infinite needs battle royale

Games Halo Infinite
161

> 2533274795123910;158:
> > 2535421570132842;151:
> > I don’t care about the battle royal I’m just trying to say there’s not going to be a stand alone game I’m sorry for being rude but most player cannot seem to grasp the concept of no stand alone game they haven’t ruled out a game mode however which is fine by me but a full game isn’t going to be made.
>
> You’re the one completely not understanding what’s being discussed.
>
> It does not matter in any single way what Frankie has said regarding battle royal for Halo.
>
> No one is saying there will be a stand alone.
> We’re saying that in the hypothetical scenario that a Battle Royal for Halo was planned, a stand-alone version would be far better for both the Stand-alone version and the main Halo game.
>
>
>
>
> > 2535421570132842;154:
> > I can grasp it you just don’t understand it as I’m not talking about your “opinion” im talking about fact, also Let me try and explained the Reason activision is involved, activision was in charge on Bungie the original creators of halo but due to the changes activision wanted to incorporate Bungie split from the company and activision put 343 in charge making the whole dilemma activisions fault.
>
> Microsoft, you’re talking about Microsoft…
> Activision came into the picture for Bungie with Destiny.
>
> Bungie wanted to make Destiny, microsoft wanted more Halo.
> Bungie had to make two more Halo games after Halo 3, and thus ODST and Reach were developed and released.
> No renewal after that, then Activision came in to publish Destiny.

No your the one that doesn’t understand this post was about “are they going to make a battle” the post was made to ask if it was likely not hypothetical situations and you cannot seem to grasp this also if it’s not activisions fault then it’s Microsoft’s as they where in charge of who they gave the game too but due to the previous events with destiny Bungie split because of activision making it their fault so if you would stop fantasising about battle royal I would be happy as I can’t care less about this post anymore as you won’t take any evidence against you whilst stating your opinion as fact so furthermore I will not be message back as you cannot take any information against you.

162

> 2535421570132842;161:
> No your the one that doesn’t understand this post was about “are they going to make a battle” the post was made to ask if it was likely not hypothetical situations and you cannot seem to grasp this also if it’s not activisions fault then it’s Microsoft’s as they where in charge of who they gave the game too but due to the previous events with destiny Bungie split because of activision making it their fault so if you would stop fantasising about battle royal I would be happy as I can’t care less about this post anymore as you won’t take any evidence against you whilst stating your opinion as fact so furthermore I will not be message back as you cannot take any information against you.

Actually, it wasn’t.
This thread was made by a person who believe Halo is in need of battle royal.
Nowehere in “this needs that”, is it about if anyone will make something, or that something is being made.

Onward, it is entirely possible to keep a conversation in a thread which isn’t entirely on-topic, and that was what happened, nowhere was it said that they are going to make one, and that was the quote chain. What you’ve done is, atleast since I got in, claim Battle Royal does not fit Halo, which people disagree with. After getting told off on that, you’re insisting that there won’t be a stand-alone, and not a single person here disagree with you. It is extremely likely there won’t be a stand-alone Halo BR.

That does not mean hypothetical scenarios can’t be discussed.

Sounds like you’ve got some very deep insider information regarding the Bungie - Activision deal there.
Bungie didn’t want to make Halo anymore as they had their new franchise, Destiny, that they wanted to concentrate on.
Microsoft wanted more Halo games and founded i343 for that specific purpose.
Bungie found another publisher, Activision, who were prepared to publish Destiny.
Activision did not cause a split between Microsoft and Bungie.
Unless of course you can prove that Acitvision took direct actions to cause Bungie to not continue with Microsoft.

I’d say I’m perfectly allowed to fantasise about whatever I want, and I do not care if I make you happy or not. The thing is, if you don’t like a topic, you’re free to not post in it, ever, just seems like it’s difficult to stay away for you. What does it even matter to you what others talk / fantasize about? Is Battle Royal that much of an issue for you, is the dislike for it that big? That you can’t tolerate others talking about it?

