This is the most predatory monetisation scheme in a long time

Games Halo Infinite
,
242

Whataboutism.
That’s attempting to change subject in order to divert attention from an issue now.
No, the past system wasn’t perfect, but that doesn’t excuse the current one.

First impressions have already gone out, any work they do now need to be incredible in order to improve any impressions people have with it.

Then, people are pointing out you get less XP overall for completed matches than with how it was before. I had the impression it was 100xp per match, but I’m now seeing claims on 50xp per match. I wouldn’t say that leads to anything being easier or less frustrating.

Now, glitches and bugs leading to frustrations and hardship we don’t count because those are not by design.
However, there is, as known, quite a few very specific challenges, and I’m not entirely sure all of them are going. Some of the more “annoying” ones are going. If it leads to less frustration? Difficult to say, because those that do get removed may as well be replaced in the slots by those remaining. Meaning the difficult and frustrating challenges don’t decrease in amount, only variance. We’ll just potentially end up with more repetitive difficult challenges. Solution, buy swaps.

XP boosts are increased in time which is all great and good. But, that’s more or less an advertisement for purchasing them as they’re now better. Couple that with the aforementioned 50xp per match, which if it is, means less XP per match than now. Thus they created a new problem and sell us a solution. XP boosts does not then decrease frustration, but is a monetary solution to a problem they’ve created.

Something I haven’t heard anything on is the limited challenges being tracked, which to me is thee biggest frustration overall. If we get, 20, or 30 weekly challenges, it isn’t fun or rewarding when only a fraction are active. It’s trickle rewarding and slows down everything immensly. I suspect this is one of the main reasons people are much rather farming their challenges than playing properly because of limited time to play, and wanting to do the challenges first.

Any other massive revamp they may be doing, is beyond this discussion, we know nothing of it, could look better but be even more frustrating and annoying, and there’s no date on when such a revamp would be released. We’re stuck with this now.
Feedback on this would go towards any potential revamp so it’ll continue.

2 Likes
243

Whataboutism

Absolutely not. The argument was made in this thread that the current monetization scheme is scummier than previous Halo games that blocked some players from playing with their friends because they didn’t/couldn’t buy the DLC.

First impressions have already gone out, any work they do now need to be incredible in order to improve any impressions people have with it.

I don’t care about impressions. If the system is improved to not feel frustrating, then the whole point is moot.

Then, people are pointing out you get less XP overall for completed matches than with how it was before. I had the impression it was 100xp per match, but I’m now seeing claims on 50xp per match. I wouldn’t say that leads to anything being easier or less frustrating.

And they made some challenges easier to obtain and removed others, and (as I understand it), the 50 XP per match is permanent and doesn’t go away if you play longer each day. They should’ve kept the 100xp and then weaned it down to 50xp for matches after a certain point, but whatever. I’d expect way more tuning. Overall in practice, it looks like faster XP gain, and they already said they’ll be changing more as time goes on. But this idea that they’re being hyper nefarious doesn’t hold as much water when they started changing course fairly quickly. Will it change enough? /shrug

244

Because Halo is no longer a game about the full, player friendly experience! you daft grunt!
it’s just turning into a overly grindy, money milking game, that microsoft wants! and it’s working!
companies can’t keep getting away with this, ignoring the player base just for another quick buck from players who hold out hope. it’s scummy, and unless fixed, not many would want to… ya know… KEEP PLAYING THE GAME

3 Likes
245

Well my mistake, I didn’t look properly in the quote chain.

Nevertheless.
Companies didn’t employ psychological manipulation tactics in order to sell map packs.
Gameplay wasn’t tuned from the get-go to frustrate money out of players. They didn’t require DLCs immediately in all playlists barring you entry. A DLC playlist was made. Further measures taken were DLC being in the map rotation if all participants had the DLC, and tried to even match DLC players together. One single player without DLC in the matched players, and all the others would be denied even the chance to play on a DLC map.

Not in a million years were you prohibited by the company to play with your friends as long as you didn’t have a DLC pack. You did just not have access to a few maps. Old maps were still available for you and your friends.

