If 343 removed the ability ro buy them with real money. You could only earn req points from playing.
that removes the entire point of why they are the way they are. but yea id like the entire thing to be redone in 6
No, it’s still random.
No
No sir I didn’t like it
(obscure ren and stimpy reference)
Yes I would support it, I have all reqs without spending a single cent. Quite frankly I don’t care if it costs money or not, if people want to spend the extra dollars then go ahead, doesn’t bother me either way.
With both options to buy or use req points is cool
But you can already buy them only with Req points. I haven’t spent a dime on gold packs and still have plenty of fun playing on Warzone. The problem I have specifically with Req packs are that you can only get armors and emblems through them. I had the same emblem from Halo CE all the way to MCC and was frantically disappointed when I found out I could only get my emblem from buying Req packs. Also, in Halo 3 and Reach, you always had a goal for which armor you wanted to unlock next, either you saved up credits or got all the vidmasters and you feel like you’ve accomplished something. Like you’ve earned the armor. Halo 5 it’s just random and honestly, I don’t like most of the armor designs. Those are the only two things I would change about Reqs. Everything else is fine.
Doing that you just remove the pay for better opportunity but you still retain the rng that people dislike.remove the rng and it would probably work better.
Unfortunately I’m not sure that I would support that. Whether the results are good or not, monetizing REQ packs brings out the only advantage of them : free DLC. While the quality of the DLC can be argued, nobody can say that it isn’t nice to have everybody have access to the same content without the obligation of paying money for it. If you want to, you can pay the 80$ to buy the game and then get the same amount of maps as anybody else. The community is no longer split by players who have different amounts of content.
Of course, there are definitely better ways to give us free DLC or to make sure that the community isn’t split. But if we are to keep having REQs, I would enjoy keeping the one benefit they do give us.
I would hate them a little less.
but it would still run on pure rng and that alone is enough to get me to despise it.
> 2533274808386392;10:
> Unfortunately I’m not sure that I would support that. Whether the results are good or not, monetizing REQ packs brings out the only advantage of them : free DLC. While the quality of the DLC can be argued, nobody can say that it isn’t nice to have everybody have access to the same content without the obligation of paying money for it. If you want to, you can pay the 80$ to buy the game and then get the same amount of maps as anybody else. The community is no longer split by players who have different amounts of content.
>
> Of course, there are definitely better ways to give us free DLC or to make sure that the community isn’t split. But if we are to keep having REQs, I would enjoy keeping the one benefit they do give us.
Pretty sure the reqs didn’t pay for the dlc…seeing as how it was announced months before release.
meaning all of it was cut content, I mean look at what the PC folk dug out of the halo 5’s forge. An anti air wraith, a sentinel beam, the REACH GRENADE LAUNCHER, and a HANNIBAL WASP.
I can’t say I would ever support the REQ system at all, but if the option to pay with actual money was removed, I could see myself disliking it less.
I support micro transactions in multiplayer games it is needed, paid dlc is horrible it has a limited time of use. Why would you want content with a “sell by date”?
And lets get it straight people aren’t mad about the quality of dlc. They’re mad about the quantity. I think the quality has gone up over time and it’s not like people didn’t complain when it was dlc.
The community wanted micro transaction to fix the problem with dlc cause people couldn’t play the dlc they paid for late game and so the community wasn’t split.
If any thing you should be thinking games that still have multiplayer dlc is a money grabbing scheme cause you won’t be able to access it late game and they couldn’t care that the community was split.
> 2533275012929540;12:
> > 2533274808386392;10:
> > Unfortunately I’m not sure that I would support that. Whether the results are good or not, monetizing REQ packs brings out the only advantage of them : free DLC. While the quality of the DLC can be argued, nobody can say that it isn’t nice to have everybody have access to the same content without the obligation of paying money for it. If you want to, you can pay the 80$ to buy the game and then get the same amount of maps as anybody else. The community is no longer split by players who have different amounts of content.
