Gotta love it when the only news we receive about Infinite is about promo items delivered in such an incomplete manner. 343i’s not been doing a great job with convincing people they have learned anything from the stupidity contained within Halo 5. Hell yeah people are going to be pissed. I don’t think they really understand how disgusted people were/are with the REQ system and microtransactions in general.
If this new system is something truly to be proud of and something to be excited over, it shouldn’t come across as something that will be MTX and RNG filth. Not a good look, 343i. You lose respect from me with each passing day and the bar was not very high after your predatory H5 weapon tunings and your careless handling of HW2. Best of luck sorting this out because MTX and RNG for freaking armor colors is an automatic boycott for every person with a brain.
After thinking a little and seeing everyone’s reactions to this, I might’ve come up with a compromise that would not only do justice to those buying the full game, but also still make Microsoft’s executives and shareholders happy (if this was a moved forced upon 343 by MS), cause it’s kinda hard making those execs do something that wouldn’t make them a ton of money. For those who buy the full game, they have access to the usual primary/secondary/tertiary colour selection, while armour patterns and effects (wear and tear along with particles) and the weapon/vehicle skins are unlockables/microtransactions, with people who own the full game having most items that would usually be buyable on the F2P multiplayer being unlockables. Those who only play the F2P multiplayer must use the armour coating system as usual. This would allow people to play the F2P multiplayer as usual, but also serve as a promotion for the full game, making it so that not only is Microsoft making money off of microtransactions, but also purchases of the full game made by people who care enough about cosmetics to do so, making shareholders happy and giving everyone a reason to buy the full game.
I’d honestly prefer if there were no microtransactions in any part of the game, but unfortunately shareholders and execs wouldn’t wanna miss out on those sweet-sweet Epic Games style microtransaction trends.
> 2533274924589893;1:
> What you guys at 343 have provided in terms of information on this feature isn’t enough. You have got to come out and say how this system is going to work. All you’ve done is beat around the bush.
>
> “a “coating” is “a seven-layer shader that allows us to put any artist-authored color, material, or pattern into seven channels and apply it to in-game items like weapons, armor, and vehicles.”" Well no kidding. We want to know how we get new colors.
>
>
> - Do we start out with a certain amount of colors? - Can we mix and match armor coatings? - Can we create our own armor coatings? - How do we get new armor coatings?These are the questions we want to know. If we can mix and match and players have a good amount of colors to start out with (like 30-40), no one will have a problem with this new system. Then maybe we can stick to these cool sets with pre-determined shades like Red Shift which has a bunch of different colors going on while also being able to create our own patterns.
>
> Please tell us.
Im very worried they will try to use these for microtransactions and honestly if they work like presets that’s just restricting customization
> 2533274791998460;83:
> Also, in the past, new modes and maps were DLC. It split the playerbase. Now those are free for months or years after a games release. Would you work for free? Didn’t think so. Cosmetic mtx are a necessary evil.
This doesn’t at all hold for Halo 5, as pretty much all of its post-launch content is stuff that should have been in the game Day 1: BTB; Forge; Infection; Firefight; Social Playlists. Content that we had already paid for when we bought the game. The MCC has only received so much attention because it was absolutely broken for the first 4 years.
We’re talking about -Yoink- Microsoft here. They don’t need crowd funding from their players to pay their employees. Make the maps payable DLC, but only for a limited time - say a few to six months. You then make that map pack free, or sell it at a reduced price. It’s reasonable to pay for maps because they provide a gameplay experience. Something real. Cosmetics, on the other hand, are completely arbitrary, and give no quantitative or qualitative output. If your account gets wiped, the cosmetics go, but you’ll still have played those maps.
There’s absolutely nothing about monitised cosmetics that is necessary, and this sentiment is exactly why we’ve even reached this point.
EDIT: God (no space) damn is censored? Unexpected.
> 2535473687770070;86:
> After thinking a little and seeing everyone’s reactions to this, I might’ve come up with a compromise that would not only do justice to those buying the full game, but also still make Microsoft’s executives and shareholders happy (if this was a moved forced upon 343 by MS), cause it’s kinda hard making those execs do something that wouldn’t make them a ton of money. For those who buy the full game, they have access to the usual primary/secondary/tertiary colour selection, while armour patterns and effects (wear and tear along with particles) and the weapon/vehicle skins are unlockables/microtransactions, with people who own the full game having most items that would usually be buyable on the F2P multiplayer being unlockables. Those who only play the F2P multiplayer must use the armour coating system as usual. This would allow people to play the F2P multiplayer as usual, but also serve as a promotion for the full game, making it so that not only is Microsoft making money off of microtransactions, but also purchases of the full game made by people who care enough about cosmetics to do so, making shareholders happy and giving everyone a reason to buy the full game.
