> 2533274807802500;4:
> I don’t think games should aim to relevant they should aim to be the next best thing. They should be breaking boundaries with new concepts and ideas.
Completely agree.
They should bring back the glory when Halo considered by many the king of fps.
Thing is, if it’s just a mode, what’s the difference? It would be one game mode among others in multiplayer. It wouldn’t be multiplayer. Nor (hopefully) would anyone be expecting it to carry the franchise. I’m not sure what CoD’s or Battlefront’s strategy is since I’ve never played either game, but I’m guessing the Battle Royale implementation would be an alternative way to play alongside the traditional ways to play, and they’re not tossing out their traditional games and replacing them with BR, are they?
I wasn’t aware CoD ever even had a campaign mode. What’s the main character’s name?
This definitely does not fall under the category of something Halo needs to stay relevant. In fact, if none of the actual important things get addressed, another mode certainly won’t help.
“Oh how clever, a lot of people will enter thinking it’s about Battle Royal, and some will enter thinking it’s a ploy, and it’s actually about the Battle Rifle. But this thread is definately about the Beam Rifle, and how a Team Snipers mode using Beam Rifles is needed. Wait, the thread is actually about Battle Royal”
Well played OP, well played. You got me.
So, you mention it being a “staple” of FPS games because a few FPS games have that mode. This mention of something being a “staple”, a “standard”, happens a lot. I’ve asked and asked again to see this checklist of features required for a game today, yet no one has been able to provide one. Will you be able to do so? Will you provide me with this checklist of mechanics and features required?
The only BR in Halo will be the Battle Rifle.
I wouldn’t mind have a BR mode, but not for the sake of relevance. -Yoink- that.
> 2533274798957786;42:
> Thing is, if it’s just a mode, what’s the difference? It would be one game mode among others in multiplayer. It wouldn’t be multiplayer. Nor (hopefully) would anyone be expecting it to carry the franchise. I’m not sure what CoD’s or Battlefront’s strategy is since I’ve never played either game, but I’m guessing the Battle Royale implementation would be an alternative way to play alongside the traditional ways to play, and they’re not tossing out their traditional games and replacing them with BR, are they?
>
> I wasn’t aware CoD ever even had a campaign mode. What’s the main character’s name?
>
> This definitely does not fall under the category of something Halo needs to stay relevant. In fact, if none of the actual important things get addressed, another mode certainly won’t help.
Bold - The difference is one game mode can have a huge impact on the rest of the game. Look at Warzone in Halo 5. Because of it, half (or more) of the game was built around just one mode and other modes of play were hurt or sacrificed because of it like BTB and Firefight for example. It was there way to bring in REQ packs aka microtransactions too. It’s not just modes it affects too, but also gameplay mechanics. Something that may work in x well may not in y, so you have to consider that stuff too when making the game. There are just so many factors to consider all around.
So just one mode can have mass consequences on the entire game.
Absolutely not, halo is its own game & i love it for that, i dont think they need to follow anybody, only thing they do need to do is add it to pc to really expand the community and growth, the debate would be up for crossplay but that would definitely be another topic lol.
> 2535416837427175;47:
> Absolutely not, halo is its own game & i love it for that, i dont think they need to follow anybody, only thing they do need to do is add it to pc to really expand the community and growth, the debate would be up for crossplay but that would definitely be another topic lol.
it is coming for pc and there are/have been/will be dabates about crossplay.
> 2533274795123910;48:
> > 2535416837427175;47:
> > Absolutely not, halo is its own game & i love it for that, i dont think they need to follow anybody, only thing they do need to do is add it to pc to really expand the community and growth, the debate would be up for crossplay but that would definitely be another topic lol.
>
> it is coming for pc and there are/have been/will be dabates about crossplay.
Well that’s great news!!! Pretty excited about that
> 2533274815533909;46:
> The difference is one game mode can have a huge impact on the rest of the game. Look at Warzone in Halo 5. Because of it, half (or more) of the game was built around just one mode and other modes of play were hurt or sacrificed because of it like BTB and Firefight for example.
Do we actually have any evidence that backs that statement? If not, then it constitutes as just another theory, not a fact. One of the leading theories behind Halo 5’s lack of content is that 343 wanted to funnel players into Warzone (for obvious reasons).
343 excluding gametypes/playlists on launch due to time constraints ≠ 343 excluding them to funnel players into Warzone
If the latter theory is the truth, who’s to say 343 couldn’t have gotten more gametypes/playlists ready before launch?
