Halo Infinite Players Complain About The 'Insanely High' Prices For Skins

If they don't charge $20 for a different coloured skin then how will they ever make money? What else will they do? Charge an upfront cost for the game to let people play it, and get the stuff rather than spinning off the Multiplayer into it's own cash cow? Don't be ridiculous. If they did then people could be playing multiplayer for years or decades after the game came out without giving them ANY extra money!!

its a free to play game so of course they charge for stuff.

Such a massive shame seeing as the campaign was so much fun and such a hit and you know what, they could make money with story DLC, they don't need to do this overpriced cosmetic stuff and I know it's only cosmetics and it doesn't ruin the experience but it does feel greedy and unnecessary

I don't play multiplayer but I can see why this would disappoint players

But the actual multiplayer is free and pretty good. I guess it's disappointing for those who are really into cosmetics but for me personally it doesn't really matter. Love the core game.

Im sure they will have sales and stuff on armor sets. Once they get a good amount of armor sets out they could just do weekly sales. That would be a win win for both players and 343

It's sadly standard for F2P shooters. Warzone, Apex, and Fortnite have the exact same or similar ridiculous pricing for skins. Halo players must not know that yet. I call it the stupid tax. Too many sadly buy them... But hey, that means I get all this great content for free thanks to them

It does seem very high. For the standard asking price of $60, you would get (checks notes) three armor sets from the shop. Of course, if you play this game for the next five years, $60 is a very low price. But still, I wish the armors were somewhere between $2 and $5.

Been seeing lots of f2p games priced their skins/outfits/cosmetic items around $20 or more, i'm starting to accept that maybe it's actually fair price for those items?? Personally thought it's hella expensive and i only use cosmetic items from BP or free ones from events so i never bought them.

Gotta wonder how did that price make sense in the first place... I mean ... a third of AAA game price for just one outfit? The more expensive ones can even get you 3 full priced AAA games? What is the reason? Is it pure company greed, high cost to maintain server and pay live-service dev team, or actually not many people buy cosmetic stuffs? Anyway the price is nuts, period.

Here's an idea: Don't buy the skins.

It’s a joke and not something I like first party MS games including. This has sadly become the norm.

@PhileasFragg 343 are funded by MS and MS make a ton of money of Gamepass and anyone who buys Halo Infinite, most of the money this game makes from MTX goes straight into higher ups pockets and shareholders. Just because a game is F2P doesn't mean you can charge whatever for MTX.

End of the day the reason the MP is F2P is because MS/343 wanted excuses like this for over-priced MTX so they could get more and more money from "whales". I will remind you the game has a Battle Pass, the money made from that alone could fund the game easily so yeah they could easily charge $10 for a shader and emblem and ben fine.

Mtx is par for the course now, but what's being offered in Halo Infinite is just less than elsewhere for the same high price.

$20 for a premium outfit? Not unheard of. But the outfit in question is some dongles and a palette swap of the costume you already have. It's not a brand new character model, or something licensed from a 3rd party. Bad value at the current price point.

What about the battle pass? $10 is a fine price. But a huge chunk of the goods is just challenge swaps. Moreover, the Fortnite battle pass includes enough in-game currency that you can afford the next battle pass and then some. No in-game currency unlocked anywhere in Halo Infinite except through our wallets. Not a bad battle pass, but clearly less robust than its competitors.

@Fenbops MS are more like the likes of EA and Activision then people like to admit, remember MS was the one what started the idea of charging for online play.

@WallyWest I won’t argue with that. I find monetisation in their first party titles nearly as bad as the likes of Ubisoft and EA. It’s something I noticed after only picking up an Xbox a year ago after skipping the One.

@Fenbops When i got my Series S earlier this year i was floored at how bad it is in their 1st party games like Gears and such, its a reason i'm so hard on MS compared to Sony and Nintendo. MS do a ton right like Gamepass, free upgrades and such but monetisation wise they are one of the worst in "AAA" gaming.

@WallyWest I have multiple issues with Sony also but microtransactions are definitely worse on the MS side.

$20 is a bit steep with it also requiring the $10 battle pass. So I did this thing called "not buying it". It's difficult I know but if you put your mind to it you can accomplish anything!

Since they don't mess with gameplay I just don't have a huge problem with it. I'd rather this then pay for map packs.

Are the people complaining about this children, parents of children crying at them to get it, or "adults"?

Funny thing is, I haven’t spent a single cent outside of the expansion packs for Forza games, on any Microsoft first party game. Guess I never cared about cosmetics. So MS can continue to be one of the “worst” for micro transactions and I’ll continue to have fun playing their games without giving a s**t.

I’ll take also advantage of free upgrades and not have to be worried about being nickel and dimed with $10 upgrades like other companies do.

