Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
To me, that just seems like a waste of time and money.
Plus, I have a suspicion that Halo Infinite will eventually tread the same path as other "free" multiplayer games by introducing membership subscription fees that would give players an unfair advantage over others by granting them access to the latest content.
Another reason why I find myself leaning more towards MCC, as 343i is presumably too busy at the moment focusing on Halo Infinite than to shift its attention to the MCC.
Well, that's understandable, but that's a much different and way more complicated situation than this, in regards to global economics and exchange rates and all that. Obviously I as a consumer would like Halo Infinite to be affordable for everyone but that is sadly not the case and I wish it were not that way.
Er... I don't think this is a reasonable way of looking at it. The reason why the previous games were bundled the way that they were is because they were over a decade old, some being 2 decades old, and were being resold as a package as a result. Each Halo game back then when they released was still the full price of a AAA game, and that didn't include how much you had to pay for their DLC. This is like saying every new Doom game should be $10 because Doom 3 BFG Edition exists, or that Half-Life Alyx should only be like $2 because of The Orange Box, or that the Resident Evil remakes should only be like $5 because of the originals bundle, so-on-so-forth.
I still don't understand what the alternative is. Should the Multiplayer not be free? Or should the game be free entirely? Or do you just want the Campaign to be cheaper? I would like the campaign to be cheaper, too. However the reason why the Multiplayer is free is because it's a different product that is live service and is very different from the campaign, and I'm still not entirely sure why that's a bad thing for it to be free.
This is a universal issue, and it moreso falls upon the anti-cheat to do it's job, not the game itself. I play Halo Infinite's Multiplayer semi-often and I have experienced a very minimal amount of cheaters, if any at all, so if it has a cheater problem, it's certainly not impacting me. I know that's entirely anecdotal, though.
Unfortunately, this is how any live service game makes money, regardless of the initial price being free or not. This has been the norm of gaming for over 10 years, now, and Halo Infinite isn't a unique case. If the game was going to be live service, it was going to have microtransactions or DLC's, sadly.
For what it's worth, the vast majority of content in Halo Infinite's Multiplayer is still unlocked via battlepass progression, as well as unlocks in campaign. You also unlock free cosmetics and items by doing all your weeklys, which can be done in a single day in just a few hours, meaning that you can get an unbelievably large amount of content without ever having to pay a cent. It's actually the thing I commend Halo Infinite for the most.
That doesn't apply to the Color Customization, though. The Color Customization in Halo Infinite is easily the worst out of any Halo game and having to buy the ability for my Spartan to be the specific shade of blue that I want inside of a $10 bundle is the stupidest thing ever and it's something I so badly wish they never went through with implementing.
Unfortunately, I would argue that MCC has more cheaters than Halo Infinite due to a lack of proper anti-cheat and the fact that it's older with a huge modding scene. However, it's still really rare to experience cheaters during gameplay even with these things being considered
Isn't that a more logical approach to take? It would save them the trouble of facing opposition from Halo fans who want the full package at a decent price, and not a game that's essentially split in two, even if the multiplayer is supposedly a different beast compared to the single-player campaign.
Bungie managed to pull it off in the past with its games by combining both the single-player and the multiplayer campaigns and charging decent prices for their respective games.
Ironically, 343i presumably did the same thing for Halo 4, but with the release of Halo Infinite, they apparently decided that the best approach was to make a Halo game that is somewhat incomplete and can only "feel" complete when gamers buy the single-player DLC.
It's a dumb business practice, regardless of how its viewed.
Is it too much to ask 343i to make a complete game and still charge a reasonable price for the entire package?
Well... The thing is, like I said, it's hard to apply a price to it when you haven't actually played the game, yet. I have played it, and it's definitely worth more than 10-20 euros. I could see a case being made for it not being a full 60 euros, though.
Well... That's not necessarily fair to say. Every game Bungie released was still a full $60 when they came out, and that wasn't including the map packs. What people aren't telling you is that you still had to pay like $10 with the Bungie games's DLC's and "expansion packs" which were nothing more than just a few maps each. Even Halo 3 ODST was priced a full $60 despite being what was essentially a DLC for Halo 3. The reason why MCC is getting a pass is because all of that stuff is no longer relevant due to the games being so old that it's all just included, now. People really didn't like those expansion packs because of their price.