> 2533274815533909;46:
> It’s not just modes it affects too, but also gameplay mechanics. Something that may work in x well may not in y, so you have to consider that stuff too when making the game. There are just so many factors to consider all around.
Didn’t stop Bungie and/or 343 from adding Infection, Fiesta, Race, Juggernaut, Headhunter, etc. In what way did these gametypes impact the gameplay mechanics of the games they were implemented in?
Back on Halo 2, people were playing versions of Infection without an official gametype and now, in much the same way, we have the BR gametype being created by Forgers and being played in custom games on Halo 5. Infection was made into an official gametype with Halo 3, but 343 aren’t even allowed to consider bringing BR into the fold because, “so many factors to consider all around.” Yeah, okay.
> 2533274804424245;40:
> > 2533274923562209;32:
> >
>
>
>
> > 2533274923562209;32:
> > Regarding CoD ditching their campaign for BR: is it really misinformation?
>
> Yes it is. You’re saying they dropped their campaign for BR. That’s not the case. It appears they would’ve dropped it anyway, with or without BR. Blops 4 has been in development for 2-3 years now. PUBG wasn’t even released into early access until March of 2017. This BR craze started up even more recently than that (Fortnite BR wasn’t released into early access until September 2017), so we have the studio co-head at Treyarch saying a campaign was “never part of the plan” when the game they’ve been working on has been in development since before BRs even took off.
>
>
> > 2533274923562209;32:
> > “Halo games have been adopting gametypes from other games since CE.” True, I don’t deny that but game modes aren’t the sole reasons for popularity, people like to say bringing X mode brings back spice to a franchise (just as the OP is doing here), but do people ignore the fact that it’s mechanics have been debated as it’s downfall for years? What good is a popular mode if the game still plays like -Yoink-
>
> You think excluding a popular gametype from Infinite will somehow help 343 to understand what made the gameplay of the original trilogy so great in the first place? I don’t see it. I don’t see how one is bound to impact the other and with all the gametypes Halo has successfully adopted over the years, I have quite a few examples to choose from that would back my stance.
I’m going to be cutting a lot if we continue these long conversations, can’t be helped with character limits but I’ll reference the bigger points.
First: tacked on implies after thought, put in to maybe catch on and maybe not. Fortnites BR is a completely dedicated thing to that games as that’s the only reason 99% of the pop plays it for. Epic put it in cause they were still early in riding the train and pubg uses their own engine showing they had the assets to do the same.
Second: no I’m absolutely not confident in 343 to make something new, I’d still prefer the attempt however over doing something everyone else is doing. Why should 343 risk new ideas when they could attempt something that’s already been shown to work? Because it’s been one of their biggest criticisms in the previous games. What’s so new about breakout? Warzone? Spartan ops? They’re new to the franchise, but not to people who play more than just Halo. Why would I play BR in Halo when I already play a more original version with fortnite that’s dedicated to it?
Third: a big scale BR like people want will take resources away. When you have people like the OP saying it “needs” it to be relevant, you can’t just tack that on, you have to put more into it to make it worth something to make the game “relevant” as a poor man’s BR won’t do.
Fourth: rather than implementating a new mode, how about refining what you already have? AI in forge? Adjust btb and the various modes you have to play differently than they have in the past. I myself don’t even care for a new mode as I don’t think they need one, I’d rather they refine what they already have. I’d still take something new over trend following 
even if it fails as the attempt was made, even then you keep attempting rather than caving into less creative ideas.
Fifth: oversaturation benefiting 343? Not if they’re going to partake in it themselves. Them declining to do BR is what’ll benefit them.
Sixth: “BRs are more popular than Halo has been in a decade”. There’s a lot of things I feel you’re ignoring here. Halo hasn’t been free like fortnite nor half the price of a full AAA game like pubg, you’ll get more players with that model. Imagine if H3 was free, imagine if H5 was free, they all would’ve seen numbers soar as that’s what free/smaller priced items tend to do. Furthermore I don’t see how they’ve been more popular when they’ve shown no longevity yet. How has Fortnite 2 done? Let’s assume they plan to keep it as a live service game and just port it over to next gen, will fortnite stay in the top ten most played for years? That’s an unanswered question as we’ve yet to find out. I can however say pubg itself HAS been losing players because of various reasons so how long will it’s playerbase hold it up? Another question that will be anwsered in time on BR longevity.