I don’t think you can claim I’m not able to take evidence against what I talk about, when what you’ve posted hasn’t even been close to what I’ve talked about.
You said it doesn’t fit Halo, I said otherwise, you posted a link regarding the plans about Halo and BR, using it as means to support your claim, you got told otherwise, now you’re saying there won’t be a stand-alone version of Halo BR, when no one has said there will be one, and no one disagree with you.

163

> 2533274795123910;162:
> > 2535421570132842;161:
> > No your the one that doesn’t understand this post was about “are they going to make a battle” the post was made to ask if it was likely not hypothetical situations and you cannot seem to grasp this also if it’s not activisions fault then it’s Microsoft’s as they where in charge of who they gave the game too but due to the previous events with destiny Bungie split because of activision making it their fault so if you would stop fantasising about battle royal I would be happy as I can’t care less about this post anymore as you won’t take any evidence against you whilst stating your opinion as fact so furthermore I will not be message back as you cannot take any information against you.
>
> Actually, it wasn’t.
> This thread was made by a person who believe Halo is in need of battle royal.
> Nowehere in “this needs that”, is it about if anyone will make something, or that something is being made.
>
> Onward, it is entirely possible to keep a conversation in a thread which isn’t entirely on-topic, and that was what happened, nowhere was it said that they are going to make one, and that was the quote chain. What you’ve done is, atleast since I got in, claim Battle Royal does not fit Halo, which people disagree with. After getting told off on that, you’re insisting that there won’t be a stand-alone, and not a single person here disagree with you. It is extremely likely there won’t be a stand-alone Halo BR.
>
> That does not mean hypothetical scenarios can’t be discussed.
>
> Sounds like you’ve got some very deep insider information regarding the Bungie - Activision deal there.
> Bungie didn’t want to make Halo anymore as they had their new franchise, Destiny, that they wanted to concentrate on.
> Microsoft wanted more Halo games and founded i343 for that specific purpose.
> Bungie found another publisher, Activision, who were prepared to publish Destiny.
> Activision did not cause a split between Microsoft and Bungie.
> Unless of course you can prove that Acitvision took direct actions to cause Bungie to not continue with Microsoft.
>
> I’d say I’m perfectly allowed to fantasise about whatever I want, and I do not care if I make you happy or not. The thing is, if you don’t like a topic, you’re free to not post in it, ever, just seems like it’s difficult to stay away for you. What does it even matter to you what others talk / fantasize about? Is Battle Royal that much of an issue for you, is the dislike for it that big? That you can’t tolerate others talking about it?
>
> I don’t think you can claim I’m not able to take evidence against what I talk about, when what you’ve posted hasn’t even been close to what I’ve talked about.
> You said it doesn’t fit Halo, I said otherwise, you posted a link regarding the plans about Halo and BR, using it as means to support your claim, you got told otherwise, now you’re saying there won’t be a stand-alone version of Halo BR, when no one has said there will be one, and no one disagree with you.

Furthermore I am going to ignore you any and all other messages will be met with the same response as you cannot handle the truth and I’m bored of these conversations have a good day.

164

> 2535421570132842;163:
> you cannot handle the truth

What truth?
None of us you’ve quoted said there will be a stand-alone Halo battle royal game. It’s your fantasy that any of us did.

That Battle Royal doesn’t fit Halo? The closest thing you managed to get was Frankie saying there are no plans for a Halo Battle Royal, only that a community made one could be implemented further down the line of Infinite’s lifespan. Other than that you were presented with a quick example of a Halo inspired Battle Royal, by me who’s not even into Battle Royal games, and a simulation explanation, which is completely plausible but you just dismissed it. Not like we’ve got a Graphic Novel where a Spartan tests MC’s new armor against some ODSTs prior to Halo 2, or Johnson telling the marines “We’ve all run the simulations, they’re tough but they ain’t invincible”.

Activision causing Bungie to split with Microsoft?
Nothing provided to back that claim up.
Not to mention, it’d have made quite the headlines had an outside company come between two partner companies, and force a split between them for no reason.

Third times the charm, right?