I will say, I think it's fair to say that they could make the campaign cheaper, however it really is a full game and a full experience. Otherwise, I greatly prefer when Live Service games are free, because if they weren't, then not only would you be paying for the initial game itself, but you'd also be paying a lot for microtransactions after already buying the game at full price. And with that being said, if it wasn't Live Service, then we'd get Day 1 Halo Infinite's Multiplayer, and that was miserable. Halo Infinite's Multiplayer being free was actually really well received, I think the only point of contention is just the fact that the campaign is too expensive.
The alternative would be the business model Halo had implemented up to this point (selling the game entirely as a one time payment, nothing is free and therefore there is no microtransactions, even though Halo 5 was known to still have them). For comparison, the baseline price in my country for MCC on the Steam store (this is without sales) is 39, 99 EUR. For this I get a full package (6 games, along with their respective Campaigns, Multiplayer, DLC, additional features). Halo Infinite has free multiplayer (including the aditional features for it) but the campaign alone would cost 59, 99 EUR (again baseline price, no sales). The developer of both games is exactly the same (343i) but one game has vastly more content for a lower price tag (sure the 6 games are dated, over a decade plus old but they have features the OG titles never had before, like cross play or online coop). So imo I would like to have a solid game, with no/minimal microtransactions as a full package rather than the business practice we have now (2/3 is free and 1/3 is ridiculously overpriced).
PS: I bought MCC during sale but thats irrelevant as the baseline price is the fair comparison against Halo Infinite, that is rarely on Steam sale in my country still (as its a relatively new game).
Well, I addressed that with the other guy. If they were both included and there was no microtransactions and it wasn't a live service, then not only would that justify the $60 price tag (which isn't the worst thing ever), but the multiplayer would still be Day 1 Halo Infinite Multiplayer, which really, really sucked. I genuinely think the game would be worse if this happened because not only would your proposal justify the high price tag, but that would also mean it would be more expensive in the long haul if they continued to make it live service and update it, because that means players would have to pay for the initial game + pay for whatever else they include due to it being a live service game. Halo Infinite ironically has probably the least predatory of all the Live Service Game business models, although the Store Bundles are very pricey. Keeping it free ensures people actually try it; nobody wants to spend $60 to play a Multiplayer that sucks, after all.
Unless you're a CoD fan. Then you're willing to pay $70 lol
Well... One, It's moreso the other way around; 2/3 is $60 and 1/3 is free. The multiplayer doesn't have nearly as much content as the Campaign itself and it took us 2 years to finally get Forge mode. Otherwise, again, future installments of a game shouldn't be cheaper just because a bundle of older games exists. That doesn't make sense, like, generally. That's just strange logic. I would understand proposing that the Campaign should be cheaper, like I said, because they're charging $60 as if it's both Multiplayer and Campaign. I think it should be like, $30-$40 max. MCC also wasn't made by 343i. It was released by 343i but outside of Halo 4, Bungie were the people that made those games. They're essentially just releasing a pack of games that they didn't make for unbelievably cheap value.
Again, like I said before, an existence of a bundle of previous games in a franchise doesn't mean the new game should arbitrarily be cheapened, so I'd need a better reason than that to be convinced, because by that logic, every single game in a longstanding franchise that comes out should only be like $20. That's why I'm saying it makes more sense to just make the Campaign cheaper to make it easier to justify purchasing it. In the context of MCC, too, the bundle is exceptionally cheap considering what you're getting out of it. Getting 6 entire AAA games for $40 is an absolute steal. I'm with you on Halo Infinite's campaign being too expensive, but I don't think comparing it to the price of MCC is reasonable.
I definitely think so. In general if you don't mind playing older games, bundles like MCC or Doom 3 BFG Edition are great ways to experience a lot of classics without straining your wallet too much. MCC is probably one of the best valued things on the market right now.
Perhaps because the setting, protagonist, weapons and antagonists felt more at home in a sci-fi horror game than in an exclusively horror-themed first-person shooter game, as was the case with the DOOM games that came before it?
I'm not entirely sure why people hated it and still do hate it, but I don't doubt that most people would lean more towards the old-school DOOM games or the newer ones. (Doom 2016 and Doom Eternal).
For instance, the Cyber Demon in Doom 3 actually makes one ♥♥♥♥ his/her pants, whereas the one in DOOM 2016 looks more like something straight out of World of Warcraft.