> 2533274923562209;80:
> > 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.
>
> Halo can survive by simply being a good quality game, the live service crap is just brainwashing on the future whales.
Survive? Sure. Halo has survived for a while now. What many seem to be claiming, however, is that all it needs to do to thrive is emulate the conditions of Halo Reach (or earliers) success.
You might be able to emulate the state of the product, but you are powerless to stop the culture and industry of gaming now in 2021, where games are expected to deliver a service that can be streamed by individual gamers and professional personalities into infinity, esports events achieve critical popularity and success, gamers expect bug fixes with incredible speed, and new content is expected readily. (as to whether or not more content is expected because games offer meager portions at launch is another conversation).
If you think that “simply being a good quality” anything is enough to achieve success with a product, there are a lot of failed products and services out there that would beg to disagree. Especially when the definition of “good quality” is enormously dependent on factors that are outside of the products control–such as the state of the industry and what consumers expect from products.
It’s 2021. Folks don’t buy DVDs or rent from Blockbuster.
No one buys albums anymore; it’s Spotify or Apple Music. Yes, I and many others still buy CDs and make individual purchases on Bandcamp. We are the exception to the rule.
Video games, particularly multiplayer shooters, in 2021 operate more as a service than they ever have in the past. Is there a solid definition? No. Does it probably need to fit into the model of most shooters? Almost likely, and if not, shareholders will want to know why Halo isn’t built and designed to earn money like the Live Services that will get brought up if they’re pulling in larger revenue.
Games are not works of art. Sure, artists work on them, but these are entertainment products. Some do get made for art’s sake (Indie games, Kojima-kinda things, etc). Halo is not a game for art. It’s meant to be a mainstream shooter that brings in cash. It is clear that Microsoft wants Halo to be its Overwatch, its Siege.
Why people keep bringing up these games which active storefronts 24/7 and release regular content (maybe not as fast as some other games which are also live services) when they want something like Reach is…I don’t know.
MCC right now is proof of how an older game model wouldn’t work in the way that folks seem to expect. If all Halo Infinite needed to do in order to reach Halo’s former glory and thrive…then MCC would be the biggest game. Those games are literally the classic gameplay, just more accessible.
> 2533274923562209;80:
> secondly I’ve seen a few of your posts and I’d ask for an elaboration on what constitutes as an actual live service game because to me it seems having mictrotransactions counts?
I think, like many things, the definitions here aren’t perfect. “Live” is sort of a redundant term here as the product category of “Service” is simply more accurate. It is a game which, I’d consider, is expected to perform financially longer than a typical scheduled release, for free or at a cost for entry, and continues to charge for various stuff and update the game over the course of time it is “Live.” You’re not buying a game, you’re buying into a service. To bring up Overwatch and Siege, can I buy either of those games without participating in the service Activision/Ubisoft want? No.
They’re services.
It is highly unlikely that any large, AAA publisher with financial investment to be returned, would NOT consider making a Live Service game of some kind (unless it was clearly a single-player product like a Last of Us, Jedi, or something for a different level of cultural impact like Doom Eternal etc…) Not putting Halo, a shooter, out as a live service in 2021 would be like a famous musician insisting that their album isn’t on Spotify. It would be like a television manufacturer was selling a 1080p TV with the promise that it will deliver TV experiences like the “old days.”
> 2533274923562209;80:
> one point to bring up is people mention how live service is needed, or how some are so popular, yet they ignore the fact half of them are free to play games? Where live service at least makes some form of sense. It’s different however when you alienate a fan base that has played so many predecessors that weren’t a live service or when they’re already paying $60 for the game itself yet after that, they have to pay more for all the expansions big or small. For me, if it’s not an mmo, or a free to play game, it doesn’t warrant being a live service just to drip feed content to its players or rehash us stuff that we’ve already had.
The alienated fan base which you speak of are the diehards that have been around at least since Reach, if not before then. So you’ll have them no matter what.
How do you attract new gamers and bring back the old ones? I would wager, the old ones have moved on to other games that fall under this live service umbrella for all of the benefits that those games provide. The new ones don’t know what Halo is (or probably vaguely).
How do you sell Halo to new people who have the expectations of a modern shooter in 2021, or to old people who have moved on to other games? MCC doesn’t seem to attract either group even though it basically has everything on paper that everyone here is asking for.
Also, Halo Infinite MP doesn’t need to be sold, it’s F2P. Campaign’s another story.
> 2533274923562209;80:
> if halo wants to be successful, launch with the proper features it should have day one for starters,
Agreed. It’s why I think the game should be paused until co op and forge are ready to go.
> 2533274923562209;80:
> Launch it with actual new creative ideas that halo players haven’t seen, be unique from the other shooters as well would be another starting point because the last few halos have been your generic “modern” shooter that had nothing that stood out.
I continue to be amazed at how so many folks seem to think it’s simple to just have “new creative ideas,” particularly for a game where people start hellish flame wars over the inclusion of new stuff. See: Halo 5.
And while I think Halo has, with the last few games, adopted more standard industry trends with shooters, they are still very unique games from generic “modern” shooters.
