> 2533274817408735;19:
> It sounded more than just that. You made it a point to paint 343 in this money-grubbing light. The delaying of the Customs Browser is not “unjust”; the players aren’t owed a Customs Browser. The only thing we were owed was a working game, and yes, it took a long while for fixes to come, but they came, and are still coming, so a mix of skepticism and gratitude is understandable in that regard. Adding a Customs Browser was already beyond the scope of fixing MCC; it wasn’t a necessary feature, it was just something the team wanted (and still wants) to add to improve MCC. MCC doesn’t need the Customs Browser any more than its needs Reach or to come to PC. It was extra. At the end of the day, you are just frustrated, which you have every right to be given how much you want this feature, but it’s one thing to be frustrated and another to project this idea of scummy practice onto 343 over it. 343 purposefully never gave an estimate of release on this feature so there should never have been any expectation for it to be out by a certain time. And seeing as they haven’t cancelled the feature as of yet, I see no reason to claim false promises or changed intentions.
No I really didn’t, I called a spade a spade. You’re trying to paint this illusion that this move is strictly for the fans and that they’ve reprioritized this feature set as a reaction to fan requests. Any additional revenue this move will generate is just an unintended consequence. That’s what I’m disagreeing with - I don’t believe this is a move just for the fans. Fixing a game 3 years after it was deployed is. You mentioned that we aren’t owed anything except a working game. Well 3 years after the failure of the launch - the hype had moved on. MCC was broken and it was an accepted fact. If MS had chosen not to fix this game, not many people would have blinked an eye. The legacy of MCC was already pre-determined as a “what could have been” not “what is.” 343 breathed new life into this game by vowing to fix the game and get it playable. Again that’s never been contested. But when they announced that development had resumed on the patches, a CGB was one of the features in development. 343 themselves have admitted this has been a highly requested feature for quite some time now which is why it was near the top of the list. Now if they were re-shuffling priorities to launch other free features, sure I’d be disappointed, but I could understand. But to try to paint the argument as “no no they’re just de-priortizing your most requested feature and therefore you’re salty. This is better for the community, oh and they’re just so happening to make some cash on the side with the launch of Reach” I’m sorry - I’m not buying it. Again I understand their a business first but let’s not try and disguise what they’re doing here.
> 2533274817408735;19:
> What I mean is, what percentage of existing MCC players really focus on Custom Games? Yes, it was a high demand feature, and yes, I’m sure it would be used alot, but I doubt 100% of MCC players would heavily use it. Customs are versatile but not for everyone. I have no idea how populated the Browser would be compared to, let’s say, the Match Composer. Maybe the data from H5’s Customs Browser shows it to be a niche feature despite the number of people voicing their desire for it. Alternatively, the PC playerbase only has limited and outdated Halo offerings currently available. So, in terms of numbers, bringing MCC to PC would benefit more people than the customs browser, so I can see why that would take priority. MCC is largely fixed now; it is playable and much more stable than it was in its early years. So with major fixes applied, there is room to add extra improvements, like the Customs Browser. Does it really matter what order the extras are added in? Seems to me that the only amount it matters is how much an individual player values a particular extra feature; beyond that, so long as all promised extras are added, I don’t think the order matters all that much, unless there is some future point in time where you’d no longer be able to play MCC for some reason.
Alright there are a few things that I’d like to point out here. First if the requirement for adding a new feature to a game is that the feature would need 100% engagement, then new features would never be added to any game. I have friends who never play campaign and jump straight to multiplayer, I have friends who live religiously in the campaigns. I have friends who are always on Custom Games because that’s all they ever care for, and I have friends who have invested hours upon hours in Forge, while others don’t even know what Forge is. The point is the sandbox is there and you can play whatever aspect of the game that you want. Now look online - there are custom game websites that have been created due to the lack of an offiical CGB. I highly doubt the engagement would be low but without an accurate data set; we’d both be speculating.
Regarding your PC Player-base comment; Halo CE on PC already has a CGB so of course they’re going to flock to Reach if it’s released - because they’re able to use the CGB today. I’d argue, however, that the overall engagement of a CGB would remain high despite the launch of Halo MCC/Reach on PC. Lastly, regarding the order of extras that are added. Are you really telling me it makes more sense logistically to priortize porting an entire game to 2 new platforms OVER building out a server list that’s already available through some iterations of the game? That makes no sense logistically. It makes complete sense from an ROI perspective. If you know that porting MCC to PC and including Reach will generate revenue, of course you would reallocate/shuffle your priority list and resources accordingly. Again, there’s a clear reason why they’re doing this. Doesn’t make them terrible people, just makes them like the rest of the industry.
> 2533274817408735;19:
> I see the narrative as “we want to fix and improve MCC”. In that regard, the narrative hasn’t changed. They’re still working towards that. What fixes and what improvements they add can grow without changing the narrative. I never saw the narrative as only “we’re adding customs browser to MCC”. That was a part of the narrative, and that part hasn’t changed; they’re still planning to add it. So, again, the level of disappointment in the browser’s delay comes down to how much patience one has. And it’s not a crime to be impatient, but it should be recognized that just because they don’t focus on a feature that you value more doesn’t mean there is foul play.
I’m sorry but the narrative in my opinion was we’re doing this for the fans. It’s become blatantly obvious to me through the community updates that they didn’t care about just fixing a broken game or making a quick buck. To me it seemed like they were raising their hands and acknowledging they had let the community down with MCC and they wanted to remedy and salvage this to regain our trust and their reputation. It was commendable, honorable and with all the patches being released for free; no one could have questioned their motives. But to tell me now, as you glance on the upcoming feature set, and you see two highly requested features - both fan pleasing - but one tied directly to revenue and to say no this is for the community; I’m sorry I just don’t buy it. If Reach was 100% free I’d understand but the fact remains that it’s not.
