Only one Halo game for Xbox One

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

I find it incredibly frustrating that the Halo multiplayer fanbase is currently split between three different games right now on Xbox 360 (3, Reach, 4).

Why not, as a solution to this, have only one Halo game for the entirety of the Xbox One’s lifecycle? And you may be thinking that Microsoft would never allow it. But hear me out.

343 creates a single “Halo Multiplayer Platform” that is continuously updated and supported for years (and it would hopefully follow the classic Halo multiplayer gameplay - but that’s another matter). The cost for running this would be supported through the initial cost for the game ($60/£40), map packs, and microtransactions for cosmetic add-ons only. This would hopefully be released in Fall 2014 - alongside a campaign that continues the Halo story.

As for campaigns, these could be released whenever 343 sees fit at half the price of a normal retail game ($30, £20-£30), digitally and on disc, which would install to the XB1 hard drive and show up in the Halo Platform menu.

This way the Halo community would stay together, it would eliminate fragmentation, still enables the continuation of the Halo story and could also prove to be infinitely more profitable for Microsoft.

What do you guys think?

2

No, I do not like this idea in the least bit. If we’re stuck playing on a single platform for the entirety of Xbox One’s lifecycle, then 343i will be limited to using that same engine throughout the decade. There will be no graphical enhancements, no improved AI, no new Forge mechanics. In short, there would be no expansion upon the capabilities of what the game can do. After a few years, we would be playing on outdated software that couldn’t possibly live up to modern times.

But let’s assume that these updates can change the engine’s capabilities. These downloads would be massive, easily being at least a dozen Gb in size. Not everybody has fast, reliable internet with unlimited (or even a large) monthly bandwidth. Why should these people not be allowed to experience the new Halo games simply because they cannot download the new patches? Maybe people would be turned off by this idea.

Fragmentation isn’t an issue if the newer games live up to, or surpass, the quality of past games. It wasn’t a problem when we transitioned from Halo 2 to Halo 3, but only started causing problems when the quality of the franchise started going downhill.

3

There is no reason that 343 cannot change the core elements of the game engine through updates. And I am fed up hearing about this minority of people with -Yoink- internet connections - if it takes some people a day to download, it takes a day to download. Simple. You would have to wait much longer waiting on it getting delivered from Amazon.

And the most popular game on the planet - League of Legends - is only available digitally. One game, continuously updated. As an industry we can’t keep holding back for the minority of people with poor internet connections.

4

> There is no reason that 343 cannot change the core elements of the game engine through updates. And I am fed up hearing about this minority of people with Yoink! internet connections - if it takes some people a day to download, it takes a day to download. Simple. You would have to wait much longer waiting on it getting delivered from Amazon.
>
> And the most popular game on the planet - League of Legends - is only available digitally. One game, continuously updated. As an industry we can’t keep holding back for the minority of people with poor internet connections.

How many people would be annoyed at the constant updates to alter things which they might not like and be stuck with it for a week or even longer, then on top of this you have peoples storage space which would be overrun with updates.

And it took them ages to develop even the slightest difference with weapon tuning, imagine a whole game. And then 343 have to make a profit and imagine them having to release everything as DLC to make a profit which would divide the community even further.

5

> There is no reason that 343 cannot change the core elements of the game engine through updates.

This is only half true.

If the Halo game was a digital only game, where you buy and download the game direct to your hard drive like most PC games these days. Yes, they could change the very core of the game through updates, but like others have pointed out, that these days, such a update isn’t small, they’re quite LARGE, and not everyone has tricked out internet that downloads 4GB+ of data in reasonable amount of time. Tho they can still play Halo, and download small downloads quickly, their internet slows down when they download larger downloads. Internet companies throttle their internet speeds for people downloading large files, it’s how they make their money by nickle and diming people for faster internet with no throttling.

Now for false half of what you said.

On physical media discs, IE: CDs, DVDs, and Blu Rays, you can’t change every last part of the game’s core make up, because most of the game is on the disc, and with out having a disc that you can write on (Burn), and a disc writing drive in the console. In order to change what’s on the disc would require a recall of every disc sold.

Now, as many others have pointed out, no one wants to be limited to one single game engine for Xbox One’s entire life, it’s annoying, it’s limiting, and it’s not going to happen.

