I think 343 Industries should remove multiplayer all together. Just so they can refine it and make it worth playing. I don’t want another broken multiplayer or a half multiplayer and wait 6 months for it to be considered “fixed”.
If 343 Industries can guarantee a good multiplayer experience than include, if not than cut it.
I don’t know if I can agree with that. Removing Halo’s multiplayer would just kill off the franchise, and it would kind of be pointless. After all, the majority of a Video Game’s sales revolve around it’s Multiplayer.
They learned a lot from Halo 4, and heck, we’re finally getting Dedicated Servers in Halo.
Multiplayer is what makes Halo, Halo. It isn’t going anywhere. Nobody wants to wait 2-3 years for a 6 hour Campaign which won’t be replayed more than a couple of times.
> I don’t know if I can agree with that. Removing Halo’s multiplayer would just kill off the franchise, and it would kind of be pointless. After all, the majority of a Video Game’s sales revolve around it’s Multiplayer.
They should sell the campaign! Not the multiplayer!
Why would you remove multiplayer to improve it?
That’s like saying “we shouldn’t have a beta so we can make sure to get the final game right”.
It makes no logical sense. Including the multiplayer gives people a point of reference. You don’t want to release a flawed product, you want people to test it first to avoid any issues.
Why would you remove Halo 5’s multiplayer and bring back a potentially crappy one in Halo 6, when the issues could have just been found in Halo 5 and fixed for 6?
They removed Slayer Pro to fix it and released Throwdown later. They could have just kept Slayer Pro up until Throwdown came out. There was absolutely no point in what they did, and there is no point in this idea either.
> They should sell the campaign! Not the multiplayer!
Now we see what this thread is really about.
Just because you don’t care about multiplayer doesn’t mean it should be removed.
> > I don’t know if I can agree with that. Removing Halo’s multiplayer would just kill off the franchise, and it would kind of be pointless. After all, the majority of a Video Game’s sales revolve around it’s Multiplayer.
>
> <mark>They should sell the campaign! Not the multiplayer!</mark>
That’s an even WORSE idea.
I play Halo for it’s story-line and creativity, not for shooting aliens.
Forge, Custom Games (formerly), Campaign, books, lore…
Halo is where gameplay and creativity meet, that is a core foundation of the franchise.
> Multiplayer is what makes Halo, Halo.
That can be argued with. Nonetheless, it’s an important part of the franchise.
> > Multiplayer is what makes Halo, Halo.
>
> That can be argued with. Nonetheless, it’s an important part of the franchise.
I find it highly questionable that you come on Halo 4 every day just to play the Campaign & Spartan Ops without getting bored of playing the same, predictable AI.
You kill Multiplayer, you might as well not even release your game.
> > Multiplayer is what makes Halo, Halo.
>
> That can be argued with. Nonetheless, it’s an important part of the franchise.
Did thousands of people stay online during Halo 2’s final days on Xbox Live for the campaign or multiplayer?
> > > Multiplayer is what makes Halo, Halo.
> >
> > That can be argued with. Nonetheless, it’s an important part of the franchise.
>
> Did thousands of people stay online during Halo 2’s final days on Xbox Live for the campaign or multiplayer?
No, but tons bought the game for the campaign, and tons enjoyed it. I don’t constantly read the same books over and over but I still enjoy a good novel.
Multiplayer is not the sole reason people buy the game, and it’s not a contest regardless.
People buy Halo for their own reasons.
> No, but tons bought the game for the campaign, and tons enjoyed it. I don’t constantly read the same books over and over but I still enjoy a good novel.
>
> Multiplayer is not the sole reason people buy the game, and it’s not a contest regardless.
>
> People buy Halo for their own reasons.
I never said Campaign ISN’T important, but cutting multiplayer is still a huge no-no.
> > No, but tons bought the game for the campaign, and tons enjoyed it. I don’t constantly read the same books over and over but I still enjoy a good novel.
> >
> > Multiplayer is not the sole reason people buy the game, and it’s not a contest regardless.
> >
> > People buy Halo for their own reasons.
>
> I never said Campaign ISN’T important, but cutting multiplayer is still a huge no-no.
I never said cut-out multiplayer. In fact, I stated it is an important part of Halo–just as the campaign.
> I think 343 Industries should remove multiplayer all together. Just so they can refine it and make it worth playing. I don’t want another broken multiplayer or a half multiplayer and wait 6 months for it to be considered “fixed”.
>
> If 343 Industries can guarantee a good multiplayer experience than include, if not than cut it.
I haven’t played through a campaign since Halo 2.
WHO THE HELL PLAYS HALO FOR CAMPAIGN?
> > I think 343 Industries should remove multiplayer all together. Just so they can refine it and make it worth playing. I don’t want another broken multiplayer or a half multiplayer and wait 6 months for it to be considered “fixed”.
> >
> > If 343 Industries can guarantee a good multiplayer experience than include, if not than cut it.
>
> I haven’t played through a campaign since Halo 2.
>
> WHO THE HELL PLAYS HALO FOR CAMPAIGN?
I don’t play solely for the campaign, but it’s a major part of why I buy the games.
And to be frank, there hasn’t been an amazing multiplayer since Halo CE / Halo 2.