>
> I’d honestly prefer if there were no microtransactions in any part of the game, but unfortunately shareholders and execs wouldn’t wanna miss out on those sweet-sweet Epic Games style microtransaction trends.
But why do we need to compromise…? What do we gain? If all players said no to all of these systems, then they would simply stop. What, are they going to stop making games?
There is zero benefit for us in this compromise, and it just perpetuates that this practice is acceptable. If we want it to change, then we have to say no. It happened with Battlefront II (2017), and it can happen with Infinite.
You can’t argue it isn’t important if 343 felt it was worth to monetize COLORS.
Honestly, coatings should be additional layers or decals you can put on your armor. Like they could make a “Scarred” coating that has parts of your armor removed like the Mk.VI Scarred from 5. Or they could make a for-fun “low poly” coating that makes you look straight out of CR.
> 2533274791998460;83:
> Also, in the past, new modes and maps were DLC. It split the playerbase. Now those are free for months or years after a games release. Would you work for free? Didn’t think so. Cosmetic mtx are a necessary evil.
That’s why the campaign is $60.00, this is a feature that’s been free in every Halo FPS, even Halo 3: ODST had color customization for your ODST
<mark>This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post comments that are discriminatory in nature.</mark> *Original post. Click at your own discretion.
I swear to god if they go along with this retarded idea of preset skins and not allow us to change the base colors I’m going to be livid.
> 2533274791998460;81:
> > 2535409103705542;79:
> > > 2535414221196754;78:
> > > > 2533274791998460;77:
> > > > Does the color of your fictional character make you play better? I just don’t get it.
> > >
> > > It doesn’t. It just adds more personalization to your spartan. Besides, there’s no real reason to remove an extremely basic feature that made its debut in Halo CE. Besides, what will machinima creators do? Screenshot artists? It’s needless and annoying to a ton of people.
> >
> > It also immerses people, even if we don’t see it in BTB or 4v4. So what? They are monetizing and restricting our freedom and creativity. Bungie embraced this and expanded upon it and then they went to crap. FFA, Halo Reach Campaign, Firefight, Spartan ops, Warzone Firefight is where we finally saw our creativity.
>
> I hear you, and agree, but most of the time, based on passed games, your either red or blue. I just never worry myself if I don’t earn every variant.
Well of course its red vs blue. Thats how its always is and always been. But there are also game modes that supports your own character customization. FFA is popular with this. And I even forgot about Infection. Custom game types as well abd that could be a multitude of games. And if they made a battle royale mode for Infinite which i bet a lot of people would jump in on, i would rather sport my own colors
If this community was critical about the black undersuits, what makes you think we were going to be receptive to this? Simple fix: Keep classic color customization with optional coatings (maybe even make them cost something if you absolutely HAVE to). Just please don’t keep this -Yoink- system. Not this close to the release of the game. Not with this much hype at stake. Fix it.
Color choices like all previous Halo’s: Gone. You start as a basic Spartan color.
You can earn and/or buy these “Coatings.” They can be earned for free through Gameplay and bought with microtransactions.
It works the same as a game like Rainbow Six Siege’s Operator Skins. If they come in an Alpha Pack style method or through Req Points style, I don’t know. But the coatings will be unique.
Basically:
Choice of color gone. They are replacing it with this new system. Siege is my best example of this new system. It’s not Halo. It’s wrong and awful. I am definitely getting the game. But the multiplayer sounds like something, if I were a game dev (which I am not) would be disappointed and embarrassed to do. I feel it’s too much of a cash grab.
I think when Halo Infinite comes out, Halo 5 will still be the game I play the most online multiplayer. I will probably use Infinite for customs only along with Forge. But the game is looking more and more depressing as time goes on. The campaign looks impressive and cannot wait to play. But this will not be a Halo worth getting excited over. Unless you are like me and exclusively play campaign a lot, you may just want to wait for the game to go on sale Summer 2021.
This whole coating thing makes me pretty mad and upset. But the only way we can tell 343 we refuse to accept it is with our wallets. Not by arguing or yelling or by getting too worked up on a forum. Especially when the mods are not part of the problem. I won’t be spending a penny more than the $60 for the game. But the coatings could be worse. There could be a Battle Pass. And if that happens, and it is not similar to Halo MCC and more like Fortnite or Modern Warfare, I am going to say this Halo will die before Halo 5 ever will. And I will go as far as saying Halo 4 was not actually a bad game.
Better yet. If Halo as a Fortnite style Battle Pass, I am playing through the Halo 4 and 5 campaigns. The worst in the series.
> 2533274876991706;101:
> > 2533274927740213;100:
> > More information and clarification if anyone would like to read it: link.
