Halo Infinite must avoid these 5 mistakes to be successful

Halo Infinite
Halo Infinite (Image credit: Microsoft)

Halo Infinite, the next installment in Xbox's legendary franchise, is on the horizon. However, in order to blow everyone's minds and bring Halo back to the top of the charts, it's crucial that the game's developer 343 Industries avoids making these five critical mistakes, which were unfortunately made with Halo 5: Guardians.

Lackluster campaign

One of Halo 5's biggest problems was that the campaign, in the eyes of most people, was significantly less enjoyable than those of its predecessors. It had its moments — the section of the game that took place on Sanghelios was excellent — but overall, Halo 5 disappointed heavily in the singleplayer department, both gameplay and story-wise. One of Halo's biggest advantages over direct competitors like Call of Duty or Battlefield is that the campaigns are usually of a higher quality, so this mistake cannot be repeated.

Deviating from the roots

Ever since Halo: Reach, the franchise has been straying further and further from the core mechanical formula that brought the series into the limelight to begin with. Halo: Reach introduced armor abilities, Halo 4 made sprinting a universal mechanic, and Halo 5 added highly-controversial Spartan abilities, giving players the power to slide, hover in midair, slam into the ground, and more. While these things aren't objectively bad by any means, a massive portion of the community dislikes these new mechanics. Not counting Halo 2 Anniversary, it's been over a decade since a more "classic" style of Halo has been on shelves. I think a return to the simpler mechanics that Halo used to have is a fantastic idea for Halo Infinite.

Prevalence of microtransactions

Something that was near-universally disliked in Halo 5 was the Requisition System (REQ for short) that determined how the player unlocked customization items like armor, as well as weapons and vehicles to use in the new Warzone mode. Essentially loot boxes in card form, REQ packs made earning almost everything in the game a roll of the dice. They were obtainable by playing normally, but it took a very long time to earn them at any consistent rate. This stood in stark contrast to Halo games that came before, where players could earn their armor either by completing activities and achievements or buying them directly with in-game currency.

There's reason to be optimistic on this front, though: it has already been confirmed by 343 studio head Chris Lee that Halo Infinite won't have any paid loot boxes, though it will have microtransactions. Hopefully Infinite's microtransactions will be much less impactful on the overall experience.

Lack of release playlists

Halo 5: Guardians

Halo 5: Guardians (Image credit: Microsoft)

Halo 5 launched with a tiny amount of matchmaking modes and playlists, which hampered the online experience significantly. One of the best things about Halo is the way that its diverse game mode offerings foster a plethora of different gameplay experiences. Halo 5, though, launched with only the bare minimum. While it's true that more modes have been added over the last three years, for many players it was too little too late. Halo Infinite needs to deliver a good range of content out of the box.

No Forge at launch

Halo 5's take on Forge mode, Halo's famous map creation tool, didn't come with the game on release. This made it the first game in the series since 2007 to not have the mode at launch, and its absence was fairly detrimental to the multiplayer community. Many people, myself included, have a ton of fun making and editing maps to create unique gameplay opportunities. It was thankfully added two months after release, and it is the best Forge mode by far, but not having it there at the start of the game's life cycle was nonetheless very disappointing.

Your thoughts

What do you think of the mistakes I mentioned? What do you think 343 Industries needs to avoid with Halo Infinite? Let me know, and make sure to check out the games below if you have a Halo itch to scratch. Halo Infinite doesn't have a release date yet, but it's launching on both Xbox One and PC.

Brendan Lowry is a Windows Central writer and Oakland University graduate with a burning passion for video games, of which he's been an avid fan since childhood. You'll find him doing reviews, editorials, and general coverage on everything Xbox and PC. Follow him on Twitter.

