Halo Infinite may feature cosmetic microtransactions, possibly direct purchases like Gears 5

Halo Infinite
Halo Infinite (Image credit: Microsoft)

What you need to know

  • Halo Infinite is currently being developed by 343 Industries
  • Previously, 343 Industries confirmed that there would not be any real-money loot boxes included in the game.
  • A new job listing posits that Halo Infinite will contain microtransactions aimed as a "AAA player investment experience."
  • Halo Infinite is currently scheduled to release in 2020 as a launch title for Project Scarlett, though it will also come to Xbox One and PC, included with Xbox Game Pass (opens in new tab).

It looks like Halo Infinite will contain cosmetic microtransactions, according to a job listing for a Live Design Lead being hired at 343 Industries. Among other things, the responsibilities of this role will include overseeing social features, engagement and microtransactions. Here's an excerpt from the role description.

Design and deliver a AAA player investment experience that focuses on our fans and their desire to express their passion for our franchise (including but not limited to microtransactions).

343 Industries has previously confirmed that there will not be any real-money loot boxes in Halo Infinite. As such, it's more likely that the microtransactions included in Halo Infinite will mirror those in Gears 5: direct purchases for particular cosmetics, without any random chance. With Rare's Sea of Thieves also eschewing any loot boxes in favor of the upcoming direct purchases like pets, it seems this is a common thread across Xbox Game Studios titles.

For more information on Halo Infinite, you can check out an interesting teaser that a fan spotted. Halo Infinite is currently aimed for release in 2020 as a launch title for Project Scarlett, Microsoft's next-generation Xbox console. The game will also release on Xbox One and PC and will be included in Xbox Game Pass.

Related: Halo Infinite Creative Director Tim Longo leaves developer, replaced by Executive Producer Mary Olson

Xbox (opens in new tab)


Samuel Tolbert is a freelance writer covering gaming news, previews, reviews, interviews and different aspects of the gaming industry, specifically focusing on Xbox and PC gaming on Windows Central. You can find him on Twitter @SamuelTolbert.

