Support NeoGAF

[GhaleonEB]

At this rate, Halo 4 will have all of Halo 3's features by 2015. Be sure to check back around that time.

Campaign theater has already been ruled out. There's always Halo 5.

 

[Doogington]

Not that I see this happening, but what if they did a kind of relaunch? Perhaps bundle all the dlc with new content of some kind on a disc at a reasonable price to entice players to come back to Halo 4. Probably would have to have a big marketing campaign, though. Yeah, it won't happen.

 

[wwm0nkey]

Not that I see this happening, but what if they did a kind of relaunch? Perhaps bundle all the dlc with new content of some kind on a disc at a reasonable price to entice players to come back to Halo 4. Probably would have to have a big marketing campaign, though. Yeah, it won't happen.

I think they should at least advertise and do a few PR stuff for the new changes and potential Forge World.

 

[FyreWulff]

Not that I see this happening, but what if they did a kind of relaunch? Perhaps bundle all the dlc with new content of some kind on a disc at a reasonable price to entice players to come back to Halo 4. Probably would have to have a big marketing campaign, though. Yeah, it won't happen.

No point with the 2 year cycle.

If I were to be brash, Microsoft made their bed on this one. Reach would have been entering it's third year right now, which is where matchmaking usually finds itself and we get all the good content that people remember from previous matchmakings.

Instead, they wanted faster releases. The new release cannibalized Reach and now they have even less people playing both games combined than if they had just left Reach alone.

I don't care how long 4 was actually in development, Halo doesn't need to try and ape CoD with fast releases. Look at Nintendo. They make a SINGLE game per console in the Mario Kart and Super Smash Bros franchises and let it just accumulate sales. You don't need to pump games out to be relevant.

 

[StalkerUKCG]

We only have to wait till
November 9 2014

 

[FUNKNOWN iXi]

No point with the 2 year cycle.

If I were to be brash, Microsoft made their bed on this one. Reach would have been entering it's third year right now, which is where matchmaking usually finds itself and we get all the good content that people remember from previous matchmakings.

Instead, they wanted faster releases. The new release cannibalized Reach and now they have even less people playing both games combined than if they had just left Reach alone.

I don't care how long 4 was actually in development, Halo doesn't need to try and ape CoD with fast releases. Look at Nintendo. They make a SINGLE game per console in the Mario Kart and Super Smash Bros franchises and let it just accumulate sales. You don't need to pump games out to be relevant.

I'm not sure if this is the first time it has happened, but I 99.9% disagree with you.

 

[Doogington]

No point with the 2 year cycle.

If I were to be brash, Microsoft made their bed on this one. Reach would have been entering it's third year right now, which is where matchmaking usually finds itself and we get all the good content that people remember from previous matchmakings.

Instead, they wanted faster releases. The new release cannibalized Reach and now they have even less people playing both games combined than if they had just left Reach alone.

I don't care how long 4 was actually in development, Halo doesn't need to try and ape CoD with fast releases. Look at Nintendo. They make a SINGLE game per console in the Mario Kart and Super Smash Bros franchises and let it just accumulate sales. You don't need to pump games out to be relevant.

It's a shame, alright. If only they continued to update Reach with new maps, another forge world perhaps, or even just keeping the playlists fresh. Would it be more cost effective to essentially milk it for all it's worth and then move on to a new release? And in that case, the milking would benefit everyone.

 

[FyreWulff]

I'm not sure if this is the first time it has happened, but I 99.9% disagree with you.

Microsoft: Make a Halo.

Long term support with DLC and matchmaking updates.

Not this bullshit where Reach updates slow down to molasses not long after it comes out because the developer that's taking it over is looking ahead to their next game. A two year cycle means Halo 4 will get pushed aside soon in the run up to the next title as well.

Part of the reason I really don't have a drive to rank up or buy DLC anymore is because I know the game will be replaced soon anyway. I mean, I knew a new Halo was coming eventually with the previous games. But I knew it was a ways off and it was just not on my mind until the marketing started opening up.

And looking at how obviously hot Halo 4 came in as? Yeah, I don't think a 2013 release would've hurt it.

 

[Rickenslacker]

I'm not sure if this is the first time it has happened, but I 99.9% disagree with you.

