Ah yes, but that phrase very likely opens up the can of worms doesnt it? It’s not guranteed the choices will all fall the way we think that they should. And it still has the blanket effect which I think is less preferable than an individual toggle option.
Ultimately you would still have my support for the split you give. I dont think its an unreasonable way to make the blanket decision, I just see it as less preferable and still with limiting issues as opposed to an individual option. What if I like half the non-canon option but not the other half? Like what if I am cool with cat ears but hate the Mohawk (btw this is kinda true for me), then its kinda an awkward choice I gotta make, ya know?
As far as half canon goes, I think leaving things ambigous has certain advatages. For example it gives fans easier ability to enjoy their own head-cannon without having to over the inconveint fact that official cannon directly contradicts you and for some minor things like cosmetics this can be a useful feature.
There is a con, and that’s it’s not what a lot of people who got those bought those cosmetics bought them for.
The only acceptable way they could see a toggle is if they get compensated for it to make up for the fact that not everyone can see it. Say, you pay everyone a dollar to turn it on for each cosmetic piece you want off that they payed to show off.
If you cannot do that, then no a toggle option shouldn’t even be considered since you fail provide the meaningful compensation required for it to exist.
What if the toggle is a paid feature?
What if they make you purchase a toggle for each piece of armor you don’t like?
Hate cat ears? $7 to not see it
Hate teddy bears? Another $5 and you wont see it either
Hate seeing flames? An additional $10 for each effect
and so on and so on.
Should go towards the people who paid to show off, since it’s their fun he’s ruining. That’s why it’s compensation for ruining why they got it in the first place, so that he can play the way he or she wants.
Since it is unfair to toggle off a piece of paid armor, then make the toggle cost as much as the armor it turns off. Both parties would be paying for the experience they want.
I’ll be real. Armor is not the fun part of playing Halo. Especially since you don’t even see what you are wearing in game. Legit does not even factor. To me, it is 100% idiotic to care this much about sprinkles on ice cream. If someone’s fun is ruined by .00002% of the people they play against not seeing their armor than honestly they’re just as vain as the people asking for the toggle. Let just have both of these children pay for their crap and not have to see 8000 topics by the same guy about this again. At least for a month. Homies are recreating these threads because they go off topic as this is an issue that needs to be on page one every day for 8 months.
@ExMOSBoss Look my #1 stalker is back. <3 haha stay 6 blocks away.
What people consider fun is subjective. One person it might be one thing, while the next person might be something completely different. Some people do infect like expressing themselves through their Spartans. While you may not care yourself, there will be others who do. That’s what everyone being unique and what not is all about. It makes us all distinctively different, and obvious keeps us from being just boring -Yoink!- clones of one another.
As for the last part, just ignore the loser lol. People that just click buttons and don’t bother to comment or explain why add absolutely no value to the conversation. It’s how you become worthless on forums pretty much.
I see the rational, but I don’t liike this option tbh, it really incentivizes 343 to make intentionally jarring armors at a crazy discount and then mark up the option to remove them. Plus it looks kinda predatory, if 100% of the funds went to repaying players who paid for cosmetics…maybe.
As far as the ethicasy of people “getting what they paid for”, this seems to be a legal issue for me first. I’ll be honest if you are willing to pay money to make others peoples experience less then I think you are not a part of the community that needs to have that specific desire catered to.
If you want self expression with the assurance + that most people will likely see your armor + those who see it will either be indifferent and think its cool, then thats all A-OK. But you kinda cross a line when you start desiring that those who would not appreciate your asthetic at all be FORCED to view you…like why?
For example, I wore Hyabusa a lot in H3 and some people did not like it because “everyone wears it, its so played out and doesnt look like a real spartan.” and I can understand their complaint…they were in a minority in my expierence, I thought it wasnt really that big of a deal myself but if there was an option to make it so these players had a different experience I would be 100% for that. Same thing even with Recon once I earned it, if seeing that armor annoyed someone for any reason I would just like them to have the option to not see, and without taking too much hubris in my position I think this is a basic feature of human empathy and those concerned with getting “robbed” by such a change ought best to reflect on this fact. Plus they would never know who and who didnt see their prefered armor
IDK this might be one more reason that cosmetics really shouldnt be monetized as a norm in the first place, and should be aquired through gameplay, but I understand I lost that fight well over half a decade ago.
