The current DLCs feel like they are done without any real motivation, so I’m really looking forward to DLCs that are NOT free. Money would most likely motivate 343i to do good maps and weapons. Stop the free DLC, give us priced DLCs, please!
> 2535471991540566;1:
> The current DLCs feel like they are done without any real motivation, so I’m really looking forward to DLCs that are NOT free. Money would most likely motivate 343i to do good maps and weapons. Stop the free DLC, give us priced DLCs, please!
You’re asking to pay money for something being given for free? There is no reason to think that paying for it would make it better. I’m looking forward to trying out the hunter’s arm.
Think about it this way: most DLC is over 4 months and is paid. Halo 5’s DLC comes out every month and is free. If the Battle of Shadow and Light through Hammer Storm updates were combined, would you find it high quality? Because the updates were given out each month, many make the mistake of thinking that they’re low quality. If you combine the updates, I think you’ll find that there’s a lot of content in the updates.
Hopefully never.
I do not think we will be seeing paid DLC in Halo anytime soon. 343i seems to have found a way of not splitting the population, while providing new content, and Microsoft’s investors are probably pleased at the amount of revenue Halo 5’s micro-transactions bring. I like that Halo 5’s micro-transactions are “balanced,” but I’m not liking the direction that these micro-transactions are taking. You start with bringing in new REQ packs that are worth $10 (at least you had the option of spending your REQ points on them [80,000 REQ Points]), then REQ Pack Bundles came (now you couldn’t purchase these with REQ points), next we had “exclusive” REQ Packs that were only available for a limited time (a month later, they came as part of the update for everyone else), and now we have REQ Packs without RNG. At first, the REQ system seemed like a balanced way of making profit for 343i/Microsoft without making people think they were getting screwed over. Now, the REQ system is slowly “forcing” players to pay, if they want to be part of the experience. I hope Halo 6 comes up with a better micro-transaction system, since it seems we will not get rid of it.
> 2533274880633045;2:
> > 2535471991540566;1:
> > The current DLCs feel like they are done without any real motivation, so I’m really looking forward to DLCs that are NOT free. Money would most likely motivate 343i to do good maps and weapons. Stop the free DLC, give us priced DLCs, please!
>
>
> You’re asking to pay money for something being given for free? There is no reason to think that paying for it would make it better. I’m looking forward to trying out the hunter’s arm.
In theory, the idea of paid DLC (in fact any commonly sold good or service) is that the quality of it should reflect the price of it. If the price is too high, or the quality too low, no one will want to buy it, and the companies making it will lose money. If the price is too low, then the profits may not offset the resources invested, and the companies will also lose money.
The problem that paid DLC has run into in recent years is that devs and publishers have been scaling back more and more, offering less and less content while simultaneously charging more money for what they do offer. It has reached a point where the value is no longer worth the cost to most consumers, and many companies have started losing money on every DLC they put out. Many devs and publishers have seen this, and also the success of many free2play games, and realized that they can invest even fewer resources in their DLC (consequentially lowering its quality even further), throw in some cheap microtransactions to offset the costs, and then paint themselves as champions for the consumer by giving away their new crappy DLC for free.
Heck no. It’s a slap in the face to give us free stuff and then make us pay for stuff later on, especially considering the “meh” quality of these update drops. There’s also the fact that paid dlc is done poorly by most companies out there. Map packs aren’t worth money, game modes aren’t worth money? This is the stuff if imagine 343 would sell and sorry to say, but people are dumb as -Yoink- for blowing money on map packs when other games gave you maps completely for free. Good dlc is stuff that’s new, adds replay value to the entire game, not some map that I’ll never see cuz everyone in your lobby has to have it in order for it to be played. Paid dlc hasn’t worked for halo since reach(some would argue h3), and h4, even with dlc only playlists due to low pop actually playing them. Paid dlc doesn’t guarantee better content either, what’s stopping the devs from making it less quality once you buy a season pass? You’ve already given them the money, what’s stopping them?