165

> 2535421570132842;160:
> > 2592250499819446;155:
> > > 2535421570132842;154:
> > > > 2592250499819446;153:
> > > > > 2535421570132842;152:
> > > > > > 2592250499819446;149:
> > > > > > > 2535421570132842;145:
> > > > > > > > 2592250499819446;143:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I can’t be bothered with this you can’t tell me what the director says is wrong when he’s the one in charge of making halo, they have stated that they will always treat it as a game mode rather than a stand alone game which you cannot grasp so if you seriously can’t take the truth then I cannot be held responsible for your ignorance and if you knew that much about halo you would understand that activision was directly involved in halo 4 and 5 which was the main reason for most of the changes I don’t know how you don’t know this information?
> > > >
> > > > I know what Frank said. It’s my opinion that a stand alone Halo would be better, that’s what you cannot seem to grasp. It’s also my hope that they do make a stand alone, changes can be made and game studios change too.
> > > >
> > > > Please link where Activision was involved with Halo 4 and 5.
> > >
> > > I can grasp it you just don’t understand it as I’m not talking about your “opinion” im talking about fact, also Let me try and explained the Reason activision is involved, activision was in charge on Bungie the original creators of halo but due to the changes activision wanted to incorporate Bungie split from the company and activision put 343 in charge making the whole dilemma activisions fault.
> >
> > You’re not talking about facts. You’re stating your opinions as facts. Again, you’re of the opinion Activision was involved with Halo, please link where Activision were directly involved in halo 4 and 5 which was the main reason for most of the changes. It did not happen, Activision have never been involved with Halo.
>
> The part about destiny isn’t relevant Bungie splits with Activision, keeps control of Destiny | PC Gamer also can you stop with “YoUr PoStInG YoUr OpiNionS As FaCt” I’m giving information about the game I don’t care much for battle royal but you cannot seem to grasp that they won’t be making a stand alone game but they may make a gamemode. And if you don’t understand that information than there’s nothing I can do to help you.

You’re giving wrong information of the game. Activision has never had anything to do with Halo, not in any way, shape or form, and the part about Destiny is the most relevant thing about it. It’s about Destiny and Activision, NOT Halo and Activision. Also, other forum users have told you the same thing. Again I’ll ask, please link where Activision were directly involved in Halo 4 and 5 which was the main reason for most of the changes. What you linked has nothing to do with Activision and Halo. I already stated I don’t care whether it’s a stand alone or add on. If they make a Halo Battle Royale I think a stand alone would be better. The parts about Battle Royale are my opinions, the part about Activision not being involved with Halo is a fact.

166

> 2533274795123910;164:
> > 2535421570132842;163:
> > you cannot handle the truth
>
> What truth?
> None of us you’ve quoted said there will be a stand-alone Halo battle royal game. It’s your fantasy that any of us did.
>
> That Battle Royal doesn’t fit Halo? The closest thing you managed to get was Frankie saying there are no plans for a Halo Battle Royal, only that a community made one could be implemented further down the line of Infinite’s lifespan. Other than that you were presented with a quick example of a Halo inspired Battle Royal, by me who’s not even into Battle Royal games, and a simulation explanation, which is completely plausible but you just dismissed it. Not like we’ve got a Graphic Novel where a Spartan tests MC’s new armor against some ODSTs prior to Halo 2, or Johnson telling the marines “We’ve all run the simulations, they’re tough but they ain’t invincible”.
>
> Activision causing Bungie to split with Microsoft?
> Nothing provided to back that claim up.
> Not to mention, it’d have made quite the headlines had an outside company come between two partner companies, and force a split between them for no reason.
>
> Third times the charm, right?

Furthermore I am going to ignore you any and all other messages will be met with the same response as you cannot handle the truth and I’m bored of these conversations have a good day.

