But they're not pay-to-win! Similarly to Halo 5's REQ packs, Gears of War 4's 'Gear Packs' provide cosmetic upgrades, progression boosters, and bonuses for the PvE Horde mode.
Here's a rundown of what each Gear Pack does, and how to acquire them.
As detailed on The Coalition's official blog, Gear Packs are how the game rewards your progression across its online modes: Versus and Horde. Everything you do in these mode nets you Credits, which can then be spent on Gear Packs. As Gears of War 4 is an Xbox Play Anywhere title, all content unlocked via this system will roam between Windows 10 and Xbox One via your Microsoft Account.
There are various types of items that can appear in Gear packs. These include the following:
- Cosmetic customization emblems, multiplayer characters, and weapon skins.
- Bounty challenges that are consumed only when completed, granting bonuses like XP and Credits.
- Horde equipment, abilities, and skills. These will include power weapons, permanent skill unlocks for different classes, and powerful "Strikes" that can be utilized at critical moments. See the link below for more detail on how Horde 3.0 works.
The different Gear Packs can be purchased both using in-game Credits or via a real money micro-payment, and the funds will no doubt contribute to Gears of War 4's on-going development, adding new maps, new classes and features to Horde, and beyond. Overwatch and Halo 5 have enjoyed a wealth of post-launch content as a result of their funding model, which thankfully doesn't approach any form of pay-to-win territory which runs rampant in the mobile world.
Versus Booster Pack
Cost: 400 Credits or 99c
Contents: 5 Versus Bounties
Horde Booster Pack
Cost: 400 Credits or 99c
Contents: 4 Horde Skills, 1 Horde Bounty
Cost: 1000 Credits or $1.99
Contents: 1 Guaranteed Cosmetic Customization Item, 4 Random Cards
Cost: 4000 Credits or $4.99
Contents: 5 Cosmetic Customization Items, 1 Guaranteed to be Rare or higher
The Coalition will also be adding a special Gears eSports Supporter Pack in the near future which will contain unique cosmetic items to show your support for different eSports teams. Stay tuned for more information on that as we get it.
Once we get our hands on Gears of War 4, we'll begin updating this article with some of the unlocks you can expect as a result of accessing Gear packs. So hit that bookmark button!
Gears of War 4 launches on October 11th exclusively on Xbox One and Windows 10.
Need more? Don't miss our other coverage of Gears of War 4 including:
- Gears of War 4 main page
- Gears of War 4 Achievement List
- I played Gears of War 4 at The Coalition, and I can't stop thinking about chainsaw guns
- Gears of War 4 Windows 10 PC system requirements
- We survived the first taste of Gears of War 4's campaign and interviewed the developer
- The Gears of War 4 Xbox One S is Microsoft's best special edition yet
Jez Corden is a Senior Editor for Windows Central, focusing primarily on all things Xbox and gaming. Jez is known for breaking exclusive news and analysis as relates to the Microsoft ecosystem while being powered by caffeine. Follow on Twitter @JezCorden and listen to his Xbox Two podcast, all about, you guessed it, Xbox!
Ugh...more of this? There isn't a Season Pass at least, is there?
Whats wrong with REQ packs or this? Yes there is a season pass. Games are expensive and I'm more than fine with copanies offering cosmetic DLC or coop based "bonus" packs. Its something I don't buy but if someone else buys it doesn't effect my game.
