> 2533274861413834;662:
> > 2533274818083354;661:
> > Looks like the news update came and went, and nothing was even discussed.
> > Not a shred of anything actually useful was put into that piece of “news”.
> >
> > There’s something so tone-deaf to say:
> >
> >
> > > Over the past few months, and because of the delay, you’ve learned a lot about Halo Infinite from our various retail and partner programs. We see that you, our community, have so many questions and are hungry for more information. We know. We hear you. We understand.
> >
> > Then to have the entire post related to marketing / more promos and nothing more.
>
> Agreed. I only read the community updates for MCC stuff, so seeing them promote the Gamestop coating and post two of the images from the controversial Colorful Column update put a gross taste in my mouth. They know how much the community hates the coatings, and are aware that such an action was the final straw for a lot the community, yet they actively double down on it, and it’s sad.
Well…that community update was disappointing, but at least we still have the ‘high level update’ to look forward to. Mind you, we probably ought to keep our expectations low…
> 2535406260637191;665:
> Well…that community update was disappointing, but at least we still have the ‘high level update’ to look forward to. Mind you, we probably ought to keep our expectations low…
Typically, a “High Level Update” doesn’t mean much… so “low” is a bit of an understatement, lol.
Really just some broad & vague information that they’ll toss out.
What I’m betting on is:
> Coatings can be earned through progression and timed-events in addition to being purchaseable.
> Coatings will offer more and unique customization than ever before, too!
Repeating information that we know - Refusing to talk about the Time vs Reward rate on how people can “earn” those non-customizable Skins - Refusing to talk about how cluttered the interface will be due to the sheer number of Skins that would need to exist and be “earned” to even come close to what past Halo games would allow - Failing to address the concerns that people haveIt is unfortunate as I hoped with the MCC, 343 learned from their past mistakes, but at this point it appears that isn’t the case.
None of the traits shown by the Publishing Team (that handled MCC and Halo Wars 2) seemed to have rubbed off on 343 as a whole. Bit of ironic twist that what they’ve done with the MCC has allowed for more player-controlled customization for those games than what Infinite will allow due to being only 343-controlled skins.
Each passing “update” for Infinite only makes it look more and more likely it’s going to flop.
Though at least the past Halo games are finally on PC.
> 2533274805386380;667:
> Im ready for a new way to customize my player. So, I hope you give Armor Coatings a chance.
I refuse. The problem is that they could have done this but allowed us to still customize our Spartans our way instead of their way. But if a Halo game can’t strip player choice, it ain’t a Halo game made by 343! You can still do the 7 layers of customization and allow players to put the colors on they want. PAYDAY 2, which is run on some racing game engine from the early 2000’s, has this basic functionality that 343 claims is impossible to do.
I refuse to give this system a chance because it’s so clear that 343 is lying to the community in an attempt to avoid having to admit that they’re doing this for money. I could at least respect them for being upfront and saying that this is solely about wringing as much cash as possible from the community. They’d still be slime, but at least they’d be respectable slime. I’d rather have the basic color customization of Halo 4 or 5 than this 7 layer stuff, because I at least have more freedom to choose under the old systems.
> 2533274837143948;653:
> Personally, I’d agree with that completely. The Reach/MCC formula is clearly the preferred option. It just goes back to raising the same question though; How do they maintain the game without a form of income, especially if it’s Free to play? Hence why they found the worst way to monetise the customisation. In this case, the colours.
They need to scrap the free-to-play entirely and just do it like every other Halo game.
> 2535454747525049;670:
> > 2533274837143948;653:
> > Personally, I’d agree with that completely. The Reach/MCC formula is clearly the preferred option. It just goes back to raising the same question though; How do they maintain the game without a form of income, especially if it’s Free to play? Hence why they found the worst way to monetise the customisation. In this case, the colours.
>
> They need to scrap the free-to-play entirely and just do it like every other Halo game.
I don’t really understand the “Free to Play” thing. I have no doubt that it will be packed with micro transactions. I agree with what you said. Do it like every other game.
