I’m just happy the game is done early enough that they can actually even consider early access lol
3 Likes
I’m not a fan of it but I get why they do it.
I just personally think it feels cheap and something first party games shouldn’t do. Especially iconic ones.
1 Like
I think the point is that with MS, and no other platform holder, all first-party games are given at no additional cost to their ~20-25m Game Pass subscribers on day one.
This is an insanely good deal, but it does provide context for why MS would be looking for ways to further monetise.
1 Like
Multiplayer: what they’re already doing with battle pass is great and were applauded for. It achieve two things already; no FOMO, and long-term purchasibility. Also Game Pass benefits, which they already are considering.
Campaign: future story DLC.
Just interested to know, would you rather:
-
All major expansions are free to GP subs like Hivebusters was, but they applied a paid early-access to all of them.
-
All major expansions are paid for by GP subs, but there was no early access for any part of the game.
?
Not staying that is actually a choice we have, but I would much rather option 1.
I completely get it. I just don’t like it lol.
Halo Infinite being on Game Pass is gonna sound like much less of a deal if I need to pay for the “10 year plan” content.
Yeah and 1 offers more choice. You don’t HAVE TO pay for EA. You can choose.
I get people who as a rule don’t like paid early access. I don’t. BUT the whole bringing gamepass into it argument is a nonsense. An amazing service that people already marvel at its value isn’t enough? Come on.
The early access option here makes sense over other monetisation options. Especially if perhaps they’ve ended a bit ahead of schedule on development - which maybe is the case.
2 Likes
It is the norm for Game Pass first-party games to have DLC paid for. It’s part of how the model makes financial sense for them.
Hivebusters was a, very welcome, exception to the rule.
I would set your expectations at their being paid and be pleasantly surprised if they aren’t rather than the other way around.
1 Like
I am in the same boat as you in what I would rather have or how it would affect me personally. It doesn’t affect me and I have never paid for any mtx item and very few DLCs. But, I’m think in terms of perception and how clean a business model is, and how it ‘could’ affect others interested in the product, and I think early access is just not ‘clean’. It could also taint perception that this is the ‘game pass effect’ that will ruin gaming, etc.
1 Like
It is the norm, but not for a GaaS game right? Guess we don’t have any great examples.
If we’re getting campaign DLC instead of sequels I kinda hope to not pay for the DLC, like I wouldn’t have to pay for sequels. Not the end of the world either way.
1 Like
Fair enough, we can agree to disagree.
Perhaps I’m the odd one out in not being at all bothered by early access.
I mean take any movie ever. There is a premiere and special advance previews. If you have the money to spare you can usually see a movie a few days before anyone else can. Does this ruin the experience of moviegoers who go to the official opening night? Or do people who go to see it a week later to avoid the crowds enjoy the film any less?
It’ll be the same film, or game, a few days later. If it makes Game Pass more viable and ultimately leads to more investment in the service, I don’t care if every first-party game has an early access pass for it. I won’t pay for them, but if people have that burning need to play earlier, it’s an option. 
1 Like
DLC is a bit of a grey area though. It’s additional content, not a new game. Traditionally, its been an understood part of the Game Pass model that you get the base game, but if you love it you can buy additional content for extra. I don’t think that’s unfair.
That said, I do agree there is a grey area further with Halo Infinite as they are kind of presenting it as a service as you point out, where you would expect to get some kind of ongoing content, at least basic stuff, going forward. There is also the argument that, if the content is significant, it could actually continue to play a role as a draw to Game Pass to make it all free.
So that’s why I don’t totally close down on the idea that at least some additional content could be included. I’m just not expecting it. Better to keep expectations low and be pleasantly surprised than set your hopes high and get disappointed.
1 Like
Games already had paid DLC well before GP. Some companies are bundling the DLC with enhancements that should’ve been free, call it Director’s Cut and sell it for $70, and barely anyone calls it out.
I think DLC could be a great opportunity in a lot of ways actually:
- Expand the game’s world and experiment
- Moentize GP games in a ‘clean’ accepted way for SP and story component
- Introduce a Game Pass tier $5 extra /month that included 1st party game DLCs.
1 Like
That’s a good idea on a ‘premium’ game pass tier with DLC. Not sure if worth a whole extra $5 a month, but I could be interested in something along those lines 
@Shpeshal_Nick secretly runs the HaloAPI account
1 Like
Oh brother