The incessant monetization bothers me. Everything is nickel-and-dime nowadays with games. 2K is charging $15 for college rsoters in NBA 2K17, and they lazily copied over models and didn't make the rosters useful at all. REQ packs also weren't limited to cosmetics, they included highly powerful weapons for Warzone. I thought the defense of that as "Warzone is casual, it's fine" was dumb. Saying it isn't pay-to-win because it's not a competitive mode doesn't change that you're spending money to make the game easier. Personally, I would want to succeed in Horde because I played well, not because my teammate dropped $10 on it. Were it solely cosmetic, I wouldn't care. Weren't this on top of a Season Pass, I'd care less. It's when it's STILL $60 for a game, then another $50 for DLC maps, then we have this stuff on top of it. I don't like seeing an industry that's replacing a past of $50 games with $60 games, then adding in another $40-100 in stuff. You'd think that the increased resources in a franchise, added time for development, and easier time with tools would mean games woudl get bigger and better. Instead, they just seem to get more expensive, in a lot of cases. This seems kind of similar. That, and I think paid DLC maps are a horrible idea. They split the community and throttle lobby counts. Halo 4's population was slaughtered by this. They once made their primary mode--Team Deathmatch--require the paid DLC to access for a week. That basically drove me off the game. I'm not saying that we'll see The Coalition do something similar, it's just an extreme example (which DID happen). Oh, and there's the part where DLC is always overpriced, relative to the game. I don't get why that's accept as "the way it is." Why will we see a Season Pass raise a game's price by 93%, like here, but we won't see an added 83% of content? So, what's wrong with the way this stuff is monetized? --Saying it's not pay-to-win doesn't change that you are literally paying for beter in-game tools, making winning eaiser. IT IS PAY-TO-WIN. --Game prices keep climbing, and it's arguable whether we're getting more out of many of these games' DLC price hikes. --Online communities get split when you lock matchmaking to people with specific maps. --The price never reflects the level of content in a fair manner for the consumer. I've bought one Season Pass ever, DOOM's. The population in that game dropped so fast that I stopped playing before the first DLC ever dropped. IDK if they even released the second paid DLC, to be honest, because I didn't feel like going back to a game that was constantly having matchups live 3v4 when it supported 8v8 or something. I really liked the game, but there just weren't enough people playing, and the content was spaced out terribly...and too sparse in quantity.
Maybe you don't understand the MP season pass portion. The Season pass includes ownership of all maps for PRIVATE matches. For matchmaking, all DLC maps are FREE. They just rotate 10 DLC maps at a time. So lets say two new maps come out, they rotate out two older maps...the idea is keeping content and map rotation fresh. Season pass just gives you access to all release maps in prvate play...further more only one person in party needs to have DLC to have this. This is not splitting the consumer base. And yes, its "pay to win" in coop....again, I don't care offer whatever you want, i'm a gamer who doesn't buy that so it will not afffect me. To your other point, base games are at its cheapest its been at for a long time taking inflation in to account. I remember buying $70 SNES carts in 1995! Yes, the idea now is find ways to monetize your game post release and I think there are def. bad examples of this, but I do also think there are smart ways of doing this. I think Gears got it right. Re: REQ packs in halo...I will say that is micro transaction in Warzone however given how easily you can lose your cards once equipped it never bothered me lol...also nothing gaurnteed in card packs. Never once wanted to buy them..
"To your other point, base games are at its cheapest its been at for a long time taking inflation in to account." But not everything in economics reflects inflation equally. A big part of the cost of those older games (and why assets were limited and recyled) was likely the cost of the storage medium. Even now, flash storage isn't used in games becuase of the costs (though the Nintendo NX is rumored to leverage flash again). It's actually been to a great detriment in games, as we have to deal with asinine things like full-disc installs and slow load times over 5400-RPM HDDs. I don't think punishing people with $50 for private match access is a good move, either. In fact, it's arguably the WORST implementation for DLC maps thus far. Yes, it's good to know the lobbies won't get fragmented, but you're charging peak DLC costs for the maps, while providing the lowest amount of functionality with them we've seen. So, as I stated, these prices are rising, and it's not seemed like it's actually giving people a benefit. The $50 Season Pass, as you describe, it offers much less than you would find in the $50 DLC from a game like CoD, Battlefield, or Battlefront. It's even seemingly less than $40 got me with DOOM. I don't think they got it right at all. I never once wanted to buy REQs in Halo, but I also found Warzone to be a terrible mode (as well as the Firefight addition). However, I'll say that 343 did a decent job in handing out REQs like candy, in a way that kept you from feeling naked in a fight. You got more than enough to keep you stockpiled in Warzone, but I still would have rather seen them limit the sales to cosmetics. Shoot, given how many weapons/powerups they throw you, it kind of feels like they made those part of the paid REQ Packs just to make the cosmetic things pople want really rare, perhaps to sell even more to those Assassination chasers. I already made the pay-to-win argument. It might only be co-op, but I don't have inteest in being carried through co-op by someone's wallet.
With the REQS didn't you still need to reach the appropriate REQ level before you could use something you paid for? You can unlock the cards REQ cards by paying but you still need to move through the REQ rank per match I thought? I never paid any real money for the REQ packs but never felt like there was an unusual number of powerful REQS in play either. I like the idea of the free DLC to be honest, as I don't purchase season passes very often. The Halo maps being free is/was great, and I like the idea of the map rotation in Gears 4. With Gears, if anything they are putting people off buying the season pass and losing some money. In terms of REQ packs in co-op well....I don't see a problem. If you feel like they are going to lessen your experience with the game you can stick to playing with people who won't use them - Use something like the groups feature on Xbox to find people who want to do Horde without using them. I don't have many people on my list that regularly play Xbox (And I have less and less time to myself) so I'm often going to be jumping into matchmaking, but I could use the groups feature to meet other players who want to play by a certain code/belief of what should be used. The DLC strategy for Halo 5 and Gears only helps the consumer IMO. The game will be around £40 on disc and is £49.99 digital but games on Xbox are always expensive as digital purchases on release. The rotation strategy will let me experience all of the maps without having to pay a penny extra other than the price of the game.