  • "that focuses on our fans and their desire to express their passion for our franchise"
    Interesting how they put this into words. As if to say that it's actually people who wants microtransations. Personally, I find this pathetic.
    And another full price game that will use free2play economics with microtransactions. For me, no full price game should ever have microtransactions in it's game, no matter who they are.
    And it's even worse if it's done by a console maker who is trying to sell it's new console, it's renting subscription service and pay to play online service...
    Just pathetic...
  • I don't want it as long as it's something that you can buy directly, and it is something that does not make it to where you're playing to win if it's just find some that's cosmetic why should you care if someone buys it. The support that developer
  • @usguyver
    Why is it that the only people I see defend don't actually want it themselves but "don't mind it"? Cosmetic and visual are part of the game. As soon as there are microtransactions, there will always be the pressure to make the gamer pay more money. All players don't have a choice as usually games are made more grindy to frustrate players so that they end up playing cash. It affects EVERYONE whether you pay or not. Also I want companies to focus on content and trying to make a good game for customers. I don't want them to focus on how squeeze more money from us gamers.
    Like I said, even more for a company that is making this game to sell consoles, renting service and paying to play online service. They don't NEED to have it. Encouraging this only encourage companies to keep pushing microtransactions in full price games. Also and finally, devs don't get much from this. Devs usually are just getting their salaries and that it. Most of the money usually goes to publishers and investors.
  • People do want them. If they didn't, they wouldn't buy them. You and me might not like the model, but it's been proven to work.
  • @fdruid
    There was a study that showed that only 1.3% of gamers are actually fans and wants microtransactions. You think people take pleasure in paying money after paying a game at full price? Don't you think they would prefer that items are all available in game without grinding?
    You do know that in these type of games companies usually look to frustrate players either through loads of grinding or the wait mechanism. The focus is to make players pay more money, I would rather they focus on just make a good game.
    It's proven to work FOR publishers and investors, as a gamer it's not working. It doesn't make sense. Like I said earlier: Why is it that the only people I see defend don't actually want it themselves but are "fine with this"?
    That's what you said. If only I finally get to discuss with a gamer who actually WANTS IT!!
  • You got it.
    I do want it. As I've pointed out many times, these types of transactions pay for the continual new content gamers seem to expect these days. Especially games that have a bigger focus on multi-player than single player need some type of revenue stream to keep going. Like it or not the market has shown that people will pay for cosmetic items to enhance their game play. As far as that poll, unless I know the methodology I can't really take it seriously. Way to easy to phrase a question to get the answer you want.
  • I think you didn't understand what I meant. I meant someone who actually spend real cash to buy this crap. Not someone who just wants them because he thinks he gets content out of it. Now the whole problem with your argument is that we've seen many of games that kept providing content without the need to push microtransactions.
    Splatoon kept providing loads of content after release for free. Same thing with games like the witcher or again NMS...
    You got to also consider these are first party XB games like SoT or SoD 2 or crackdown 3. The goal of MS is constant subscription to their game pass and gold services. We are talking about 15 bucks per month. They really don't need these. Look at SoT FFS. Halo 5 made $400m in ONE WEEK and you tell me they NEED microtransactions!!! The people who spend money on microtransaction aren't the majority of the gamers. And they often do it because they don't want to grind or wait.
    So you may say, "it's great, they are given the option to skip that grind", but who put that grind mechanism in the first place? The very same people who sells you the microtransactions.
    Some people will spend money on cosmetic stuff, but some people also spend money on loot box. It doesn't mean that they should be in a full price game.
    Here is a CEO of an indie free2play talking about it (very interesting talk where you see what company do to make people spend money):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNjI03CGkb4&feature=youtu.be&t=860 Taking some of these strategies for a full price game is just pathetic imo.
  • One thing you need to know.
    Enthusiast (keeping track of gaming news, gather, talk sxxt and try to keep the group warm) != majority.
  • Proven to work =/= people like it, it's been proven to work because gamers don't like the grinding created by micro-transactions, therefore spend money. The ideal scenario would be to sell the single-player portion for 60$ and leave the multi-player F2P with all the cosmetic micro-transactions to fund future updates.
  • That doesn't even make sense. Why would they want to fragment thier market like that? Take HALO, under your sceario there would be 3 groups of people. Those who play both single and multi player, the single player that was interested in the story, and the multi-player only that had no idea what the point of all this is. If a developer is trying to build a world story that would just create chaos.