Seventh: 400k viewers watched a beta and nothing else. I can look up blackout and see good impressions on it, but I haven’t seen Activision post any numbers. Furthermore as I said before, it’s a beta, something people do to decide on whether or not they’ll like the thing. So what happens if 1 million are playing it right now but come launch 500k is what’s left? Still an impressive number that I won’t argue but again, beta numbers shouldn’t mean much as they’re nothing but play testing for players.
8th: about your two points I “didn’t respond to”
Evidence that warzone took resources from other modes/features? No I don’t have hard evidence, bit it’s common sense with an industry that always has incomplete games and plenty of delays to it. I don’t believe Halo 5 did so to funnel players to warzone as why does forge impede that? Why does infection impede that? Why does firefight, a sub variant of warzone impede that? Btb sure, but did you also notice it’s lack of any Dev made maps? Or how it handed that responsibility to the forgers? Btb was completely ignored by 343 outside of putting it into the game.
I’m pretty sure I did reply to these points as I remember you bringing up engine limitations. I believe I even said (in agreement with you) that we’ve no idea what their intentions even are with the engine. They could be nothing but visual enhancements for all we know 🤷 (doubt it but we literally don’t know). What limitations do you even think the current engine has? Do you think late modes is a result of that? Certain features not working as it could be?
9th: back to CoD ditching campaign for BR. First off this is Activision PR and really i can see any PR representative saying what he’s saying. Even if true that’s just giving people more -Yoink- as they were purposely going to neglect those who campaign. How do you interpret this? " 10 years ago 10% played multiplayer, present time 90% do and we’ve adjusted off that". That’s essentially saying since most play multiplayer we’re going to have everything be multiplayer and prioritize that. As I said earlier, even if it isn’t BR, it can also be the extra support to zombies that is replacing the campaign. It still equates to them not including campaign either way.
-I kept this part from previous reply above, very last paragraph-
“I have quite a few examples to choose from that would back my stance.” Indulge would you?
> 2533274846978810;14:
> Frankly, you don’t really know what you’re talking about. There is still a market for Arena multiplayer, as proven by the recent success of Doom. Trying to copy other, more popular franchises would only make Halo another cheap knockoff in a vertible sea of them. What 343i should be doing is evolving the series and breaking new grounds in Arena gameplay, rather than mirroring the most recent trend. Halo 4 is prime example for why that does not work.
Actually Doom points the opposite, going by Steamchart, it averages ~2500 players & can’t even make it to top 100 most played on Steam. Doom is nowhere to be found on Xbox’s most played chart also. One does not need to reinvent the wheel, they can improve it. BR Arma 2 Mod was the Wheel, PUBG improved it, Fornite did the same with unique playstyle, CoD & BF is doing just that. I have confidence that if BR comes to Halo, it won’t be a cheap knock off, but will be improved & adapted unique to Halo.
> 2727626560040591;26:
> Another reason why I’m skeptical is look how often Fortnite is getting updated and new things being added like skins to keep it interesting (and for money) whereas 343 can sometimes take months to update things or add new stuff. If they wanna keep it interesting, they’re gonna have to make it a priority and do things quicker which I’m having doubts that they will.
As far as I know, Entire Halo series is built around the original Halo 1 engine, which can be a nightmare to modify compared to modern game engine standard. My guess is that for fortnite, this has to do with game engine designed as modular, which makes easy to add & change content as needed. Sea of Thieves is also a good example as game engine gives developers easy access to modifying the game for quick & regular updates. There is no reason not to believe that Halo Infinite is designed with same principle as the whole engine is being built from ground up.
> 2533274812652989;35:
> I’d rather not have Halo chase a trend that may be dead by the time Infinite actually launches and/or simply be one in a sea of battle royale modes.
I think its better to add it than not have it. BR being a flash trend & being irrelevant near the release of Halo Infinite is baseless speculation.
> 2535436090432793;41:
> > 2533274807802500;4:
> > I don’t think games should aim to relevant they should aim to be the next best thing. They should be breaking boundaries with new concepts and ideas.
>
> Completely agree.
> They should bring back the glory when Halo considered by many the king of fps.
No need to invent a wheel. Improve & adapt, BR mode unique to Halo can be done.
> 2533275029938773;52:
> > 2533274846978810;14:
> > Frankly, you don’t really know what you’re talking about. There is still a market for Arena multiplayer, as proven by the recent success of Doom. Trying to copy other, more popular franchises would only make Halo another cheap knockoff in a vertible sea of them. What 343i should be doing is evolving the series and breaking new grounds in Arena gameplay, rather than mirroring the most recent trend. Halo 4 is prime example for why that does not work.
