Well yea. You think they make this -Yoink!- for free. You have any idea what the divorce rate is in this industry due to the long crunches
20 to 100 dollars?
thats a bit overkill mate.
i don’t think the costs is for us middle class people. but, for people who are rich.
Sorry but $10 Battle Passes aren’t going to help towards the next halo.
It’s the $200+ players will drop to purchase useless cosmetics or skip the Battle Pass entirely, which kind of makes Battle Passes redundant right?
It is a marketing scheme purely designed to make more money over a longer period of time instead of only getting a massive amount of money upfront in the beginning and then it slowly trickles off to a steady number.
If you were a company, the money is telling you to go with the F2P+Battle Pass route because that makes more money(and requires slightly less work) especially since for some incredibly odd reason, players are more concerned with how pretty their characters will look more so than getting new maps, story content, characters, missions, weapons or any real quality DLC.
My arguement to this is that instead of just blatantly cash grabbing, they could -Yoink!- money without having to torture us first.
People love progression. It’s gaming with a goal that does it for people. Season Pass does this for you. But it’s one thing to make your progression utterly dogdoodoo and ultimately useless and another thing to make your progression fair and have more auxiliary benefits for paying players.
I wouldn’t mind paying 20 bucks for Premium Season Pass and having the option to buy additional colour palettes and coatings on the side, as well as limited time armors which aren’t just cut out of the Season Pass.
Right now the customization system straight up cuts out a huge chunk of content and shoves it into the shops, which is just horrid. Plus the inability to mix and match. I was so looking forward to using like, Tenrai Legs on my Halo Reach Armor, but now I realise I can’t cos LOL CORES.
1 Like
You and a lot of people are missing the point. It doesnt matter if the armour was $4. A lot of people wouldnt pay it. -Yoink!- a lot of people wouldnt even pay $10 for a pack of halo 3 maps back in the day. Think of the armor as a $5 item but whoever buys one is also covering the cost for the 4 peeps who wouldnt buy it = $25.
Again I’m not justifying any of this. I just call it like I see it.
I disagree with this argument.
The problem is not whether it is actually sustainable for the game to be reasonably priced, it quite clearly is.
Take Halo 3 for example. They say they it cost $60 million including marketing etc. The game made nearly three times that on day one. 14.5 million copies sold.
I think it’s disingenuous to claim that they need more money to pay the developers reasonably. The only reason that they are considering the model is because some companies have done so and made lots of money. Once one company does that, everyone gets a whiff of the profits and suddenly they can’t settle for less.
Purchasing things in the store and the battlepass seem to me like the worst way to ensure the future of the franchise. It gives them zero incentive to make another better game, or to improve the writing, gameplay, etc. The only thing it tells them is that they should focus more and more on cosmetics and mtx. That’s the ten year plan… sell a $40-60 campaign every year if possible, and spend 10 years developing seasons of minor changes and pricey cosmetics, rather than spend 10 years on the future of Halo.
2 Likes
There is no way in hell I would pay for any customizables. in “ANY” game. I don’t care how good the game is lol. I could care less,
2 Likes
Oh man, this argument again. Video game prizes actually have inflated a bit over the years. But what really bothers me is that multiplayer was bundled with the campaign in previous iterations and now they want you to pay for the campaign and a premium for multiplayer on top of it. I don’t believe for one bit that they would make a loss on this game if they only sold it for base price.
Now I don’t necessarily oppose the battle pass system, but the execution at the moment is just egregious and greedy. I think it would generate a lot more sympathy if they were a bit more generous is giving away more customization items and decrease their shop item prices by a lot. I mean, you must be an idiot if you pay 10-20 bucks for a skin. Ask 2 or 3 bucks and more people would be on board with it.
2 Likes
I’ve said this before. The Battle Pass itself is fine, It’s the Progression System that isn’t necessary.
The whole point of MTXs is to get money, more money, more money than usual, that’s literally the whole point, because not a single Dev looks at a feature, colour, cosmetic etc and says “Damn this isn’t important, may as well let someone pay for it.”
The whole idea behind making stuff Free to Play is that they can get 6 years worth of profit in 6 months.
F2P is and can be incredibly profitable, and nowadays, A Video Game’s success is based entirely on whether or not the MTX’s are returning a good profit, instead of if the game plays well. If the profit margin isn’t what they expected, the game could be deemed a failure and support could be dropped.
So the game can be good, but not make many sales through MTX’s = failure & cancelled.
The game can be absolute -Yoink!-, but make many sales through MTX’s = A success story and a few extra years of support and cancelled sequel because this F2P “service” is “performing” so well.
The F2P model is an online store with a game wrapped around it, they’re only looking at the sales of their in-game store, and how they can change it to increase those sales. Otherwise Halo Infinite could be a huge failure, despite being a really solid game.
1 Like
again, your still encouraging money that should never be spent and then complain about it later.
thats an issue.
your allowing them to play you tell your broke. then you wonder why you don’t have cash. cause you keep wasting it on these items.
then later when features get locked behind a paywall. you complain, lol.
this is a problem.
its up there with rockstar and take two gold bars and gambling bad habits.
