Is 343 smart enough to learn from reach's failures from a profit pov?

Games Other Halo
1

Failure, in this case, means in compared with the success of Halo 3

According to wikipedia (who knows how accurate this is) Reach had sold appr 4.7 million copies by Sept 2011. Which sounds like a lot, but when compared to Halo 3’s sales of approximately 8.1 million copies in 2 months, its terrible.

I’m sure its too late for them to make major changes, however I hope they are smart enough to keep the winning formula (Halo 3) and improve upon that. Using Reach as a starting point will show 343’s inability to match Bungie’s geniusbe in game development and gameplay.

Following COD’s format is not a good idea. Granted, 500k more copies where preordered than halo 3, but remember, the 360 was a new system (h3 doubled 360’s sales the following week) and COD is also offered on the PS3.

Halo is a better game. Bringing in a similar scoring system, progressive advantages is a bad idea.

To me, I believe 343 isn’t having a beta because they are worried about backlash and NEGATIVELY impacting sales. Reach had 800,000 players participate in the beta and Bungie said,

“We needed our fans to provide feedback,” said Lehto, adding that having a large audience to “hammer” on the game allowed them to gather useful feedback to mold the finished product.[46](see wiki)

The game automatically collected statistics such as upload and matchmaking speeds, as well as game preferences; sorting out what Jarrard called “the more subjective anecdotal feedback” from emails, notes, and forums proved more difficult.

The Reach beta generated over 360,000 forum posts on Bungie’s community forums.

Certain feedback from the players did not correlate with the statistical data obtained from the matches during the beta. Chris Carney, lead designer for the multiplayer mode, recalled vocal dissatisfaction with the pistol early in the beta; by the end of the beta, the weapon was responsible for most of the kills coming from newly included weapons in the game. Bungie deployed special test matches to eliminate lurking variables, balance gameplay, and make other informed changes.[47]a beta was needed "

If Bungie, after their experiences with H2 MM, H3 MM, the addition of ODST, needed a beta for Reach, why wouldn’t 343?

I wonder if they are using a system or format currently being used or has been used in the past. Maybe they’re using that and improving upon it. But isn’t that what Bungie was doing? Not having a beta concerns me.

Is there a reason…a REAL reason why they aren’t releasing any information on Halo 4? yes, they released a vidoc and frankie had another waste of time interview where he answers every question, “well, in a way, but better, we’re keeping halo halo, we’re excited, we’re releasing more info very soon”

I expect most halo players don’t visit the forums…

Think we should hold off on buying halo 4 until after release in order to have real feedback on the quality of the title?

Good thing for 343, the worse Reach is, the better H4 should appear. Like having an average looking girl next to a fat ugly one…

I remember being excited about the upcoming changes in H3…don’t feel that way about Halo 4. Originally I was extremely excited. The day of the announcement, I mean, wow…thought, “great, how much will this franchise cost me!!”

But after my experiences so far with 343’s handling of forums, servers, communications, TU (or lack there of), terminology for that matter since a title update updates the entire title, implementations, etc…

Hopefully, they know what they’re doing and will IMPROVE upon what made Halo 2 and Halo 3 so great. After all, based on sales, its in MS’s best interest to do so.

What do you all think? Will Halo 4 be better or worse than Halo 3?

2

Nothing will be able to compare to the great times I had with Halo 3, but I think Halo 4 will be a great game.

3

We won’t know until Holiday 2012. Unless someone snags a copy of Halo 4 and play the hell out of it, we cannot make a good guess with the current info they’re giving us.

This is 343’s official debut. I am anxious to see what they are capable of doing with this series.

4

If it is too late for them to make major changes like you said, we’re legitimately screwed.

5

> If it is too late for them to make major changes like you said, we’re legitimately screwed.

This.

6

> If it is too late for them to make major changes like you said, we’re legitimately screwed.

This.

7

I’m SURE Microsoft profited off of Halo:Reach. The fact that it made them money, and was actually the fastest selling video game in 24 hours (until Black Ops came out), and is always in the Top 10 most played games on Xbox, makes me sure that they don’t consider it a failure.

Reach wasn’t a failure, it was all around a good game.

8

“Chris Carney, lead designer for the multiplayer mode, recalled vocal dissatisfaction with the pistol early in the beta; by the end of the beta, the weapon was responsible for most of the kills coming from newly included weapons in the game.”

Does anyone else see how flawed this system of data gathering is?

9

People need to stop lauding their opinions as fact.

Reach wasn’t a failure. A failure “doesn’t make the cut”. Reach is still popularly populated. A fact that most naysayers can’t seem to see when it’s sitting right in front of them.

You could probably brush aside all the “CE Loyal Fans” and there would still be enough casual players to keep Halo alive.

Halo is what the company who distributes it makes it out to be.

No gamer has stock, creative control or design designation to call Halo “Theirs”.

Halo is run and owned by 343. Y’all just rent here. The “fanboys” business is very much accepted and wanted - But it’s not <mark>needed</mark>.

The “failure” of Reach already proves that point. A “broken” and “failure” of a game would’ve been abandoned by it’s so-called “loyalists” long ago.