I like saving money!

First I need to ask: how much is usually a Fortnite skin?

That aside, I do think Fortnite skins have no pre-requirements. You buy the skin and that’s that. I do find it odd that they would sell a skin that is only usable by people that buy a limited-time battle pass.

This is the norm for FTP, that model is a double edged sword. On the one hand there's a much larger playerbase among all modes and maps because you don't have to spend any money to be able to play any of the modes or maps (previously you had to buy the full game and sometimes map packs) but on the other hand customization is very limited unless you spend more money than the price of a full priced game.

@WallyWest @Fenbops Sony 1st party has very rarely delved into online multiplayer games in the PS4 era (instead choosing to do CoD timed exclusivity) so we won't really see Sony's approach to microtransactions until games like TLoU Factions 2 and the Firewalk Studios game appear.

The mtxs in Halo mp suck. If people just don’t buy them, it’ll get fixed. If they see that people are playing the game but aren’t purchasing cosmetics, they’ll have to adjust to make money. It’s not rocket science. They have some pretty decent templates with Fortnite and Apex, which both have acceptable systems. The key is that people should feel like they are getting a lot of bang for their buck. In fortnite, a battlepass will net a player like 5 skins along with a lot of other fun stuff. That FEELS like massive bang for your buck when paying $10. Halo doesn’t give you that feeling at all.

I don't see the problem with this at all. If it's all cosmetic, there is no reason to be upset about prices of customization on a free to play game.

Charging $20 for a Cosmetic item is absolutely ridiculous!!! I really cannot see how they can justify that cost regardless of whether its Free to Play or not, whether its just Cosmetic or Not.

There is absolutely NO way I would pay that much for any Cosmetics and would rather spend that on a complete Game or two. Being Free to Play doesn't mean 'rip-off' fans on Cosmetics instead of charging £50 for a Campaign, MP and all those Cosmetics at launch, maybe selling extra maps as DLC later. Of course that splits the users as more and more DLC launches, but its still better 'value'

I have no issue at all with selling Cosmetics in a free to play game but I still expect to get value. If that armour set cost £2 for example, I'd probably not think twice about buying them if I'm still playing. Its pocket money prices so you'd have people buying them to support 343, to support Halo: Infinite, to get free Maps etc but charging £20 is ridiculous - something I'd expect to pay to get a 'decent' MP only portion of Halo with all the usual unlockable Cosmetics.

Just being F2P does not mean that the Devs have to rip off their Fan Base and expect them to pay as much for a Single cosmetic item instead of buying the game - especially as down the line, there will be a lot more added. I know its 'optional' but that doesn't excuse the greed at all. I bet if they were £2, they'd get more than 10xthe number of people buying these...

£20 for a set of armor is just a rip off and people can show their disgust by not buying it...... But we all know that won't happen

Also £10 for battle pass doesn't sound bad but compared to other free to play games battle passes it's a bit weak

Just think 343 have missed a trick here tbh.
The games free to play so they will naturally charge for cosmetics. No one has a problem with that.
However if they lowered the asking price to maybe £5 -£8 for each one they would make a tonne of sales.
As things stand very few people are buying them.

If you don’t see value in it, don’t buy it. Pretty simple stuff. I’ve bought a few camos in Infinite and don’t see a problem with it. MP is free for everyone to enjoy, and looking like a badass isn’t gonna keep me from stomping you out in Slayer.

As long as it is only cosmetics, I don't mind at all. Charge as much as you want. If somebody wants to show himself/herself off, he/she has to pay, just like in the real world. I am completely ok with free stuff in the game.

Wow. Lot of needless defending in here.

It was obviously with GPU and FTP model hand in hand they would want to make money somewhere…. So this was always going to be the case….

But I’m not a share holder I’m a customer so obviously I won’t defend it.

As you were though….

@blockfight oh wow, you truly are the sharpest tool in the shed, arent you

Didn't they really hype up the customisation aspect of multiplayer & say there were millions of options & then the customisation is actually worse than previous games

Hopefully, they sort this out before their next season.

@Hurblyburbly I was just thinking the same. There must be data to suggest it makes more sense this way, but yes, I would be more inclined to spend money if it was less money. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I will NEVER ever spend my own money on items in game on top of the price I paid for the game. Unless its story content DLC that is worth the money. Never once will I buy overpriced cosmetics. Its theft by gaming companies plain and simple. Bring back proper gaming where what you paid for the game is all you paid.

That's all it is. Milk the whales. The bottom line is the game is free. Totally free. But there's a small portion of players with far more money than sense, who will spend ridiculous amounts of money to appease their ego/vanity. These games create thousands of dollars worth of cosmetics so that that 10% or less of players that have very exploitable psychological hooks can feel compelled to pay money for literally nothing (that they don't even see, themselves) because it sates whatever brain wiring requires that "need" to be fulfilled.

