Live Service is killing the industry

Games Halo Infinite
21

> 2533274796763552;19:
> > 2533274829873463;17:
> > > 2533274796763552;16:
> > > > 2533274829873463;15:
> > > > Umm no. Live service games co-exist with normal games and are generally tolerated because they are usually ‘free’ because at it’s core games like Fornite are free and yet has barely any content worth playing and yet people defend it with the “it’s free” excuse to try dismiss criticism.
> > >
> > > Fortnite has microtransanctions.
> > > Please name a multiplayer shooter with matching levels of success (or close to matching, perhaps falling around your Apex Legends or PUBG player counts) that do not have microtransactions.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > 2533274829873463;15:
> > > > Umm even single player games can have live service models like AC:Infinity…which is known as a single player series mostly.
> > >
> > > That game’s not out yet. We can’t use it as an example. It could be a total flop.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > 2533274829873463;15:
> > > > Quake 1 remastered seems fine with none and Doom 16/Eternal has none and neither does MCC.
> > > > It’s obvious that you’re trying to find any excuse to defend the predatory system.
> > >
> > > Does Quake remastered and Doom meet the criteria Halo Infinite is aiming for? And does MCC bring in enough money and player counts for MS to basically use that as a core component of their business with Xbox as a brand?
> > >
> > > And no, I’m not defending this business structure. Were it up to me, all intellectual properties would be under open source licenses and would be free for use and adaptation.
> >
> > Ok look you skimmed over what I said and micro-managed my points to try to dismiss my points. I couldn’t care less if you like Battle Royale games.
> > You asked for examples and you refused to accept things like AC Infinity despite the fact it is an example of a major single player series going this route.
> > You’re basically missing the point if you’re going into “meet the criteria of Halo Infinite”…modern games can and many modern games have no MT or Live service and do fine on their own and not every game needs to copy/paste the same formulae to stay afloat. I’m not interested in listing every known live service game in a list for you. These are games I listed because I actually enjoy playing them without resorting to some awful predatory live service game.
>
> Name the games then!
> And AC Infinity is not out right now. How can you measure success of something that doesn’t exist?
> And Halo has not been a “single-player” game really ever. It has always lead a double life as a multiplayer game. The models that single player games like, say, The Last of Us, operates on are impossible to consider for Halo unless you wanted Halo to be like The Last of Us: a single player only game with a very tight focus on narrative polish that somewhat comes at the cost of gameplay. Does that describe any Halo game to you? Would Halo be the same and be as successful as The Last of Us if it was sold in the same way?

You clearly just ignored what I said and are now just demanding stuff.

22

> 2533274796763552;16:
> > 2533274829873463;15:
> > snip
>
> Does Quake remastered and Doom meet the criteria Halo Infinite is aiming for? And does MCC bring in enough money and player counts for MS to basically use that as a core component of their business with Xbox as a brand?
>
> And no, I’m not defending this business structure. Were it up to me, all intellectual properties would be under open source licenses and would be free for use and adaptation.

lol you keep moving those goal posts. Games can’t be successful if they aren’t live service->Shooters need to be live service->Need to have microtransactions->That’s not the same thing.

Doom Eternal sold as well if not better than Halo 5. It wasn’t live service. Modern Warfare was a top seller 2019, 2020 and 2021 and it’s not live service. Hell, Battlefield 4 had a higher player count than Halo 5 despite being several years older and having 3 sequels since then.

You keep making those excuses though.

23

> 2533274829873463;21:
> > 2533274796763552;19:
> > > 2533274829873463;17:
> > > > 2533274796763552;16:
> > > > > 2533274829873463;15:
> > > > > Umm no. Live service games co-exist with normal games and are generally tolerated because they are usually ‘free’ because at it’s core games like Fornite are free and yet has barely any content worth playing and yet people defend it with the “it’s free” excuse to try dismiss criticism.
> > > >
> > > > Fortnite has microtransanctions.
> > > > Please name a multiplayer shooter with matching levels of success (or close to matching, perhaps falling around your Apex Legends or PUBG player counts) that do not have microtransactions.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 2533274829873463;15:
> > > > > Umm even single player games can have live service models like AC:Infinity…which is known as a single player series mostly.
> > > >
> > > > That game’s not out yet. We can’t use it as an example. It could be a total flop.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 2533274829873463;15:
> > > > > Quake 1 remastered seems fine with none and Doom 16/Eternal has none and neither does MCC.
> > > > > It’s obvious that you’re trying to find any excuse to defend the predatory system.
> > > >
> > > > Does Quake remastered and Doom meet the criteria Halo Infinite is aiming for? And does MCC bring in enough money and player counts for MS to basically use that as a core component of their business with Xbox as a brand?
> > > >
> > > > And no, I’m not defending this business structure. Were it up to me, all intellectual properties would be under open source licenses and would be free for use and adaptation.
> > >
> > > Ok look you skimmed over what I said and micro-managed my points to try to dismiss my points. I couldn’t care less if you like Battle Royale games.
> > > You asked for examples and you refused to accept things like AC Infinity despite the fact it is an example of a major single player series going this route.
> > > You’re basically missing the point if you’re going into “meet the criteria of Halo Infinite”…modern games can and many modern games have no MT or Live service and do fine on their own and not every game needs to copy/paste the same formulae to stay afloat. I’m not interested in listing every known live service game in a list for you. These are games I listed because I actually enjoy playing them without resorting to some awful predatory live service game.
> >
> > Name the games then!
> > And AC Infinity is not out right now. How can you measure success of something that doesn’t exist?
> > And Halo has not been a “single-player” game really ever. It has always lead a double life as a multiplayer game. The models that single player games like, say, The Last of Us, operates on are impossible to consider for Halo unless you wanted Halo to be like The Last of Us: a single player only game with a very tight focus on narrative polish that somewhat comes at the cost of gameplay. Does that describe any Halo game to you? Would Halo be the same and be as successful as The Last of Us if it was sold in the same way?
>
> You clearly just ignored what I said and are now just demanding stuff.