> 2535455681930574;3:
> Think about it this way: most DLC is over 4 months and is paid. Halo 5’s DLC comes out every month and is paid. If the Battle of Shadow and Light through Hammer Storm updates were combined, would you find it high quality? Because the updates were given out each month, many make the mistake of thinking that they’re low quality. If you combine the updates, I think you’ll find that there’s a lot of content in the updates.
Thats a very good way of thinking about it. I hadn’t considered it from that view. In that respect yeah, gotta say the DLC would be considered better.
Gta v gave us the dankest experience of our lives because of free dlc and micro transaction and that was problematic to say the least cause things are near impossible to earn yet Halo 5 I think is surpassing that because things are obtainable.
I hope other multiplayer games get some sence that this is the best way forward for new content that will always be there unlike dlc that was paid for that can’t be accessed any more.
To be honest I don’t particularly want any DLC for Halo 5, considering that extra content for warzone or req items may put those at a disadvantage if they didn’t have the dlc item. Appearance wise DLC content won’t affect gameplay, however as a community we have to ask ourselves do we want any more armours or emblems? Locked away power weapons and vehicles will affect gameplay to those that don’t have it and I don’t think there is a place for paid DLC in Halo 5. Take Reach for example, it had map packs which enabled players to play on classic or new maps, though the ones which didn’t get it couldn’t play those maps or modes. Halo 6 rather than staggered content over a period of a year would do better with this approach, don’t make prices too costly, maybe make a DLC season pass, but tell as what is in stall for the game similar to Mafia 3. In a way req packs are kind of link paid dlc, but with nothing new. The only reasonable thing which could be made into paid DLC is game modes, but there would be a dispute about how we shouldn’t wait only to have to pay money for the things we love. So overall no, I don’t think paid DLC is necessary, Halo 6 is the next game to give that a shot. I mean already Halo 5 is over 100gb. Which is insane and doesn’t offer a reasonable replay value for the amount it takes up. You could probably buy 9 or 8 good games like portal or borderlands 2 that would give you more playability for the storage.
Sometimes I am waiting 5-10 minutes to match up. With paid DLC, it would split the community to a point where we could not match up at all.
> 2533274865178253;6:
> > 2533274880633045;2:
> > > 2535471991540566;1:
> > > The current DLCs feel like they are done without any real motivation, so I’m really looking forward to DLCs that are NOT free. Money would most likely motivate 343i to do good maps and weapons. Stop the free DLC, give us priced DLCs, please!
> >
> >
> > You’re asking to pay money for something being given for free? There is no reason to think that paying for it would make it better. I’m looking forward to trying out the hunter’s arm.
>
>
> In theory, the idea of paid DLC (in fact any commonly sold good or service) is that the quality of it should reflect the price of it. If the price is too high, or the quality too low, no one will want to buy it, and the companies making it will lose money. If the price is too low, then the profits may not offset the resources invested, and the companies will also lose money.
>
> The problem that paid DLC has run into in recent years is that devs and publishers have been scaling back more and more, offering less and less content while simultaneously charging more money for what they do offer. It has reached a point where the value is no longer worth the cost to most consumers, and many companies have started losing money on every DLC they put out. Many devs and publishers have seen this, and also the success of many free2play games, and realized that they can invest even fewer resources in their DLC (consequentially lowering its quality even further), throw in some cheap microtransactions to offset the costs, and then paint themselves as champions for the consumer by giving away their new crappy DLC for free.
Which again goes to my point. Paying for it in no way means we would be getting something different. A few new reqs to add to the pool and a couple of maps. The amount of DLC that is overpriced (IMO) in insanely high. I’m not fond of the episodic releases that Halo 5 has had, but if Halo 6 ships complete (in terms of game types and playlists) and then uses a similar model of releasing new maps, it wouldn’t be the worst thing ever. My issues with microtransactions aside the model has the possibility of turning into a boon.
At the same time if they switch back to a paid map pack model there is absolutely no guarantee of quality. Having paid for something doesn’t make it better.
Halo 3: 13 maps between 2007 and 2009. One set of additional armor (Recon)
Halo 5: 6 Arena maps (including remixes), 6 Warzone maps (including Assault variants). Dozens of new cosmetic unlocks, new weapons and vehicles, Three new game modes/types (Warzone Firefight, Infection and Assault - which can be configured into Oddball and Ricochet). Tonnes of new Forge pieces and additions. All within the first year as of Anvil’s Legacy.