We'd be better off if 3 was the only MP Halo this gen with consistent triannual map pack releases.

 

[FUNKNOWN iXi]

Nintendo gets so much crap because of what you just mentioned. Reach wouldn't have become a better game if it was the main Halo game for another year. Just because you have shorter time between releases does not mean the quality has to diminish.. it just means better decisions need to be made on an upper management level and maybe better talent has to be hired. Smash, although an extremely popular franchise, hardly moves consoles with one release per console.

The development times on some of these games are way too long for the final products we receive. CoD having alternating releases is a great model and something Microsoft should look into for Halo releases. They don't necessarily have to be FPS, but they have to be significant.

We'd be better off if 3 was the only MP Halo this gen with consistent triannual map pack releases.

No. No it would not. Halo 3 easily had the worst base gameplay of any Halo game, both for competitive and casual players.


-EDIT-

Part of the reason I really don't have a drive to rank up or buy DLC anymore is because I know the game will be replaced soon anyway. I mean, I knew a new Halo was coming eventually with the previous games. But I knew it was a ways off and it was just not on my mind until the marketing started opening up.

So you don't buy DLC because you think a new Halo game may be coming out within a year or two after said DLC releases?

And looking at how obviously hot Halo 4 came in as? Yeah, I don't think a 2013 release would've hurt it.

I would hardly say that was an issue of time restraints.. Seriously, the horrible decisions for Halo were in its design.

 

[Booshka]

We'd be better off if 3 was the only MP Halo this gen with consistent triannual map pack releases.

That actually would have worked out nicely for Reach and ODST, just focus on the Campaign and Firefight for those two games, and leave Halo 3 as the only MP title for the gen.

Spoiler

except in this dream scenario, Halo Anniversary had CE Multiplayer on XBL like we all hoped it would

 

[StalkerUKCG]

except in this dream scenario, Halo Anniversary had CE Multiplayer on XBL like we all hoped it would

I didn't want it.

 

[Booshka]

I didn't want it.

I actually knew that someone would say that, so I should have just said, people like myself. I am baffled that some Halo fans don't want to play Halo CE on XBL.

 

[FyreWulff]

Smash, although an extremely popular franchise, hardly moves consoles with one release per console.

Smash is practically the reason the GameCube even had sales in the first place. The term for what Smash is in the industry is "evergreen title".

Halo could easily become an evergreen title if Microsoft wanted to back it like one.

So you don't buy DLC because you think a new Halo game may be coming out within a year or two after said DLC releases?

I don't think, I know. Microsoft execs are fairly open about what they're doing. Microsoft is the least mysterious of the 3 console makers and they telegraph everything they do well in advance. They've outright said they didn't want the 3 year cycle anymore.

 

[xxjuicesxx]

Yea but Microsoft doesn't care about the gamer. They just want to pump money out of Halo as often and as much as possible. They could give less of a shit who continues to play because they make no money off that. Sales is their BANANAS, and service is their facade. Even if people toss the game in their woodchipper two days later, they dont care, they already Ron Jeremy'd you hard with that Season Pass you gobbled up like it was Holly Michael's bathwater.

 

[Rickenslacker]

No. No it would not. Halo 3 easily had the worst base gameplay of any Halo game, both for competitive and casual players.

You aren't ignoring the last 3 years right.

 

[Steelyuhas]

No point with the 2 year cycle.

If I were to be brash, Microsoft made their bed on this one. Reach would have been entering it's third year right now, which is where matchmaking usually finds itself and we get all the good content that people remember from previous matchmakings.

Instead, they wanted faster releases. The new release cannibalized Reach and now they have even less people playing both games combined than if they had just left Reach alone.

I don't care how long 4 was actually in development, Halo doesn't need to try and ape CoD with fast releases. Look at Nintendo. They make a SINGLE game per console in the Mario Kart and Super Smash Bros franchises and let it just accumulate sales. You don't need to pump games out to be relevant.

Well except for the fact that MS wants to make money on their franchise. There has been some form of a Halo release every year since 2009 for a reason.