6

> <mark>I find it incredibly frustrating that the Halo multiplayer fanbase is currently split between three different games right now on Xbox 360 (3, Reach, 4)</mark>.
>
> Why not, as a solution to this, have only one Halo game for the entirety of the Xbox One’s lifecycle? And you may be thinking that Microsoft would never allow it. But hear me out.
>
> 343 creates a single “Halo Multiplayer Platform” that is continuously updated and supported for years (and it would hopefully follow the classic Halo multiplayer gameplay - but that’s another matter). The cost for running this would be supported through the initial cost for the game ($60/£40), map packs, and microtransactions for cosmetic add-ons only. This would hopefully be released in Fall 2014 - alongside a campaign that continues the Halo story.
>
> As for campaigns, these could be released whenever 343 sees fit at half the price of a normal retail game ($30, £20-£30), digitally and on disc, which would install to the XB1 hard drive and show up in the Halo Platform menu.
>
> This way the Halo community would stay together, it would eliminate fragmentation, still enables the continuation of the Halo story and could also prove to be infinitely more profitable for Microsoft.
>
> What do you guys think?

And COD isn’t?

And no, more than one Halo game…

7

> > There is no reason that 343 cannot change the core elements of the game engine through updates.
>
> This is only half true.
>
> If the Halo game was a digital only game, where you buy and download the game direct to your hard drive like most PC games these days. Yes, they could change the very core of the game through updates, but like others have pointed out, that these days, such a update isn’t small, they’re quite LARGE, and not everyone has tricked out internet that downloads 4GB+ of data in reasonable amount of time. Tho they can still play Halo, and download small downloads quickly, their internet slows down when they download larger downloads. Internet companies throttle their internet speeds for people downloading large files, it’s how they make their money by nickle and diming people for faster internet with no throttling.
>
> Now for false half of what you said.
>
> <mark>On physical media discs, IE: CDs, DVDs, and Blu Rays, you can’t change every last part of the game’s core make up, because most of the game is on the disc, and with out having a disc that you can write on (Burn), and a disc writing drive in the console. In order to change what’s on the disc would require a recall of every disc sold.</mark>
>
> Now, as many others have pointed out, no one wants to be limited to one single game engine for Xbox One’s entire life, it’s annoying, it’s limiting, and it’s not going to happen.

On the Xbox One, this isn’t true, every retail game is installed onto the hard drive. Meaning the game can pretty much be modified and content can be added at will. There also seems to be a direct publishing pipeline that the Xbox 360 did not have. By doing this, Microsoft has made every game updateabale by having it install by default. 343 could probably add new armor and game modes when they wanted, to, and could probably add spartan ops missions without as much conflict as it did in Halo 4.

EDIT: And from what I’ve seen, the Xbox One updates can be much bigger, the newest update to COD was 900+ MB.

8

I like where you’re coming from, but I wonder how technically feasible such a creature is…

Such a beast would have to be so flexible to accommodate enhancements not yet dreamt of, considering this platform is expected to sit in front of your television for approximately 10 years before being replaced. I don’t know much about video game software development, but I don’t know if it has ever been approached in such a configurable manner.

9

> On the Xbox One, this isn’t true, every retail game is installed onto the hard drive. Meaning the game can pretty much be modified and content can be added at will. There also seems to be a direct publishing pipeline that the Xbox 360 did not have. By doing this, Microsoft has made every game updateabale by having it install by default. 343 could probably add new armor and game modes when they wanted, to, and could probably add spartan ops missions without as much conflict as it did in Halo 4.

Yes, this is true, but unlike digital downloads, you’re going to have a ton of updates to do, depending on how long the game has been released.

Day one = one or two updates.

One year = any where from 3 to 20+ updates (depending on how many times they patch.

Two years = 10 to 50+ updates (They really start adding up).

If you buy a physical disc one year or more after release, you’re going to be hit with a face full of updates, that depending on your internet speed could mean any where from 6 hours of download, to a week or more.

Digital only games on the other hand, when the developers roll out a new patch, they patch everyone’s copies, and then patch the master copy on the Xbox LIVE store servers, so when a player 2 or 4 years post release, can still download the the game with out having to wait on any updates.

Now, another problem that I’ve thought about, and want to point out, that others most likely have: COST, Where is 343i going to make their money to keep the game running, to keep updating the game? Pay per patch? DLC? Micro transactions?
Pay per patch would drive a wage into the community, and cause the community to burn Microsoft and 343i at the stake.
DLC to most people is over priced, and should be free, and tacking on extra cost to each DLC would piss off a lot of people.
Microtransactions on the other than, a well designed, and priced system, they could get away with such an idea, BUT, as many people in a few different threads have pointed out, and made clear, a lot of people believe that Microtransactions = Pay to Win, and that they are of the devil, and any Halo game with microtransactions would kill Halo. (I am not going to go into any more detail on this subject matter, I’ve voiced my opinion on this fact, and I’m sick and tired of the reaction I get when I state the facts on this subject.)