Toggle to hide paid cosmetics, but the toggle costs $9.99/mo, so you have to pay to not see what other people paid for. That would be pretty fair. Also nothing will be funnier than someone yelling “shoot the gold guy with cat ears”, but on that person’s screen they are just default color and default armor, because cosmetics are disabled
Im curious though, how does this make it fair? It just neans 343 can profit off both ends.
Why would one person not getting what they paid for be compensated by some other person also having to pay a price for the fact that the first person didnt get what they paid for?
The only way this would makes sense is if 100% of the funds go directly toward refunding players who bought cosmetics.
Forcing someone else to suffer financially does not alleviate your own missed features and expressed grievances. It does not restore your ability to have your prefered set viewed by 100% of other players.
If it does satisfy them…then honestly that says something about that payer than other people who having other people struggle is the only way they can feel whole while playing halo…seems petty af tbh.
What an absolutely ridiculous and expensive notion. I’ll also note that not all of these cosmetics that would be hidden are things people have paid for and furthermore, this isn’t a new feature.
For Honor, a game with purchasable effects and cosmetics - has a toggle to disable three sets of visual effects that you can apply to various actions and executions not unlike Halo with kill effects, mythic sets and armour effects.
There would be zero legal issue. You pay to own and wear cosmetics; not for others to see them as even then you’ll never meet everybody - not everybody will even pay attention to what you’re wearing.
That is true but I advocate for this as I believe it’s the mostly likely option we’ll get. And, it’s also just following 343s own logic. They’ve categorised these things like this for a reason.
I understand that but; I’m moreso just basing this off of what clearly doesn’t belong in Halos fiction as opposed to what I can and cannot tolerate. And if I’d have to choose, I’d choose to censor it all through a toggle than having 343 resorting to a half measure which would miss the point any way.
Anybody who thinks cat ear Spartans are canon won’t be stopped by a toggle. Not to mention, they definitely shouldn’t be and I’m tired of reading the same argument for them.
Then I guess you’re just going to have to deal with those cosmetics then. Since you failed to offer a good compensation towards those who specifically purchased and obtained said cosmetics for the sake of showing them off to everyone. This topic may as well be closed till the required compensation is actually listed.
In this case I guess I have to ask what is the point of all this then? Is it to increase player enjoyment by allowing an increased customization of play experiences? If so, then my option is not the half measure but rathers yours would be because it has a blanket effect that does not allow a fully individualized expierence as mine would. Also on a side not I would add we seem to be assuming what 343’s intentions where in sepeating such armors, we can not guarentee it was a cannon/non-cannon seperation
My friend, I must ask these question becaues while I fully support the general cause you fight for on here I must admit that I suspect we may have radically different motivations. The way you present these arguments, and the way you axiomatically claim to know what “aboslutely has no place in halo” and what does, present a certain level of arrogant disdain for others experiences and preferences of the game that will be extremely counter-effective to the civil discourse you are trying to regain with posting this thread.
I would argue that neither you, I, or even a large collections of fans have any certain right to speak in such absolutisms about what may be allowed to fit in an ever expanding fictional universe. To do so does not respect the way others have interepreted the art that we are sharing and in fact treats them as inferior persons which in my opinion is something we should always avoid doing outside of extreme criminal acts.
which where your apparent motivations come in (not claiming that this is what you are trying to do, only explaining why to a reasonable obnserver you would appear to be doing so), and that seems to be that you just want 343 to finally classify armors you dont personally like as non-canon to put others in their place and to give you a personal sense of validation. If this is not the case I would ask you to perhaps tailor your rhetoric a bit as you will catch for more flies with honey than vinegar.
I will remind you that Hyabusa is offical canon yet remains a controversial armor set. I think it belongs in halo, my friends does not, both of us justify it based on our expereinces and intrepation of the game as either a semi-realistic sci-fi military shooter, or a casual social sandbox where the players can create and share their own experiences. one of us primarily a campaign player at the time, the other was more into file shares and custom games. Niether of us gets to call the other a moron and if we did we wouldn’t be friends would we?