No. I’m listening to what you said.
You said that there are many games that are successful and aren’t a live service game.
I asked you to name the games.
You named a game that’s not out yet, ones that are a fundamentally different kind of product (like a how steak is different from chicken), and Fortnite.

I am asking you to name more games that prove what you’re saying.

24

> 2533274816232010;22:
> > 2533274796763552;16:
> > > 2533274829873463;15:
> > > snip
> >
> > Does Quake remastered and Doom meet the criteria Halo Infinite is aiming for? And does MCC bring in enough money and player counts for MS to basically use that as a core component of their business with Xbox as a brand?
> >
> > And no, I’m not defending this business structure. Were it up to me, all intellectual properties would be under open source licenses and would be free for use and adaptation.
>
> lol you keep moving those goal posts. Games can’t be successful if they aren’t live service->Shooters need to be live service->Need to have microtransactions->That’s not the same thing.
>
> Doom Eternal sold as well if not better than Halo 5. It wasn’t live service. Modern Warfare was a top seller 2019, 2020 and 2021 and it’s not live service. Hell, Battlefield 4 had a higher player count than Halo 5 despite being several years older and having 3 sequels since then.
>
> You keep making those excuses though.

I’m not moving goal posts, I’m asking for examples of games that aren’t live services yet match, closely, what we understand Halo as a product, thus proving that Halo, perhaps, wouldn’t have to be a live service.
You named games which are close to Halo.

So here’s my question to that:
It’s clear a lot of money has been invested in Halo, possibly meaning that it’s pretty close to Xbox’s brand and business needs. If Halo Infinite were like, say, Doom Eternal, just as a single example, would it meet Microsoft’s needs? And could it be sustained over a long period of time on the same numbers and initial sales from single purchases?

25

> 2533274796763552;20:
> > 2535449665894532;18:
> > > 2533274796763552;13:
> > > > 2533274829873463;10:
> > > > > 2533274796763552;8:
> > > > > > 2533274829873463;4:
> > > > > > > 2533274796763552;2:
> > > > > > > Live services are the industry.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Halo can only survive if it is one. This was not a decision made “for” Halo or “for” people who play games. In order for Halo to even exist in the current landscape of the industry means that it must be one.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is just what the business of video games is now. And has been for some time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No it isn’t. Just because some company’s do this does not mean every company is. I’m deeply concerned that live service games is what will kill Halo eventually due to lack of support will eventually come and in theory make this game unplayable except for campaign and maybe a few multiplayer modes if there ready on disc before launch. It’s been a common problem on platforms like PC but I have tolerated for long enough because there has always been options to avoid this on consoles and I’m certainly not going to pretend like it’s ok.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you explain how live services, in your opinion, are not the standard of the industry whereas it concerns shooters?
> > > >
> > > > Re-read what you said you said “Live services are the industry.” as in you were stating the entire industry is like this when it clearly isn’t. Just because some popular games do this does not mean every single game out there does this and it’s up to each dev to make their own choices because not every game out there today is some stupid live service game. I’m happily playing my games and not dealing with this whenever I can because the live service models are irritating.
> > >
> > > They are the industry, perhaps I should elaborate, for an online multiplayer shooter.
> > > Yes, there are plenty of single-player only games that don’t have any sort of live service model or monetization format.
> > > Halo is not a single-player only game and has, since Halo 2, been expected to be a multiplayer shooter.
> > >
> > > So if you can name a successful, current, multiplayer shooter with no microtransactions that is as popular and requires the amount of infrastructure and management that Halo is aiming for, I’ll retract what I’ve said.
> >
> > This sounds like an easy cop out. Why does it need to be like current games? Just because those are what’s out? Why can’t it be content complete like they used to be? Oh thats right…
> >
> > To release unfinished games and monetize them before they are even done! That’s the whole point of “Live Services”. You can defend the garbage all you want, but that doesn’t make it right.
>
> The industry doesn’t release games like they do 11 years ago.
> You’re aware of how market forces can have a dramatic effect on what kinds of games get made and don’t get made, correct?

Of course the market changes. But you seem to think that means always for the better. Well in this case Live service is a detriment.