Now of course is the point where you gladly proclaim it’s free to play and any new gameplay content is available for everyone, for free, so you can play with your friends.
No it’s not, it’s not really free. Someone else is just paying you for it. One of the 0.04% who has spent up to 200 dollars, if not more, to finish the battle pass, payed for up to 19 old map packs for strangers. Equivalent of your group of friends banding together to purchase you a map pack.

“But they’re getting something with every purchase now when paying for the others”.
Which just means any item they sell is over priced to cover costs of other gameplay updates, and still result in same thing.
Your group of friends spent 13,35 on a map pack instead of just 10, and you got one “for free”.

As however pointed out, devs and publishers did not use psychological manipulation methods. As opposed to limiting access to DLC in normal playlists to the point where many regarded the DLC purchase as being a waste of money due to the low amount of plays the maps would get.

Well you personally don’t, but others do.
Nothing has been said about them making the system not feel frustrating. Just less, in your own words.
And the point doesn’t go moot either, they’ve already revealed their intentions. The changes they make is most likely what they deem the least necessary to not get too many problems, while retaining what they initially had.

“Some”, yes, some were made easier, some were removed. Yet the big barrier of three progressing at the same time remain uncommented. Nothing to suggest that the amount of difficult challenges in the weeklies are reduced. No word on the ratio of easy-medium-difficult challenges in the challenge pool will change. So while they may have made some challenges easier, it’s not a guarantee anything will get easier.

Sure “but whatever”. Clear case of something getting worse as you need to complete more matches to get the same XP, then even more to surpass that by a few to net a positive result from the changes made.

Math and statistics are simple to manipulate in a way to make things look like you want it. Something may look good but mathematically it’s worse.
Of course they’re fine tuning, the community feels engaged and they get to find some setting which works for them.

The community is upset with the battlepass progression, something I think they regard as a key-component in having a sustainable revenue. I’d be surprised if they hadn’t acted as quickly as they did. Failure to act on anything for a longer period of time could lead to a bleeding player base extremely difficult to get back, and news spreading to other parts of gaming community where potential players ( and potential payers ) decide to keep away from Halo altogether. Which is also where first impressions matter.

They designed the system to be as it is long before launch, it didn’t become what it is by accident.

3 Likes
246

It’s not about being unable to afford it, it’s about being hostile to the consumer. This conversation has already been had earlier in the thread, we’re treading old ground here.

2 Likes
247

If your an adult that makes over 1000 a month 10 dollars aside every few months is nt very big at all. You would spend that on 3 bags of chips

248

Eververse is part of the reason I quit Destiny 2. It’s more akin to a tumor than good, but to each their own.

249
250

The armor sets are being sold for 200% of the cost of the game because the game was free bro.

251

The monetization model just doesn’t fit into the picture.
The multiplayer being f2p is meaningless because it’s already free with battle pass as if it weren’t split between multiplayer and campaign. It’s only on windows, Xbox, steam. Most people on Steam could throw down a dollar to try battle pass + infinite on a whim. No other platforms have access to Halo.
The more I think about it, Battle Pass being viable as a monetization model in infinite takes more and more mental gymnastics to justify because it is not currently justifiable. :c

3 Likes
252

Is that how you get your mom to lend you her credit card so you can buy a couple virtual armor pieces every month? :rofl: (kidding)

253

except this is the most friendly monetization system we have seen, Battle passes don’t expire, they are cheaper than other games. THE ONLY PROBLEM IS THE PROGRESSION SYSTEM, they already said they are working on a new system but it will take time. Again people calling this system predatory is laughable, its just people in 2021 trying to make a big deal out of nothing.

254

Nah I do some jobs for people around my area to get money

255

Someone else is just paying you for it. One of the 0.04% who has spent up to 200 dollars, if not more, to finish the battle pass, payed for up to 19 old map packs for strangers.

Yes. I’m aware that when a game dev wants to recoup their development cost, they have to get the money from players in one way or another. That’s why I said there are two options multiple times in this thread: Either everyone has to pay for map/multiplayer content (which can split the playerbase), or go F2P route and sell cosmetics to a smaller group of players and not split the playerbase.

Companies didn’t employ psychological manipulation tactics in order to sell map packs.