> 2535426515273563;671:
> > 2535454747525049;670:
> > > 2533274837143948;653:
> > > Personally, I’d agree with that completely. The Reach/MCC formula is clearly the preferred option. It just goes back to raising the same question though; How do they maintain the game without a form of income, especially if it’s Free to play? Hence why they found the worst way to monetise the customisation. In this case, the colours.
> >
> > They need to scrap the free-to-play entirely and just do it like every other Halo game.
>
> I don’t really understand the “Free to Play” thing. I have no doubt that it will be packed with micro transactions. I agree with what you said. Do it like every other game.
Free-to-play games are accessible to a far wider audience than normal retail games. There’s no entry cost to consider, just a wait time for the download.
If the gameplay is good enough, people can get caught up in it, and then they may spend money on it.
Many free-to-play games today make a lot of money, and that’s what Microsoft is chasing.
> 2533274795123910;672:
> > 2535426515273563;671:
> > > 2535454747525049;670:
> > > > 2533274837143948;653:
> > > > Personally, I’d agree with that completely. The Reach/MCC formula is clearly the preferred option. It just goes back to raising the same question though; How do they maintain the game without a form of income, especially if it’s Free to play? Hence why they found the worst way to monetise the customisation. In this case, the colours.
> > >
> > > They need to scrap the free-to-play entirely and just do it like every other Halo game.
> >
> > I don’t really understand the “Free to Play” thing. I have no doubt that it will be packed with micro transactions. I agree with what you said. Do it like every other game.
>
> Free-to-play games are accessible to a far wider audience than normal retail games. There’s no entry cost to consider, just a wait time for the download.
> If the gameplay is good enough, people can get caught up in it, and then they may spend money on it.
> Many free-to-play games today make a lot of money, and that’s what Microsoft is chasing.
So it’s kind of like what Call of Duty: Warzone did? Warzone is free to play, but the disc has multiplayer and campaign.
> 2535426515273563;673:
> > 2533274795123910;672:
> > > 2535426515273563;671:
> > > > 2535454747525049;670:
> > > > > 2533274837143948;653:
> > > > > Personally, I’d agree with that completely. The Reach/MCC formula is clearly the preferred option. It just goes back to raising the same question though; How do they maintain the game without a form of income, especially if it’s Free to play? Hence why they found the worst way to monetise the customisation. In this case, the colours.
> > > >
> > > > They need to scrap the free-to-play entirely and just do it like every other Halo game.
> > >
> > > I don’t really understand the “Free to Play” thing. I have no doubt that it will be packed with micro transactions. I agree with what you said. Do it like every other game.
> >
> > Free-to-play games are accessible to a far wider audience than normal retail games. There’s no entry cost to consider, just a wait time for the download.
> > If the gameplay is good enough, people can get caught up in it, and then they may spend money on it.
> > Many free-to-play games today make a lot of money, and that’s what Microsoft is chasing.
>
> So it’s kind of like what Call of Duty: Warzone did? Warzone is free to play, but the disc has multiplayer and campaign.
CoD: Warzone as I understand is a Battle Royal version of Call of Duty, but esseintially yes. Activision Blizzard too wanted in on the Free-To-Play market, and made a BR CoD version.
Difference here is that i343 is making the entirety of Halo Infinite’s multiplayer free-to-play, and pretty much the only information we have on it, is this skin system.
What you’ll pay for with Infinite is the Campaign, potentially other PvE modes, if there are any.
> 2533274795123910;674:
> > 2535426515273563;673:
> > > 2533274795123910;672:
> > > > 2535426515273563;671:
> > > > > 2535454747525049;670:
> > > > > > 2533274837143948;653:
> > > > > > Personally, I’d agree with that completely. The Reach/MCC formula is clearly the preferred option. It just goes back to raising the same question though; How do they maintain the game without a form of income, especially if it’s Free to play? Hence why they found the worst way to monetise the customisation. In this case, the colours.
> > > > >
> > > > > They need to scrap the free-to-play entirely and just do it like every other Halo game.
