What do you like and dislike about the REQ system
I dont like how the Bronze tier is set up. Other than that its fine. Being able to unlock almost everything with in game currency and in a relatively quick amount of time is nice.
I think it’s fine. No one has to pay, but allows people that work full time jobs and can pay to get weapons/vehicles.
In today’s economy, a study was done and found that most gamers aren’t willing to pay more than around $60 for a game. Since this is the case and developers aren’t able to raise the prices on base games, they look to things like REQs, DLC, and so on. While many hate this system, it’s a fair way for 343 to make money that they did not otherwise have. So while many hate this system, as long it continues to bring in such a great revenue, your opinions are not heard.
People say game developers need to make more money because a $60 base price isn’t enough to cover costs anymore. I think that is a myth. It is exactly what those fat cat ultra-wealthy CEO 1%ers want you, the consumer, to think. Creating good games doesn’t become more costly as time goes on; that only happens because they invest more due to a larger potential audience. Of course they are going to find ways to squeeze more money out of the consumers. That is what any profit-driven business does. That they convinced so many people of their sob story about needing more money is a testament to their marketing ability. 343 wouldn’t be throwing millions of dollars away on esports tournament prizes if they needed that money to develop Halo 6.
I have also seen people say 343 needed the extra revenue from the req system to give us all the content updates for free. I think that’s also a myth, because look at how incomplete it was at launch! They were just finishing an unfinished game. I’m not convinced they couldn’t have done it with whatever budget they had before launch, if they just had more time.
Anyway, leaving aside the question of whether game developers need their microtransaction money, they are going to try to get it, regardless. So we should think of less problematic ways for them to make it. Currently, the req system has a number of problems, despite it being relatively non-intrusive. Meaning, yes, you can enjoy the game without purchasing req packs. But the req system causes other issues. So, to answer OP’s question about what I like and dislike about the req system, let’s start with the dislikes:
One of its biggest problems is that things which affect in-game performance are tied to a progression system, which is bad. Specifically, players need to play a lot in order to unlock certifications and even loadouts to use in Warzone. This makes Warzone gametypes more difficult for newcomers to enjoy (especially when those newcomers don’t have as much money to purchase packs), which contrasts strongly with Halo’s history of equal starts for both newcomers and veterans. It is also a problem for people who play Warzone Firefight on higher difficulties, because even if they have enough reqs to perform well, they may get paired with teammates who don’t, causing much frustration.
Also, as long as there is Warzone with the req system, 343 will have a financial incentive to downplay BTB and other modes which would compete for Warzone’s “big maps, big team sizes and lots of powerful weapons and vehicles” niche. I’m convinced this is why Halo 5 doesn’t have BTB Heavies, despite it being extremely popular in Halo Reach and 4.
^The above points could be solved by removing Warzone (please replace it with BTB Heavies) and making it so req packs only give permanent unlocks, without any loadouts or single-use cards. But even that drastic step wouldn’t solve all of the problems with the req system. As long as there is a grind to unlock cosmetics from req packs, and those req packs are available for purchase with real money, 343 will have an incentive to make that grind as long and tedious as possible. This means prioritizing quantity over quality and giving us poorly-designed helmets like Seeker, lots of re-skinned armor, and tons of visors that look exactly the same as each other, save for extremely slight differences that are not remotely noticeable in-game (when a simple color picker for visors would have been easier).
So what do I like about the req system? Nothing much, really. Random unlocks are not fun (especially when the majority of those random unlocks were clearly rushed and too ugly to wear), and I would prefer Halo to go back to its equal starts philosophy. Going back to what I said about microtransactions, I’m sure 343 can come up with a way to make extra revenue without including the req system and all of its intractable problems. I advocate for a system in which cosmetics are not unlocked from random lootboxes, but purchasable with in-game credits like in Halo Reach, but also available for real money (and also including some that are exclusively unlocked through commendations and achievements, and not purchasable with money or credits). That would be much better than the req system, in my opinion.
And no, I’m not at all confident they will remove the req system in Halo 6. I am just talking about what should happen.
> 2533274904158628;6:
> People say game developers need to make more money because a $60 base price isn’t enough to cover costs anymore. I think that is a myth.
I think it depends on the team. Some people want the overpriced software like 3ds Max, Photoshop and etc… and that costs a lot due to the subscription services, meanwhile the Indy scene has to deal with mostly free software’s that are just catching up like Blender 3d so in a way the dev’s claims are true and not at the same time. Literally if the dev’s dropped Max, started working with Blender then there costs would go severely down due the amount of costs cut down on subscriptions needed for Adobe/Autodesk, well that would mean they’d have more money for employees to work on more content.