Just sayin’. Don’t get why people are complaining about the “drip feed” thing.
just buy some reqs !
dont try to make us pay for something that is already free
I didn’t think people would actually ask 343 for more ways to spend money.
Regardless of whether or not you spend your money, you aren’t guaranteed to get quality DLC (even though that is a matter of opinion, but I digress).
I’ll be -Yoink!- if I pay money for DLC and get a Forge map.
It’s just the premise of wanting quality, fresh content… microtransactions allow these free updates to be viable, but the community has made it pretty clear that we’re looking for a little more than just rearranged/reskinned maps…
Thankfully a few of the remixes have been notably better and more diverse than what we got initially. I mean the outer ring of Overgrowth is basically exactly the same as Plaza, minus all of the interesting sight lines.
> 2533274880633045;12:
> > 2533274865178253;6:
> > > 2533274880633045;2:
> > > > 2535471991540566;1:
> > > > The current DLCs feel like they are done without any real motivation, so I’m really looking forward to DLCs that are NOT free. Money would most likely motivate 343i to do good maps and weapons. Stop the free DLC, give us priced DLCs, please!
> > >
> > >
> > > You’re asking to pay money for something being given for free? There is no reason to think that paying for it would make it better. I’m looking forward to trying out the hunter’s arm.
> >
> >
> > In theory, the idea of paid DLC (in fact any commonly sold good or service) is that the quality of it should reflect the price of it. If the price is too high, or the quality too low, no one will want to buy it, and the companies making it will lose money. If the price is too low, then the profits may not offset the resources invested, and the companies will also lose money.
> >
> > The problem that paid DLC has run into in recent years is that devs and publishers have been scaling back more and more, offering less and less content while simultaneously charging more money for what they do offer. It has reached a point where the value is no longer worth the cost to most consumers, and many companies have started losing money on every DLC they put out. Many devs and publishers have seen this, and also the success of many free2play games, and realized that they can invest even fewer resources in their DLC (consequentially lowering its quality even further), throw in some cheap microtransactions to offset the costs, and then paint themselves as champions for the consumer by giving away their new crappy DLC for free.
>
>
> Which again goes to my point. Paying for it in no way means we would be getting something different. A few new reqs to add to the pool and a couple of maps. The amount of DLC that is overpriced (IMO) in insanely high. I’m not fond of the episodic releases that Halo 5 has had, but if Halo 6 ships complete (in terms of game types and playlists) and then uses a similar model of releasing new maps, it wouldn’t be the worst thing ever. My issues with microtransactions aside the model has the possibility of turning into a boon.
>
> At the same time if they switch back to a paid map pack model there is absolutely no guarantee of quality. Having paid for something doesn’t make it better.
Actually, no. The way DLC was trending was towards an increase in quality and/or a drop in price. When a product or service continues to go up in price and down in quality/quantity it eventually reaches a point where the market says enough, and the demand plummets. When that happens, the producer must either lower the price, increase the quality/quantity, or stop selling altogether. The advent of microtransactions in full-priced games has enabled devs and publishers to avoid doing this. Even though the price has gone down to $0, the microtransactions system is meant to offset the cost. Despite that fact, there is still no direct profit to be gained from the DLC, so there is no incentive for them to invest much time or resources in it.
In short, returning to a paid system would mean getting something better, because it would provide the incentive for 343i to create content that people would be willing to pay for.
> 2535455681930574;3:
> Think about it this way: most DLC is over 4 months and is paid. Halo 5’s DLC comes out every month and is free. If the Battle of Shadow and Light through Hammer Storm updates were combined, would you find it high quality? Because the updates were given out each month, many make the mistake of thinking that they’re low quality. If you combine the updates, I think you’ll find that there’s a lot of content in the updates.
This is very true and part of a point that I’ve made before. If Halo 6 adapts a similar update plan to Halo 5 I really hope that instead of a monthly basis, that they release 3 months of content in one update every three months. The monthly update system gave out a lot of content, but because it was a trickle instead of a big release, they didn’t feel as impactful. Three months of the “free” content would be like 3-4 maps, 100+ REQs, and a noticeable amount of bug fixes and tweaks. They could also expand Arena Seasons to coincide with the release of these quarterly updates. At the end of the season they could implement the new maps/content to make every season stand out.