I don't think Nintendo is a good example because third-party games on Nintendo consoles are basically non-existent at this point. If you are using a Nintendo console, you are using it to play Zelda or Mario. If you are using an Xbox, you are not necessarily using it to play Halo, your game won't accumulate 25 million copies sold simply because it exists on Xbox.

 

[User 73706]

I'd actually be interested in a release system like this.

Xbox 420 releases with Halo: Arena as a F2P title that comes saved on the hard drive of every launch console (but obviously is still "paid for" by buying the console). It's completely digital meaning any and all patches are possible. Contains multiplayer, big team, forge, and theater. 14 maps. 3 small, 3 medium, 3 large (8v8). 3 UNSC, 3 Forerunner, 3 Covenant. The small map for each faction is a remake (possibly Midship/Lockout/The Pit) and also a forge canvas. Certain Affinity makes 5 massive 16v16 maps for social big team. No Campaign.

Halo 5 launches the year after the Xbox 420 releases allowing for a more significant userbase increase. It comes with campaign, campaign theater, Firefight 3.0, and a bunch of additional maps for Arena.

Following that, the next two years are filled with Spartan Ops and another campaign expansion along the lines of ODST. Mainline Halo games are released every 3 years, while the Halo: Arena multiplayer component is updated throughout the entire lifespan of the console similar to TF2.

 

[Booshka]

I'd actually be interested in a release system like this.

Xbox 420 releases with Halo: Arena as a F2P title that comes saved on the hard drive of every launch console (but obviously is still "paid for" by buying the console). It's completely digital meaning any and all patches are possible. Contains multiplayer, big team, forge, and theater. 14 maps. 3 small, 3 medium, 3 large (8v8). 3 UNSC, 3 Forerunner, 3 Covenant. The small map for each faction is a remake (possibly Midship/Lockout/The Pit) and also a forge canvas. Certain Affinity makes 5 massive 16v16 maps for social big team. No Campaign.

Halo 5 launches the year after the Xbox 420 releases allowing for a more significant userbase increase. It comes with campaign, campaign theater, Firefight 3.0, and a bunch of additional maps for Arena.

Following that, the next two years are filled with Spartan Ops and another campaign expansion along the lines of ODST. Mainline Halo games are released every 3 years, while the Halo: Arena multiplayer component is updated throughout the entire lifespan of the console similar to TF2.

Console gamers are too naive and jaded to accept a F2P MP game that is treated like a Service a la League of Legends/SC2 or TF2. Hopefully that will change next gen, but I think console gamers just want to buy full priced retail games in the usual annual or biannual cycle. I would love a Halo Arena like that, if the gameplay was good of course and the support was amazing. But, I just don't see that model working on consoles yet.

 

[Hydranockz]

I was going to ask why he kept calling it the Xbox 420. Then I saw the user name.

All became clear.

 

[FUNKNOWN iXi]

I actually knew that someone would say that, so I should have just said, people like myself. I am baffled that some Halo fans don't want to play Halo CE on XBL.

lol

Smash is practically the reason the GameCube even had sales in the first place. The term for what Smash is in the industry is "evergreen title".

Halo could easily become an evergreen title if Microsoft wanted to back it like one.

I'm simply saying that releasing Smash on a 5+ year cycle with the final products we receive is not beneficial to the fans. I had more to say on this but Steelyuhas has a good point.

Just because you have shorter dev cycles does not mean the quality will diminish. Halo 4 should've been the greatest Halo game ever made with it's 3+ year dev cycle and largest budget, but what we got wasn't.

The only way I could support what you're saying is IF we actually got a phenomenal Halo game at launch with plans that were made early on to continue full support for the game. We just don't see those kinds of things from console games.. when we do, then sure I'd much rather Halo 3 had a major TU that had it play like Halo 2, but that just was and probably will never be the case, at least not with this generation.

You aren't ignoring the last 3 years right.

This is where opinions come into play but MLG Reach settings were far greater than any gameplay tweaks we saw in 3. The same can be said about 4.

Halo 3 was the lowest point in base Halo gameplay for the franchise. Extremely watered down and inconsistent.


-EDIT-

When I think of Halo as evergreen I'm thinking regular update support in addition to content support. Think TF2 but without hats.

Yeah I know what you meant, but we just haven't seen anything like that on consoles yet with a franchise as large as Halo. Not to mention PC gaming is way more flexible.