26

> 2535449665894532;25:
> > 2533274796763552;20:
> > > 2535449665894532;18:
> > > > 2533274796763552;13:
> > > > > 2533274829873463;10:
> > > > > > 2533274796763552;8:
> > > > > > > 2533274829873463;4:
> > > > > > > > 2533274796763552;2:
> > > > > > > > Live services are the industry.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Halo can only survive if it is one. This was not a decision made “for” Halo or “for” people who play games. In order for Halo to even exist in the current landscape of the industry means that it must be one.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is just what the business of video games is now. And has been for some time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No it isn’t. Just because some company’s do this does not mean every company is. I’m deeply concerned that live service games is what will kill Halo eventually due to lack of support will eventually come and in theory make this game unplayable except for campaign and maybe a few multiplayer modes if there ready on disc before launch. It’s been a common problem on platforms like PC but I have tolerated for long enough because there has always been options to avoid this on consoles and I’m certainly not going to pretend like it’s ok.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you explain how live services, in your opinion, are not the standard of the industry whereas it concerns shooters?
> > > > >
> > > > > Re-read what you said you said “Live services are the industry.” as in you were stating the entire industry is like this when it clearly isn’t. Just because some popular games do this does not mean every single game out there does this and it’s up to each dev to make their own choices because not every game out there today is some stupid live service game. I’m happily playing my games and not dealing with this whenever I can because the live service models are irritating.
> > > >
> > > > They are the industry, perhaps I should elaborate, for an online multiplayer shooter.
> > > > Yes, there are plenty of single-player only games that don’t have any sort of live service model or monetization format.
> > > > Halo is not a single-player only game and has, since Halo 2, been expected to be a multiplayer shooter.
> > > >
> > > > So if you can name a successful, current, multiplayer shooter with no microtransactions that is as popular and requires the amount of infrastructure and management that Halo is aiming for, I’ll retract what I’ve said.
> > >
> > > This sounds like an easy cop out. Why does it need to be like current games? Just because those are what’s out? Why can’t it be content complete like they used to be? Oh thats right…
> > >
> > > To release unfinished games and monetize them before they are even done! That’s the whole point of “Live Services”. You can defend the garbage all you want, but that doesn’t make it right.
> >
> > The industry doesn’t release games like they do 11 years ago.
> > You’re aware of how market forces can have a dramatic effect on what kinds of games get made and don’t get made, correct?
>
> Of course the market changes. But you seem to think that means always for the better. Well in this case Live service is a detriment.

I have not once, here, nor anywhere, said this was for the better. This is just what the situation is.
I do not think that these live services have at all been good.
They are almost entirely awful for the way that I, and I believe many other people, enjoy games.
But this is just how the industry operates now.

27

> 2533274796763552;26:
> > 2535449665894532;25:
> > > 2533274796763552;20:
> > > > 2535449665894532;18:
> > > > > 2533274796763552;13:
> > > > > > 2533274829873463;10:
> > > > > > > 2533274796763552;8:
> > > > > > > > 2533274829873463;4:
> > > > > > > > > 2533274796763552;2:
> > > > > > > > > Live services are the industry.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Halo can only survive if it is one. This was not a decision made “for” Halo or “for” people who play games. In order for Halo to even exist in the current landscape of the industry means that it must be one.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is just what the business of video games is now. And has been for some time.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No it isn’t. Just because some company’s do this does not mean every company is. I’m deeply concerned that live service games is what will kill Halo eventually due to lack of support will eventually come and in theory make this game unplayable except for campaign and maybe a few multiplayer modes if there ready on disc before launch. It’s been a common problem on platforms like PC but I have tolerated for long enough because there has always been options to avoid this on consoles and I’m certainly not going to pretend like it’s ok.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can you explain how live services, in your opinion, are not the standard of the industry whereas it concerns shooters?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re-read what you said you said “Live services are the industry.” as in you were stating the entire industry is like this when it clearly isn’t. Just because some popular games do this does not mean every single game out there does this and it’s up to each dev to make their own choices because not every game out there today is some stupid live service game. I’m happily playing my games and not dealing with this whenever I can because the live service models are irritating.
> > > > >
> > > > > They are the industry, perhaps I should elaborate, for an online multiplayer shooter.
> > > > > Yes, there are plenty of single-player only games that don’t have any sort of live service model or monetization format.
> > > > > Halo is not a single-player only game and has, since Halo 2, been expected to be a multiplayer shooter.
> > > > >
> > > > > So if you can name a successful, current, multiplayer shooter with no microtransactions that is as popular and requires the amount of infrastructure and management that Halo is aiming for, I’ll retract what I’ve said.
> > > >
> > > > This sounds like an easy cop out. Why does it need to be like current games? Just because those are what’s out? Why can’t it be content complete like they used to be? Oh thats right…
> > > >
> > > > To release unfinished games and monetize them before they are even done! That’s the whole point of “Live Services”. You can defend the garbage all you want, but that doesn’t make it right.
> > >
> > > The industry doesn’t release games like they do 11 years ago.
> > > You’re aware of how market forces can have a dramatic effect on what kinds of games get made and don’t get made, correct?
> >
> > Of course the market changes. But you seem to think that means always for the better. Well in this case Live service is a detriment.
>
> I have not once, here, nor anywhere, said this was for the better. This is just what the situation is.
> I do not think that these live services have at all been good.
> They are almost entirely awful for the way that I, and I believe many other people, enjoy games.
> But this is just how the industry operates now.

Then we need to not just accept it. We as consumers have made it very clear we have a limit for -Yoink- over the years. I am not denying that the industry functions the way it does, but I will speak up until it changes.