> 2535408242372316;1:
> What do you like and dislike about the REQ system
If the REQ system removed the micro-transactions then it might have been ok but the whole system get’s tiresome due to the endless need to open packs to unlock anything. It’s getting to a point where I’m sick of seeing it in a lot of games these days, well it’s hurting the industry, it’s done nothing to improve H5 but make it worse like poor performance, locked out weapons/vehicles to servers failing and it’s destroyed the community challenges and turned everything into farming RP/Commendations to unlock anything.
> 2533274829873463;7:
> I think it depends on the team. Some people want the overpriced software like 3ds Max, Photoshop and etc… and that costs a lot due to the subscription services, meanwhile the Indy scene has to deal with mostly free software’s that are just catching up like Blender 3d so in a way the dev’s claims are true and not at the same time. Literally if the dev’s dropped Max, started working with Blender then there costs would go severely down due the amount of costs cut down on subscriptions needed for Adobe/Autodesk, well that would mean they’d have more money for employees to work on more content.
Yes but I’m only talking about the big budget triple-A studios
I think it is fine for Halo 5. But please leave microtransactions out of future Halo titles…
It’s trash. That they got rid of normal progression and put in this RNG loot system oversaturated with so much redundant content, so many reskinned weapons and armor, is one of the things I hate the most about Halo 5.
I hope they get rid of it in Halo 6, I really do.
> 2533274904158628;6:
> People say game developers need to make more money because a $60 base price isn’t enough to cover costs anymore. I think that is a myth. It is exactly what those fat cat ultra-wealthy CEO 1%ers want you, the consumer, to think. Creating good games doesn’t become more costly as time goes on; that only happens because they invest more due to a larger potential audience. Of course they are going to find ways to squeeze more money out of the consumers. That is what any profit-driven business does. That they convinced so many people of their sob story about needing more money is a testament to their marketing ability. 343 wouldn’t be throwing millions of dollars away on esports tournament prizes if they needed that money to develop Halo 6.
>
> I have also seen people say 343 needed the extra revenue from the req system to give us all the content updates for free. I think that’s also a myth, because look at how incomplete it was at launch! They were just finishing an unfinished game. I’m not convinced they couldn’t have done it with whatever budget they had before launch, if they just had more time.
>
> Anyway, leaving aside the question of whether game developers need their microtransaction money, they are going to try to get it, regardless. So we should think of less problematic ways for them to make it. Currently, the req system has a number of problems, despite it being relatively non-intrusive. Meaning, yes, you can enjoy the game without purchasing req packs. But the req system causes other issues. So, to answer OP’s question about what I like and dislike about the req system, let’s start with the dislikes:
>
> One of its biggest problems is that things which affect in-game performance are tied to a progression system, which is bad. Specifically, players need to play a lot in order to unlock certifications and even loadouts to use in Warzone. This makes Warzone gametypes more difficult for newcomers to enjoy (especially when those newcomers don’t have as much money to purchase packs), which contrasts strongly with Halo’s history of equal starts for both newcomers and veterans. It is also a problem for people who play Warzone Firefight on higher difficulties, because even if they have enough reqs to perform well, they may get paired with teammates who don’t, causing much frustration.
>
> Also, as long as there is Warzone with the req system, 343 will have a financial incentive to downplay BTB and other modes which would compete for Warzone’s “big maps, big team sizes and lots of powerful weapons and vehicles” niche. I’m convinced this is why Halo 5 doesn’t have BTB Heavies, despite it being extremely popular in Halo Reach and 4.
>
> ^The above points could be solved by removing Warzone (please replace it with BTB Heavies) and making it so req packs only give permanent unlocks, without any loadouts or single-use cards. But even that drastic step wouldn’t solve all of the problems with the req system. As long as there is a grind to unlock cosmetics from req packs, and those req packs are available for purchase with real money, 343 will have an incentive to make that grind as long and tedious as possible. This means prioritizing quantity over quality and giving us poorly-designed helmets like Seeker, lots of re-skinned armor, and tons of visors that look exactly the same as each other, save for extremely slight differences that are not remotely noticeable in-game (when a simple color picker for visors would have been easier).