 

[FyreWulff]

Just because you have shorter dev cycles does not mean the quality will diminish. Halo 4 should've been the greatest Halo game ever made with it's 3+ year dev cycle and largest budget, but what we got wasn't.

The only way I could support what you're saying is IF we actually got a phenomenal Halo game at launch with plans that was made early on to continue full support for the game. We just don't see those kinds of things from console games.. when we do, then sure I'd much rather Halo 3 had a major TU that had it play like Halo 2, but that just was and probably will never be the case.

When I think of Halo as evergreen I'm thinking regular update support in addition to content support. Think TF2 but without hats.

 

[Dirtbag]

Halo 3 was the lowest point in base Halo gameplay for the franchise. Extremely watered down and inconsistent.

Base Halo Reach/4.. but I find the AA's (and bloom!) way more disruptive then base halo 3.

 

[wwm0nkey]

As we are talking about Halo 4 advertising, I just saw a Halo 4 commercial on TV. So Microsoft seems willing to continue advertising it when new map packs hit.

 

[Madness]

Nintendo may get a ton of crap for not releasing games quickly, but every time they do release a game, it's usually high quality and sells like hotcakes.

I'd have preferred a 3+ year wait between new games. Judging by the amount of features cut in Halo 4 and the rushed nature of the campaign ie terminals, the fact that it took so long to get things like file share, I'd have preferred Halo 4 to launch this year or maybe even be pushed as a launch title for the nextbox.

 

[zap]

When I think of Halo as evergreen I'm thinking regular update support in addition to content support. Think TF2 but without hats.

But MS cares about sales first, DLC and user retention second.

Compare a 6 year time frame - they could have two games that sell 8 million units each, or 3 games that sell 6 million each (most likely to be higher as Halo games are pretty top-heavy sales-wise).

As a long term strategy it could be worse (if quality decreases, but they could align with CoD and reduce changes to MP etc to save dev time), but for now the sales are better.

It's the way it is :/

 

[Omni]

Catching up over the last few pages... Sorry to hear that Noobs and Ellis. :\

...

As for 2 year dev cycles, I don't care too much about them as long as devs can update things substantially from the previous instalments. Plus everyone is doing them these days anyway (even Bungie with Destiny).

Plus isn't BF4 supposed to be announced today or something?

 

[FUNKNOWN iXi]

Nintendo may get a ton of crap for not releasing games quickly, but every time they do release a game, it's usually high quality and sells like hotcakes.

Look at where Nintendo is today both in regards to future potential and gamer satisfaction.

I'd have preferred a 3+ year wait between new games. Judging by the amount of features cut in Halo 4 and the rushed nature of the campaign ie terminals, the fact that it took so long to get things like file share, I'd have preferred Halo 4 to launch this year or maybe even be pushed as a launch title for the nextbox.

Cut because of time restraints or cut because of other factors like experience and poor decisions? These features were in previous Halo games, so them being cut due to "time restraints" is a poor excuse.. not to mention some of these cut features were design decisions.


-EDIT-

The best games have always been the ones that weren't followed by an immediate successor and were instead refined over the years by both the devs and the community. Look at the time gaps between SSBM and Brawl (like you mentioned).

I don't even.

As for them being the best in its respective genres, Smash doesn't have much competition lol..

What's the design decision for cutting Campaign Theater?

Did I say "cutting Campaign Theater was a design decision?" That probably falls under poor planning as it was a feature that's been around since Halo 3, but it gets cut due to time restraints?

To me, that should've been planned from the get-go and if it was a serious enough feature for them to include, I'm sure it would've been included. Fact is that it wasn't.

 

[Duji]

When I think of Halo as evergreen I'm thinking regular update support in addition to content support. Think TF2 but without hats.

That would be awesome. I am also not a fan of the two year cycle.

The best games have always been the ones that weren't followed by an immediate successor and were instead refined over the years by both the devs and the community. Look at the time gaps between SSBM and Brawl (like you mentioned), Quakes 3 and 4, and also Brood War and SC2. SSBM, Q3, and BW are all arguably among the very best in their respective genres.

 

[Hydranockz]

Look at where Nintendo is today both in regards to future potential and gamer satisfaction.