>
> Actually Doom points the opposite, going by Steamchart, it averages ~2500 players & can’t even make it to top 100 most played on Steam. Doom is nowhere to be found on Xbox’s most played chart also. One does not need to reinvent the wheel, they can improve it. BR Arma 2 Mod was the Wheel, PUBG improved it, Fornite did the same with unique playstyle, CoD & BF is doing just that. I have confidence that if BR comes to Halo, it won’t be a cheap knock off, but will be improved & adapted unique to Halo.
>
>
>
>
> > 2727626560040591;26:
> > Another reason why I’m skeptical is look how often Fortnite is getting updated and new things being added like skins to keep it interesting (and for money) whereas 343 can sometimes take months to update things or add new stuff. If they wanna keep it interesting, they’re gonna have to make it a priority and do things quicker which I’m having doubts that they will.
>
> As far as I know, Entire Halo series is built around the original Halo 1 engine, which can be a nightmare to modify compared to modern game engine standard. My guess it that for fortnite, this has to do with game engine designed as modular, which makes easy to add & change content as needed. Sea of Thieves is also a good example as game engine gives developers easy access to modifying the game for quick & regular updates. There is no reason not to believe that Halo Infinite is designed with same principle as the whole engine is being built from ground up.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274812652989;35:
> > I’d rather not have Halo chase a trend that may be dead by the time Infinite actually launches and/or simply be one in a sea of battle royale modes.
>
> I think its better to add it than not have it. BR being a flash trend & being irrelevant near the release of Halo Infinite is baseless speculation.
>
>
>
>
> > 2535436090432793;41:
> > > 2533274807802500;4:
> > > I don’t think games should aim to relevant they should aim to be the next best thing. They should be breaking boundaries with new concepts and ideas.
> >
> > Completely agree.
> > They should bring back the glory when Halo considered by many the king of fps.
>
> No need to invent a wheel. Improve & adapt BR mode unique to Halo can be done.
I had bought PUBG and I had played fortinite recently with friends.
This type of mode it’s very unfunny and boring playing alone. Require so much time to learn because you can’t respawn and restart everything again. I’ve spent more time searching ,equiping and surviving than kill everyone. These kind of games it’s only fun playing with a team or killing someone. You had patience to loot too. It’s not easy to found ammo. You need could blood too because drives me in a level high of anxiety. The level of stress you pass trought is higher than you winning (reward).
I think it’s more relaxing and rewarding game modes where places are more predictable and easy find to kill.
343i can do better to create something unique and innovative. Only copy and paste something popular will become more generic and beaten.
Creativity is like any other skill can could be developed. It’s only matter of exercising and training. I think 343i can do that.
I gotta be honest; BR starts is a misunderstanding of how Halo 2 (and H3) was supposed to parse its weapon sandbox.
The idea was everybody starting with slightly serviceable starting weapons with better weapons that spawned regularly; BR and Carbine. These were ‘tier 2’ weapons. Power weapons were the 3rd tier of weapons that greatly governed the traditional map control and power spawn consideration of the meta. This promoted map movement other than camping the rocket launcher.
For some strange reason, people didn’t believe that everyone starting with an SMG was balanced.
Now you may wonder; everyone spawning with BRs would be equally balanced. This is technically accurate except you essentially deleted tier 1 weapons from the meta, and also centralized gameplay into camping tier 3 power weapons. This also had the chain reaction of rendering the dual wielding system ultimately a waste of code.
In Halo 3 Bungie aimed to reconcile this with the return of the AR, which they touted as giving all players a reliably flexible starting weapon at all times and promoted consideration of tier 2 weapons as well as power weapons. It also promoted role play in BTB (my fave mode and Halo at its best): You can acquire BR or Carbine and act as rangers at range, charge with ARs for infantry combat, control power weapons, or maintain vehicle support. Most of this was lost with the advent of BR starts, with every match across arena or BTB being unsafe to freely move in a game full of competent players.
Perhaps people like every encounter being played at range, but I found it uninteresting and even rigid meta wise. If you wish Haloi to launch with BR starts, whatever. I’ll live. But they may as well delete any tier 1 sandbox of weapons and simply be about what they’re doing, and design maps with BR starts in mind. And don’t dare think that that’s the way to make Halo relavent, btw, since the rise of BR starts is directly proportional to the waining popularity of this franchise.
But I guess the pro players like the easier to follow game pace.