  • And what is bad in segmenting the market? Fortnite did this and it's doing very well. It's better for everyone, the people that only want the campaign can get it knowing they aren't promoting this anticossumer tactics and they don't need to unnecessarily fill the storage with multi-player data. The people that only want the multi-player will not need to spend money. And nothing will change for the people that want both.
  • @Goncalo
    It's actually a great idea. The "fragmenting market" argument doesn't make sense. Those who want both will buy the game and get the free2play multiplayer. I don't even understand the point he was trying to make. The problem with that is I don't see MS doing it. They want to make the money from selling the multiplayer + make more from microtransactions. We know how most of these AAA publishers are...
  • > Proven to work =/= people like it
    Logically, if people don't like it, they won't freaking buy it, then it will not work.
    It works but YOU and a few don't like sounds more appropriate.
  • So YOU love them right? Look here how many are actually regularly buying microtransactions?
    The survey was in majority people who didn't mind it and those who didn't like it. Only 1.3% were fans of it. You claim to work in gaming. In free2play games players are frustrated so they end up paying because they don't want to be frustrated. If you can't understand that simple concept then I can't help you.
    Watch this video:
    https://youtu.be/xNjI03CGkb4?t=496 If you can't understand these concepts, then you really have a problem.
  • Don't put your word in my mouth.
    I don't love or hate them. Its existence won't bother me cause I'll just ignore'em.
    But it works, so, many people are supporting these kinda system (it's their choice to spend on some specific looks / costume), and some are crazy about those (addition isn't good but still, your choice, unless you earn millions a month). They are grown adults, it's their choice.
    Spend all your money and end up on the street? Will not bother me. For most cases. phone f2p + loot box (affects progressions, most of the time) != paid console game + DLC, new content, new map, new character, new car, new cloth (you can beat the game as planed).
    * f2p console game like Apex Legends has loot box that affects no progressions. Many people choose to spend future money, but I don't. I own $0 to no one. 0 debts. Pretty much the same things.
  • "Don't put your word in my mouth."
    What are you talking about?!? I asked you questions. Can't you see the question marks FFS? I didn't put words in your mouth you liar. It's so ironic that you always do that and now you cry about it because you think me asking questions are me putting words in your mouth. LOL I don't want to bother with your bs...
  • I have zero issue with people paying for a cosmetic they want to buy this is purely a choice related to each individual and is no different to any other form of DLC. I don't like random loot boxes that don't guarantee an item.
  • I'm perfectly fine with this.
  • Once again. I don't understand why gamers seem to think they are entitled to free stuff. If you pay for a game you get the game, you can play to your hearts content. If you want to play in multi-player it's known upfront you have to have a Gold subscription. You get the basic cosmetics with the game, usually the ability to pick some up in game play or grinding some type of in game currancy. Why should you not have to pay extra for fancy cosmetics? It helps pay for server maintence, new content, cosmetics, etc.
  • I always laugh when to defend a company or a product, people will use the "entitled gamers" argument.
    Gamers have the right to post their opinions or criticise a product. Old Halo games didn't have these? Cosmetic items used to be unlocked in the game without the need to pay for it. There are loads of examples where companies manage to make a game without any microtransactions.
    Here is a video that compared Halo 5 to Halo 3. Very interesting and it talks about this subject:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVGw8_njodc The worst part like I said is that you're trying to damage control for a company that doesn't need to do this. The games will make them money through console sales and 2 different services. They don't need this. "It helps pay for server maintence"
    Oh PLEASE!! MS have been making BILLIONS per year through gold. Why do you think people pay for a monthly subscription? Even though most games are peer2peer, they still ask their customers to pay up. And now you say that these microtransactions help fund these servers???
    What bs!!! There is a limit to damage controlling for a company. And that's by far the worst excuse I've read here.
  • You're wrong we never used to get that much content for free... Cosmetic didn't really exist... And stop whining it's annoying... You don't like it then protest by not buying it... I'm perfectly fine with micro transaction on cosmetic and don't give a damn if it's grindy.... If the game is good it's all I care about... Cosmetic are for fans I did buy some for some games and I have zero regrets... Games today are worth way more than 60 bucks and cost way more than the Era you are talking about that didn't really exist on that tipe of game on any platform for almost 2 generation if not more.. À game today like halo with all it's content is worth way way way more than 60 bucks, are you ready to shell out a bigger lump of cash to have a "full game?" Just get real you are cheap....