> > > >
> > > > I don’t really understand the “Free to Play” thing. I have no doubt that it will be packed with micro transactions. I agree with what you said. Do it like every other game.
> > >
> > > Free-to-play games are accessible to a far wider audience than normal retail games. There’s no entry cost to consider, just a wait time for the download.
> > > If the gameplay is good enough, people can get caught up in it, and then they may spend money on it.
> > > Many free-to-play games today make a lot of money, and that’s what Microsoft is chasing.
> >
> > So it’s kind of like what Call of Duty: Warzone did? Warzone is free to play, but the disc has multiplayer and campaign.
>
> CoD: Warzone as I understand is a Battle Royal version of Call of Duty, but esseintially yes. Activision Blizzard too wanted in on the Free-To-Play market, and made a BR CoD version.
> Difference here is that i343 is making the entirety of Halo Infinite’s multiplayer free-to-play, and pretty much the only information we have on it, is this skin system.
> What you’ll pay for with Infinite is the Campaign, potentially other PvE modes, if there are any.
Do you think that Forge and customs will be on the disc, or free?
> 2535426515273563;675:
> > 2533274795123910;674:
> > > 2535426515273563;673:
> > > > 2533274795123910;672:
> > > > > 2535426515273563;671:
> > > > > > 2535454747525049;670:
> > > > > > > 2533274837143948;653:
> > > > > > > Personally, I’d agree with that completely. The Reach/MCC formula is clearly the preferred option. It just goes back to raising the same question though; How do they maintain the game without a form of income, especially if it’s Free to play? Hence why they found the worst way to monetise the customisation. In this case, the colours.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They need to scrap the free-to-play entirely and just do it like every other Halo game.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don’t really understand the “Free to Play” thing. I have no doubt that it will be packed with micro transactions. I agree with what you said. Do it like every other game.
> > > >
> > > > Free-to-play games are accessible to a far wider audience than normal retail games. There’s no entry cost to consider, just a wait time for the download.
> > > > If the gameplay is good enough, people can get caught up in it, and then they may spend money on it.
> > > > Many free-to-play games today make a lot of money, and that’s what Microsoft is chasing.
> > >
> > > So it’s kind of like what Call of Duty: Warzone did? Warzone is free to play, but the disc has multiplayer and campaign.
> >
> > CoD: Warzone as I understand is a Battle Royal version of Call of Duty, but esseintially yes. Activision Blizzard too wanted in on the Free-To-Play market, and made a BR CoD version.
> > Difference here is that i343 is making the entirety of Halo Infinite’s multiplayer free-to-play, and pretty much the only information we have on it, is this skin system.
> > What you’ll pay for with Infinite is the Campaign, potentially other PvE modes, if there are any.
>
> Do you think that Forge and customs will be on the disc, or free?
Well…
Halo 5 Forge released for free on PC, Windows 10, it was the Arena part of Halo 5’s Custom Multiplayer along with Forge.
Ideally they’d pack Customs and Forge with the multiplayer part as those are genuinely part of multiplayer only.
Sad thing is, Microsoft / i343 could very well try to wiggle out a few extra bucks from the players and have either Forge or Customs, or even both, be part of the “campaign package”, as they’re not essential to the gameplay experience, but a good addition to it.
I want to believe that i343 / Microsoft aren’t that greedy. But given the Skin system they’ve created…
Let’s say I think you’ll have to pay individually for both or get them in the campaign part, and then hope I’m wrong on both accounts.
Honestly, being free-to-play only increases accessibility and can be an overall good thing. Marketing towards a free-to-play financial model is what’s dangerous. They can still be free-to-play without giving way to modern trends.
Like - imagine MCC, but you can’t spend your season points nor play Campaign or something. Nothing about that is inherently bad while allowing players to progress before making a purchase while still giving players the opportunity to control how they customize their character.
But 343 doesn’t want to give players opportunities.
Trying to keep conversation alive around this topic. 343i’s upcoming “high level update,” on Infinite will be an absolute joke if it fails to address the Coatings situation (among other things).
