Halo Infinite's multiplayer will be free to play, up to 120 FPS on the Xbox Series X.

[vetali]

6 hours ago, Medicate said:

that has nothing to do with anti cheat

whoosh

1 hour ago, handymanshandle said:

The only thing the Halo community can agree on is Halo 2 being the best game... even though it's uglier than the first and just abruptly ends.

Theres a lot of halo fans that do not think halo 2 is the best. I liked the single player aside from the later arbiter levels dragging on a ton. I can't stand the multiplayer. Halo CE and 3 are better IMO. I think reach is a dumpster fire but a lot think its the best halo game as well.

[Chett_Manly]

This is one of the big upsides with Halo Infinite's 360 era looking graphics, everyone is going to be so easy to see across the map, and the gameplay is going to be so fluid.

 

Might not look cinematic, but it should work well for MP.

[dizmo]

2 hours ago, Shreyas1 said:

The issue with cosmetic only microtransactions for many people is that it was a major part of progression in earlier games. For example, many of the armor types could be unlocked by completing challenges and taking that away is changing a major part of progression

 

I can see it work if they make it so that the people who pay 60 dollars for the game need to complete in game challenges while the people who play f2p have to pay microtransactions

You could still unlock armor sets. That's how I got mine, I never bought anything.

It's just people bitching about having to pay for something that really doesn't matter for game play at all.

I'd rather have the option to buy the armor sets than have to grind out single player to get them.

[Brooksie359]

13 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

The reason for Xbox Live costing money is because Microsoft actually hosts the game servers that Multiplayer Xbox games use.

 

On PC the developers of the game pay for the servers for you.

I don't even think this is necessary even true. I remember when I had an xbox and I would play the new battlefield games the EA servers would go down and it made multiplayer unplayable. The point being the game was hosted on EA servers and not Microsoft servers. Sure there may be some games that are hosted by Microsoft servers but I doubt that is the real reason Microsoft charges money for xbox live. 

[The1Dickens]

12 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Sure there may be some games that are hosted by Microsoft servers but I doubt that is the real reason Microsoft charges money for xbox live.

I think it's up to the developers these days, but when Xbox LIVE first started, they were the providers of servers. That's why you paid for LIVE on Xbox, and nothing on PS2, unless the game you played required a fee of some sort.

 

18 hours ago, Chett_Manly said:

This is one of the big upsides with Halo Infinite's 360 era looking graphics, everyone is going to be so easy to see across the map, and the gameplay is going to be so fluid.

 

Might not look cinematic, but it should work well for MP.

If that's the reasoning, then I hope they are open to modding. Because I don't particularly care for Competitive Multiplayer.

[niofalpha]

On 8/1/2020 at 10:53 PM, Brooksie359 said:

I don't even think this is necessary even true. I remember when I had an xbox and I would play the new battlefield games the EA servers would go down and it made multiplayer unplayable. The point being the game was hosted on EA servers and not Microsoft servers. Sure there may be some games that are hosted by Microsoft servers but I doubt that is the real reason Microsoft charges money for xbox live. 

Didn't Battlefield have servers you could rent? On top of that, I know lots of games (Minecraft, Halo customs) were hosted off of the host's console.

 

On 8/1/2020 at 4:51 PM, vetali said:

 

Theres a lot of halo fans that do not think halo 2 is the best. I liked the single player aside from the later arbiter levels dragging on a ton. I can't stand the multiplayer. Halo CE and 3 are better IMO. I think reach is a dumpster fire but a lot think its the best halo game as well.

Replayed Halo 2 when it came to PC after only playing it two or three times before, it's an improvement from CE, but the campaign is pretty bad. I can sit there and play through any of the other campaigns, but I got bored before the first Arbiter mission. There are way too many areas that are just "hold a location against waves of enemies" that aren't in any of the later Halo games. I haven't played much Multiplayer in Halo 2, but from what I've played I definitely like Reach and 3 more. I don't understand why that's the game the circle jerk decided to praise.

[Trik'Stari]

All I want is 8v8 team slayer. Or 16v16 if possible.

 

So tired of games with small match sizes.

[recon_zero_]

On 8/1/2020 at 9:35 AM, AluminiumTech said:

The reason for Xbox Live costing money is because Microsoft actually hosts the game servers that Multiplayer Xbox games use.

 

On PC the developers of the game pay for the servers for you.

 

Nah, it's all P2P based, even in games like Call of Duty or Destiny.

 

Not for the battle royales though

[Master Disaster]

Just to add to this topic...

 

There's been some talk that Microsoft might be using this as a trial run to see if its worth while ditching XBL's subscription model entirely. A noteable industry leaker said a few days ago that he has heard MS might be planning to drop XBL subscriptions which is why they also removed the 12 month subscription option recently. This has been countered by fans showing screenshots from MS's recent XBSX show where they clearly have "An XBL Gold Subscription Is Required For Online Play" warnings on games that aren't even launched yet.

 

IMO it makes no real sense for MS to charge XB players to play online when all games coming out for XB also come out on PC, players buying on one system get access to both and online play for PCs is free. It's almost hurting the XB as an online gaming platform.

 

If MS do decide to ditch XBL then Sony have to do something to counter it. Whether that's dropping PSN's subscription or maybe reducing the cost but they cannot keep charging players £50 a year to play online when the competition offers it for free.