.
And this is a small part of the rhetoric I am talking about. Its better in this thread but fsr worse in others imo. We are not axiomatic arbiters of art.
@General_Fox and @BurningWidow are not bad people who have no idea of what halo is or should be. They are obviously passionate players themselves that simply hold radically different views than you, I, and eachoter all on our same shared favorite media of choice, and they seem to be responding with the same vitriol and lack of empathy that you are as well (or perhaps you are returning theirs, IDK who started it but either way yall are all coming off as a bit childish when there have been about a dozen opprotunities to descalate in every thread)
I will respond to them and their points a little later because I really do want to address their concerns, I am especially confused on what justice making payers pay for the toggle actually serves, but before I do I wanted to respond to you because you seem to be the greater champion of this mission that I want to support but the way you are approaching it could be altered for much greater effect.
We may not be able to convince them as they may be unable to convince us; so long we are all deliberating in good faith that’s fine.
There is absolutely no reason for them to be compensated for anything! Did they get the item that they paid for? Yes! Can they use the item that they paid for? Yes! So why are they being compensated? What they paid for they can see and use. If they’re buying something solely to show other people and not for themselves, well the people that like that stuff will see it. They lose nothing!!
So if Master Chief collection starts getting paid microtransactions and it’s going to happen we all know it! Does that mean that everyone should be compensated on that too?!?! because there’s an option already on that game to turn off stuff like this. There’s no reason to compensate anyone for anything. I got to say, no offense but this is a ridiculous thing to say. Seriously think about what you’re saying right now.
Also, have you consider that there are people right now NOT playing this game because of that stuff. It might sound stupid to you, might sound stupid to me but it’s not stupid to them. If you don’t believe me go on Reddick, Go on social media it’s on there.
I actually think it’s a good idea that 343 has basically made it so this one “company” has made all this stuff. There could easily be some kind of toggle to have that kind of stuff off only and it would affect no one! It makes perfect business sense. Don’t worry, I already know you’re going to say, Well it makes business sense to make it so everyone can see that stuff to advertise it for someone to buy it. Well actually it doesn’t because the people that don’t like that stuff, If it bugs them enough they’ll just stop playing all together, which is worse! The people that do like that stuff are going to look for it online, in the game, on social media, and everywhere else and get it and buy it regardless if they see someone having it or not And they would never use that tongle so they would never not see things in game. They aren’t the people that 343I are targeting to buy this stuff. It’s the people that are on the fence that they are targeting. People that already don’t like this stuff will never buy it so there’s no reason to try to target them with it or constantly remind them that this stuff is in the game. All you are doing to them is annoying them and potentially annoying them enough to leave. BUT there’s still a reason to target those people because you want them to buy things like I said before, the battle pass, campaign DLC, etc and they can’t do that if those people aren’t even playing the game.
I know people think it’s silly that people would stop playing a game because of cosmetics but it’s true and it happens a lot. The_MetaChief example of For Honor is actually a very good one! A lot of people did not like a lot of the silly stuff that was being put into the game and people were leaving And the game was already struggling with its many other issues (hmmm does this sound familiar ) But when they made it so you could disable that kind of stuff a lot of people gave them praise for it and some definitely came back just because of that. If somebody doesn’t like the look of a game they’re going to stop playing it. So again, I don’t see what the problem is here with having some type of tongle.
I feel like so many people here are just hating on an idea for no reason. This literally hurts no one. I thought we all wanted more people to play Halo, don’t we?!?! Having something like this would encourage that!! (Along with fixing all the other major issues at this game has which we won’t get into right now) And last I checked this game needs more players, badly!
There are tons of people who only purchased or earned it so they can showcase their Spartans to everyone they play with. If you take away the only reason tons of people purchased them in the first place. If you take away the only reason they did it in the first then compensation is required if you ever want to get a cosmetic toggle even considered.
The only other option was if 343i started handing out refunds for cosmetics, and yeah, I can’t see this happening.