  • Ah the "you're cheap" argument.It's so hilarious how you guys (so-called gamers) will defend a multi-billion dollar corporation using free2play economics in their major game. You are a "gamer" who actually accept that they make the game a grind or more frustrating. You prefer companies to focus on trying to manipulate fellow gamers into spending more money than getting the content (that is already part of the game for free like it always used to be in the past). It's not about not being able to afford microtransactions. In case you didn't understand it's more about companies focusing on how to make more money after selling the game, instead of only focusing on making a quality product. It's about purposely making the game more grindy and frustrating for EVERYONE. Next the "stop whining, just don't buy it" argument.
    I don't know about you but I live in a country where I have freedom of speech and I have the right to give my opinion.
    Don't come here and tell gamers/consumers to shut up because we consumers have a rights and have a freedom of speech just like how company "fans" have the right to try and damage control for the company they worship...
    If you want to come here to defend these practices and tell us why it's amazing for us gamers than say it. If you get upset with my comment you are welcome to either try to counter it with gaming argument or just ignore it. "Games today are worth way more than 60 bucks and cost way more than the Era you are talking about"
    First I'm talking about game THIS generation. I've talked about MS's own games like SOT or State of decay. Also NMS and Splatoon. Yes it's a smaller scale but if anything these smaller companies have a MUCH lower budget than a corporation like MS. For them it's a LOT less affordable. I could even name free2play games who use microtransactions... Plus let's not forget, MS will sell consoles, renting and play online subscriptions. They don't NEED it. If a company needs free2play mechanism in their game to make money they probably should just make it a free2play game. Ok. Here is a video that considers marketing, development, cost of goods sold and record profits of EA, Activision and Ubisoft all adjusted for inflation. We can clearly see that the overall trend is that the cost has actually dropped and there has been record profits. And less games.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qq6HcKj59Q EA told their investors that removing microtransactions from battlefront 2 won't affect earnings.
    So all these alternative way of making money is really just looks like greed at this point. What's funny is that it's mostly the major publishers doing it. And what's worst with MS is that like I keep on saying this game is making them so much money from console sales, and services...
    with 3 of the last 4 major MS release (SoD, Crackdown 3, SoT) wasn't the argument of the extra content an argument to keep players paying for game pass?
    Halo 5 made $400m in week one, and now you're going to cry about them needing microtransactions??? Crazy... There are people who post to defending the interest of gamers and game quality... There are others who post to defend the company they worship even if it's anti-gaming...
  • The funny part about it is that since it's a MS game, we'll see MS fans defend it. When Halo 5 had their loot box called REQ packs, I can't believe how many MS fans defended that. So I don't really believe any one of them now when they now say "as long as it's cosmetic that can be bought directly, it's fine".
    If it had pay to win loot box these people would still defend it like they did in 2015.
  • Then go defend what you like... Thing is no game with the quantity of content halo has is worth just 60 bucks... It simply can't it's simple maths... Just like COD, or any other games getting a lot of support post launch... And please don't compare halo with splatoon... It doesn't make sense... Not only production value is smaller it has 'owhere the quantity of content halo games and the likes get.... It' s comparing a cat with a tiger...
  • I am defending what I like. I am defending gaming.
    What's worth or not is totally subjective. Halo is making MS huge amount of cash. Not just the $60 sale. Also let's not kid ourselves with this $60 argument. There will probably be loads of different versions that cost a lot more than the $60 and you would still need to pay for microtransactions.
    Halo 5 made $400m in one week, yes we are not talking of the same thing as Splatoon. If anything it should be the other way round. But major AAA publishers are just greedy... Funny thing is I trashed Activision for introducing microtransactions in crash team racing on windowscentral. Funny no one replied to me there. I guess it's a different story if I dare criticise MS and 343i. lol
  • Anything goes again Guest's liking, is defending, fanboy-ism, company-fan-ism, etc. That being said,
    1) Guest said, Epic is the one to blame for locking ps4 away from cross-playing with other platforms.
    2) Every news sites was covering the the news about Ninja and the nude streaming, Guest called Windows Central (and many users) bias, favoring Mixer.
    3) From an interview, Guest said Matt Booty push developers into doing things they don't want to do.
  • I really don't usually like to discuss with liars.
    1) Never said that. Either you still didn't understand what I said after clearly explaining it to you (meaning you have a real problem understanding simple English) or you're a liar.
    2) It's not a secret that WindowsCentral covers MS news and favours it. They themselves admitted it. Again you didn't understand my post that was written in simple English. I said there will be more coverage of Mixer after the Ninja deal and at that time I was right because they had far more articles about Mixer since the deal than usual... Once again, you didn't understand.
    3) This is yet another lie from you. I never said that. Ok, Hirox. I don't like to discuss with liars. So can you ignore me and my post from now on?
  • 1) [quote] When it comes to the Fornite issue, the problem is with epic accounts. Epic should be the one to solve that issue. [/quote]