> 2533274797640604;54:
> I gotta be honest; BR starts is a misunderstanding of how Halo 2 (and H3) was supposed to parse its weapon sandbox.
>
> The idea was everybody starting with slightly serviceable starting weapons with better weapons that spawned regularly; BR and Carbine. These were ‘tier 2’ weapons. Power weapons were the 3rd tier of weapons that greatly governed the traditional map control and power spawn consideration of the meta. This promoted map movement other than camping the rocket launcher.
>
> For some strange reason, people didn’t believe that everyone starting with an SMG was balanced.
>
> Now you may wonder; everyone spawning with BRs would be equally balanced. This is technically accurate except you essentially deleted tier 1 weapons from the meta, and also centralized gameplay into camping tier 3 power weapons. This also had the chain reaction of rendering the dual wielding system ultimately a waste of code.
>
> In Halo 3 Bungie aimed to reconcile this with the return of the AR, which they touted as giving all players a reliably flexible starting weapon at all times and promoted consideration of tier 2 weapons as well as power weapons. It also promoted role play in BTB (my fave mode and Halo at its best): You can acquire BR or Carbine and act as rangers at range, charge with ARs for infantry combat, control power weapons, or maintain vehicle support. Most of this was lost with the advent of BR starts, with every match across arena or BTB being unsafe to freely move in a game full of competent players.
>
> Perhaps people like every encounter being played at range, but I found it uninteresting and even rigid meta wise. If you wish Haloi to launch with BR starts, whatever. I’ll live. But they may as well delete any tier 1 sandbox of weapons and simply be about what they’re doing, and design maps with BR starts in mind. And don’t dare think that that’s the way to make Halo relavent, btw, since the rise of BR starts is directly proportional to the waining popularity of this franchise.
>
> But I guess the pro players like the easier to follow game pace.
I think you misunderstood the forum name. The OP was using BR as Battle Royal not Battle Rifle. It’s a discussion about a Halo Infinite adding a Battle Royal mode to “stay relevant”. Personally, I think that Halo doesn’t need to add modes from other games.
> 2535416616313329;55:
> > 2533274797640604;54:
> > I gotta be honest; BR starts is a misunderstanding of how Halo 2 (and H3) was supposed to parse its weapon sandbox.
> >
> > The idea was everybody starting with slightly serviceable starting weapons with better weapons that spawned regularly; BR and Carbine. These were ‘tier 2’ weapons. Power weapons were the 3rd tier of weapons that greatly governed the traditional map control and power spawn consideration of the meta. This promoted map movement other than camping the rocket launcher.
> >
> > For some strange reason, people didn’t believe that everyone starting with an SMG was balanced.
> >
> > Now you may wonder; everyone spawning with BRs would be equally balanced. This is technically accurate except you essentially deleted tier 1 weapons from the meta, and also centralized gameplay into camping tier 3 power weapons. This also had the chain reaction of rendering the dual wielding system ultimately a waste of code.
> >
> > In Halo 3 Bungie aimed to reconcile this with the return of the AR, which they touted as giving all players a reliably flexible starting weapon at all times and promoted consideration of tier 2 weapons as well as power weapons. It also promoted role play in BTB (my fave mode and Halo at its best): You can acquire BR or Carbine and act as rangers at range, charge with ARs for infantry combat, control power weapons, or maintain vehicle support. Most of this was lost with the advent of BR starts, with every match across arena or BTB being unsafe to freely move in a game full of competent players.
> >
> > Perhaps people like every encounter being played at range, but I found it uninteresting and even rigid meta wise. If you wish Haloi to launch with BR starts, whatever. I’ll live. But they may as well delete any tier 1 sandbox of weapons and simply be about what they’re doing, and design maps with BR starts in mind. And don’t dare think that that’s the way to make Halo relavent, btw, since the rise of BR starts is directly proportional to the waining popularity of this franchise.
> >
> > But I guess the pro players like the easier to follow game pace.
>
> I think you misunderstood the forum name. The OP was using BR as Battle Royal not Battle Rifle. It’s a discussion about a Halo Infinite adding a Battle Royal mode to “stay relevant”. Personally, I think that Halo doesn’t need to add modes from other games.
Oops.
> 2535416616313329;55:
> > 2533274797640604;54:
> > I gotta be honest; BR starts is a misunderstanding of how Halo 2 (and H3) was supposed to parse its weapon sandbox.