28

it really depends on your definition on healthy, and even then this is a tough arguement to make. The industry has probably been the most profitable and healthy its ever been and there has been more games developed now then there has been in recent history

29

> 2533274796763552;24:
> > 2533274816232010;22:
> > > 2533274796763552;16:
> > > > 2533274829873463;15:
> > > > snip
> > >
> > > Does Quake remastered and Doom meet the criteria Halo Infinite is aiming for? And does MCC bring in enough money and player counts for MS to basically use that as a core component of their business with Xbox as a brand?
> > >
> > > And no, I’m not defending this business structure. Were it up to me, all intellectual properties would be under open source licenses and would be free for use and adaptation.
> >
> > lol you keep moving those goal posts. Games can’t be successful if they aren’t live service->Shooters need to be live service->Need to have microtransactions->That’s not the same thing.
> >
> > Doom Eternal sold as well if not better than Halo 5. It wasn’t live service. Modern Warfare was a top seller 2019, 2020 and 2021 and it’s not live service. Hell, Battlefield 4 had a higher player count than Halo 5 despite being several years older and having 3 sequels since then.
> >
> > You keep making those excuses though.
>
> I’m not moving goal posts, I’m asking for examples of games that aren’t live services yet match, closely, what we understand Halo as a product, thus proving that Halo, perhaps, wouldn’t have to be a live service.
> You named games which are close to Halo.
>
> So here’s my question to that:
> It’s clear a lot of money has been invested in Halo, possibly meaning that it’s pretty close to Xbox’s brand and business needs. If Halo Infinite were like, say, Doom Eternal, just as a single example, would it meet Microsoft’s needs? And could it be sustained over a long period of time on the same numbers and initial sales from single purchases?

Halo Infinite’s multiplayer is free-to-play. Their only income is from it is through people willing to spend money on cosmetics which are inconsequential to gameplay. Even then, look at Halo 5’s player count. Their plan is a failure before it’s even launched.

They’re expecting people to keep playing Halo Infinite’s multiplayer and to spend money for the next decade, simply because they say it’s live service and there won’t be another Halo title to compete with.

Let’s compare Siege to Halo 5 to three multiplayer shooters: CoD, Battlefield and Siege.
1.) Battlefield 4, One and 5 each have a higher player count individually than Halo 5 and nearly 6x as much split between the three.
2.) Call of Duty has had 8 releases since 2015 and each individual release has had a higher player count than Halo 5 and sold millions of more copies. In fact, they sold 80 million more copies than Halo 5.
3.) Rainbow Six Siege has had a total player count over 70 million, while Halo 5 has had less than 10 million sales.

The point being that two of those franchises don’t need to be live service to overwhelmingly sell better than Halo Infinite ever will. The other one shows that live service can be successful depending on the game, however, Halo isn’t one of those types of games.

No matter what 343i tries to do with this game, I can guarantee that the player base for Halo Infinite will dissolve to nothing as soon as the next multiplayer shooter comes out.

All 343i has managed to do is split the sales base up, alienate longtime fans of the IP and use the next big hype word of the industry that will soon disappear into the wind. I love Halo, but as far as shooters go it’s a niche fanbase.

30

I miss the days when it went: “Here is the game, go nuts!” and then they made the next one, and we went nuts with that too.

Now it goes: “Here is an unfinished game, by the time it’s finished you’ll already be tired of it and beg for the next one, also if you want all the content you have to pay extra.”

1 Like
31

> 2533274947805189;30:
> I miss the days when it went: “Here is the game, go nuts!” and then they made the next one, and we went nuts with that too.
>
> Now it goes: “Here is an unfinished game, by the time it’s finished you’ll already be tired of it and beg for the next one.”

And this has basically been my point here.
I miss those days too. Most of us do. We miss them because they’re gone. There are few exceptions here and there with some games, but by and large, games (particularly multiplayer shooters) are these never-finished-live-service-mtx-endless-fest.

32

I agree, games used to be like a art form (give or take) since they were pretty much a group of people’s ideas mashed together and presented to the world as a whole that could be touched up a little bit later on which led to successful games and genres such as Gears Of War, Fallout, Halo, Call Of Duty, Battlefield, etc. and others that became cult followings or niches such as horror games, mystery games, etc. Now with live service it’s like buying a piece of art and the artist is like “Yeah, here’s a piece of it, might finish this later, might not.” this has had its successes but mostly with niche genres such as Battle Royales or Indie games with the latter usually being a passion project and the former usually being a micro transaction haven. The reason Halo seems eh with live service is because none of the past Halo’s were a incomplete art piece and this is the first one that is with live service usually being a very wary thing when made by a triple a studio because it usually turns into a micro transaction haven. All in all though it will be interesting to see how it goes

