 years, whether or not something “should” have been there at launch and was just broken off for paid DLC to turn a quick buck. They’re always going to face pushback here along those lines.

I think the biggest issue Infinite faces (other than the general misunderstanding that 343i is doing something uniquely egregious here) is that the component that did drop for a price (campaign) was a VERY anemic experience and they haven’t commented on whether or not it’s obviously intended expansions will be included in the initial price or not. This leaves people feeling like there was zero justification to split the two (campaign and MP), and if there was no need to split the two then there was certainly no need for this type of FTP model. If the $70 campaign was meant to be expanded multiple times at no prevailing cost, then the FTP model would be a lot easier to justify. Loke must things “Infinite” though, the communication has been lacking.

I’m hoping these upcoming price changes are a step in the right direction, that they’re changing anything at all this quickly is a largely positive indicator. That said, I don’t expect sweeping changes, and for some people it won’t be enough until its free.

That is just a completely false statement. Most of Infinites store pricing is right in step with CoDs store pricing, especially in their first two years. Even cosmetics out of Destiny still ask for $15 use for a single armor set, and asset creation for that game would be dirt cheap at this point.

Dude, You have to combine the services we get to contrast.
Activision has a bevy of special and original cosmetics, as well as model-changing guns with special effects. Destiny 2 also has expensive and obscure badges, but they offer so many good cosmetics to buy that the bad ones are ignored.
Not to mention the pass, other games pass not only the original innovative cosmetics gunmodel, 343 pass not only no gunskin also put Some armor that was in the pass to the store, put 120 level pass cut to level 100,and the main course is the Reach Armor that we’ve been playing with for years.
And in the Infinite pass, you can’t get money by playing, so that players are collectively angry that the initial discussion of in-purchase has overwhelmed the problem of the game itself.
My regional host and 60 dollars game is not mainstream. The players here are excited to buy and ftb games. Many people have go play this FTP halo.
And many people spend money purchasing, but Half a month later, they either left or complain about 343 or cosmetics are too ugly,only the cat’s ears satisfied most people.
Now the developers have acknowledged the pricing problem and promised improvements.
Not only can I say that the price is expensive, but I can also say that 343 don’t know how do internal purchase at all. Most of the peripheral marketing activities are way better than the cosmetics in stores .
For example rockstars HCS.

1 Like