17 months strong and counting…

10

> “Chris Carney, lead designer for the multiplayer mode, recalled vocal dissatisfaction with the pistol early in the beta; by the end of the beta, the weapon was responsible for most of the kills coming from newly included weapons in the game.”
>
>
>
> Does anyone else see how flawed this system of data gathering is?

The pistol did had a wider bloom than it did when Reach was first out, so I could see how the beta settings on the gun showed that it needed a buff in some form since other guns were doing a better job than it in the same range.

11

I so hope it goes back to Halo 2 days.

12

i had lots of fun in reach i didnt find it to fail that much only thing that urked me was that dmr shot missing when you knew it hit and armor abilities and constant forge created maps in matchmaking no number ranks and other then that i think reach is good a great story but it stands alone compared to halo 1-3

13

Sprint was in Reach.

Sprint has made it into Halo4 which is the biggest head scratcher for me. Scares the hype right out of me. 343 had one shot to kill all the insanity Reach brought to the game of Halo in the form of AAs. Somehow the cancer known as Sprint spread to 343. Couldn’t cut all the cancer out it seems.

It tells me 343 doesn’t believe in how great the core of Halo is without gimmicks. They don’t believe in Halo like I believe in Halo. They don’t trust Halo like I trust Halo. They don’t understand Halo like John Howard understands Halo.

14

Reach was a failure compared to the success of Halo 3, which had more sales than Halo 2. That shows a history of improvement. Reach achieving half the sales in 9 months more time…failure as far as business goes.

maybe not a failure of a game in your opinion. But half the sales speaks volumes.

15

> I’m SURE Microsoft profited off of Halo:Reach. The fact that it made them money, and was actually the fastest selling video game in 24 hours (until Black Ops came out), and is always in the Top 10 most played games on Xbox, makes me sure that they don’t consider it a failure.
>
> Reach wasn’t a failure, it was all around a good game.

Making money does not equal success…maybe I should rephrase…Reach was not nearly as successful or profitable as halo 3. There, is that better for those looking for something to argue?

You make a good point, fastest selling video game in 24 hours…but look how sales lacked Halo 3 in the end. Plus, the 360 was new when H3 was released…it was an established console when Reach was released.

16

The memories I had with Halo 3 with friends and intense games will never compare to Halo: Reach. I’m hoping Halo 4 can provide some of that again.

17

> Reach was a failure compared to the success of Halo 3, which had more sales than Halo 2. That shows a history of improvement. Reach achieving half the sales in 9 months more time…failure as far as business goes.
>
> maybe not a failure of a game in your opinion. But half the sales speaks volumes.

You can’t possibly have expected a spin-off to sell more than the conclusion of a trilogy. The same thing happens in cinema all the time: people decide to move on once a series finishes, and they don’t bother returning for subsequent additions. You should be comparing Reach’s sales figures to those of ODST or Halo Wars, not Halo 3.

18

> > “Chris Carney, lead designer for the multiplayer mode, recalled vocal dissatisfaction with the pistol early in the beta; by the end of the beta, the weapon was responsible for most of the kills coming from newly included weapons in the game.”
> >
> >
> >
> > Does anyone else see how flawed this system of data gathering is?
>
> The pistol did had a wider bloom than it did when Reach was first out, so I could see how the beta settings on the gun showed that it needed a buff in some form since other guns were doing a better job than it in the same range.

That wasn’t my point.

19

> People need to stop lauding their opinions as fact.
>
>
> Reach wasn’t a failure. A failure “doesn’t make the cut”. Reach is still popularly populated. A fact that most naysayers can’t seem to see when it’s sitting right in front of them.
>
>
> You could probably brush aside all the “CE Loyal Fans” and there would still be enough casual players to keep Halo alive.
>
> Halo is what the company who distributes it makes it out to be.
>
> No gamer has stock, creative control or design designation to call Halo “Theirs”.
>
>
> Halo is run and owned by 343. Y’all just rent here. The “fanboys” business is very much accepted and wanted - But it’s not <mark>needed</mark>.
>
> The “failure” of Reach already proves that point. A “broken” and “failure” of a game would’ve been abandoned by it’s so-called “loyalists” long ago.
>
> 17 months strong and counting…

Again, failure as compared to halo 3 to make it easier on the ears and less arguable.

Doesn’t make the cut, not sure what you mean. I assume its not litteral as games woulddn’t be released if they didn’t make the cut. But doesn’t matter since its been revised. Actually, I’ll edit the post to correct the wording.

Halo is owned by Microsoft, which is a publicly traded company of which I own stock. So, techincally I am a gamer, I have stock, which means I have a monetary interest in the success of this game and franchise.

I believe, if you check, the game has been abandoned by many “loyalist” for other games. Just from personal experience, I’d have 20 friends playing halo a night, now there are only a couple of my original gang playing. I’ve had to add new players to continue playing.

20

> I so hope it goes back to Halo 2 days.

I agree, in a way. For me, Halo 2 MM was the most fun IF you take away the super jumping, double shot and quad shot, etc… But I really enjoyed being able to go into a game with my friends, use beat downs or stickies only and have fun doing it. Then, as a bonus, at the end of the game you would see 10 kills with 0 shots fired. That was a stat I liked, along with hit percentage.

If you had some skill with any of the weapons (well, maybe most) you could kill most with a BR. However you couldn’t simply hold down a trigger from across the map and inflict harm. That was nice.