What happened to playing a game to have fun?

Games Halo Infinite
41

It’s not an excuse, it’s an attempt to give people some much needed perspective as they keep acting like 343i is some egregious standout where FTP or microtransactions are concerned.

You’re talking to someone who would happily pay $100 at retail to avoid FTP, but I am a considerable minority of consumers. Your blaming people defending/supporting it for it’s prevalence, but the whole practice was adopted from mobile because gamers kept demanding more from games while losing their -Yoink!- if ever called to pay more than $60. It’s not a one-sided situation, never has been.

1 Like
42

I get your logic.

Essentially (and I know I am over simplifying) the video game industry has realised, hey, we can make more money out of people by monetizing content within games that we didn’t used to.

If the goal is to make as much money as is possible, then yeah, I get why they do it. I just don’t think that should be goal, to me it’s greedy and it’s not ethical and it doesn’t benefit the consumer, it preys on them.

You see games where companies make thousands of % return on selling colours, like one person buys it and it’s covered the cost of development several times over already.

I do understand that in return we get the game for free but for me that’s no bonus at all, I bought Halo Infinite, I’ve bought all the Halo games, the multiplayer used to be included in the price.

Make no mistake the multiplayer isn’t free to be nice, it’s because it’s a platform to make more money, it’s why all games consoles (with the exception of Nintendo hardware) are sold at a loss, because it’s not about making the money on the hardware, they want to get the hardware in as many homes as possible so that people will buy the software and the in game purchases.

I don’t mind spending money on games, I’ve spent a fortune on games over the years and I would honestly much rather pay a higher price for the game and not have to deal with all this FTP garbage and if the game has to be FTP I don’t mind paying some money here or there for microtransactions but I want them reasonably priced and I want a decent choice, I don’t want this artificial inflation of pricing with the “you can only buy this for a limited price so better buy it now, look the timer is counting down, buy it, but it now, don’t miss it, it’s going soon, better buy it quick, you don’t want to miss out do you?” Just quit with the mind games, give me decent content at a decent price and you will get my money, stop trying to trick us or stop putting in systems that pressure you to spend (challenge swaps as an example).

The game should be fun to play, I do find it fun to play for the most part but I hate how the monetization is rammed down our throats constantly, how everything is there to try and make you spend more money.

1 Like
43

Yeah. I know that, too.

1 Like
44

Just a beta though right?

45

I agree that 343 should be leading the gaming industry with new ideas that work better. Honestly though, the art direction was just good in Reach

46

Context is important.

The reason people are irritated by the $1000+ worth of microtransactions is because there is no way to earn armours in a style similar to Reach, 4 or 5. E.g. Reach had credits, 5 had earnable lootboxes (that yes, you could buy, but I got all the lootbox content after 200 hours of play).
MTX value is relative to what we can actually earn ourselves, as well as previous franchise standards.

Even if previous games’ armours were only divided into helmets and sets, rather than individual pieces, you could still earn all 220+ helmets and armours in 5 without spending. Same with 4 and Reach.

Unfortunately, I’m not seeing anything close to that number of available free armours in Infinite.

We’ve already discussed pricing which is also a context driven thing, I’m sure we can agree that it’s excessive to price basic single colours for ONE armour core at $15. I have no issue with the BP price.

The thrust of what I’m saying is this: The current system has very poor price to value. That, in combination with the armour core/coating system being so unnecessarily restrictive, makes people view the microtransactions as predatory.

People’s motivations for playing the game are irrelevant. If the customisation isn’t in some way intrinsic to the experience, why has the game gone F2P to accommodate monetising it so strongly?

There’s a contradiction here about how important this stuff is. While you’re downplaying the relevance of customisation, 343i are price gouging armours and pushing the limits of how much people are willing to pay for these items. It seems to me that 343i think these items are very valuable.

It’s just a bad system and people should voice their complaints as that is the only way to provoke a change.

3 Likes
47

It’s the same for me, but i’d rather see the IP thrive and be a little upset about the changes than to see halo spiral down.

Just the circumstances of the market now.

48

I think you need to accept that humans are reward driven creatures and just endlessly grinding CTF’s with pugs actually isnt fun when you’re 100 hours into the game 5 days after release.

“Playing a game for fun” has not existed since space invaders. Games have given rewards for 2 decades now and players rightfully enjoy those rewards.

If you cannot see the blatant issues with the current system thats on you, but dont expect other people to share your ignorant bliss while the best halo of all time literally burns under the weight the of its disgustingly bad customisation/progression.

1 Like
49

So basically, just because other studios do it then it’s fine if 343 does? Well, enjoy paying $8 for the color blue.

1 Like
50

Context is important, and so is accuracy. You’re making the same mistake a lot of people keep making in this discussion and that’s acting like all decision made regarding Infinite were done in a vacuum, or even as they relate only to the series’ franchise. They are not. They are being made based on industry wide trends. People here are losing their mind over $20 for a coating, helmet, helmet accessory, visor, shoulder set, knees and calling foul, but Halo’s main competitor (CoD) has been printing money on selling a skin, two weapon skins, an emblem, and a key chain for $20, for what? Three years now?

As I’ve said, Infinite has issues and feedback should keep coming, but the feedback needs to be accurate and constructive. Most people’s issues with Infinite seems to be based on an inability to split their frustration with FTP from their frustration that Halo has gone FTP. FTP is here to stay, unfortunately. As value is purely subjective the best thing people can do is not pay for something they feel is a rip, but they need to keep perspective on the subject and stop acting like these things are so terribly overpriced. Compared to the current landscape, they are not. Compared to a 6 year old Halo game, sure they are, but so is literally everything in the FPS AAA space right now.