If people want to pay for my games for me because it satisfies their neurotic tendencies, I'm not going to complain.

But Master Chief is beautiful just the way he is.

While I don't love how exploitative F2P can be, when it's just cosmetics I just have to laugh that a percentage of people are paying everyone else's way. It's like charity gaming. If only Sony let the whales pay $150 for the latest blockbuster so I could play for free without haptics and a choice of horse color.

What point is a skin in an FPS anyway? Just to make the pre and post match animations prettier? Base grey for me!

@Vepra thanks champ.

I'm still utterly amazed people would pay any money, for any skin, in any first person shooter.

I mean if you want try and look cool being something you can't even see only because have your mommy or daddy's credit card on Xbox then.... Yea you should pay thru the nose. Lmao

I just want to thank y'all for covering things like this despite the vocal minority being okay with videogames being ruined by microtransactions.

@Stocksy I'm a shareholder and I'm not even defending the BS.

The proliferation of microtrans, and now NFTs being shoehorned, are the cancers that are killing videogames.

We need to get back to the days of macrotransactions.

This is just a cosmetic.

And in a FIRST PERSON shooter. So a cosmetic you'll never see yourself, except in the beginning and the end of matches.

Yes, it's expensive. It is. But you're not what's not ?

The game.

Cause it's free, god damn it. The all game is free.

Personnaly, I did not buy -yet- the season pass, but I bought one cool set that I like for 10 bucks (same price as the all pass, so). This was my way of supporting the dev, of paying for something in this amazing game.

If you're thinking it's too expensive, just don't buy it.

who? microsoft? in a Halo game? thats free? who could have though...

Why do they need to cost so much? I can buy full games for that price, its utterly ridiculous. Sure change for skins in a f2p game but why not just a few $/£ and volume of sales can make up the difference.

I'd rather just buy a game and have all the content accessible/unlockable

Don't care about cosmetics. Only reason I changed anything was for achievements for my daily reward points. Buying an expensive cosmetic is just a way to show how much money you have to waste to others like putting a diamond in your forehead.

"It's free"

People need to keep in mind that this game isn't free. No F2P is free.

1) It's been carved up (as with most games today), and the campaign and cosmetics are still paid content. You get access to the game, and the rest of the content is dangled in front of you to tease more than £60 out of your wallet.

2) Someone is paying for that content. The whole reason that publishers go this route in the first place is because it's more lucrative. The whales end up funding your play, and normally at great financial and emotional cost to themselves.

Everytime you see people complain about microtransactions and their cost, it's because they are the ones being targeted by this exploitative practice.

As far as I'm concerned, playing F2P games (just like buying games made under abusive circumstances) is immoral, because my entertainment comes at the cost of others.

@PhileasFragg
its ok they charging for cosmetic but they really need to change some stuff like:

when you buy an armor color its should be yours for every armor you have.

same goes for the weapons dye, dont make it buy color for 1 weapon make it one color for every weapon (like fortnite weapons for example)

this is the real problem here not that they charging money for cosmetic

This is just standard for a service game on a free to play model. You will have optional purchases that you can make but are not required. Fortnite, Path of Exile ( has required upgrade if you want to trade in game but optional cosmetics) and many others f2p do exactly the same and successfully

I am not one to defend companies when it comes to game monetisation but it's easy to forget they are a business that needs an income to keep the light on, the servers running and the content updates coming. Optional cosmetics that have zero impact on the game mechanics or gameplay is the least offensive option for any game of this type.

If it's too expensive then don't buy them, vote with your wallets and be grateful you can still play the game with zero impact to your gameplay.

If you care about cosmetics, it is fair to say F2P is not a good model for gamers. While I don't, I still see the merits in the argument that if MS put Halo Infinite out as they did the older games is a better deal than separating them out. Of course, the F2P model has given me a chance to play the MP mode and not drop any cash so I can't complain too much.

It's a free-to-play shooter like many others. The cosmetics are supposed to fund the development that the game required, the future updates since this game will last a whole generation (or more) and make profit for the publisher (Microsoft, in this case). I will probably get a thing or two like I'd do in games that I enjoy and spend time playing, e.g., Sea of Thieves (not free-to-play) and Fortnite. I think that the developers deserve at least a single purchase if you enjoy their game. Then there are digital collectors for things that they don't really own because they're digital and that they don't even see if it's a first-person-view game. If they have money and want to do it, great but if I had a child I'd tell him no, no, you're either getting the battle pass or a set or two and keep my credit card safe because I'd never spoil my child 😂.

It’s not even tempting. I remember checking the store when the game first launched but no I don’t even bother. A fool and his money…