  • 1) No loot boxes or any type of microtransactions. Also no "get the game late if you don't buy the expensive version of the game" bs.
    2) Split-screen like the early Halos
    3) Better story/campaign
    4) When the game is released, it should be finished.
  • I know it's a red herring but at this point, I don't care. The Last of Us has more egregious microtransactions than Halo 5, because news flash, the microtransactions in The Last of Us have a pay to win element with weapons that have a distinct advantage over others as well as an easy progress boost. Halo 5's are limited to cosmetics and pve stat boosts. Forza 7 removed it's microtransactions the same godamn day that GT Sport introduced them. Horizon 4 has no microtransactions period, just DLC. That is a straight lie and I don't know if you were mislead on the internet or if you are bullshitting. You aren't even considering the fact that Microtransactions can be used to expand a games lifetime from 1 year to 5 years. I don't know if you remember, but a long time back game studios had to rush out multiple titles a year of varying quality during the PS2 era, and every game had season passes that barely supported a game for 6 months in the 360 era. Microsoft has some of the fairer implementations of microtransactions out there. The benefit is player-bases don't get split, the games we love get to go on longer, and devs have job security. You can write it off as completely bad, or see that things aren't black and white. Meanwhile Sony advertises Activisions Black Ops 4 Battlepass because every company has a way to earn dirty money. You can ignore the way one makes their's and point the blame at another or you can actually put some thought into your argument.
  • Ah the same old Whataboutism... Because others do it, it's ok to do it? lol
    Halo 5 had microtransactions and lootbox. it had pay2win in warzone.
    Fans of MS/XB need to stop making excuse for it.
    Going into this generation MS implemented so much MS and loot box in their "console exclusives" it's actually crazy...
    The real question is do YOU want microtransactions and lootbox? Not whether you don't mind it. Or how it's "fair" it is. For me any of it is bs for a full price game.
  • Bring back the Didact.
  • Microsoft owned properties were the absolute worst when it came to microtransactions this generation. I really, really hope the next games in each series don't follow suit (I haven't played FH4 or Forza 7 yet to know if they fixed their egregious microtransactions and in game ads).
  • Egregious Micro Transaction in which game? Skins in Gear and Halo?
    FH4 and F7 have no real world money lootbox.
    The only egregious MT that happened in gaming this century, is Starwar Battlefront series.
    Assassins' Creeds have paid equipments, but it's single player, why care? You don't really need'em to beat the game. It's for fun factor and to show support.
  • @Hirox
    Both gears and Halo and previous Forzas had microtransactions and lootbox. Even Halo War, Ryse, KI... all had them.
    Any microtransactions or loot box in a full price game is unacceptable. Even for a single player game. Gameplay is made to frustrate players to grind unless they end up paying... The same mechanism used in mobile phone games. We've had examples where company had to change gameplay and a lot of the game design once they took out the microtransactions. It is not an option because it just makes the game more of a grind for everyone. It's really simple, I think there are many people who don't want loot box and microtransactions. There are many others don't care (meaning don't really want them). And a very small percentage of gamers actually WANTS them.
  • Progression in one area of Gears 4 (Horde mode) is locked behind random loot boxes. Which is, for many people, the best mode in the game. So to lock people out of progressing because they haven't been lucky enough to open up the skills they need to play the class they want, that is ridiculous. That being said, it does look like Microsoft have moved away from that now, since you mentioned the current Forza games don't have them, and actions were taken to revert the system in Gears at least (for skins, they made a few skins as flat out purchases recently, rather than loot boxing them). So it does appear they have seen the error of the past (though I think if BF2 hadn't hit the fan like it did we wouldn't be seeing these changes).
  • I don't mind micro-transactions, as long they don't make you progress faster, or get stronger than others in a game.
    If people are ready to spend their real world money on cosmetic unlocks, so be it. I'll keep earning my RP the regular way, and buy gold packs for 10,000. I just wish for them to add some sort of switch for Arena/Warzone for the pack's content. I don't care much for Warzone, yet, I have almost all the certifications for all the weapons in Warzone.
  • I think it's about wanting them. There are so many people who say "I don't mind it". Not many are saying "I want them".
    If the game is made more frustrating as it's trying to sell you stuff, then I wouldn't call this great for gamers. Gamers who already paid full price for the game.
  • Yeah but full price for game. But developing content for free costs money and if your not going to seperate player base by selling map packs. You need some way of funding post development without splitting playerbase. So as long as they don't give advantage or progress faster and it means I get meaningful post launch content without mappacks or expansions that split player base in multiplayer games I'm all for some form of money making. Games have been 50 to 60 dollars for 35 yrs. And now they require post care and cost for online services. Money must come from somewhere.
  • Look what they did with Splatoon. They included more content for months without asking for any money. And What? The stable "$60" argument. 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.
    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.
    They have so many of them:
    1) Microtransactions
    2) 3-4 different versions + collector edition
    3) Loot boxes
    4) DLCs
    5) Sponsored DLC and in game adverts.
    6) Get the game late if you don't pay money
    7) Exclusive content retailer deals in various retailers around the world.
    8) Exclusive marketing deals with console makers
    9) Timed exclusives content with console makers
    10) Sponsored Achievements like KFC achievements game by WWE 2K18
    11) recycling content
