I’m playing Reach right now, and infinite doesn’t even come close to feeling anywhere near it, or any Halo for that matter.
There are way too many changes and a lot of them are just dumb. As if they don’t know what the hell they are doing and saying, let’s fake it until we make it.
If you made 3 games by now and you still haven’t made it, it’s a really really big sign that you will never make it.
When you look back at each Halo on how each one 343 has done, all of them are different. It’s as if they are deliberately trying to stay away from what made Halo, Halo and that’s really messed up.
Agreed, I won’t be playing, let alone spending a dime on Infinite. Makes no sense to me personally as I always spent the $60 on a complete package which included the campaign and the multiplayer. Having free multiplayer and a $60 campaign just makes the game feel disproportionate. Halo campaigns are usually decent enough but $60 for just a campaign is too much. The fact that they promised us traditional customization that would specifically not be locked behind a paywall, then doing the complete opposite just means that 343 doesn’t care enough to make good on the promises they make.
The irony of the original post is that this is essentially Halo Reach 2.0, which was the last Classic Halo we got before 343 decided to make Halo more like CoD in 4 and a mobility shooter in 5.
Halo Reach had great customization, and challenges that didn’t require you to play several games before even seeing the gun/vehicle you needed to complete it.
343i can artificially boost battle pass progression with daily match grants all they want, but it doesn’t change how empty it feels to play and have zero meaningful progression.
A lot of people on these forums have said they wont pay for the battle pass or anything else other than just out right buying the game, I agree with this. However, there are probably an overwhelming amount of people who have and are going to buy the battle pass the campaign, and all the other junk on there is. Im sure 343 has probably already made a few million. Hopefully people release they didn’t get their monies worth and stop giving them money until they can make it worth it.
With the decision to make the multiplayer a free-to-play, the devs and the company had to make sure that they had a way to make money off the product. No one is going to make a triple-A videogame for free.
Battlefront 2 had horrible monetization and it had so much backlash Disney thought it would devalue their brand. EA no longer publishes Disney games fyi.
Welcome to modern gaming. It is not 2010 anymore. If there’s a big mp game now, it’s going to be monetized, especially something with as big of a name as Halo. Publishers have realized they can make way more money now. The amount of people who think it would be a drastically different game if they made you pay $60 to even play it is too high. It’s not a f2p problem, it’s the fact that the industry has changed. It’s 2021 now, the days of payed relatively full packages are gone and over with.
Take a look at how big games were back in the late 90s and early 2000s.
Elder Scrolls III - Morrowind, with its 2 expansions, is 2.6 GB.
Elder Scrolls Online (at launch) was 88 GB. Notice the lack of a decimal point. With the expansions, the game is now nearly DOUBLE that original size and still growing !
Triple-A games require so much more work to make.
Newer hardware and software to pay for.
You got to release a game in time in order to appease the investors that were promised a profitable return.
The fact that games at launch still have $60 as a base-line price over the past two decades is a MIRACLE of savey marketing and business. Without microtransactions in multiplayer games, there would be no steady stream of income to keep the company floating as they now have to employ hundreds of staff members to even make the game (each member needs to be paid, have benefits, have the hardware to work with, the software to develop with, office furnishings, and a building to house it all in. Not to mention the costs of the game’s servers for online play, international translations and voice acting, and the marketing budget which almost always is double the cost of the actual game development costs.)
Without the curse of microtransactions, a new triple-A game at launch could easily cost us $180 rather than $60. And thanks to microtransactions, we have developers that actually can release a game at NO sale price to play the game; which allows more players to enjoy them with payment of money being entirely optional.
Essentially, the modern microtransaction is more like a donation to the company in return for some cool stuff that you can wear in the videogame.
At least it is pay-to-look-cool rather than pay-to-win like WarZone and mobile games.
Very good point. Wasn’t it rumored that this game had a 500m budget? Even if it’s half that, that’s still ridiculous. That doesn’t even count future content they’re going to be regularly adding for years on end. Somehow people think a corporation like MS would be satisfied with a measly $60? You didn’t even mention inflation either. Everything costs so much more now than 20 years ago but games are still at $60 (well unless you’re Sony who is charging $70 now). So it costs way more to make games now, people expect more, and yet still want it to be the same price as 20 years ago. Everyone would lose their mind if game prices went up with everything else so we have mtx now. People be living in fairy land.