So for the time being, the notion of creating a Halo multiplayer game that will be the only Halo game for the Xbox One’s whole life, is an idea on paper, that will not happen in the Xbox One’s life time.

10

I swear a friend and I were talking about something very similar to this last week. I think that they could do it. All you have to do is look at games like Tf2. That game survives completely off of micro transactions. As for the issue with the disks and downloading off of them, 343i could release a new disk every year of two, or whenever they release a big patch and treat it like the Halo 2 map pack disk. It would only be like 20-30 dollars. The patch itself would also cost 20-30 dollars and would be mandatory. It would be like World of Warcraft whenever a new expansion comes out. This would end up being cheaper as instead of buying a 60 dollar game every year or two you would just buy the patch, and a new campaign and maps would come in that patch. That way everyone has all the maps and all the maps are in MM so no one could complain anymore. Things like Spartan ops could be added for a cost and not be mandatory so if you wanted it you could have it but if you don’t you don’t have to. Credits could be bought through micro transactions so if you want you could buy them and use them to get things like armor skins and weapon skins(this would require weapon skins to be a separate option and not the whole weapon like in Halo 4). All skins would be obtainable through the game however so if you don’t pay you can still get them you will just have to grind a little.

I don’t think that this will ever happen but I do think it would be awesome if it did. It is possible if 343i and -Yoink!- do it right. I think that this would be awesome and really be a step forward in console FPS, something that could possibly bring the halo franchise back to glory if done correctly.

11

In a perfect world we could have the same Halo mp run for 5+ years as the only main Halo title. Receiving patches, dlc’s, etc… Sadly, we don’t live in a perfect world. Not everyone would like the mp and then all of a sudden we get no more chances to enjoy Halo mp. That’s a huge risk to assume that most will enjoy the mp so much that it could sustain itself throughout the entire console lifespan. Their is no room for improvement when you’re no longer shipping new mp. That’s what the new mp is supposed to do… Improve on the previous titles. Something Reach and Halo 4 didn’t do so well. If Halo 5 can maintain the gameplay of old that many people grew up playing and then Halo 6 can be even better we won’t have to worry about fragmentation. As long as the game stays consistent the population should shift to the new game.

The reason the Halo population is so fragmented between 3, Reach, and 4 is because they are all such different brands of gameplay. They each really do play much different than each other. Of course at their core they are all still very much Halo but still… Look at the jump from H2 to H3. The core gameplay was pretty much similar(aside from equipment and lesser map quality) so everyone moved on from Halo 2. It didn’t happen as often with new titles because they offered a mix bag of differences. Some people may have preferred armor lock and pre set loadouts so they stuck with Reach, some may like the loadout customization in Halo 4(or just play the most current Halo) so they’re playing that, some make like the golden triangle so they go with Halo 3.

Either way, when it’s all said and done 343 better establish the Halo brand we’re going to be playing for years to come starting with Halo 5. If they start making each game feel different afterwards you’ll have the same fragmentation but with a much smaller population.

12

> This way the Halo community would stay together, it would eliminate fragmentation, still enables the continuation of the Halo story and could also prove to be infinitely more profitable for Microsoft.
>
> What do you guys think?

I’m sorry, but i think your idea seems to create more problems than it attempts to solve. The community would be divided even further as opposed to bridging together because not everybody is willing to sacrifice their money for DLC updates for the same game that will eventually become outdated and extremely boring over time. Congested storage is only half the issue. The other half is graphics and i don’t know about you, but i’d rather see an improvement in visual appearance to art design, then have nothing at all, other than a recycled game for 10 years straight.

13

You do know multiplayer is not the only thing Halo has right ?

14

Imagine if they mess it up, though xD

15

> You do know multiplayer is not the only thing Halo has right ?

Other than a 4 hour campaign, and a recycled bunch of maps called Spartan Ops, what does it have?

Forge revolves around Multiplayer, btw.

16

it could work, but then again having all the halo games on the one system is basicly the same thing. they all launch from a closed(xbox one) launcher. each expansion adding to the collection is almost the same as it is now. only difference is that they will all show under the same title.

they could all just sit under the halowaypoint app.

17

> > You do know multiplayer is not the only thing Halo has right ?
>
> Other than a 4 hour campaign, and a recycled bunch of maps called Spartan Ops, what does it have?
>
> Forge revolves around Multiplayer, btw.

So it still dosnt totally revolve around multiplayer, plus they would lose put on sales with people not being able to get the next part of the campaign due to ti being an online DLC and they cant improve upon the games egine with the next title.