    12) milking franchises with yearly release
    13) Hiding the remainder of a story behind DLC (DR4)
    14) Pay2win
    ... The funny part is that it's not the tiny studios that are doing it. It's the massive companies doing it. If others can make critically amazing games (Breath of the wild, Horizon ZD, The witcher, Hellblade...) without the need of including microtransactions/lootbox why can't these companies do it? We really need to see some facts about what's actually being spent and profits and look that they are not doing this to survive but just for much bigger profit. I'm talking as a gamer and I speak FOR the gamer and for gaming here. Not for a company. I can't believe fellow gamers are actually defending these practices..
    Anyway i'll end with another video talking about this. And I agree with almost everything that is being said here:
  • Halo Infinite needs to come to PC. The absence of all the series on pc since Hallo 2. Is utterly not cool. I barely even got into halo 3 when I tried to play on a friends xbox360 at one time. Though seriously. They need to bring this game to pc. Been far to long.
  • No. It is, quite literally, the only exclusive game the Xbox One has, if it goes to PC there is zero reason to buy the console, you might as well just buy a PC and connect it to your TV.
  • Well it is coming for PC. Which is also coherent with the concept Microsoft has of unifying the Xbox and Windows Store gaming ecosystems. And that makes a lot of sense. This is backed by moves like Xbox Game Pass. Which is still in its infancy, because the catalog can't be fully shared for licensing reasons, and publishers not caring about the Play Anywhere model l. But with future things like Xcloud and a fully realized Game Pass, the line between Xbox gaming and PC (Windows Store) gaming should blur. It's a very artificial and capricious line, to be honest.
  • If Microsoft holds to their word, it should be a Play Anywhere title.
  • Good news friend - Halo Infinite is going to be playable on PC!
  • I really hope this is true! Especially if they can figure out crossplay!
  • Who'd want to cross-play with PC in anything other then 100% pure noncompetitive fun. That would definitely kill the game faster if they put cross-play in anything other then a action sack matchmaking and even then that's a stretch. I shouldn't be punished for not having a PC by getting sniped in the head repeatedly by a K&M user.
  • They would just pool players with the devices they are using. They already do it on Fortnite. So there's no reason it can't be done for HALO. PC + Controller vs Console +Controller.
    PC + Keyboard and Mouse vs Console + Keyboard and Mouse.
  • Of course it will have crossplay. This will spark the same old tired debate of PC users having an edge because they play with keyboard and mouse, but that should too be something of the past.
  • Personally, I found the Time to Kill to short and overall game speed was increased too much in the last few titles. They need to find a better balance. It was always more fun when you could get in and slug it out with enemies in multiplayer. Now its simply like all the other FPS games out there. 1-3 shots and you're dead..... It defeats the entire idea of spartan armour etc... It would be nice to see a PC release as well (not sure if confirmed yet), with Crossplay between Xbox. This would see a pretty big pick up in players and see some fierce rivalry between systems. I remember indestructible vehicles being one of the most fun aspects of the early games as well. Although this isn't for everyone it would be pretty cool to have the option, so we can start blowing warthogs all over the map again!
  • I disagree half with what you said, The TTK was unbalanced because of the starting load out per game. That magnum literally damn near beat EVERYTHING in game so it was little to no incentive to use anything else. They should definitely go back to health packs w/ armor in H:I if they want to use those pistols again or simply start out with AR's to make regular weapon pick ups viable again. However cross-play should not be a thing in this game or at least shouldn't be a thing in anything other then custom games. The reason the rift between console and PC shooters is the accuracy and preciseness that K&M (keyboard and Mouse) compared to controller offers. There would be no rivalry because K&M would be able to annihilate controller users just off pure mouse movement. This isn't even bias talking because I'm a console player and done research on this topic for awhile now it would definitely kill competitiveness for sure.
  • You are right in saying that K&M would destroy controller players, however, I'd 'assume' they would configure it the same way Fortnite has been done. Where controller players are matched with controller players both PC and Console. The same would be done for Keyboard and mouse players both Console and PC. Now that Xbox supports K&M there's no reason it can't be done fairly and balanced. Again you're pretty spot on about the starting loadouts as well.
  • Nothing in your article matters if it doesn't have split screen. Campaigns are the more fun with teammates in the same room as you. Firefight mode is also a great way to play! I paid for Halo 4, but it doesn't have split screen. Both me and my son never finished the campaign, it sucked not playing together. So, Halo 5 will never be purchased by me.
  • I'm pretty sure split screen has already been confirmed?
  • They promised split-screen for Halo 5 and just ended dropping it as they had to release the game. It should have split screen this time but I would still wait till it's launched.
  • As SX86 already stated, splitscreen was confirmed about a year back by Bonnie Ross. It's also going to be a guaranteed feature in all future Halo games according to her.
  • 1) Not coming out for PC. That's it for me.
  • ........ Did you actually read anything?!? Where are you getting "not coming to pc" from? Quite the opposite, they have stated its coming to pc. Think--->speak in that order
  • I don’t want to go back to past play styles. I love the universal sprint and slide mechanics. They keep the play style in line with other modern shooters. Weapons balancing needs to be dialed in though, the magnum is still in the right hands just so strong.
  • I like the new stuff too, I will admit, but I personally prefer the old style more and it seems that the majority of the community does as well. But I personally will probably have fun with the game no matter which direction they go in.