Cut because of time restraints or cut because of other factors like experience and poor decisions? These features were in previous Halo games, so them being cut due to "time restraints" is a poor excuse.. not to mention some of these cut features were design decisions.

What's the design decision for cutting Campaign Theater?

 

[Doogington]

What's the design decision for cutting Campaign Theater?

They didn't think anyone would miss it.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they also say something along the lines of thinking no one would care about the lack of custom games options and expressed surprise that people wanted them back?

 

[FyreWulff]

That would be awesome. I am also not a fan of the two year cycle.

The best games have always been the ones that weren't followed by an immediate successor and were instead refined over the years by both the devs and the community. Look at the time gaps between SSBM and Brawl (like you mentioned), Quakes 3 and 4, and also Brood War and SC2. SSBM, Q3, and BW are all arguably among the very best in their respective genres.

I'm just continually dismayed that Halo is Microsoft's flagship franchise yet it receives the post-launch resource allocation of a Valusoft sports title.

This is Microsoft. They should be crushing other publishers in terms of post-ship support and DLC output. A company with more money than god can't compliment Certain Affinity's output with their own regular output?

It'd make more sense if they gave 343 the manpower to do DLC and then rotate it off with Certain Affinity and Digital Extremes. Instead, they just have Certain Affinity do all the DLC. They're not taking advantage of the fact that outsourcing lets them multitask content while having it be the full focus of the teams involved.

tl;dr Microsoft, flex yo' muscle

 

[Duji]

I'm just continually dismayed that Halo is Microsoft's flagship franchise yet it receives the post-launch resource allocation of a Valusoft sports title.

This is Microsoft. They should be crushing other publishers in terms of post-ship support and DLC output. A company with more money than god can't compliment Certain Affinity's output with their own regular output?

It'd make more sense if they gave 343 the manpower to do DLC and then rotate it off with Certain Affinity and Digital Extremes. Instead, they just have Certain Affinity do all the DLC. They're not taking advantage of the fact that outsourcing lets them multitask content while having it be the full focus of the teams involved.

tl;dr Microsoft, flex yo' muscle

It's all this thing's fault:

But seriously, they really need to start giving Halo the post-release support that it deserves. Do they not realize that they can rake in a shit ton of cash if they do it right? Look at the amazing support Riot is giving LoL and the amount of effort they're putting into esports. They run their own tournaments with a seasonal system and it brings in millions of viewers, millions. The last season had a prize pool of $5 mil because of this. They do an amazing job of advertising it by having a robust spectator mode, running streams on their official website, and showing everyone the latest esports news in the game's main menu. Even if a LoL player doesn't give a fuck about the competitive scene, they never have to worry about the game losing developer support. It really is a win-win situation for everyone.

I would be in heaven if Microsoft chose to take a similar route.

edit: look at this:

Brandon Beck and Marc Merrill are the co-founders of Riot Games, and their unusual shared leadership roles are among the many qualities that have put them on the list of our Persons of the Year. While Beck is listed as CEO and Merrill is listed as president, functionally they operate as co-captains of Riot Games, and they've been doing that since founding Riot Games in 2006.

Riot Games launched its one and only game so far, League of Legends, in October of 2009. The game has become a worldwide phenomenon, generating revenues rumored to exceed $150 million per year with a very healthy profit margin. Beck and Merrill have managed to do several improbable things. They've created a free-to-play hardcore game that monetizes exceedingly well without endlessly badgering players to spend money; they've kept this game growing at a tremendous rate for three years; and they've made their game an eSport with millions of dollars in prizes and dozens of professional players.

Beck and Merrill have done all this while creating and maintaining a corporate work environment that seems to be both hard-working and hard-playing. Riot has even created a department solely designed to improve player behavior and civility; recently they banned one of the top professional players for a year because of repeated bad behavior online. Most companies have just complained about bad player behavior online; Riot is actually working hard to improve it, and is getting results.

Beck and Merrill also deserve recognition for what they haven't done. They haven't lost focus on their game, and continue to improve the game and extend its reach. They haven't created a slew of other games, or indeed any other game yet; while they are no doubt working on one or more, it seems clear they will not allow that to diminish the efforts to improve League of Legends. They haven't let the over $400 million dollar investment in their company by Chinese game giant Tencent affect either their management or their company. They also haven't forgotten about the employees who work hard to make their vision into reality; the company hasn't seen the regular layoffs that seem to occur at so many publishers.

