By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Halo Infinite to have free MP, support 120FPS

KBG29 said:
Sounds like they are going in every direction that doesn't appeal to me with this title. I will give them my money for the single player, and my time to complete the campaign, but I'll steer clear of this.

I will be interested to see how this multiplayer portion performs in the market though. To me it sounds like something made 100% by a market research team, with absolutely zero passion. Focus appears to be on Marketing Free and 120fps vs Designing Quality Content and Gameplay. I guess time will tell.

They heard really hard.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
KBG29 said:
Sounds like they are going in every direction that doesn't appeal to me with this title. I will give them my money for the single player, and my time to complete the campaign, but I'll steer clear of this.

I will be interested to see how this multiplayer portion performs in the market though. To me it sounds like something made 100% by a market research team, with absolutely zero passion. Focus appears to be on Marketing Free and 120fps vs Designing Quality Content and Gameplay. I guess time will tell.

What a weird hot take considering we’ve seen zero footage or info outside of the game being F2P. Reminds me of people who claimed the MP in Uncharted would just be shoehorned in and shown no love because it was just a marketing trick, or that Respawn would not do a good job on Apex because EA was making them do a F2P BR. Both turned out very wrong.



Manlytears said:
chakkra said:

Errr...   you know that every single month there are single-player "campaign only" games being released, right? Some of which get metacritics scores in the 90s and are acclaimed as some of the best things ever.

yeah, but we talking about Halo here, Multiplayer is the flagship. I already made a post explaining my point on pag.2...

I disagree with that statement, but if that was the case, then people who are not interested in the single-player campaign don't have to spend a dime on it, and those who buy the campaign will do so because they WANT TO play the campaign.



chakkra said:
Manlytears said:

yeah, but we talking about Halo here, Multiplayer is the flagship. I already made a post explaining my point on pag.2...

I disagree with that statement, but if that was the case, then people who are not interested in the single-player campaign don't have to spend a dime on it, and those who buy the campaign will do so because they WANT TO play the campaign.

ok. good.



VAMatt said:

I think the "hook" would be some MP content that is exclusive to XB, or to GP subscribers.  Probably skins, maybe some little mini quests, cut scenes, or something else that doesn't impact the game overall.  

With that said, not needing live or GP to play the PVP content seems to be counter to MS' stated goal of growing GP subscriptions.  

You still need to buy the game, weather its Digital, Retail or via GP. 

I dont think it will do a Crackdown 3 and offer a stand alone MP version of the game. From what i see, it just means that aslong as you have purchased the game, you dont require Gold to access the MP modes.

I was a little confused with your last paragraph so if i misread your post than disregard everything i just said.



Around the Network

Expect their take on a battle royale over several years and seasons.



Manlytears said:

so... Multiplayer is free, and people that spend $60 are only getting Campaign + (most likely) extra costumes/weapon skins/etc.??

I mean... they will try to sell "campaign only" Halo + ( most likely but not confirmed) "some extras" for $60!? I don't think this is a good idea...

So... You're actually wanting a company to offer a single player campaign and multiplayer for $60 AND require a subscription for the online mode instead of offering everything mentioned and online mode not requiring a subscription?

Fair enough.



d21lewis said:
Manlytears said:

so... Multiplayer is free, and people that spend $60 are only getting Campaign + (most likely) extra costumes/weapon skins/etc.??

I mean... they will try to sell "campaign only" Halo + ( most likely but not confirmed) "some extras" for $60!? I don't think this is a good idea...

So... You're actually wanting a company to offer a single player campaign and multiplayer for $60 AND require a subscription for the online mode instead of offering everything mentioned and online mode not requiring a subscription?

Fair enough.

He's probably saying $60 for the campaign isn't the best seen as the best value as a large portion of gamers wanting the play Halo would want to play multiplayer, so they'll skip the campaign altogether. Especially since the MP is free now and full game is also available on GP.

Maybe they'll bundle in a couple of map packs and skins, and or other dlc with SP campaign? They'll make bank from multiplayer in any case.

Last edited by hinch - on 02 August 2020

hinch said:
d21lewis said:

So... You're actually wanting a company to offer a single player campaign and multiplayer for $60 AND require a subscription for the online mode instead of offering everything mentioned and online mode not requiring a subscription?

Fair enough.

He's probably saying $60 for the campaign isn't the best seen as the best value as a large portion of gamers wanting the play Halo would want to play multiplayer, so they'll skip the campaign altogether. Especially since the MP is free now and full game is also available on GP.

Maybe they'll bundle in a couple of map packs and skins, and or other dlc with SP campaign? They'll make bank from multiplayer in any case.

At most that would be bad to MS not to the player (unless MS totally screw the way MP is when making it F2P, which I don't think will be the case). Every one that wants to just play MP will be able to do that for free.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

VAMatt said:
Pemalite said:

That tactic would certainly work if the campaign was a must-have knock-it-out-of-the-park story and gameplay... But honestly they would be better served porting MCC over and hooking them into the franchise that way.

I think the "hook" would be some MP content that is exclusive to XB, or to GP subscribers.  Probably skins, maybe some little mini quests, cut scenes, or something else that doesn't impact the game overall.  

With that said, not needing live or GP to play the PVP content seems to be counter to MS' stated goal of growing GP subscriptions.  

Maybe by buying into Game Pass, you get the full seasonal updates, instead of a partial update just to allow you to continue to play? Similar to how Destiny works? Everyone get's updates, but only season pass subscribers get access to everything. Infinite does seem to be taking cues from Destiny.

Porting MCC over would almost certainly lead to a charge of some sort for the collection though. To port MCC and give it away for free to other console brands would be insanity. If gamers have to purchase MCC, you're taking a much bigger risk. F2P has been proven to work well initially, and if the experience is worth it, gamers will continue to play and buy in one way or another. I'd guess it would be safer in many ways, to make Halo multiplayer F2P cross platform, and use that to hopefully hook gamers into buying the Infinite campaign and possibly MCC or an XB console outright. If not, hopefully you can get them to pay for the full seasonal updates or MTX, whatever way they plan to make money from it. If it's an F2P game that crosses XB gens, it wouldn't be crazy to expand it to all other present and next gen consoles while they're at it. If it didn't catch on outside the XB ecosystem, at least XB players will continue to enjoy it for years.

I just can't help but notice what happened with Crysis and compare that to Infinite. Both looked sub par, and part of the Crysis excuse was because it was going to be for all platforms, down to Switch. This somewhat explained things, though gamers still wanted it upgraded for PS4 and XB1. I wonder if the same is true for Infinite? Is the plan to eventually have it F2P on Switch as well and what we saw is basically the worst case scenario perhaps? MS says they are going to work on upgrading and polishing it as well so.

MS making Halo available to other brands seems unlikely in general, but the more service based they become, the more likely we may see this occur. Would the other brands allow it though? If MS publicly announces they plan to make it F2P for everyone, it'll be tough for PS and Nin to legitimately block it from their platforms without pissing off some of their customers. Especially the 360 gamers who transitioned to PS4, along with the Nin and XB "play together" relationship.

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 02 August 2020