    Those are your words.
    [quote] Epic should be the one to solve that issue [/quote]
    So you are saying Epic had failed (or incompetent?), to achieve such a simple task, failed to achieve their vision.
    * This reminded me, you also said xbox live for Android / Switch / iOS is just some simple API calling, some low tech, unadvanced stuffs? 2) Yet, tech or game sites like The Verge, Engadget, IGN, Gamespot are all covering the same news.
    Q: Why should WC skip it?
    Q: Are all those game or tech sites bias too? 3) [quote] How about let the studio itself decide if they want to build on the franchise and continue making games in the universe. [/quote]
    [quote] I hope they let studios decide. Like they promised, creative freedom and all...[/quote]
    Those are your words. And someone else replied you "No one's forcing anyone." Are you sure you didn't mean it?
  • 1) you're struggling to see the difference between your interpretation of my words and what I truly said. You keep doing the same old bs.
    2) I'm not talking of that one only but the collection of all articles since the deal. Can you understand that?
    3) Where did I say "Matt Booty push developers into doing things they don't want to do."? You ****ing liar...
  • 1-1) So, what do you mean by saying "Epic should be the one to solve the issue"?
    a) Epic was unable / failed to deliver their vision.
    b) Epic was capable but "Sony" happened.
    Q: a or b? Someone else also replied "It’s not Epic’s fault. It’s Sony’s due to their policies".
    Q: Why did he say that? Are you not assigning blames to Epic?
    [quote]Being on multiple systems doesn't really make a system more advance. It's just API calls from different devices.[/quote]
    step1: Server needs to be ready.
    step2: MS needs permissions from different platform/system owners.
    step3: In order to build SDK for each platform/system, MS needs to work with different system's API, do the designing, maintaining, future proofing.
    step4: Devs needs to build ROMs for each platform/system and they need to adapt those SDKs for different platform/system. Q: Nothing advance, "It's just API calls". Anyone on earth could've done that kinda easy?
    Y/N. It's easier to create new things then fix things. Do you know why we can't really fix bugs after service-in? Even if it's some super simple, as tiny beanie, as stupid the mistake is.
    If you know the reason. Please share.
    2) When Ninja tweet about some topic or something (especially about Twitch, around this sensitive period), tech or game sites will write an article about it.
    Q: Give me a list of Ninja-Twitch-related articles that's covered ONLY by WinCentral (are you saying the world thinks Ninja-Twitch-related news, actually not news worthy?)
    3) "How about let the studio itself decide if they want to" and "I hope they let studios decide. Like they promised, creative freedom and all..."?
    Sounds like you are saying they don't have a choice. There's no creative freedom and all?
    Someone else replied "No one's forcing anyone."
    Q: Why did he say that? Because you were saying there's creative freedom everywhere?
  • 1) You're going around in circles. All that I had to say I said it back then. It's not my problem that you don't understand it. If you don't get it just let it go. It's not meant for you... 2) Ever since the deal they have hyped more Twitch and Ninja then ever before. We've had topic about him getting half a million follower and another covering the one million. I've never seen this on windowscentral before the deal. I made a prediction that there will be more coverage and it turned out to be true. Don't get upset that I got a predication right. It's not a big deal. If it is to you, just deal with it. 3) "Sounds like you are saying [...]"
    How about this? Next time you claim that I said something post the EXACT quote. You said this:
    "From an interview, Guest said Matt Booty push developers into doing things they don't want to do."
    I'm still waiting. Where did I say that?? Exact quote with link.
    You do that so often. Lie and put words in my mouth.
    You lied again and here you're caught red-handed once again with another lie.
    I already told you, I don't like to discuss with liars. I don't know if I'll keep replying you or I'll just ignore you from now on...
  • One Q at a time then. What do you mean by saying "Epic should be the one to solve the issue"?
    Someone else also replied "It’s not Epic’s fault. It’s Sony’s due to their policies".
    Q: Are you not assigning blames to Epic?
  • Microtransactions don't really bother me. I think that game developers believe that the games they make are worth $100. During the 16 bit era, for example, it wasn't uncommon for especially popular games to be far more than the typical $50 or so games retailed for. Street fighter 2 in it's many iterations could be 80-90 bucks in the store. Eventually semi-standard pricing became the norm. If the companies had their way, games would be FAR more expensive at retail than they are now. Anyway, Microtransactions are their way of squeezing what they think they deserve out of us. I simply don't buy them. MY biggest concern is Halo Infinite will turn out to be some tone-deaf Destiny clone that absolutely no one wants. I'm not convinced that Microsoft has learned a damn thing from this generation.
  • If 343i thinks that then I'll remind them that they made $400m in the first week of selling Halo 5. I would love to know which game made that much money after 1 week during the 16 bit era...
    Also they do sell version of the game that cost $100 or more. I don't remember ANY of these big publishers let those who buy those versions free access to these microtransactions Thinking they would not have microtransactions if the games are $100 is quite naive.