Beck and Merrill have created a game and a company that are frequently mentioned as leaders in the free-to-play space, and they've done it with style and class.

 

[Ken]

It's weird that no Halo has yet to have post-launch DLC armor. They explained why they couldn't do it for Reach, but why hasn't Halo 4 had any? Seems like easy money or the expected next step with how much focus they give on personalization.

 

[Hypertrooper]

It's weird that no Halo has yet to have post-launch DLC armor. They explained why they couldn't do it for Reach, but why hasn't Halo 4 had any? Seems like easy money or the expected next step with how much focus they give on personalization.

It may not be possible because of the same problem?

 

[Ken]

It may not be possible because of the same problem?

So I guess they feel it not a problem worth addressing? That's too bad. D:

 

[TheOddOne]

It's weird that no Halo has yet to have post-launch DLC armor. They explained why they couldn't do it for Reach, but why hasn't Halo 4 had any? Seems like easy money or the expected next step with how much focus they give on personalization.

Never forget.

 

[Duji]

Never forget.

Oh yea! What ever happened to that? haha

 

[Pop]

Oh yea! What ever happened to that? haha

Ask 343i.

 

[broony]

Silentium arrived from amazon uk yesterday. Will start tonight.

 

[IHaveIce]

I wish the best for Noobs and Ellis' dad.


And holy shit at Wahrer's map ideas that guy should just get something for all his sandbox writeups and everything. He explained his fictional sandbox better than 343 theirs.

Also welcome back juices!!!

And I also want Silentium already

 

[Nowise10]

I tried to make that UNSC motorbike vehicle that megablocks or whatever made

....yyyyeaaah it didnt turn out the best.

 

[Striker]

Challenge of the week: Build that painting in Forge.

Challenge of the week: Spend ten minutes in Halo 4's Forge trying to create a map without saying a curse word.

 

[ZeNy]

I tried to make that UNSC motorbike vehicle that megablocks or whatever made

....yyyyeaaah it didnt turn out the best.

I wonder how you can combine 3D models ?

 

[m23]

Silentium arrived from amazon uk yesterday. Will start tonight.

Lucky bastard, I'll be happy if I somehow get it delivered on launch.

 

[Omni]

I wonder how you can combine 3D models ?

hes a haxor!!!11! sum1 call the 343i matchmaking Polícia

Lucky bastard, I'll be happy if I somehow get it delivered on launch.

Yah. Usually if I order a physical copy I'll have to wait three to four weeks to get it delivered after release (I live at the bottom of Australia). Opted to just preorder on iTunes this time though

 

[Conor 419]

I'm just continually dismayed that Halo is Microsoft's flagship franchise yet it receives the post-launch resource allocation of a Valusoft sports title.

This is Microsoft. They should be crushing other publishers in terms of post-ship support and DLC output. A company with more money than god can't compliment Certain Affinity's output with their own regular output?

It'd make more sense if they gave 343 the manpower to do DLC and then rotate it off with Certain Affinity and Digital Extremes. Instead, they just have Certain Affinity do all the DLC. They're not taking advantage of the fact that outsourcing lets them multitask content while having it be the full focus of the teams involved.

tl;dr Microsoft, flex yo' muscle

Microsoft are too incompetent to keep their flagship IP competitive with other industry titles, however, it is important to not forget the fanbase that actively defends them not keeping Halo competitive either.

Edit - In fact, Microsoft can't even keep the IP bloody competitive with itself.

Literally just Forza left.

 

[TheOddOne]

*Brickwall™ reaching for the victim card again*

I R VICTIM, YA'LL DON'T UNDERSTAND MY LOGIC. VICTIM.

 

[Bogey On My Six]

If microsoft doesn't care about the gamer then why do they bother doing market research? Wouldn't it just be easier to read a few forums instead of spending money? You could make a game out of the ideas from all of them if you know what you're doing.

 

[Gui_PT]

I don't find it fair that you guys are just mocking the victim like that.

It's rude.