33

> 2533274816232010;29:
> > 2533274796763552;24:
> > > 2533274816232010;22:
> > > > 2533274796763552;16:
> > > > > 2533274829873463;15:
> > > > > snip
> > > >
> > > > Does Quake remastered and Doom meet the criteria Halo Infinite is aiming for? And does MCC bring in enough money and player counts for MS to basically use that as a core component of their business with Xbox as a brand?
> > > >
> > > > And no, I’m not defending this business structure. Were it up to me, all intellectual properties would be under open source licenses and would be free for use and adaptation.
> > >
> > > lol you keep moving those goal posts. Games can’t be successful if they aren’t live service->Shooters need to be live service->Need to have microtransactions->That’s not the same thing.
> > >
> > > Doom Eternal sold as well if not better than Halo 5. It wasn’t live service. Modern Warfare was a top seller 2019, 2020 and 2021 and it’s not live service. Hell, Battlefield 4 had a higher player count than Halo 5 despite being several years older and having 3 sequels since then.
> > >
> > > You keep making those excuses though.
> >
> > I’m not moving goal posts, I’m asking for examples of games that aren’t live services yet match, closely, what we understand Halo as a product, thus proving that Halo, perhaps, wouldn’t have to be a live service.
> > You named games which are close to Halo.
> >
> > So here’s my question to that:
> > It’s clear a lot of money has been invested in Halo, possibly meaning that it’s pretty close to Xbox’s brand and business needs. If Halo Infinite were like, say, Doom Eternal, just as a single example, would it meet Microsoft’s needs? And could it be sustained over a long period of time on the same numbers and initial sales from single purchases?
>
> Halo Infinite’s multiplayer is free-to-play. Their only income is from it is through people willing to spend money on cosmetics which are inconsequential to gameplay. Even then, look at Halo 5’s player count. Their plan is a failure before it’s even launched.
>
> They’re expecting people to keep playing Halo Infinite’s multiplayer and to spend money for the next decade, simply because they say it’s live service and there won’t be another Halo title to compete with.
>
> Let’s compare Siege to Halo 5 to three multiplayer shooters: CoD, Battlefield and Siege.
> 1.) Battlefield 4, One and 5 each have a higher player count individually than Halo 5 and nearly 6x as much split between the three.
> 2.) Call of Duty has had 8 releases since 2015 and each individual release has had a higher player count than Halo 5 and sold millions of more copies. In fact, they sold 80 million more copies than Halo 5.
> 3.) Rainbow Six Siege has had a total player count over 70 million, while Halo 5 has had less than 10 million sales.
>
> The point being that two of those franchises don’t need to be live service to overwhelmingly sell better than Halo Infinite ever will. The other one shows that live service can be successful depending on the game, however, Halo isn’t one of those types of games.
>
> No matter what 343i tries to do with this game, I can guarantee that the player base for Halo Infinite will dissolve to nothing as soon as the next multiplayer shooter comes out.
>
> All 343i has managed to do is split the sales base up, alienate longtime fans of the IP and use the next big hype word of the industry that will soon disappear into the wind. I love Halo, but as far as shooters go it’s a niche fanbase.

Yes. They want people playing Halo Infinite for 10 years. They want people streaming Halo Infinite for 10 years. They want eSports events for Halo Infinite for 10 years. They want people spending money on Halo Infinite for 10 years.

How on earth do you achieve that if the game is not a live service?
And what game has achieved that kind of goal without being a live service?

The games you mentioned are either live services (Siege, Warzone), or have massive amounts of microtransactions.

My point has been that the type of game that Halo was will struggle to exist in the way that Microsoft needs it to for Xbox as a business. MCC is is your best bet. It’ll struggle to be as popular as other games because it can’t have constant updates that keeps players engaged and streamers streaming (this is the world we live in now with games). For Halo to exist as a product, for there to be an expectation and a prediction as to how it will perform and earn money, it needs to consider being a live service.

The phenomenon that was what Halo was like back then is the equivalent of what live services are to gaming today.

And I agree with those that say it wasn’t right for Halo as we understand it. But they aren’t making Halo for Halo’s sake. They’re making it make money.
That’s it. Halo is being used to fit the need for Microsoft to have an exclusive live service shooter for their platform.

It sucks. I would like games to be more discreet, focused packages like they were. But that’s not where the medium is headed–and if it were, we’d have to start really questioning what other things would need to change in order for that to be a thing.

34

> 2533274796763552;2:
> Live services are the industry.
>
> Halo can only survive if it is one. This was not a decision made “for” Halo or “for” people who play games. In order for Halo to even exist in the current landscape of the industry means that it must be one.
>
> This is just what the business of video games is now. And has been for some time.

Can you elaborate? Because not all games are live service games, and quite a lot of people do not enjoy live service games. A $50 game needs to sell 10 million copies to earn $500million and Halo 3 sold 14.5 million, most Halo games generally sell 10 million copies and a lot of people will pay extra for limited editions too. Plus this time with the PC market the potential is even greater. I think you meant to say, “This is the business of greed in the video game industry now. And has been for some time”. and “Halo can only exploit these markets if it is one”.