I agree wholeheartedly. That is exactly what is wrong. People accept this as the norm now, so that is the way it is. I hate the fact that now with most games that I am working my ass off for an achievement in, my accomplishment is lessened by someone spending 10 dollars and skipping past the hard stuff. I feel that DLC has become more of the hidden content of the game that gets unlocked (taking some of which used to be the main game's content away in the process), rather than its intention of "hey this is an awesome game, I wish it wasn't over so I could keep playing". I have bought season passes in the past, but mostly always when on sale. Some of which were worth the sale prices (Fallout), but the amount that is being charged normally for the amount of content is absurd sometimes. That's it, I'm done. Most of what I want to say is that DLC shouldn't really be involved with MP because it does split players. Games that do it right have a free version you can download and play against people, but can't get the achievements until purchase.
But with Gears 4 you can skip on the season pass completely (like I am) and still experience every single map that releases for the game. That's a huge bonus for me personally as I wouldn't buy the season pass anyway. With most games in the past you've got to pay an extra £40 just to get to play the maps. Having 10 on rotation at a time costs me nothing extra.
You ovrer look one thing in your big rant. Like with all things in life that sems to keep rising in cost. The programming side of games is a lot more complex than it was. God rays, reflexions, high res a hundred more effects alone didnt exist like it does now. When you play halo, gears, uncharted, fordza or any modern game. Everything you see had to be added. It gets expensive you need someonw to do it someone to learn how to do it. Plus now you also need ongoing support for bugs and updates. People say back then in old times of sega and nintendo then sony that they were no day one patches. Reason for that they had no one to do them except make another version of the same. Its why if you look up old games there is always multiple versions of one game. They bug fixed it and shipped new copies and no one knew. No one got refunded for there day one copy you just had tje bug or returned the game for game breaking bugs. Cost of the tech has raised inside the cost of the development. Please take that into consideration. Before crying and im not defending those greedy companies tjat flood the mobile market. I dont game on the mobile market because of that.
I didn't overlook a thing. Yes, more complex things are available. However, that's got a lot to do with already-made tools and engines, as well as the more-powerful hardware the devs can access. It's more complex, but also easier to do (note the flood of indie stuff on ID@Xbox and Steam). More is added, but the cost to add is lower. More pixels are pushed because they CAN be, as much as anything. That you think greed is a mobile-specific thing is laughable. Take one look at EA's Ultimate Team for the counter0-example. 2K was doing that card-based stuff in MLB 2K YEARS before EA had Ultimate Team, and it didn't cost money. Madden thrive because of EA's buying the license, not becuase it made a superior product (the reason NBA 2K thrives and NBA LIVE has been dead--at one point even literally--for almost a decade).
I dont buy these but every so often. These are cheap prices compared to like $99+ BS Posted via the Windows Central App for Android
Is this the same cliff blesinski team or did Microsoft buy the franchise from them
Microsoft bought the franchise and Coalition (formerly Black Tusk studios) is the developer.
so where is cliff blezinksi? Did he leave the dev team? Did any of them leave
Cliffy B left Epic a few years back and started his own Studio called Boss Key.
Cliff is working on Lawbreakers. Epic sold the franchise to MS a long while back, causing Black Tusk to dump its original project and rename itself to The Coalition. Like 343, I'm guessing some of the talent came over from its predecessor, but IDK if that's so with The Coalition.
As far as I'm aware the only person who came over from Epic was the Studio head, Rod Ferguesson. I'm sure there might be some others but hes the high profile one. Unlike 343 where a good portion of former Bungie team came over.
First DLCs and now this... God I hate nowaday game companies.
"Horde equipment, abilities, and skills. These will include power weapons, permanent skill unlocks for different classes, and powerful "Strikes" that can be utilized at critical moments. See the link below for more detail on how Horde 3.0 works." How is this not P2W?
Get the best of Windows Central in in your inbox, every day!
Thank you for signing up to Windows Central. You will receive a verification email shortly.
There was a problem. Please refresh the page and try again.