167

> 2592250499819446;165:
> > 2535421570132842;160:
> > > 2592250499819446;155:
> > > > 2535421570132842;154:
> > > > > 2592250499819446;153:
> > > > > > 2535421570132842;152:
> > > > > > > 2592250499819446;149:
> > > > > > > > 2535421570132842;145:
> > > > > > > > > 2592250499819446;143:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can’t be bothered with this you can’t tell me what the director says is wrong when he’s the one in charge of making halo, they have stated that they will always treat it as a game mode rather than a stand alone game which you cannot grasp so if you seriously can’t take the truth then I cannot be held responsible for your ignorance and if you knew that much about halo you would understand that activision was directly involved in halo 4 and 5 which was the main reason for most of the changes I don’t know how you don’t know this information?
> > > > >
> > > > > I know what Frank said. It’s my opinion that a stand alone Halo would be better, that’s what you cannot seem to grasp. It’s also my hope that they do make a stand alone, changes can be made and game studios change too.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please link where Activision was involved with Halo 4 and 5.
> > > >
> > > > I can grasp it you just don’t understand it as I’m not talking about your “opinion” im talking about fact, also Let me try and explained the Reason activision is involved, activision was in charge on Bungie the original creators of halo but due to the changes activision wanted to incorporate Bungie split from the company and activision put 343 in charge making the whole dilemma activisions fault.
> > >
> > > You’re not talking about facts. You’re stating your opinions as facts. Again, you’re of the opinion Activision was involved with Halo, please link where Activision were directly involved in halo 4 and 5 which was the main reason for most of the changes. It did not happen, Activision have never been involved with Halo.
> >
> > The part about destiny isn’t relevant Bungie splits with Activision, keeps control of Destiny | PC Gamer also can you stop with “YoUr PoStInG YoUr OpiNionS As FaCt” I’m giving information about the game I don’t care much for battle royal but you cannot seem to grasp that they won’t be making a stand alone game but they may make a gamemode. And if you don’t understand that information than there’s nothing I can do to help you.
>
> You’re giving wrong information of the game. Activision has never had anything to do with Halo, not in any way, shape or form, and the part about Destiny is the most relevant thing about it. It’s about Destiny and Activision, NOT Halo and Activision. Also, other forum users have told you the same thing. Again I’ll ask, please link where Activision were directly involved in Halo 4 and 5 which was the main reason for most of the changes. What you linked has nothing to do with Activision and Halo. I already stated I don’t care whether it’s a stand alone or add on. If they make a Halo Battle Royale I think a stand alone would be better. The parts about Battle Royale are my opinions, the part about Activision not being involved with Halo is a fact.

Still you do not understand, that link proved my point if activision hadn’t done what they had done Bungie would still be in charge of halo and not 343 meaning that we wouldn’t have had the changes that 343 made this is my opinion on the matter.

168

> 2535421570132842;167:
> Still you do not understand, that link proved my point if activision hadn’t done what they had done Bungie would still be in charge of halo and not 343 meaning that we wouldn’t have had the changes that 343 made this is my opinion on the matter.

So, what exact action by Activision described in the link proves Bungie would still be in charge of Halo?

I mean, all talk is about Destiny 2, no years are mentioned, Halo and Microsoft are not to be found anywhere in the article. Not only that but Bungie retained all controll of Destiny 2

The article is from 2019, and the split between Microsoft and Bungie was announced in 2007. Activision came into the picture 3 years later for Bungie.

So, how do you connect the dots between the Bungie - Microsoft split and Activision, based on that article you linked?

169

> 2533274795123910;168:
> > 2535421570132842;167:
> > Still you do not understand, that link proved my point if activision hadn’t done what they had done Bungie would still be in charge of halo and not 343 meaning that we wouldn’t have had the changes that 343 made this is my opinion on the matter.
>
> So, what exact action by Activision described in the link proves Bungie would still be in charge of Halo?
>
> I mean, all talk is about Destiny 2, no years are mentioned, Halo and Microsoft are not to be found anywhere in the article. Not only that but Bungie retained all controll of Destiny 2
>
> The article is from 2019, and the split between Microsoft and Bungie was announced in 2007. Activision came into the picture 3 years later for Bungie.
>
> So, how do you connect the dots between the Bungie - Microsoft split and Activision, based on that article you linked?