If they decided to force the toggle in, I guarantee you sales from the store would quickly plummet since people now know that at any moment 343i can just change things without warning and remove the reason anyone works or purchases items from them away. 343i’s probably relying a lot on the revenue to continue working on this game too.
Silly things such as cat ears, the Fallout style armor, etc would fit nicely into such a filter. More people should be concerned with protecting the established art style. I know a lot of kids are cool adding literally anything such as the state of CoD’s cosmetics nowadays and fair enough, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for a separation at that point. Like if you want to run around a Jason, a dinosaur, or a furry then great. All we’re asking when we say that we want a filter is don’t force us to play that eclectic mess.
Ideally such cosmetics should’ve never been offered in the first place. Stuff such as the cat ears is so out of place among other items. I can’t help but feel that it’s some weak attempt at reaching the mysterious “broader audience” when they copy the mashed up mess that CoD/ Fortnight cosmetics have become.
This may be true and I supported the out of place armor sets in these games. However can you explain why this would be a reason against improving the system that H3 had by allowing out of place armor to be equiped while also allowing other players who do not wish to see it to toggle the feature to their preference?
There are tons of people who only purchased or earned it so they can showcase their Spartans to everyone they play with. If you take away the only reason tons of people purchased them in the first place. If you take away the only reason they did it in the first then compensation is required if you ever want to get a cosmetic toggle even considered.
The only other option was if 343i started handing out refunds for cosmetics, and yeah, I can’t see this happening.
Why limit our normative requests by cynical doubt? Either a toggle option willn create net enjoyment or not. Either it is more fair and moral to implement it or not. Do we think that there will be an over all benefit of increasing player customization of their experience by allowing them to toggle, or do we think those losing their ability of a forced showboat would be create a greater tragedy than it remedies?
I would argue that if we sit down and actually think about the two position a moral superiority clearly goes to the toggle option, specifically paying for the ability to ruin other people experience is morally weak, if you wanted to do it for yourself and the large chunk of players that dont mind/wat to see it fine, but you have not addressed the moral failing of those that just MUST have every other person see the armor they bought…
I would also infer that the net enjoyment very likely sides with toggle advocates as well. Look at the way votes on most of these forums go, look at reddit/social media, think about common sense. How many people are indifferent? PRobably a large majority. How many care and want toggle? A sizable enough community to make a voice even if just a vocal minority. How many players only paid for the comsetic at the guarentee that 100% of every other player will always seen it? an extreme minority with almost no one vocally sharing it i n public spaces. From this I would say that the larger minortiy benifts, the majority is indifferent but has more options, the extreme minorty are SOL but we shouldnt cry too much, for they are the communty that has expressed they will only be sasiated by the explicit expense of the other community?
This last claim might sound hyperbolic but lets carefully consider the option @BurningWidow propoesed
What if the toggle is a paid feature?
What if they make you purchase a toggle for each piece of armor you don’t like?
Hate cat ears? $7 to not see it…
This shows explicity that this part of the community doesnt even care if other members see that their armor so long that others are made to PAY somehow…why and how would this benefit the last community unless inflicting frustations on others was at least part of their desires?
I do not mean to sound acusatory but this has been brought up several times and advocates such as yourself dont seem to address it, but I am open to hearing any alterative explanations you may have.
The proposal @The_MetaChief proposes is very reasonable in my opinion and can be improved for even greater customization by allowing individual toggles. The only real harm you mention is:
If they decided to force the toggle in, I guarantee you sales from the store would quickly plumme
Which to borrow a bit of the snark you are infamous here for: cry me a river while I play you a melody from the worlds smallest violin for such a trajedy. I mean seriously if you put it to a vote “would you rather have a better game but 343 wont be as profitable for making crap games” the vote would be pretty overwhelmingly in favor of creating the better game. 343 is not using any of the profits from microtransactions for anything other than lining their pockets with higher paycheck for the higher up execs.
) But when they made it so you could disable that kind of stuff a lot of people gave them praise for it and some definitely came back just because of that. If somebody doesn’t like the look of a game they’re going to stop playing it. So again, I don’t see what the problem is here with having some type of tongle.