Why shouldn't you buy REQ packs? What logical reason is there not to?

[quote]Why shouldn't you buy REQ packs? What logical reason is there not to?[/quote] This old chestnut again *Smh* is it so hard to understand that all micro-transactions are cancerous and buying them sends the completely wrong message to developers and publishers? I.e. that you are complicit with paying extra for items already available in the game or cut from the game and sold back to you. Besides in Halo 5 you can earn all the reqs by play time except for the HCS packs which can only be bought. My hatred of this sort of practice was the real reason I was banned from Waypoint as I saw it coming a mile off and posted about it. Just like there I am sure I will hear excuses why people think it's a good idea. With every other req pack in Halo 5 there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to spend [b]any[/b] money. E.g. I currently have enough RP earned to purchase 60 gold req packs but don't need to buy anything with my earned reqs as I have everything available (currently) in the req pool except the 343 skins. I also know players that have enough for a 100 plus gold req packs in the same position as me. Even for new players with Firefight you can earn a ton of free gold and silver req packs to get you started. We are all different but just like DLC people will buy them and have already done so as they cannot see the bigger picture. Therefore sadly micro transactions are here to stay just like DLC as a lot of gamers are just frankly -blam!-ing stupid. ={

No need to buy REQ packs, I love Halo I'm a massive lore buff and as of now I've only ever bought the very first HCS pack. I'm still on silver as ever time I get a few unlocked they do a new DLC adding even more! Lol yet I have 16 gold packs just from playing WZFF and I've 18-20 in total but opened a few. So no need to buy. :)

Damned right Reclaimer Dawn =}

On Y trouble is I don't know if there's a limit to how many you can win? Like I said I've won 18-20 and opened a couple leaving me 16 but since then I haven't earned any more even after winning a damn game! (Easier to do on the focused search settings as you don't get lvl 1's whom have no REQ's.)

Well I know from previous experience that you do not listen to reason, especially when associated with microtransactions. I am not going to have this argument, but I will state that microtransactions are not a bad thing, especially in the case of Halo 5. They are actually quite a positive thing to have in games; if handled properly they objectively benefit everyone involved, which is always a good thing.

[quote]Well I know from previous experience that you do not listen to reason, especially when associated with microtransactions. [/quote] There is no logical reason as soon as I hear one I welcome a discussion about it. [quote] I am not going to have this argument[/quote] No you are not willing to discuss the subject as you cannot adequately excuse paid only micro-transactions. [quote] but I will state that microtransactions are not a bad thing, especially in the case of Halo 5. They are actually quite a positive thing to have in games; if handled properly they objectively benefit everyone involved, which is always a good thing.[/quote] Anything you can earn in game I would agree with you objectively that's fine. However paid only reqs should not be supported though I am sure you have a list of excuses why they are good idea in your opinion. =}

Alright, if you want it, here it comes. You are going to read this, and you are going to apply practical knowledge. You will not apply a sense of what is right or wrong, and you will not apply anecdotal evidence as both are completely irrelevant to what is being discussed. Reason #1: Microtransactions allow for a continuous stream of financial support, which is never a bad thing for a dev/pub. This financial support allows for dev/pubs to either continue supporting a product(Halo 5) or to create a new product all together(Supercell). Such ventures are especially important in the case of AAA games where production costs are escalating and the market has shown that an appropriate increase in MSRP will not be tolerated. Halo 5 would not have the support it does if it were not for REQ purchases. Reason#2: It changes the design of a game to make it fairer for all players. This change in design can be polarizing, but it is not objectively bad. Some people can not play 2 hours a day, let alone 2 hours a week. Why should they be excluded from the experience of a game since they have actual responsibilities? Statistics have shown that a very significant portion of the gaming audience is above the age of 30. These people have jobs, and other things to do with their lives. They may want to experience Halo just as much as you, who has no doubt dumped an obscene amount of time into the game, which is fine. You have time to invest, they have their hard earned money to do the same with. Reason#3: Nothing is "cut content" or "rightfully" yours for the initial purchase of a game. You get what is on the disc. Nothing more. Any claims to such are the manifeststion of a subjectively driven feeling of entitlement. The content included in microtransactions is generally made for the sole purpose of being sold as such, and even if it is removed from the base game, that is not inherently wrong. They are the creators, it is up to them what you get. Whether or not you agree does not matter. That should be enough for now.