Well you see, Microsoft bungie jumped onto halo during its first act to aquire a new vision for the xbox. But then when bungie decided to make their own destiny seperate of microsoft…
XD idk what im doing. lol
The only thing that I can remotely take from what Anonymous is saying if anything he is saying holds any truth… Its that Bungie wouldnt have been able to make destiny without activision.
So what might be going through is brain is the following:
Bungie wanted to do destiny and hence quit halo
Activision enabled Bungie to make destiny

And what follows in this form of flawed logic is: Activision enabled bungie to quit halo
Which is false. The truth is bungie wanted to get free from the grip of microsoft… and unfortunately for them, microsoft owned halo. So they had to depart. But in the meanwhile they were developing destiny. Unfortunately for them again they figured they wouldnt have the budget to complete it, and so they found funding from activision… whom is yet another terrible company…
Helpless in the financial situation… they went under a company arguably worse than microsoft, only correcting that mistake later down the line.

:stuck_out_tongue:
So story telling is over, and now Id like to present my idea of a halo battle royale mode that ive been thinking of since the days of halo 3 lol.
Back then i never even imagined what a battle royale was. BUT… i guess there were Massive onling multiplayer games at around that time.
So i imagined we could choose our own factions, spawning to be unique to the division of what you chose…
For example, if you chose UNSC odst division, the most notable perk would be to choose your spawn point (because you spawn in ODST pods)
If you chose a spartan division, you would be deployed by pelican with your squad to limited locations (because of enemy territories defended by AA systems)

From the covanant perspective , drop pods would be exclusice to infiltration and storm divisions
etc…

And have like a limited number of lives … maybe odst divisions have more lives than spartans? to balance?
And in all of this the maps are huge, and throughout there are weapon supply crates and zones. Capturing zones allow you to call in resupplies and reinforcements… and additionally allows you to spawn at that zone.
Most importantly, there are alot of players… like… alot alot… 64+
Thats just the beggining of my idea, but what do you think?

170

This topic is clearly a very contentious one. I personally enjoy battle royals but i think development time shouldn’t be spent on the best battle royal experience but on the most customizable Halo experience ie custom games and forge; moreover, battle royal becomes possible when the creative community has access to large maps, large player number, and dropped pods (always loved this idea). Halo’s biggest strength is giving the community tools to create what they want, so more options allows for battle royal to be created by the players and even more game types that have yet to be thought of.

171

I TOTALLY AGREE!

Here are some cool ideas 343 could put in to make it unique to halo:

Instead of a ring of toxic air the ring could be like the last level of halo 3 with the warthog run where all the plates are falling off, this could make for some incredible escapes on a warthog with friends.

Dropping in could be an ODST pod, they could put thrusters on it to still be able to somewhat control the landing placement.

I’ll add to this forum if I think of any more!

172

> 2533274795123910;168:
> > 2535421570132842;167:
> > Still you do not understand, that link proved my point if activision hadn’t done what they had done Bungie would still be in charge of halo and not 343 meaning that we wouldn’t have had the changes that 343 made this is my opinion on the matter.
>
> So, what exact action by Activision described in the link proves Bungie would still be in charge of Halo?
>
> I mean, all talk is about Destiny 2, no years are mentioned, Halo and Microsoft are not to be found anywhere in the article. Not only that but Bungie retained all controll of Destiny 2
>
> The article is from 2019, and the split between Microsoft and Bungie was announced in 2007. Activision came into the picture 3 years later for Bungie.
>
> So, how do you connect the dots between the Bungie - Microsoft split and Activision, based on that article you linked?

> 2533274795123910;168:
> > 2535421570132842;167:
> > Still you do not understand, that link proved my point if activision hadn’t done what they had done Bungie would still be in charge of halo and not 343 meaning that we wouldn’t have had the changes that 343 made this is my opinion on the matter.
>
> So, what exact action by Activision described in the link proves Bungie would still be in charge of Halo?
>
> I mean, all talk is about Destiny 2, no years are mentioned, Halo and Microsoft are not to be found anywhere in the article. Not only that but Bungie retained all controll of Destiny 2
>
> The article is from 2019, and the split between Microsoft and Bungie was announced in 2007. Activision came into the picture 3 years later for Bungie.
>
> So, how do you connect the dots between the Bungie - Microsoft split and Activision, based on that article you linked?