>
> So what do I like about the req system? Nothing much, really. Random unlocks are not fun (especially when the majority of those random unlocks were clearly rushed and too ugly to wear), and I would prefer Halo to go back to its equal starts philosophy. Going back to what I said about microtransactions, I’m sure 343 can come up with a way to make extra revenue without including the req system and all of its intractable problems. I advocate for a system in which cosmetics are not unlocked from random lootboxes, but purchasable with in-game credits like in Halo Reach, but also available for real money (and also including some that are exclusively unlocked through commendations and achievements, and not purchasable with money or credits). That would be much better than the req system, in my opinion.
>
> And no, I’m not at all confident they will remove the req system in Halo 6. I am just talking about what should happen.
The $60 base price of game is not enough to fund the development cycle when the developer is part of one of the biggest corporations in the world and has the enormous overheads and shareholder expectations that implies. So yes, a smaller, leaner, more agile company could develop a game at a lower cost, but just for starters, such a company couldn’t afford the rights to a title like “Halo.” In essence, the history and success of the franchise has enormous costs built directly into it. Don’t think for a minute, as an example, that Bungie just gave the game away to Microsoft for free. $$$. Don’t think that Microsoft was willing to risk the future of their biggest property and console-seller on a bunch of untested and cheap employees. $$$. Don’t think that Microsoft is going to try to save millions on marketing in the belief that Halo can sell itself. $$$. You can see how the costs go through the roof pretty quickly.
As for the effects of reqs on game play, I agree that they’re less than ideal, but disagree on how. (First, I’m constantly surprised at how people like to imagine that Heavies is somehow comparable to WZ without reqs. That’s not the way I see it at all.) My gripe with reqs has entirely to do with the proliferation of stupid and pointless weapons rather than the method of grinding for stupid and pointless armor. Armor, regardless of quantity or quality, does not affect gameplay. How I get it, or how long the developer draws out the grind for their acquisition, means nothing to me, though I respect those for whom the grind has value. And I can’t see how a req system that provides cosmetic items only can even begin to provide the revenue stream that selling weapons provides. I could be wrong on that one, but that’s how it seems to me.
All in all I would much rather have WZ freed of all the weapon variants that only serve to clutter and confuse, but I’m pretty sure that cash cow is here to stay. What I agree with very much is the unfortunate effects of WZ on BTB. Not only on its popularity, but on the quality of maps and on the subtly changing nature of BTB gameplay. To counter your suggestion about killing WZ in favor of Heavies, I would counter that perhaps the time has come to kill BTB entirely and just add in a WZ variant that has base loadout weapons only, with power weapons and vehicles on-map. Or is that more or less what you meant by Heavies?
Anyhow, that was a good read - thoughtful. Keep up the good work!
I love the way they use REQ purchases to help fund world championships or to donate for those in need.
Honestly I see the req system as a problem, it pulled focus during development, post-beta, and due to that the final product is to put it simply: disappointing. This problem needs to be quelled before it becomes a plague. And no I’m not referring to the Flood, I’m referring to Microtransactions, specifically in Halo.
I’ve been playing Halo for like 15 years and I have no issues with it. I sell about 90% of the REQ cards I get that aren’t unlocks. I just wish there were also specific ways to unlock a specific customization as an alternative to waiting for a random REQ pack with the unlock you desire.
I don’t like how earning armor was through the Req packs, there’s no progression except grinding Req Points 24/7
Except Achilles, Classic helmets, Athlon Champion, Challenger & those Forge helmets
> 2533274873843883;11:
> The $60 base price of game is not enough to fund the development cycle when the developer is part of one of the biggest corporations in the world and has the enormous overheads and shareholder expectations that implies. So yes, a smaller, leaner, more agile company could develop a game at a lower cost, but just for starters, such a company couldn’t afford the rights to a title like “Halo.” In essence, the history and success of the franchise has enormous costs built directly into it. Don’t think for a minute, as an example, that Bungie just gave the game away to Microsoft for free. $$$. Don’t think that Microsoft was willing to risk the future of their biggest property and console-seller on a bunch of untested and cheap employees. $$$. Don’t think that Microsoft is going to try to save millions on marketing in the belief that Halo can sell itself. $$$. You can see how the costs go through the roof pretty quickly.
Yeah, I know it takes a lot to create big-name games for system-selling franchises. But I can’t imagine that if we consumers all collectively decided not to accept a game costing more than $60 or with microtransactions, 343 would just throw up their hands and say “oh well I guess we don’t have enough money to make Halo games anymore”. I’m sure they will continue to make Halo games regardless.