> >
> > The idea was everybody starting with slightly serviceable starting weapons with better weapons that spawned regularly; BR and Carbine. These were ‘tier 2’ weapons. Power weapons were the 3rd tier of weapons that greatly governed the traditional map control and power spawn consideration of the meta. This promoted map movement other than camping the rocket launcher.
> >
> > For some strange reason, people didn’t believe that everyone starting with an SMG was balanced.
> >
> > Now you may wonder; everyone spawning with BRs would be equally balanced. This is technically accurate except you essentially deleted tier 1 weapons from the meta, and also centralized gameplay into camping tier 3 power weapons. This also had the chain reaction of rendering the dual wielding system ultimately a waste of code.
> >
> > In Halo 3 Bungie aimed to reconcile this with the return of the AR, which they touted as giving all players a reliably flexible starting weapon at all times and promoted consideration of tier 2 weapons as well as power weapons. It also promoted role play in BTB (my fave mode and Halo at its best): You can acquire BR or Carbine and act as rangers at range, charge with ARs for infantry combat, control power weapons, or maintain vehicle support. Most of this was lost with the advent of BR starts, with every match across arena or BTB being unsafe to freely move in a game full of competent players.
> >
> > Perhaps people like every encounter being played at range, but I found it uninteresting and even rigid meta wise. If you wish Haloi to launch with BR starts, whatever. I’ll live. But they may as well delete any tier 1 sandbox of weapons and simply be about what they’re doing, and design maps with BR starts in mind. And don’t dare think that that’s the way to make Halo relavent, btw, since the rise of BR starts is directly proportional to the waining popularity of this franchise.
> >
> > But I guess the pro players like the easier to follow game pace.
>
> I think you misunderstood the forum name. The OP was using BR as Battle Royal not Battle Rifle. It’s a discussion about a Halo Infinite adding a Battle Royal mode to “stay relevant”. Personally, I think that Halo doesn’t need to add modes from other games.
Let alone ones that would transfer terribly into the current sandbox…the customs browser exists for just this thing. People have been making BR style gamemodes since Forge came out. Its not needed as an official one.
From my point of view, Halo needs to the complete opposite of chase an over-saturated market. The way to stand out is to keep the identity of your game just that - yours. The fact that they’ve confirmed that Infinite won’t be bothering with battle royale tells me that they know what kind of game they want Infinite to be and that kind of focus is only going to be a good thing. They probably had a discussion about what the numbers show, which is that battle royale is the big thing right now, but that doesn’t mean anything.
Let the BR games do what they do. Halo settling into its own niche is what it should have always done. Chasing the trends of CoD and other instant gratification/twitch shooters only served to alienate a lot of fans. Put simply, you won’t beat CoD at being CoD and you won’t beat Fortnite/PUBG at being Fortnite/PUBG.
I am sure that Halo could do a BR mode just fine. But why would the masses choose Halo’s BR mode over all of the others, which are much less skill oriented? Why take the time to learn a BR mode when there are plenty (and more to come) that don’t have much of a learning curve at all? I don’t say that to be pretentious. I’m saying that because there really is no reason for someone to pick up Halo’s BR mode when there are others on the market that are far more accessible.
It’s best that Halo stick to what it is and really lean into that, define it, and give Halo fans something to cheer about and something for other gamers to actually look at and see something else that isn’t offered in 300 other places in the market.
If halo has battle royal that’s the official death of the game for me
> 2533275029938773;1:
> Halo Infinite needs Battle Royal mode to stay relevant & retain multiplayer player count. BR is not a fade, it will be one of expected mode to successful FPS going forward, even Call of Duty & Battlefield are implementing their own version of BR. Fortnite, as worldwide sensation is becoming one of first FPS they played for lot of audience, not to mention PUBG. That audience will eventually look for other similar games, CoD & BF is doing just that. If Halo does not have BR, they loss the opportunity to bring part of that huge & growing audience, which will be hard to ignore. Halo has a great opportunity to bring futuristic BR mode which no AAA game currently offers.
> One of main problems I see in Halo today is that it is held back by huge baggage of nostalgia, those modes that no longer is relevant & trying to appeal to older generation that no longer plays the game. Grief ball & addition of jet pack is prime example of this. Grief ball which community demanded to be added, which no one plays anyway & jetpack & dash that players hated, which turned out to be great addition to the game. If the game tries to appeal to the old & ignore the upcoming players, it will ultimately fail to capture enough audience to stay relevant.
We’ve seen how halo does when it steers towards the current trend,so no thank you