This issue is huge. It’s a dramatic departure from status quo for this series and as we currently understand it, it locks what has been the core element of Halo cosmetic customization dating all the way back to CE behind monetization and grind. Color selection has always been a free and unrestricted method for player expression in Halo.
It’s on 343i to convince us that this isn’t a terrible idea. I understand the argument that that’s been made that they need to “Show, not tell,” especially with stuff like Coatings. However, the genie is irrevocably out of the bottle on this. We know Coatings exist and we know they’re replacing conventional color selection. Convince us as to why this isn’t a bad thing, 343.
Just like everything else that’s happened since the delay, ignoring this problem isn’t making it go away. It’s just allowing for more negative ambiguity to cloud up around Infinite.
I totally get wanting the customization wanting to be like Reach. But…
You really are making THIS big a deal out of colors? Yes its a great feature, but come ON… the campaign and multiplayer are infinitely more important.
The backlash might cause them to implement it as user defined as well as developer made.
You dont want to be convinced; you want to have them reconsider.
> 2533274805386380;680:
> I totally get wanting the customization wanting to be like Reach. But…
> You really are making THIS big a deal out of colors? Yes its a great feature, but come ON… the campaign and multiplayer are infinitely more important.
> The backlash might cause them to implement it as user defined as well as developer made.
>
> You dont want to be convinced; you want to have them reconsider.
Oh please.
A thread on armor skins is not a downplay on campaign or multiplayer, neither does anyone think they’re not important. That’s just a dismissal of an issue using something completely unrelated.
“Eat all your food, there are children in Africa starving.”
Recognise that there’s no info on any of those two modes, so there’s not much material to discuss.
And this whole ordeal actually is quite a big deal to some, on several levels, atleast for me it’s not just about the downgrade on one part of the customization, it’s also how I’m treated as a player, and how they try to fool me with their PR.
> 2585548714655118;682:
> I tend to agree. I don’t give two hoots about colours or armour customisations… but I appreciate a lot of people do. And apparently quite a lot.
>
> I don’t have a problem with putting some of the stuff behind pay walls… that’s a fact of life.
>
> But to put people utterly and completely in the dark about what their options are does nothing to endear 343 to the community.
And prior to a game’s launch, that can be enough to make or break a game’s success. And considering Halo 5’s reputation, Halo Infinite is going to be a turning point in Halo’s future, and as it is right now, a bad one.
I’m just sad that putting coatings behind paywalls is taking away from players, rather than adding a cool alternative. If people had access to the basic 2 colors, and saw another player toting hot rod flames, or Covenant plating, or glowing plasma, then the idea of “I have something basic, they have something special” is enough incentive to encourage a purchase, while offering the player more options, rather than more restrictions for less quality. It’s not a good consumer practice, it’s not a good business practice, and I’m scared of what these poor decisions will do for the future of Halo.
> 2533274861413834;683:
> > 2585548714655118;682:
> > I tend to agree. I don’t give two hoots about colours or armour customisations… but I appreciate a lot of people do. And apparently quite a lot.
> >
> > I don’t have a problem with putting some of the stuff behind pay walls… that’s a fact of life.
> >
> > But to put people utterly and completely in the dark about what their options are does nothing to endear 343 to the community.
>
> And prior to a game’s launch, that can be enough to make or break a game’s success. And considering Halo 5’s reputation, Halo Infinite is going to be a turning point in Halo’s future, and as it is right now, a bad one.
>
> I’m just sad that putting coatings behind paywalls is taking away from players, rather than adding a cool alternative. If people had access to the basic 2 colors, and saw another player toting hot rod flames, or Covenant plating, or glowing plasma, then the idea of “I have something basic, they have something special” is enough incentive to encourage a purchase, while offering the player more options, rather than more restrictions for less quality. It’s not a good consumer practice, it’s not a good business practice, and I’m scared of what these poor decisions will do for the future of Halo.
Surely the game will at the very least start us off with the 16 or so basic colours from Halo: Combat Evolved, with coatings featuring more bold combinations or whatnot being the ones we have to earn/unlock, or worse, pay for…