I don’t doubt that the additional revenue from microtransactions is helping them with that endeavor to a certain extent, but I have a hard time believing it’s fully necessary when they have been developing Halo games without extra money from microtransactions up to and including Halo 5 (since Halo 4 didn’t have a req system, only a few DLC map packs). I expect a lot from Halo 6, considering how much more money 343 has now.
> 2533274873843883;11:
> As for the effects of reqs on game play, I agree that they’re less than ideal, but disagree on how. (First, I’m constantly surprised at how people like to imagine that Heavies is somehow comparable to WZ without reqs. That’s not the way I see it at all.) My gripe with reqs has entirely to do with the proliferation of stupid and pointless weapons rather than the method of grinding for stupid and pointless armor. Armor, regardless of quantity or quality, does not affect gameplay. How I get it, or how long the developer draws out the grind for their acquisition, means nothing to me, though I respect those for whom the grind has value.
I see where you’re coming from. I’m sure the sheer variety of all those weapon variants is another thing that turned off a lot of newcomers when Halo 5 launched.
> 2533274873843883;11:
> And I can’t see how a req system that provides cosmetic items only can even begin to provide the revenue stream that selling weapons provides. I could be wrong on that one, but that’s how it seems to me.
No, I think you’re right. That’s another reason why I expect Warzone to return in Halo 6, as much as I don’t want it to.
> 2533274873843883;11:
> I agree with very much is the unfortunate effects of WZ on BTB. Not only on its popularity, but on the quality of maps and on the subtly changing nature of BTB gameplay. To counter your suggestion about killing WZ in favor of Heavies, I would counter that perhaps the time has come to kill BTB entirely and just add in a WZ variant that has base loadout weapons only, with power weapons and vehicles on-map. Or is that more or less what you meant by Heavies?
Yes that’s exactly what I meant by Heavies. Let’s establish some definitions:
- Warzone: A game mode with big team sizes in which players call in their own stuff which was earned from opening req packs, instead of picking it up from the map (also including AI enemies on the map, I guess) - BTB: A game mode with big team sizes in which players have to pick up the stuff from the map instead of using a req system to call it in.These are the basic definitions I’ve been working with, and they’re flexible in that I haven’t defined exact team or map sizes. Meaning, if there was a game mode that took place on Warzone maps and had 12v12 team sizes, but with the pickups on the map instead of players calling them in, I would still consider that BTB. So yes I fully support your idea.
I like it although I like reach a lot better
> 2533274904158628;16:
> > 2533274873843883;11:
> >
>
> But I can’t imagine that if we consumers all collectively decided not to accept a game costing more than $60 or with microtransactions, 343 would just throw up their hands and say “oh well I guess we don’t have enough money to make Halo games anymore”.
>
>
> > 2533274873843883;11:
> >
>
>
>
> > 2533274873843883;11:
> >
>
>
>
> > 2533274873843883;11:
> >
In a way I think that Halo 5 was a test to see how fans would behave, and it proved that, as always, nobody acts collectively anymore. Some people were reflexively horrified by the req system without even having tried it out, some used it and hated it for the RNG nature of unlocks, some, like me, for the needless complexity… and many more still liked it just fine, or at least didn’t voice a protest. In the final analysis, it isn’t even about who or how many voice a protest - it’s about the number of dollars the system added to the bottom line, and the number of dollars we’re talking about doesn’t represent any kind of collective will to stop reqs. I would say that it almost argues just the opposite. We’re talking about a lot of money here.
Honestly, I think the REQ system is anti-consumer. Bloated with a lot of unnecessary variants of helmets, armour and visors. I don’t like the idea that loadouts, power weapon & vehicle certifications are locked behind a RNG system which may be the tipping balance of the game (I know Warzone isn’t suppose to be balance). I hope they learn their lesson from this and wish them the best for Halo 6.
> 2533274873843883;18:
> In a way I think that Halo 5 was a test to see how fans would behave, and it proved that, as always, nobody acts collectively anymore. Some people were reflexively horrified by the req system without even having tried it out, some used it and hated it for the RNG nature of unlocks, some, like me, for the needless complexity… and many more still liked it just fine, or at least didn’t voice a protest. In the final analysis, it isn’t even about who or how many voice a protest - it’s about the number of dollars the system added to the bottom line, and the number of dollars we’re talking about doesn’t represent any kind of collective will to stop reqs. I would say that it almost argues just the opposite. We’re talking about a lot of money here.
Yes exactly. I was speaking 100% theoretically; I know people acting collectively like that would never actually happen in a million years. Unfortunately, I expect the req system will return in Halo 6 with all its problems 