Furthermore I am going to ignore you any and all other messages will be met with the same response as you cannot handle the truth and I’m bored of these conversations have a good day

173

> 2533274814945686;169:
> > 2533274795123910;168:
> > > 2535421570132842;167:
> > > Still you do not understand, that link proved my point if activision hadn’t done what they had done Bungie would still be in charge of halo and not 343 meaning that we wouldn’t have had the changes that 343 made this is my opinion on the matter.
> >
> > So, what exact action by Activision described in the link proves Bungie would still be in charge of Halo?
> >
> > I mean, all talk is about Destiny 2, no years are mentioned, Halo and Microsoft are not to be found anywhere in the article. Not only that but Bungie retained all controll of Destiny 2
> >
> > The article is from 2019, and the split between Microsoft and Bungie was announced in 2007. Activision came into the picture 3 years later for Bungie.
> >
> > So, how do you connect the dots between the Bungie - Microsoft split and Activision, based on that article you linked?
>
> Well you see, Microsoft bungie jumped onto halo during its first act to aquire a new vision for the xbox. But then when bungie decided to make their own destiny seperate of microsoft…
> XD idk what im doing. lol
> The only thing that I can remotely take from what Anonymous is saying if anything he is saying holds any truth… Its that Bungie wouldnt have been able to make destiny without activision.
> So what might be going through is brain is the following:
> Bungie wanted to do destiny and hence quit halo
> Activision enabled Bungie to make destiny
>
> And what follows in this form of flawed logic is: Activision enabled bungie to quit halo
> Which is false. The truth is bungie wanted to get free from the grip of microsoft… and unfortunately for them, microsoft owned halo. So they had to depart. But in the meanwhile they were developing destiny. Unfortunately for them again they figured they wouldnt have the budget to complete it, and so they found funding from activision… whom is yet another terrible company…
> Helpless in the financial situation… they went under a company arguably worse than microsoft, only correcting that mistake later down the line.
>
> :stuck_out_tongue:
> So story telling is over, and now Id like to present my idea of a halo battle royale mode that ive been thinking of since the days of halo 3 lol.
> Back then i never even imagined what a battle royale was. BUT… i guess there were Massive onling multiplayer games at around that time.
> So i imagined we could choose our own factions, spawning to be unique to the division of what you chose…
> For example, if you chose UNSC odst division, the most notable perk would be to choose your spawn point (because you spawn in ODST pods)
> If you chose a spartan division, you would be deployed by pelican with your squad to limited locations (because of enemy territories defended by AA systems)
>
> From the covanant perspective , drop pods would be exclusice to infiltration and storm divisions
> etc…
>
> And have like a limited number of lives … maybe odst divisions have more lives than spartans? to balance?
> And in all of this the maps are huge, and throughout there are weapon supply crates and zones. Capturing zones allow you to call in resupplies and reinforcements… and additionally allows you to spawn at that zone.
> Most importantly, there are alot of players… like… alot alot… 64+
> Thats just the beggining of my idea, but what do you think?

I’m not that good at explaining things but yes I blame activision and Microsoft for halo 4 and 5 as they caused Bungie to leave and then 343 had to take over which resulted in halo games that sucked. Also you idea sounds great

174

> 2535421570132842;173:
> I’m not that good at explaining things but yes I blame activision and Microsoft for halo 4 and 5 as they caused Bungie to leave and then 343 had to take over which resulted in halo games that sucked. Also you idea sounds great

Activision had no part in Bungie splitting with Microsoft.
There was no talk about Bungie and Activision in 2007, and it took three years before they announced their partnership.

175

I think that it is a HORRIBLE idea to add a battle royale, why there is so many all ready.

176

> 2533274795123910;174:
> > 2535421570132842;173:
> > I’m not that good at explaining things but yes I blame activision and Microsoft for halo 4 and 5 as they caused Bungie to leave and then 343 had to take over which resulted in halo games that sucked. Also you idea sounds great
>
> Activision had no part in Bungie splitting with Microsoft.
> There was no talk about Bungie and Activision in 2007, and it took threw years before they announced their partnership.