Game studios do not require 100s of people look at indie games… some indie games have better quality than games made by larger companies… Technology has advanced to the point that your basic youtuber can make a decent movie of pixar style quality so, I don’t believe that game companies have to be 100s of people strong… Also a larger amount of developers can create gaps in production with smaller groups you have a tighter knit group better able to work towards a single goal, where larger groups of people can have a lot of goals that can even conflict with each other. A large company like microsoft would be better off splitting diffrent groups into teams to make multiple games through multiple publishers and developers… your just pushing for microtransations so a company can focus on ONE game alone… Take Toy companies for example Does hasbro only make Hot wheels? no they make multiple toys so they can make more profit also if one toy fails they don’t lose everything. I’m willing to bet 343 isn’t very large compared to microsoft as a whole.
Free my dude? It’s sponsored by Microsoft. It’s not free at all. You’re either paying $60 outright or $15 monthly for this game. On top of your Live subscription. Free? Please.
The multiplayer, which is a separate live service game, is free to play on both PC and console. You can pay absolutely nothing to play it. I don’t.
The campaign, which is a separate game, is a $60 up front cost (or whatever recurring payment you have for game pass).
Nobody here seems to understand that a one time payment does not make up for a recurring cost.
Multiplayer games are live-service by nature. Microsoft is providing dedicated servers for the game, paying developers to update it and balance it over time, taking developer time away from other projects, paying for licensing, marketing, and a huge host of other things. These things cost an exorbitant amount of money to continuously run. They have to have at least as much money continuously coming in as revenue just to offset those costs, let alone profit.
Paying a single price one time is great for games where the company isn’t constantly pouring more resources into the game. That’s why the campaign for Halo Infinite is a single time payment of $60. The multiplayer portion of the game cannot feasibly be priced that way.
I feel like inflation isn’t totally applicable to games as much as it is elsewhere. Yes, it takes more to make a AAA game nowadays. Yes, inflation has devalued the price of the dollar. But games are pure digital nowadays, so selling more copies doesn’t increase the cost of production. And we have more people buying games than ever. If you spend $100,000,000 on a game, and 5,000,0000 people buy it at $60, then you’ve basically made $200,000,000. So is the $60 price tag unsustainable? Maybe, but I think I’m going to need more evidence than just inflation.
Well, they have game pass to generate increased revenue. And they have sold DLC which brought in some revenue. Yeah, that won’t keep a game alive forever. But do people here want to play Halo Infinite forever? Even if the game lasts 10 years, will you still be playing it when it’s 10 years old? Some people sure, but the audience will likely shrink, hence the server costs will shrink overtime.
Obviously, we knew crap like this was coming from day one that F2P was announced. And factors like inflation, dramatically increased dev costs, etc all mean that the old $60 MSRP for a full-baked game model isn’t profitable anymore. It’s fair, and actually super understandable that legacy fans think they’re not getting the same value for money that they used to. Reach is the posrer boy example of a massive value proposition at the time of its release, which Infinite doesn’t hold a candle to in terms of what you get for your money when you buy the campaign.
Again, some degree of this was inevitable. Games are a product and they have to be profitable to be made in the first place. The Battle Pass is something that can be renewed and sold repeatedly to generate revenue, so obviously it makes sense on that level.
That said, the Battle Pass doesn’t feel like a great value as it stands. The number of cosmetics available through the Season 1 BP is frankly underwhelming, and the number of tiers that are padded with swaps and boosts is downright goofy. Yes, it’s only $10. Except, that $10 only buys you the privilege to grind and grind and grind some more, or the option to pay more to skip grinding for some cosmetic you want that locked behind 40-80 levels of “meh” stuff and swaps/boosts. Add on top of that all the seemingly arbitrary restrictions around core-locking cosmetics and even Coatings, and many players just feel like they’re being ripped off- not unreasonably IMO.
The Battle Pass was, in some form, inevitable and this sort of monetization is here to stay whether longtime fans like it or not. That said, this is definitely a bad first impression in terms of making people feel like they’re receiving value for their money.
That’s completely ignoring the super expensive in-game storefront that exists separately from the BP and feels like it took a lot of cosmetics that could/should have been implemented in the Battle Pass to make that a better value. Seeing so many iconic Reach armors pop up in the store but absent from the “Heroes of Reach” battle pass makes the pass feel incomplete.
Op talking out his crap smeared behind. Go actually look at a games msrp in the 80s and 90s
I think OP is a paid shill or a whale
Let me stop you there. Halo 3s 60 million doesnt even remotely compare to infinite 500 million. Were talking halo 3 times 10 almost. Not to mention this game has been tying up resources for 6 years. Microsoft could churn out any other AAA in 3 so that’s 2 games turning a profit wasted on 1. To make a profit the old way this game would need to sell at about $100 a copy and digital only to keep it away from bargain gamers scourging the used game bi