35

> 2533274796763552;33:
> > 2533274816232010;29:
> > > 2533274796763552;24:
> > > > 2533274816232010;22:
> > > > > 2533274796763552;16:
> > > > > > 2533274829873463;15:
> > > > > > snip
> > > > >
> > > > > Does Quake remastered and Doom meet the criteria Halo Infinite is aiming for? And does MCC bring in enough money and player counts for MS to basically use that as a core component of their business with Xbox as a brand?
> > > > >
> > > > > And no, I’m not defending this business structure. Were it up to me, all intellectual properties would be under open source licenses and would be free for use and adaptation.
> > > >
> > > > lol you keep moving those goal posts. Games can’t be successful if they aren’t live service->Shooters need to be live service->Need to have microtransactions->That’s not the same thing.
> > > >
> > > > Doom Eternal sold as well if not better than Halo 5. It wasn’t live service. Modern Warfare was a top seller 2019, 2020 and 2021 and it’s not live service. Hell, Battlefield 4 had a higher player count than Halo 5 despite being several years older and having 3 sequels since then.
> > > >
> > > > You keep making those excuses though.
> > >
> > > I’m not moving goal posts, I’m asking for examples of games that aren’t live services yet match, closely, what we understand Halo as a product, thus proving that Halo, perhaps, wouldn’t have to be a live service.
> > > You named games which are close to Halo.
> > >
> > > So here’s my question to that:
> > > It’s clear a lot of money has been invested in Halo, possibly meaning that it’s pretty close to Xbox’s brand and business needs. If Halo Infinite were like, say, Doom Eternal, just as a single example, would it meet Microsoft’s needs? And could it be sustained over a long period of time on the same numbers and initial sales from single purchases?
> >
> > Halo Infinite’s multiplayer is free-to-play. Their only income is from it is through people willing to spend money on cosmetics which are inconsequential to gameplay. Even then, look at Halo 5’s player count. Their plan is a failure before it’s even launched.
> >
> > They’re expecting people to keep playing Halo Infinite’s multiplayer and to spend money for the next decade, simply because they say it’s live service and there won’t be another Halo title to compete with.
> >
> > Let’s compare Siege to Halo 5 to three multiplayer shooters: CoD, Battlefield and Siege.
> > 1.) Battlefield 4, One and 5 each have a higher player count individually than Halo 5 and nearly 6x as much split between the three.
> > 2.) Call of Duty has had 8 releases since 2015 and each individual release has had a higher player count than Halo 5 and sold millions of more copies. In fact, they sold 80 million more copies than Halo 5.
> > 3.) Rainbow Six Siege has had a total player count over 70 million, while Halo 5 has had less than 10 million sales.
> >
> > The point being that two of those franchises don’t need to be live service to overwhelmingly sell better than Halo Infinite ever will. The other one shows that live service can be successful depending on the game, however, Halo isn’t one of those types of games.
> >
> > No matter what 343i tries to do with this game, I can guarantee that the player base for Halo Infinite will dissolve to nothing as soon as the next multiplayer shooter comes out.
> >
> > All 343i has managed to do is split the sales base up, alienate longtime fans of the IP and use the next big hype word of the industry that will soon disappear into the wind. I love Halo, but as far as shooters go it’s a niche fanbase.
>
> Yes. They want people playing Halo Infinite for 10 years. They want people streaming Halo Infinite for 10 years. They want eSports events for Halo Infinite for 10 years. They want people spending money on Halo Infinite for 10 years.
>
> __How on earth do you achieve that if the game is not a live service?__And what game has achieved that kind of goal without being a live service?
>
> The games you mentioned are either live services (Siege, Warzone), or have massive amounts of microtransactions.

By making a good game and being the right type of game.

Halo CE on PC lasted for that length of time on their servers, through clans hosting them and with Custom Edition fan made maps like Coldsnap. Stuff like forge. It wasn’t a game as a service. Halo will never be that successful again though.

I’ve already listed games that are greatly successful or have managed a long life cycle. Again though, Halo will never have that success.

No, I listed one that might fit the description of “live service” which is Siege. The rest were not live service games and all vastly more successful than 343’s games. They tried their hand with a “game as a service” with Halo 5 and it’s already showed how poor of a decision making Halo Infinite a live service is.

You keep coming back to this everything needs to be live service to succeed now, but again, it’s demonstrably false. Halo is an iconic IP and it’s a somewhat successful exclusive, but compared to Battlefield, Siege or CoD it’s niche and it always will be. In order to be successful and make money, 343 needs to continue releasing the next chapter in the Halo story.

This is my last post on the matter because it’ll just go around and around again: Halo will always fail as a live service just like Halo 5. I’m also of the opinion that this will fail worse financially than Halo 5 because 1.) It’s free-to-play, 2.) Halo 4 and 5 will make consumers more wary, 3.) Halo doesn’t have a sustainable player base to support a live service title and it will be free on gamepass, 4.) Consumers in general are becoming more wary of developers after Fallout 76, Anthem and Cyberpunk 2077.

Industry trends are a cancer and stifle creativity and progress. Instead of making the next big thing, innovating or creating new lore, developers are just trying to copy each other and make something that’s low effort and adequate. Live service is that latest trend and will disappear like all the rest. Especially now that countries like the U.S, Germany and England looking into regulations for microtransactions, loot boxes and battle passes.

36

Live service has been around for ages, it was just never called live service, it was just called buggy game at launch , fix it later.
Then they found a way to make money out of that by charging you with season passes , subs ext, give you some nice cosmetic stuff to beta teast there buggy games and call it a live service.
And so here we are today, it being introduced into halo. A game that was back in the day known for a game packed full of content. Remember halo 3 at launch, forge, mp , 4 player coop, theatre ext all at launch, next to no bugs all at launch good times, but that was 14 years ago, and sadly its only got worse. Halo has been infected by something much worse than the flood, and now everyone is seeing it for what it is.
Just watch the video update, and they used “live service” as an excuse to how its ok to have coop and Forge delayed because " thats what live service games do" You see now how live service is anything but, its just an excuse to release unfinished products and charge for them long term.

Look i love halo, but this -Yoink- is BS. It was only back in july where 343i said " halo infinite will release with Forge and coop" That didn’t take long to change did it? Then there are posts by fans on here and other sites about how its “ok” these things are not in at launch. STOP IT! , its not ok. Stop giving them a free pass to BS. They will just use it as a means to continue to do it in the future. Even if the release of MP and Campaign are fantastic, it doesn’t stop the fact that we have got an unfinished game, thats already been delayed to the point where we have waited 6 years for a new halo game.

I dunno, im sure i’ll enjoy the game when its released, i know i enjoyed theFlight , but i can’t help but feel sad about it all, by the delays, by the live service BS and whatever is going to come next. I miss the days of games releasing finished, i guess its just not a thing anymore with tripple A.