Furthermore I am going to ignore you any and all other messages will be met with the same response as you cannot handle the truth and I’m bored of these conversations have a good day, on another note please do not reply to posts that do not concern you thank you for your time

177

> 2535421570132842;173:
> > 2533274814945686;169:
> > > 2533274795123910;168:
> > > > 2535421570132842;167:
> > > > Still you do not understand, that link proved my point if activision hadn’t done what they had done Bungie would still be in charge of halo and not 343 meaning that we wouldn’t have had the changes that 343 made this is my opinion on the matter.
> > >
> > > So, what exact action by Activision described in the link proves Bungie would still be in charge of Halo?
> > >
> > > I mean, all talk is about Destiny 2, no years are mentioned, Halo and Microsoft are not to be found anywhere in the article. Not only that but Bungie retained all controll of Destiny 2
> > >
> > > The article is from 2019, and the split between Microsoft and Bungie was announced in 2007. Activision came into the picture 3 years later for Bungie.
> > >
> > > So, how do you connect the dots between the Bungie - Microsoft split and Activision, based on that article you linked?
> >
> > Well you see, Microsoft bungie jumped onto halo during its first act to aquire a new vision for the xbox. But then when bungie decided to make their own destiny seperate of microsoft…
> > XD idk what im doing. lol
> > The only thing that I can remotely take from what Anonymous is saying if anything he is saying holds any truth… Its that Bungie wouldnt have been able to make destiny without activision.
> > So what might be going through is brain is the following:
> > Bungie wanted to do destiny and hence quit halo
> > Activision enabled Bungie to make destiny
> >
> > And what follows in this form of flawed logic is: Activision enabled bungie to quit halo
> > Which is false. The truth is bungie wanted to get free from the grip of microsoft… and unfortunately for them, microsoft owned halo. So they had to depart. But in the meanwhile they were developing destiny. Unfortunately for them again they figured they wouldnt have the budget to complete it, and so they found funding from activision… whom is yet another terrible company…
> > Helpless in the financial situation… they went under a company arguably worse than microsoft, only correcting that mistake later down the line.
> >
> > :stuck_out_tongue:
> > So story telling is over, and now Id like to present my idea of a halo battle royale mode that ive been thinking of since the days of halo 3 lol.
> > Back then i never even imagined what a battle royale was. BUT… i guess there were Massive onling multiplayer games at around that time.
> > So i imagined we could choose our own factions, spawning to be unique to the division of what you chose…
> > For example, if you chose UNSC odst division, the most notable perk would be to choose your spawn point (because you spawn in ODST pods)
> > If you chose a spartan division, you would be deployed by pelican with your squad to limited locations (because of enemy territories defended by AA systems)
> >
> > From the covanant perspective , drop pods would be exclusice to infiltration and storm divisions
> > etc…
> >
> > And have like a limited number of lives … maybe odst divisions have more lives than spartans? to balance?
> > And in all of this the maps are huge, and throughout there are weapon supply crates and zones. Capturing zones allow you to call in resupplies and reinforcements… and additionally allows you to spawn at that zone.
> > Most importantly, there are alot of players… like… alot alot… 64+
> > Thats just the beggining of my idea, but what do you think?
>
> I’m not that good at explaining things but yes I blame activision and Microsoft for halo 4 and 5 as they caused Bungie to leave and then 343 had to take over which resulted in halo games that sucked. Also you idea sounds great

But how is Activision connected in all this? Can you at least try to explain than?

The issue we are having here is that we don’t see the connection between Activision and Bungie leaving Halo, because what happened officially is this:

Bungie and MS had known issues since at least 2003 and bought themselves their independence in 2007 with a contract to produce at least two more Halo games. It was during that transition when MS Game Studios (now XBox Studios) under Don Matrick started to recruit the first few elements of a new team that would than become 343i.

Bungie in the mean time started the Destiny pre-production, got the rights to name around the same time of ODST and had the first concepts ready after the last Reach update. With those concepts in hand and the need for funds to actually produce Destiny, Bungie started to search for a new publisher. One that wasn’t MS. Activision apperently offered the best deal or was the only one to take the risk with a new IP, sold them a share and developed the game.

All this was Bungie’s doing though! If it wasn’t AV, then it would have been Ubisoft, EA, Bethesda or some other major publisher. Maybe discussions had been made prior to leave Reach, but that’s still years after Bungie decided to leave MS and Halo behind.