1 Like
51

I couldn’t find any of that Oreo stuff. And I would have liked the Monarch coating.

52

Read, think, read again, then reply. I’m not endorsing this (far from it) I’m pointing out the fallacy that is people acting like 343i is doing something uniquely terrible here. The market is what it is and 343i is literally keeping pace with market. Dislike it. Complain about it. Lord knows I have. But stop acting like I anything more than it is, 343i responding to the market. Stop calling out $20 bundles like CoD hasn’t been selling $20-$30 bundles, successfully, for years.

Call it what it is. There is enough legit criticism to go around that blowing things out of proportion isn’t necessary. Point of fact, doing so is actually counterproductive because the dramatic hyperbole buries the criticism, and historically devs will not sift through the former to get through the latter.

2 Likes
53

That last sentence just isn’t true. Not everything in the AAA space is overpriced. Maybe if you only play CoD, Fortnite and FIFA ultimate team, but as a blanket statement it just isn’t true at all. Forza Horizon 5 came out this month - no microtransactions. Doom Eternal, Ghosts of Tsushima, Elden Ring next month, I could go on.

The difference is your view is poisoned by complicity. We both accept this stuff is worse for the consumer and grossly overpriced. So, rather than participating in it, shouldn’t 343i deviate from it? Shouldn’t we as consumers resist it given that we KNOW 343i have made decisions based on our feedback? They delayed the game a whole year because of consumer backlash.

Remember when 343i announced how battle passes would never expire and were praised for bucking the trend? This is one of the biggest franchises in gaming. It doesn’t need to gouge players in this way to make money.

Halo made billions of dollars without this stuff. Halo 3 made more money than Spiderman 3 and Pirates of the Caribbean for crying out loud. This isn’t necessary for them to survive, it’s pure greed and testing player patience. Let’s just call it what it is.

I’m not saying 343i are “uniquely terrible”. I just don’t want this crap in Halo. CoD has been on the decline for years, maybe emulating them isn’t the best idea?

1 Like
54

I get the argument. 343i are doing it because other games (mainly battle royales) are doing it.

I just don’t accept that as a valid reason. Doing something because “that’s just the way it is now” is the lowest form of reasoning.

I accepted this game would have microtransactions. I didn’t know basic progression would be so barebones that without paying you’re essentially denied being able to customisation your Spartan in any meaningful way. I’m more critical of the execution rather than just the idea. If these skins were a couple dollars each, and we had Reach style credits and armour unlocks, this wouldn’t even be an issue.

2 Likes
55

All the armor I want doesn’t exist/ is at the end of a 200 pay wall. Stop being a Stan.

1 Like
56

I like to actually have fun unlocking cosmetics, something Halo has always done fairly well. Well, Halo 5 might be an exception.

Sure the actual gameplay might be good but I just cannot bring myself to support this downright predatory monetization scheme.

Free to play was a mistake. We deserve a fully fleshed out progression/unlock system like we had with Halo 3 and Reach.

57

Other games having worse schemes doesn’t make an impact whatsoever in my disapproval of how Halo does it. The fact 343 can see that and, instead of finding a better way, decide to do the same is a bigger indictment against them.

1 Like
58

I edited to be more clear, but given that we’re talking about an FPS title, and I’ve made multiple comparisons to other FPS, I thought it was pretty obvious what I was talking about. It’s my mistake for assuming as much. I’m speaking about FPS titles in the AAA marketplace, of your comparisons the only one that is relevant is Doom, and its an outlier.

That you’re calling me “complicit” means you’re either not reading or you’re resorting to personal jabs because you have little by way of a real counterpoint. I’m all for not supporting this. I’m all for criticism, when it’s accurate and constructive (a point I feel I’ve reiterated ad nauseum by now). The last time Halo made any real money pre-infinite was the release of their last title and its associated microtransactions. That release was six years ago, and every other release older. You pointing out what the franchise has made is apples to oranges compared to the current AAA pricing model. There has been article after article over the past 3 years about how unsustainable the AAA development process is based on a $60 price tag, yet the market still blows up in outrage when a game drops at a higher price, or has multiple planned expansions that push that total price up over time. Many peoples disposition seems driven by this thought that devs don’t need profit, that a 20 year old franchise having made billions over that period is somehow doing ok financially. That is I’ll informed.

Ask yourself honestly, do you really think feedback would have been any more positive had 343i released its MP separately at $60, alongside a $60 campaign? If you’re being honest, you know we’d be seeing the same stuff: “this isn’t Halo”, “343i is ripping off its fanbase” etc.

1 Like
59

I think that’s a perfectly fair gripe.

60

I’m not trying to be rude at all, but if you agree that something is a bad business practice but don’t want to speak against it/think it should be standard, that’s being complicit to me. I didn’t mean it in a pejorative way though. I understand why you would be used to this stuff because it’s in a lot of popular shooters. I had hoped that if this trend infected Halo, it would at least be better implemented.

You’re right, you did specify AAA FPS, I realised after but didn’t edit it out lol.

Here’s the thing- we all knew Infinite would have microtransactions. I can live with that. It’s the execution, not the idea, that has rubbed me the wrong way.

Specific prices of items/bundles, no progressive rank system being tied to armour, substantially fewer free armours that are attainable over time etc.
This stuff permeates to the gameplay as well - as stats aren’t tracked now, whether you win or lose in any non-ranked mode is irrelevant. A bunch of players will queue in games just to get certain challenges.
Player performances also have zero impact on battle pass or rank progression. Which exacerbates this issue.

Like I said, execution of these ideas is what bugs me more than anything. If pricing was reasonable and there was more earnable free content tied to a more functional system, I wouldn’t even have an issue.