37

> 2533274796763552;33:
> > 2533274816232010;29:
> > > 2533274796763552;24:
> > > > 2533274816232010;22:
> > > > > 2533274796763552;16:
> > > > > > 2533274829873463;15:
> > > > > > snip
> > > > >
> > > > > Does Quake remastered and Doom meet the criteria Halo Infinite is aiming for? And does MCC bring in enough money and player counts for MS to basically use that as a core component of their business with Xbox as a brand?
> > > > >
> > > > > And no, I’m not defending this business structure. Were it up to me, all intellectual properties would be under open source licenses and would be free for use and adaptation.
> > > >
> > > > lol you keep moving those goal posts. Games can’t be successful if they aren’t live service->Shooters need to be live service->Need to have microtransactions->That’s not the same thing.
> > > >
> > > > Doom Eternal sold as well if not better than Halo 5. It wasn’t live service. Modern Warfare was a top seller 2019, 2020 and 2021 and it’s not live service. Hell, Battlefield 4 had a higher player count than Halo 5 despite being several years older and having 3 sequels since then.
> > > >
> > > > You keep making those excuses though.
> > >
> > > I’m not moving goal posts, I’m asking for examples of games that aren’t live services yet match, closely, what we understand Halo as a product, thus proving that Halo, perhaps, wouldn’t have to be a live service.
> > > You named games which are close to Halo.
> > >
> > > So here’s my question to that:
> > > It’s clear a lot of money has been invested in Halo, possibly meaning that it’s pretty close to Xbox’s brand and business needs. If Halo Infinite were like, say, Doom Eternal, just as a single example, would it meet Microsoft’s needs? And could it be sustained over a long period of time on the same numbers and initial sales from single purchases?
> >
> > Halo Infinite’s multiplayer is free-to-play. Their only income is from it is through people willing to spend money on cosmetics which are inconsequential to gameplay. Even then, look at Halo 5’s player count. Their plan is a failure before it’s even launched.
> >
> > They’re expecting people to keep playing Halo Infinite’s multiplayer and to spend money for the next decade, simply because they say it’s live service and there won’t be another Halo title to compete with.
> >
> > Let’s compare Siege to Halo 5 to three multiplayer shooters: CoD, Battlefield and Siege.
> > 1.) Battlefield 4, One and 5 each have a higher player count individually than Halo 5 and nearly 6x as much split between the three.
> > 2.) Call of Duty has had 8 releases since 2015 and each individual release has had a higher player count than Halo 5 and sold millions of more copies. In fact, they sold 80 million more copies than Halo 5.
> > 3.) Rainbow Six Siege has had a total player count over 70 million, while Halo 5 has had less than 10 million sales.
> >
> > The point being that two of those franchises don’t need to be live service to overwhelmingly sell better than Halo Infinite ever will. The other one shows that live service can be successful depending on the game, however, Halo isn’t one of those types of games.
> >
> > No matter what 343i tries to do with this game, I can guarantee that the player base for Halo Infinite will dissolve to nothing as soon as the next multiplayer shooter comes out.
> >
> > All 343i has managed to do is split the sales base up, alienate longtime fans of the IP and use the next big hype word of the industry that will soon disappear into the wind. I love Halo, but as far as shooters go it’s a niche fanbase.
>
> Yes. They want people playing Halo Infinite for 10 years. They want people streaming Halo Infinite for 10 years. They want eSports events for Halo Infinite for 10 years. They want people spending money on Halo Infinite for 10 years.
>
> How on earth do you achieve that if the game is not a live service?
> And what game has achieved that kind of goal without being a live service?
>
> The games you mentioned are either live services (Siege, Warzone), or have massive amounts of microtransactions.
>
> My point has been that the type of game that Halo was will struggle to exist in the way that Microsoft needs it to for Xbox as a business. MCC is is your best bet. It’ll struggle to be as popular as other games because it can’t have constant updates that keeps players engaged and streamers streaming (this is the world we live in now with games). For Halo to exist as a product, for there to be an expectation and a prediction as to how it will perform and earn money, it needs to consider being a live service.
>
> The phenomenon that was what Halo was like back then is the equivalent of what live services are to gaming today.
>
> And I agree with those that say it wasn’t right for Halo as we understand it. But they aren’t making Halo for Halo’s sake. They’re making it make money.
> That’s it. Halo is being used to fit the need for Microsoft to have an exclusive live service shooter for their platform.
>
> It sucks. I would like games to be more discreet, focused packages like they were. But that’s not where the medium is headed–and if it were, we’d have to start really questioning what other things would need to change in order for that to be a thing.

You’ve been arguing for this for so long that my only question is, are you a capitalist?

38

I really don’t want halo infinite to be delayed again but i think it should. Halo infinite is supposed to be bigger and better than every other halo and right now its not.no other halo campaign to date has released without co-op and the fact infinite doesn’t have it and is price at 60$ is outrageous, The campaign should exceed all other halos to date due to itself being full priced. Co-op gave a lot of replay ability to the halo series and made for fun moments. With no forge for 6 months this means no custom games and no custom game browser for at least 6 moths. Forge and custom games allow for a break form traditional multiplayer to find fun game modes and create your own. The whole live service just feels like do 75% of the game and add 25% later saying that its free updates to seem like there adding more when it should have been there form the beginning. Just think what the could add into halo if forge and co-op was there from the beginning maybe we could see the return of invasion or firefight.
Delaying the game would make halo infinite feel like a full game rather than a piece of it.
Both halo 5 and mcc have a huge custom game player base and great forgers that help keep the game alive and with infinite not having that i fear a halo 4 or 5 player base drop where players left never to give the game a second chance.