Halo 3 was too slow.
Halo Reach was too imbalanced (and slow).
Halo 4 has potential.
The developers simply need to stop slowing down the game, stop watering it down, and start innovating instead of imitating.
> > I think 343 Industries should remove multiplayer all together. Just so they can refine it and make it worth playing. I don’t want another broken multiplayer or a half multiplayer and wait 6 months for it to be considered “fixed”.
> >
> > If 343 Industries can guarantee a good multiplayer experience than include, if not than cut it.
>
> I haven’t played through a campaign since Halo 2.
>
> WHO THE HELL PLAYS HALO FOR CAMPAIGN?
50% of the reason why I buy Halo games is because of Campaign. 35% is Multiplayer and 15% is other content, like Forge and Firefight.
What I honestly see happening, if not for the next Halo game, and other games with multiplayer, is that in the near future, multiplayer will be considered DLC.
You will buy games with Campaign only. Then have to fork over more money for multiplayer. You won’t be able to play multiplayer without having the campaign disc.
The campaign disc would cost the same as a regular game since MS and Sony alike know that we gamers are used to paying $60 for games.
Since the developers are clamoring for more money and a large percentage of gamers for FPS games play multiplayer, the next progression would be to do just that. Make multiplayer DLC. They already do it for map packs. So now I’m talking the base multiplayer portion of games. Game studios would definitely make more money. However, the key to that would be both MS and Sony agreeing to do this and game studios getting on boards.
The question then would be how much more for the base multiplayer experience? Likely somewhere around $30. Studios know that there are those gamers who play multiplayer for one or just a handful of games for years on end. By charging for multiplayer from the get-go, the get more money out of you.
Also, for those who buy used games, at lest the studios can make money from you if you want to purchase the multiplayer portion of the game.
Just some food for thought…
> What I honestly see happening, if not for the next Halo game, and other games with multiplayer, is that in the near future, multiplayer will be considered DLC.
>
> You will buy games with Campaign only. Then have to fork over more money for multiplayer. You won’t be able to play multiplayer without having the campaign disc.
>
> The campaign disc would cost the same as a regular game since MS and Sony alike know that we gamers are used to paying $60 for games.
>
> Since the developers are clamoring for more money and a large percentage of gamers for FPS games play multiplayer, the next progression would be to do just that. Make multiplayer DLC. They already do it for map packs. So now I’m talking the base multiplayer portion of games. Game studios would definitely make more money. However, the key to that would be both MS and Sony agreeing to do this and game studios getting on boards.
>
> The question then would be how much more for the base multiplayer experience? Likely somewhere around $30. Studios know that there are those gamers who play multiplayer for one or just a handful of games for years on end. By charging for multiplayer from the get-go, the get more money out of you.
>
> Also, for those who buy used games, at lest the studios can make money from you if you want to purchase the multiplayer portion of the game.
>
> Just some food for thought…
I don’t think I’m sleeping tonight, since that was kind a like from a gamers nightmare.
Tl;dr
2spooky4me
> > I think 343 Industries should remove multiplayer all together. Just so they can refine it and make it worth playing. I don’t want another broken multiplayer or a half multiplayer and wait 6 months for it to be considered “fixed”.
> >
> > If 343 Industries can guarantee a good multiplayer experience than include, if not than cut it.
>
> I haven’t played through a campaign since Halo 2.
>
> WHO THE HELL PLAYS HALO FOR CAMPAIGN?
I play for the campaign, and stay for everything else. Alot of people play for the campaign. Especially all the people who don’t have gold.
I would just prefer they use the XB1 processing capabilities to smooth out Halo 4 Infinity, introduce new maps, game types, new armor, new ranks, etc instead of recreating a new MM experience.
I think Halo 4 is still has some potential but what I’m tired of is an entirely new MM system every couple of years and having to relearn it all over again. The best thing that could happen to Halo 4 Infinity is dedicated servers, the game really needs it so we can do more than wait for new games to eventually load and change hosts every time someone quits.
> What I honestly see happening, if not for the next Halo game, and other games with multiplayer, is that in the near future, multiplayer will be considered DLC.
>
> You will buy games with Campaign only. Then have to fork over more money for multiplayer. You won’t be able to play multiplayer without having the campaign disc.
>
> The campaign disc would cost the same as a regular game since MS and Sony alike know that we gamers are used to paying $60 for games.
>
> Since the developers are clamoring for more money and a large percentage of gamers for FPS games play multiplayer, the next progression would be to do just that. Make multiplayer DLC. They already do it for map packs. So now I’m talking the base multiplayer portion of games. Game studios would definitely make more money. However, the key to that would be both MS and Sony agreeing to do this and game studios getting on boards.
>
> The question then would be how much more for the base multiplayer experience? Likely somewhere around $30. Studios know that there are those gamers who play multiplayer for one or just a handful of games for years on end. By charging for multiplayer from the get-go, the get more money out of you.
>
> Also, for those who buy used games, at lest the studios can make money from you if you want to purchase the multiplayer portion of the game.
>
> Just some food for thought…
Oh dear, if you thought of that on your own, then someone else who is set to make a dollar has definitely thought of that as well.
Only a matter of time I guess, thanks for the heads-up lol.