Obviously they have to launch the game in a complete state. Things like Forge, the Content Browser, Infection, ext. all need to be there at launch. These things cannot be cut and released later. It was a major part of what killed Halo 5 early on.
What?
> 2533274865178253;17:
> > 2533274880633045;12:
> > > 2533274865178253;6:
> > > > 2533274880633045;2:
> > > > > 2535471991540566;1:
> > > > > The current DLCs feel like they are done without any real motivation, so I’m really looking forward to DLCs that are NOT free. Money would most likely motivate 343i to do good maps and weapons. Stop the free DLC, give us priced DLCs, please!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You’re asking to pay money for something being given for free? There is no reason to think that paying for it would make it better. I’m looking forward to trying out the hunter’s arm.
> > >
> > >
> > > In theory, the idea of paid DLC (in fact any commonly sold good or service) is that the quality of it should reflect the price of it. If the price is too high, or the quality too low, no one will want to buy it, and the companies making it will lose money. If the price is too low, then the profits may not offset the resources invested, and the companies will also lose money.
> > >
> > > The problem that paid DLC has run into in recent years is that devs and publishers have been scaling back more and more, offering less and less content while simultaneously charging more money for what they do offer. It has reached a point where the value is no longer worth the cost to most consumers, and many companies have started losing money on every DLC they put out. Many devs and publishers have seen this, and also the success of many free2play games, and realized that they can invest even fewer resources in their DLC (consequentially lowering its quality even further), throw in some cheap microtransactions to offset the costs, and then paint themselves as champions for the consumer by giving away their new crappy DLC for free.
> >
> >
> > Which again goes to my point. Paying for it in no way means we would be getting something different. A few new reqs to add to the pool and a couple of maps. The amount of DLC that is overpriced (IMO) in insanely high. I’m not fond of the episodic releases that Halo 5 has had, but if Halo 6 ships complete (in terms of game types and playlists) and then uses a similar model of releasing new maps, it wouldn’t be the worst thing ever. My issues with microtransactions aside the model has the possibility of turning into a boon.
> >
> > At the same time if they switch back to a paid map pack model there is absolutely no guarantee of quality. Having paid for something doesn’t make it better.
>
>
> Actually, no. The way DLC was trending was towards an increase in quality and/or a drop in price. When a product or service continues to go up in price and down in quality/quantity it eventually reaches a point where the market says enough, and the demand plummets. When that happens, the producer must either lower the price, increase the quality/quantity, or stop selling altogether. The advent of microtransactions in full-priced games has enabled devs and publishers to avoid doing this. Even though the price has gone down to $0, the microtransactions system is meant to offset the cost. Despite that fact, there is still no direct profit to be gained from the DLC, so there is no incentive for them to invest much time or resources in it.
>
> In short, returning to a paid system would mean getting something better, because it would provide the incentive for 343i to create content that people would be willing to pay for.
Yeah, the season passes starting at half the price of the game and going up (sometimes even more expensive than the game) and rarely being worth half the price asked are 'improvements in quality or reductions in price?" This is an industry wide thing. Games are released now with the expectation that you will purchase those things at the price often without knowing the full content at the time. I can literally name dozens of games with overpriced DLC from Arkham to AC. There was a time when DLC were major additions to the game, not just map packs or cosmetic stuff. You would pick up DLC and it would be a whole new area to explore sometimes comparable to the original game. It has gotten worse over time in large part due to the fact that people were to willing to shed their cash in exchange for diminishing returns.
“The expectation of quality?”
While yes, if we were offered the chance to pay for the content we would have a choice about whether we do or not. That doesn’t mean anything. If you recall there came a point where DLC was required to play certain playlists in Halo 3. Likewise they can easily turn that option into a mandatory by making it required for key playlists without upping the quality any. Charging for something doesn’t mean you’re going to produce quality when it easy to convince people to buy crap. The one thing doesn’t necessarily follow from the other.