Bottom Line First Impressions Count Please Delay The Game.

39

> 2533274805075298;37:
> > 2533274796763552;33:
> > > 2533274816232010;29:
> > > > 2533274796763552;24:
> > > > > 2533274816232010;22:
> > > > > > 2533274796763552;16:
> > > > > > > 2533274829873463;15:
> > > > > > > snip
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does Quake remastered and Doom meet the criteria Halo Infinite is aiming for? And does MCC bring in enough money and player counts for MS to basically use that as a core component of their business with Xbox as a brand?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And no, I’m not defending this business structure. Were it up to me, all intellectual properties would be under open source licenses and would be free for use and adaptation.
> > > > >
> > > > > lol you keep moving those goal posts. Games can’t be successful if they aren’t live service->Shooters need to be live service->Need to have microtransactions->That’s not the same thing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Doom Eternal sold as well if not better than Halo 5. It wasn’t live service. Modern Warfare was a top seller 2019, 2020 and 2021 and it’s not live service. Hell, Battlefield 4 had a higher player count than Halo 5 despite being several years older and having 3 sequels since then.
> > > > >
> > > > > You keep making those excuses though.
> > > >
> > > > I’m not moving goal posts, I’m asking for examples of games that aren’t live services yet match, closely, what we understand Halo as a product, thus proving that Halo, perhaps, wouldn’t have to be a live service.
> > > > You named games which are close to Halo.
> > > >
> > > > So here’s my question to that:
> > > > It’s clear a lot of money has been invested in Halo, possibly meaning that it’s pretty close to Xbox’s brand and business needs. If Halo Infinite were like, say, Doom Eternal, just as a single example, would it meet Microsoft’s needs? And could it be sustained over a long period of time on the same numbers and initial sales from single purchases?
> > >
> > > Halo Infinite’s multiplayer is free-to-play. Their only income is from it is through people willing to spend money on cosmetics which are inconsequential to gameplay. Even then, look at Halo 5’s player count. Their plan is a failure before it’s even launched.
> > >
> > > They’re expecting people to keep playing Halo Infinite’s multiplayer and to spend money for the next decade, simply because they say it’s live service and there won’t be another Halo title to compete with.
> > >
> > > Let’s compare Siege to Halo 5 to three multiplayer shooters: CoD, Battlefield and Siege.
> > > 1.) Battlefield 4, One and 5 each have a higher player count individually than Halo 5 and nearly 6x as much split between the three.
> > > 2.) Call of Duty has had 8 releases since 2015 and each individual release has had a higher player count than Halo 5 and sold millions of more copies. In fact, they sold 80 million more copies than Halo 5.
> > > 3.) Rainbow Six Siege has had a total player count over 70 million, while Halo 5 has had less than 10 million sales.
> > >
> > > The point being that two of those franchises don’t need to be live service to overwhelmingly sell better than Halo Infinite ever will. The other one shows that live service can be successful depending on the game, however, Halo isn’t one of those types of games.
> > >
> > > No matter what 343i tries to do with this game, I can guarantee that the player base for Halo Infinite will dissolve to nothing as soon as the next multiplayer shooter comes out.
> > >
> > > All 343i has managed to do is split the sales base up, alienate longtime fans of the IP and use the next big hype word of the industry that will soon disappear into the wind. I love Halo, but as far as shooters go it’s a niche fanbase.
> >
> > Yes. They want people playing Halo Infinite for 10 years. They want people streaming Halo Infinite for 10 years. They want eSports events for Halo Infinite for 10 years. They want people spending money on Halo Infinite for 10 years.
> >
> > How on earth do you achieve that if the game is not a live service?
> > And what game has achieved that kind of goal without being a live service?
> >
> > The games you mentioned are either live services (Siege, Warzone), or have massive amounts of microtransactions.
> >
> > My point has been that the type of game that Halo was will struggle to exist in the way that Microsoft needs it to for Xbox as a business. MCC is is your best bet. It’ll struggle to be as popular as other games because it can’t have constant updates that keeps players engaged and streamers streaming (this is the world we live in now with games). For Halo to exist as a product, for there to be an expectation and a prediction as to how it will perform and earn money, it needs to consider being a live service.
> >
> > The phenomenon that was what Halo was like back then is the equivalent of what live services are to gaming today.
> >
> > And I agree with those that say it wasn’t right for Halo as we understand it. But they aren’t making Halo for Halo’s sake. They’re making it make money.
> > That’s it. Halo is being used to fit the need for Microsoft to have an exclusive live service shooter for their platform.
> >
> > It sucks. I would like games to be more discreet, focused packages like they were. But that’s not where the medium is headed–and if it were, we’d have to start really questioning what other things would need to change in order for that to be a thing.
>
> You’ve been arguing for this for so long that my only question is, are you a capitalist?

Nope.

40

> 2533274958180758;1:
> When is enough, enough? When will we as the Fans hold these companies accountable for releasing unbaked games? I just want to thank the developers for their hard-work and crunch but these Triple A studios and the companies are employing malicious and nefarious business practices that allow for stagnation and “cutting cost” methods which is damaging the industry.

The problem is these new games are costing way too much to make. $500million for Infinite.