> >
> > Of course, there are definitely better ways to give us free DLC or to make sure that the community isn’t split. But if we are to keep having REQs, I would enjoy keeping the one benefit they do give us.
>
>
> Pretty sure the reqs didn’t pay for the dlc…seeing as how it was announced months before release.
>
>
> meaning all of it was cut content, I mean look at what the PC folk dug out of the halo 5’s forge. An anti air wraith, a sentinel beam, the REACH GRENADE LAUNCHER, and a HANNIBAL WASP.
Sure, but without the microtransaction system, they would be charging us for map packs, just like they did in every past Halo game. It was even said to us long ago that moving to a microtransaction system was what allowed them to give free updates rather than paid DLC. And with the support of microtransactions, we’ve gotten Anvil’s Legacy and other future support that will be coming. If REQs did not sell at all, I doubt they would make more content past June, as was initially announced.
Plus, for the record, every game’s DLC tends to start being made prior to launch. Bungie did that with their Halo games, the same thing clearly happened for Fallout 4, as well as many other games. It’s standard practice, like it or not.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like the randomness of the REQ system for unlocking armour and whatnot, but this thread is about whether or not paying money should be an option if it does stay. I would prefer if the REQ system did not return in Halo 6, but if it were, might as well keep the incentive for them to give us free DLC again.
> 2533274808386392;15:
> > 2533275012929540;12:
> > > 2533274808386392;10:
> > > Unfortunately I’m not sure that I would support that. Whether the results are good or not, monetizing REQ packs brings out the only advantage of them : free DLC. While the quality of the DLC can be argued, nobody can say that it isn’t nice to have everybody have access to the same content without the obligation of paying money for it. If you want to, you can pay the 80$ to buy the game and then get the same amount of maps as anybody else. The community is no longer split by players who have different amounts of content.
> > >
> > > Of course, there are definitely better ways to give us free DLC or to make sure that the community isn’t split. But if we are to keep having REQs, I would enjoy keeping the one benefit they do give us.
> >
> >
> > Pretty sure the reqs didn’t pay for the dlc…seeing as how it was announced months before release.
> >
> >
> > meaning all of it was cut content, I mean look at what the PC folk dug out of the halo 5’s forge. An anti air wraith, a sentinel beam, the REACH GRENADE LAUNCHER, and a HANNIBAL WASP.
>
>
> Sure, but without the microtransaction system, they would be charging us for map packs, just like they did in every past Halo game. It was even said to us long ago that moving to a microtransaction system was what allowed them to give free updates rather than paid DLC. And with the support of microtransactions, we’ve gotten Anvil’s Legacy and other future support that will be coming. If REQs did not sell at all, I doubt they would make more content past June, as was initially announced.
>
> Plus, for the record, every game’s DLC tends to start being made prior to launch. Bungie did that with their Halo games, the same thing clearly happened for Fallout 4, as well as many other games. It’s standard practice, like it or not.
>
> Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like the randomness of the REQ system for unlocking armour and whatnot, but this thread is about whether or not paying money should be an option if it does stay. I would prefer if the REQ system did not return in Halo 6, but if it were, might as well keep the incentive for them to give us free DLC again.
They wouldn’t change anything at all of their weren’t microtransactions (in fact the MT’s could have bombed and they still would have released the updates), They literally said months before release that all the updates would be free, they only said reqs would help pay for them to excuse the fact that they added microtransactions (besides all the stuff they added was already in development before launch just like dlc). If they went back on their word they would be committing corporate suicide and what little reputation they had left would have been smashed into tiny little pieces for hyper false advertisement and someone probably would have been sued. I would also rather pay for 3-4 good maps then get 2-3 free reskins of maps that were already reskins in the first place.
That will never happen with Microsoft here
There wouldn’t be any reqs if they weren’t available via cash. They exist to make money only, I think the idea that they helped pay for DLC is just wrong. We didn’t get true DLC, we got a slow release of Halo 5. Withheld content does not equal DLC.