[quote]Alright, if you want it, here it comes. You are going to read this, and you are going to apply practical knowledge. You will not apply a sense of what is right or wrong, and you will not apply anecdotal evidence as both are completely irrelevant to what is being discussed. [/quote] I wanted your excuses (opinions) and thank you for providing them. I see no reasons or evidence which justifies paying for Micro-transactions whatsoever. Firstly I have read them, secondly no I will not be told what I am allowed to think or discuss by some people that may vet well have been brainwashed by corporate propaganda and excuses. Secondly no I will not be dictated to by anyone to what is, or is not relevant in their opinion to any discussion I engage in. That's not how it works I am afraid. [quote] Reason #1: Microtransactions allow for a continuous stream of financial support, which is never a bad thing for a dev/pub. This financial support allows for dev/pubs to either continue supporting a product(Halo 5) or to create a new product all together(Supercell). Such ventures are especially important in the case of AAA games where production costs are escalating and the market has shown that an appropriate increase in MSRP will not be tolerated. Halo 5 would not have the support it does if it were not for REQ purchases. [/quote] We will address your opinions (corporate bs) individually. Corporate bs excuse no.1 You pay £50-60 for a game that's their revenue stream after the retailer (if applicable) takes their cut. Production costs of past apply less and less due to increased digital sales. Even the production costs of developing lessen with access to platforms that have the same or very similar architecture to that of the P.C it's developed on so its easier to port and code etc. If they wish to increase their profit basic rule of marketing is they need a product that is worth selling that consumers want to buy and then many consumers want to buy it a lot. Just like Halo 5 for example =} They need to produce a quality game that appeals to it's intended audience. If it's a product that includes services like online functions especially in first party games, the manufacturer of the hardware provide the servers and for some reason you pay for access to those servers with your subscription fee (on consoles). On P.C this is free in most cases as you already pay your ISP and you pay for the game. Halo 5 would have the same support without the reqs that's just assumption on your behalf. [quote] Reason#2: It changes the design of a game to make it fairer for all players. This change in design can be polarizing, but it is not objectively bad. Some people can not play 2 hours a day, let alone 2 hours a week. Why should they be excluded from the experience of a game since they have actual responsibilities? Statistics have shown that a very significant portion of the gaming audience is above the age of 30. These people have jobs, and other things to do with their lives. They may want to experience Halo just as much as you, who has no doubt dumped an obscene amount of time into the game, which is fine. You have time to invest, they have their hard earned money to do the same with.[/quote] Corporate bs excuse no.2 (along with more than a hint of complete ignorance with attempted personal insult). Firstly please let's get this out of the way, your insinuation that I am some sort of basement dwelling layabout with no life, no job or responsibilities is not only completely incorrect it's damned right -blam!-ing cheeky sir, you cheeky scamp you lol, but nice try. I did not for once state anywhere that players that purchased a game should not have the same experience as someone else, just because they do not have a lot of time to invest in a game. The whole point is it doesn't matter if you play for 2 or 10 hours a week or day or whatever. It doesn't mean you should pay extra to access items already in the game that you have already [b]purchased[/b]. Everyone that plays should be on an equal playing field. Time invested should be rewarded but not in a way that its detrimental to gameplay experience of those that cannot invest the time. [quote] Reason#3: Nothing is "cut content" or "rightfully" yours for the initial purchase of a game. You get what is on the disc. Nothing more. Any claims to such are the manifeststion of a subjectively driven feeling of entitlement. The content included in microtransactions is generally made for the sole purpose of being sold as such, and even if it is removed from the base game, that is not inherently wrong. They are the creators, it is up to them what you get. Whether or not you agree does not matter.[/quote] Corporate bs excuse no.3 (again with more than a hint of complete ignorance with added sarcasm and complete disregard for any logical thought). Please stop trying to insult my intelligence with all of this corporate drivel. No disrespect intended but I tire of your assumptions. I am well aware that you do not own the rights to the game you purchased and that really you do not own anything digitally even if you have a physical copy and that goes for most media. Let's also stop with this rubbish about "feeling of entitlement" It's pathetic and farcical. You payed £50-60 you at least have the right to play the game you purchased. If you do not have the right to play it then it shouldn't be sold. Here that wouldn't be allowed as it's not sold as advertised and you could claim your money back. You do not pay £50-60 for half of the game that was developed, that's not as it was advertised. That's not a false sense of entitlement as it's not what they advertised. What if we use Bungievision's travesty as an example? if the adverts said buy walking simulator and trinket collector HD the 1/4 of a game edition for only £55. Please note 3/4 of the content, all the story and all the balance have been all been cut for your benefit. Would any sane individual that can think coherently and logically rush out and buy it? No they wouldn't. It seems in your opinion the below is not inherently wrong. Please don't worry though you can buy the other 3/4s at the bargain price of £80 so for the bargain price of only £135! ($200) you can own the game you that you were told you were getting for £55. Be legend, be broke as a joke! Yes that would make me feel better that in helping their revenue stream, let's rush out and buy two copies with all the cut content it's such a great deal! Again let's using Bungievision's game as an example. Let's see them add more revenue to their stream to help with developing things that the y already developed in conjunction with the game then cut. £135 not cheap enough for you magic space person fan? Let's add some sweet emotes for the [b]bargain price of £40 extra![/b]. Me after hearing that I rushed out and threw money at the screen, that's not inherently wrong that's genius more cut content sold back to you. Whether you agree or disagree it totally irrelevant. Your opinion is completely jaded, possibly as you work in the industry or that you know no better due to your age. However I don't like to assume and I will not personally attack anyone (unprovoked). So please do not misunderstand it's not about you and I am not attacking you personally, unlike some others. Yes I disagree strongly with your opinions but it's not personal. [quote] That should be enough for now.[/quote] Wow I expected the mic slipped out of your hand or something as it shouldn't have been dropped, no reason to do it maybe pick it up and put it away somewhere. Good day to you, really hope some gamers would just wake the -blam!- up. I won't bother continuing as I have no need to try and change your opinion and you will sadly just have to realise for yourself that it is not my opinion. I am not wearing a tin foil hat, this is really happening. A lot of gamers are sheeplike and can only follow the herd and eat whatever corporate bullshit they are fed, and then ask for more! *Smh*