That’s why what you claim makes no sense. AV had no involvement with Halo at all and Destiny’s preproduction had been done years prior to that partnership. So why are you blaming them? And what has this to do with a HYPOTHETICAL stand alone BR spin-off? I’m a bit confused to say the least! :sweat_smile:

178

AV is activision… for those who dont know : P
And MS is microsoft uwu
But yep couldnt have said it better myself.
I can imagine the guy doesnt trust mainstream media thou

179

> 2535421570132842;167:
> > 2592250499819446;165:
> > > 2535421570132842;160:
> > > > 2592250499819446;155:
> > > > > 2535421570132842;154:
> > > > > > 2592250499819446;153:
> > > > > > > 2535421570132842;152:
> > > > > > > > 2592250499819446;149:
> > > > > > > > > 2535421570132842;145:
> > > > > > > > > > 2592250499819446;143:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can’t be bothered with this you can’t tell me what the director says is wrong when he’s the one in charge of making halo, they have stated that they will always treat it as a game mode rather than a stand alone game which you cannot grasp so if you seriously can’t take the truth then I cannot be held responsible for your ignorance and if you knew that much about halo you would understand that activision was directly involved in halo 4 and 5 which was the main reason for most of the changes I don’t know how you don’t know this information?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I know what Frank said. It’s my opinion that a stand alone Halo would be better, that’s what you cannot seem to grasp. It’s also my hope that they do make a stand alone, changes can be made and game studios change too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please link where Activision was involved with Halo 4 and 5.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can grasp it you just don’t understand it as I’m not talking about your “opinion” im talking about fact, also Let me try and explained the Reason activision is involved, activision was in charge on Bungie the original creators of halo but due to the changes activision wanted to incorporate Bungie split from the company and activision put 343 in charge making the whole dilemma activisions fault.
> > > >
> > > > You’re not talking about facts. You’re stating your opinions as facts. Again, you’re of the opinion Activision was involved with Halo, please link where Activision were directly involved in halo 4 and 5 which was the main reason for most of the changes. It did not happen, Activision have never been involved with Halo.
> > >
> > > The part about destiny isn’t relevant Bungie splits with Activision, keeps control of Destiny | PC Gamer also can you stop with “YoUr PoStInG YoUr OpiNionS As FaCt” I’m giving information about the game I don’t care much for battle royal but you cannot seem to grasp that they won’t be making a stand alone game but they may make a gamemode. And if you don’t understand that information than there’s nothing I can do to help you.
> >
> > You’re giving wrong information of the game. Activision has never had anything to do with Halo, not in any way, shape or form, and the part about Destiny is the most relevant thing about it. It’s about Destiny and Activision, NOT Halo and Activision. Also, other forum users have told you the same thing. Again I’ll ask, please link where Activision were directly involved in Halo 4 and 5 which was the main reason for most of the changes. What you linked has nothing to do with Activision and Halo. I already stated I don’t care whether it’s a stand alone or add on. If they make a Halo Battle Royale I think a stand alone would be better. The parts about Battle Royale are my opinions, the part about Activision not being involved with Halo is a fact.
>
> Still you do not understand, that link proved my point if activision hadn’t done what they had done Bungie would still be in charge of halo and not 343 meaning that we wouldn’t have had the changes that 343 made this is my opinion on the matter.

It does not prove your point in any way. Bungie and Microsoft had parted ways long before Activision were on the scene. Activision have done nothing to Halo, and you also stated they were directly involved with Halo, they were not. All you’re trying to do is back up your opinion with false info. Back on topic…

Halo Infinite does not need a Battle Royale mode. However, there are players that would like Battle Royale. It’s my hope that they make one in the future. If they make it, I’m not bothered how they do it, either add on or stand alone, but it’s my opinion a stand alone would be better. 1) Players that don’t like it can avoid it. 2) It does not affect another title by replacing another mode. 3) They can dedicate full recources to that game.

180

Halo infinite should have all the things we expect out of a halo game with the tools (forge maps, mechanisms) to create a battle royale, then one day we will have a playlist where 32 or 64 guys can drop from ODST pods to fight it out within a halo context, I don’t know if a tarkov like inventory system will work, but who knows. giving players the tools to build something like that can never be a bad idea.