>
> Whilst I appreciate what Unyshek is saying.
>
> This still isn’t transparency. Its more marketing facade talk, we just want to know how it works.
>
> We deserve to know how it works, and we deserve to know how much 343 is lying.
As I said in my post above, it works similar to Rainbow Six: Siege. You start a basic Spartan and through gameplay earn new ones. If that means earn them by getting Req Points (which is my guess as it is supposed to be kind of like Reach) or via a pack you open after a random number of games, I don’t know for sure.
You will also be able to buy with real world money some of them. You could call these “Coatings” “Spartan Skins” if you want. Pretty sure it will work and behave the same way as the Weapon Skins.
> 2535419441797248;91:
> > 2535473687770070;86:
> > After thinking a little and seeing everyone’s reactions to this, I might’ve come up with a compromise that would not only do justice to those buying the full game, but also still make Microsoft’s executives and shareholders happy (if this was a moved forced upon 343 by MS), cause it’s kinda hard making those execs do something that wouldn’t make them a ton of money. For those who buy the full game, they have access to the usual primary/secondary/tertiary colour selection, while armour patterns and effects (wear and tear along with particles) and the weapon/vehicle skins are unlockables/microtransactions, with people who own the full game having most items that would usually be buyable on the F2P multiplayer being unlockables. Those who only play the F2P multiplayer must use the armour coating system as usual. This would allow people to play the F2P multiplayer as usual, but also serve as a promotion for the full game, making it so that not only is Microsoft making money off of microtransactions, but also purchases of the full game made by people who care enough about cosmetics to do so, making shareholders happy and giving everyone a reason to buy the full game.
> >
> > I’d honestly prefer if there were no microtransactions in any part of the game, but unfortunately shareholders and execs wouldn’t wanna miss out on those sweet-sweet Epic Games style microtransaction trends.
>
> But why do we need to compromise…? What do we gain? If all players said no to all of these systems, then they would simply stop. What, are they going to stop making games?
>
> There is zero benefit for us in this compromise, and it just perpetuates that this practice is acceptable. If we want it to change, then we have to say no. It happened with Battlefront II (2017), and it can happen with Infinite.
I mentioned this a bit earlier, but the main problem with Battlefront II is that you had to pay $60 and then a bunch of money on top of that for DLC. With Infinite, it’s taking a Fortnite-like approach, with multiplayer being F2P but keeping those microtransactions, and the only microtransactions in it are cosmetic. This isn’t the type of game you can just boycott and tell people not to waste their money on because there is no money to really waste on the base game in the first place. You see people every day complaining about how bad Fortnite’s battle pass system and microtransactions are, yet the game is still played by millions and promoted through esports. Freenium games are a lot harder to boycott than fully paid games. The only reason I’m talking about a “compromise” in the first place is to be realistic about how Microsoft probably won’t budge with completely removing a microtransaction system that will be used in already-existing deals with GameStop, Monster, those food brands, etc. to make them a ton of money. Even if we don’t play the game, all they have to do is pay Ninja and a bunch of other streamers/esports teams to play the game and boom, the game is untouchable by cosmetics controversies. If Microsoft was to abruptly cut deals with these companies that have already manufactured a ton of specialized products with Halo codes in them, their shareholders won’t be happy and their stocks would probably tank, along with those companies abandoning them for any future sponsors. I don’t care about whether Microsoft loses a couple cents or not, but they do, which is why they probably won’t completely reverse this decision. With Battlefront II, EA didn’t tangle themselves in with any major sponsors and could actually remove all the predatory microtransactions. With Infinite, not much can be undone at this point considering all those deals are in place rn. The most possible situation we could have is a compromise. None of us like it (I don’t either), but it’s unfortunately the most realistic outcome.
> “Why not a hybrid system where I can change my colors and the rest of the coating remains the same?”
>
> We love this idea, but colors and materials are designed and built into each specific coating. I’m hoping to elaborate on the tech behind coatings in a future Community Update.
This is some peak PR nonsense. I’m sure the colors are indeed built into each specific coating, that doesn’t actually mean it would be impossible to implement a system to swap out the colors at the very least. This isn’t a choice that comes about as a result of real world logistics like say the various factory colors of any given model of car, its a choice made in service of further monetization at the expense of a feature that used to be part of the product at no additional cost.
The only reason they are being cagey about discussing coatings in detail is simply that they knew going into it there would be backlash and keeping information scarce and unclear is the best way to avoid discussing a controversial decision until the last possible second.
I was already worried about infinite multiplayer going F2P and this news is just confirming those suspicions. I will say it is going to be funny when Infinite releases and mod makers immediately demonstrate that coatings don’t actually need to be tied to color.