1. There were no attempts at personal attack or assumption of lifestyles. I merely based my statement off of your own confessions. Any offense taken is solely on your part. I speak objectively and have completely removed my personal opinions from everything I post about this topic. Calling me the equivalent of a corporate shill is a rather immature way of dealing with this information. It is also the typical response of a "righteous" gamer; you have also provided the same arguments as any misinformed or crusading Youtuber would, which can only lead me to believe that you are regurgitating the opinions of others without stopping to give them actual thought. Again, I am not implying anything about you or your intelligence, just merely stating an observstion. While I do hold shares in several companies, none of them are involved with gaming, except Nvidia, who is a seperate 3rd party semiconductor manufacturer. I do not benefit from the the existence or nonexistence of microtransactions therefore I do not have a reason to analyze the situation through any lense except that of an as purely objective one as is humanly possible. 2. The costs of production have only increased. Digital sales and ease of porting are not affecting the overall income. Digital sales just means larger dividends for the digital distribution platforms. Sony and MS take portions of all revenue generated by games on their platforms. This portion is known to be larger when sold through their online platforms. Also to clarify, discs cost cents to print and distribute. That was never a considerable CoP. While porting does include costs, they are not significant enough to justify lowering the standard MSRP, especially when accounting for increasing costs of living and inflation. Inflation has increased significantly since the $60 MSRP was standardized. Not only does that mean that everything which is required to make a game has increased in cost, but that wages should increase as well. While the increase in wages is an entirely different economic issue, it is worth mentioning here. Games should cost between $80 and $100 at the AAA level. Since the market has shown resistance to that, there clearly needs to be another way of generating income to maintain a healthy equilibrium. Do these increased prices benefit me in any way? No. Have I educated myself on the subject and have learned that they are necessary? Yes. 3. Your examples are not relevant as they not only pertain to a singular case being Destiny, but they do so in a way that shows extreme bias and assumption of intent. Those are dangerous grounds with which one can base an argument. I do not make assumptions. I argue from what I know to be objectively correct. 4. Your argument on the supply and demand for games is based solely on the assumption of rational economics. We know that humans do not make rational choices a shocking amount of the time. I might suggest any of Dan Ariely's books on psychology if you would like a basic look into the more prevalent irrational behavior in decision making. Again, I hold no shares or any way of benefitting from the sale of his books.

I just feel cheap and lazy when I buy. I bought one gold pack with left over money once, and I felt bad. I miss when you had to unlock armors, and you could tell what kind of challenge an enemy player would be just by looking at what they're wearing.

The game is designed for you to collect armor. How you do it does not really matter.

Maybe not to you, but it matters to me.

It can't matter in Halo 5, as a function of how it is acquired. Any value associated with any of the armor is purely self created.

I believe that me playing through the matches of Warzone and Arena is as close as I can get to actually earning the armors. I dislike the idea of all armor relying on RNG. If at least the Mythics were earned through feats, I'd be fine, but instead 343 has decided to make all of your armor random.

They made it random for several reasons, and I believe they were right in doing so. They have left several armor permutations exclusive to finishing tasks.

Several armor permutations? The only armors that you earn (in any sense of the word) are the Gen1 Mark VI armors, Nightfall, Helioskrill, and Achilles. That's five out of over 200 armor permutations in the game.

That is several permutations. If novelty is what you are going for, wear them with pride. I am not objectively wrong, no matter how much you want me to be.

still waiting fer a dmr req 1 or 2, im not tempted to microtransact if i can earn req creds no point in wasting real creds i got a dmr req 7 >_>

Damned right! [spoiler]Are you on later? [/spoiler]