I’d argue that the peer pressure you got from your friends, or the “you can’t play in this playlist unless you give us money” could be argued as psychological manipulation.

Not in a million years were you prohibited by the company to play with your friends as long as you didn’t have a DLC pack. You did just not have access to a few maps. Old maps were still available for you and your friends.

If your friends bought the DLC and wanted to try the new maps, you couldn’t play with them unless you bought the new maps.

Nothing has been said about them making the system not feel frustrating. Just less, in your own words.

Re-read what I said, the literal text you quoted. I said “If the system is improved to not feel frustrating, then the whole point is moot.” I’m not talking about “less” frustrating. I said “not feel frustrating.”

Of course they’re fine tuning, the community feels engaged and they get to find some setting which works for them.

That’s… the point? Shouldn’t they find the balance where players don’t feel frustrated and they get to make money?

They designed the system to be as it is long before launch, it didn’t become what it is by accident.

Again, I’m aware that they designed a system to make money, because if they don’t make money then they stop development and move on. The whole point of this thread is that “this is the most predatory monetization scheme in a long time,” which is demonstrably false. It seems like we’re finally moving on from exploiting literal gambling addiction (lootboxes), and now we’re in the era of a battle pass. Moving through the pass is just too slow right now, but the fact that you can progress in a battle pass that you own after it’s technically ended (according to their multiplayer overview) already makes it better than many of the other battle passes out there.

256

See that’s the narrative we’re all being told to believe. That live service games can offer so much more. And if you personally believe so then that’s your subjective opinion. But to me (and according to many other people on this forum) it seems to be hurting the game more than it supposedly helps it.

I’d personally much rather have the multiplayer shipped with the campaign and included in the base price of the game (like it’s always been). Where you’d also get access to a range of customization options included in the game you’ve bought. And then having battlepasses being something that prolongs the life of the game maybe a year or so after release. Instead they make EVERY option available from day one obtainable exclusively from the shop or BP.

I know it’s all about business and that the old model is a relic of the past. Never again will we be able to buy games that actually shipps with a decent selection of content INCLUDED in the price. I know multiplayer is F2P but why on earth do we pay full price for campaign then? It doesn’t add up.

Also, you’re saying that cosmetics are the least important part of any game like it’s some sort of objective truth. Maybe that is true for you, but I know for a fact that a large part of the Halo community has always treasured Halos customization options. I’d even like to claim that since Halo 3 it has been a core function of the game. Now we’re stripped of that freedom of expression that we used to have.

I agree with you and I understand that the trade-off for F2P games is that some in-game content will only be obtainable through micro-transactions. It’s simple to understand. The money needs to come from somewhere. What I don’t understand is why the game needs to severely lack in base content at launch. Why can’t we have both?

11 Likes
257

Ye thats true. I reckon Halo infniite has already made alot of money from the promos and battle pass maybe some store sales.
Over 230,000 players on first day on steam only
Im sure they made a bit of cash already.
Armor set not worth $20 at least warzone gives two weapon camos and assination and other random stuff.

1 Like
258

Well Fortnite Modern warfare cold war vangaurd and warzone the most popular and succesful games have this system. There are many others as well. Its consumer friendly and people are more likely to buy a battle pass with it. I know i will. I already bought the battle pass cuz halo my fav game but with other new games that dont give the currency back I dont pay for.

1 Like
259

I think there is only two bad parts that should be fixed or adjusted. The time to progress is too slow. It would probably take the whole 6 months to get top tier 100.
Also you dont get currency back which isnt too terrible but would be nicer. Also I think they are grouping th ecustomization,shop prices,progression and battle pass all together. :wink:

260

This is what you players don’t seem to understand in Halo Cosmetics ARE Gameplay related, you create a character, give them a unique personality and play style, things like Arby N’ the Chief and Red vs Blue would be non-existent without cosmetics. The community RELIES on cosmetics to keep projects going or even just keep themselves invested into the game.

Cosmetics ARE gameplay anyone who says otherwise are lying to themselves and everyone else.

9 Likes
261

It’s impossible to be hostile to the consumer when all the transaction power is in our hands.

1 Like