If REQs only applied to Warzone (i.e. they only unlocked single use REQs and customization was separate) I’d be more ok with them. Not a fan of RNG determining what armor I have.
Not a fan of REQs in general, though.
> 2533275012929540;16:
> > 2533274808386392;15:
> > > 2533275012929540;12:
> > > > 2533274808386392;10:
> > > > Unfortunately I’m not sure that I would support that. Whether the results are good or not, monetizing REQ packs brings out the only advantage of them : free DLC. While the quality of the DLC can be argued, nobody can say that it isn’t nice to have everybody have access to the same content without the obligation of paying money for it. If you want to, you can pay the 80$ to buy the game and then get the same amount of maps as anybody else. The community is no longer split by players who have different amounts of content.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, there are definitely better ways to give us free DLC or to make sure that the community isn’t split. But if we are to keep having REQs, I would enjoy keeping the one benefit they do give us.
> > >
> > >
> > > Pretty sure the reqs didn’t pay for the dlc…seeing as how it was announced months before release.
> > >
> > >
> > > meaning all of it was cut content, I mean look at what the PC folk dug out of the halo 5’s forge. An anti air wraith, a sentinel beam, the REACH GRENADE LAUNCHER, and a HANNIBAL WASP.
> >
> >
> > Sure, but without the microtransaction system, they would be charging us for map packs, just like they did in every past Halo game. It was even said to us long ago that moving to a microtransaction system was what allowed them to give free updates rather than paid DLC. And with the support of microtransactions, we’ve gotten Anvil’s Legacy and other future support that will be coming. If REQs did not sell at all, I doubt they would make more content past June, as was initially announced.
> >
> > Plus, for the record, every game’s DLC tends to start being made prior to launch. Bungie did that with their Halo games, the same thing clearly happened for Fallout 4, as well as many other games. It’s standard practice, like it or not.
> >
> > Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like the randomness of the REQ system for unlocking armour and whatnot, but this thread is about whether or not paying money should be an option if it does stay. I would prefer if the REQ system did not return in Halo 6, but if it were, might as well keep the incentive for them to give us free DLC again.
>
>
> They wouldn’t change anything at all of their weren’t microtransactions (in fact the MT’s could have bombed and they still would have released the updates), They literally said months before release that all the updates would be free, they only said reqs would help pay for them to excuse the fact that they added microtransactions (besides all the stuff they added was already in development before launch just like dlc). If they went back on their word they would be committing corporate suicide and what little reputation they had left would have been smashed into tiny little pieces for hyper false advertisement and someone probably would have been sued. I would also rather pay for 3-4 good maps then get 2-3 free reskins of maps that were already reskins in the first place.
Now it sounds like you’re jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon and don’t really understand how creating content works (especially as a small support team rather than the whole company), and are just hating on 343i for the sake of hating on them. If you think that 343i are evil and laughing at us as they make a bunch of money while releasing content that has been done for months, then by all means do so. I will gladly point out the videos of the unfinished Grenade Launcher, Sentinel Beam and Brute weapon concepts that everybody knows about. Those are clearly unfinished, and if they were simply 'withheld content", then they would be done, would they not? And what about Molten? What was clearly meant to be a simple remix of The Rig turned into its own map.
But hey, if you want to keep thinking that 343i is this big cruel mastermind who’s trying to take advantage of us. They’ve made a lot of huge mistakes with Halo 5 (story, lack of gametypes/features, no playlists, no customization, terrible art style, especially with the armours, etc.), and a lot of the quality of the DLC can be questioned, especially when we get stuffed like bad skins for bad armour, poor maps, pizza AR skins and the 20th purple visor. I will be the first in line to point out the faults in the company and the games that they have released. But it’s bad to blindly hate on everything they do and the advantages that some decisions brings, just as bad as blindly loving them without seeing their flaws.
But I could be wrong, and would love to see any concrete proof you have that everything they have released is withheld content and would have released this content even if microstransactions would not have made them a single cent. I am always willing to listen to proof to show me something about which I was wrong!