Reach's population is/was higher than 3s

Games Other Halo
1

@Mods: Don’t merge this thread. It is a comprehensive theory, a lot of research went into this to quell a forum rumor. Other threads are complaint threads and this post deserve’s its own topic.

Thanks.

Well, here it is. The definitive thread that cancels out a forum rumor about this franchise, a rumor often used to subvert other members into proposals over the future.

Let’s begin with sales.

Halo Reach broke the opening record in the franchise, selling 3.3 million copies on the first day, $200 million revenue. That was probably around 1/4 of Halo 3’s total, Halo 3 has sold to date 14.5 million. I simple Google search will find many hits with these numbers.

Reference, Wikipedia articles for Reach, 3 and Halo as a whole. If you don’t believe the article, look up the references. 14.5 million copies for 3 was sourced from this site.

Halo Reach is on track to beat Halo 3, at at least come close to that 15 million margin. Microsoft has doubled Halo’s revenue in the last 17 months.
This is not the point.

Now, lets go to population.

People have been comparing Reach’s population to Halo 3. One common thing I have noticed is that: Reach is only on 100,000 right now, Halo 3 had 300,000.

There are 3 things wrong with this:

  1. Comparing different time frames from release
  2. Different Sets of Data
  3. Inaccurate Halo 3 number, improved in Reach due to features such as active roster, and the release of Stat API files. Reach’s population does not include certain states of people, either.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Another common complaint:
  4. Halo Reach is low on the population charts.
    ==============================================
  5. Is a common user error.

> Posted by Urk:
> The numbers you’re using are not comparable. Halo 3 is displaying its total player count over the last 24 hours. Halo: Reach is displaying how many players are online right now.
>
> Halo: Reach has way more active players and the attrition rate is much, much lower than it was for Halo 3.
>
> So, in summary: Reach is currently way more popular than Halo 3 is and remains more popular than Halo 3 was this many days after its release date.
>
> Yay, science!
>
> :smiley:

http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=52454582&postRepeater1-p=4

> Except that the number of players listed in a playlist only counts the people who are actively in a game, not people between games, or in other non-playlist modes. The delta between those two easily accounts for the difference.
>
> I swear, you guys are obsessed with population counts. Reach is in a pretty steady state regarding player population, and nobody is padding the numbers. Indeed, Reach has a much more accurate population counter (thanks to the Active Roster) than Halo 3 does (which counts based on games processed, not in real time).
> SECOND POST
> Because the “real time counter” varies so much depending on when in the day you look at it, it made more sense to post the 24 hour value to give a more useful reading. The real-time counter doesn’t really matter except when you’re look at a particular playlist (since it is helpful to gauge how fast matchmaking in that playlist will be).
>
> You may feel differently about the importance of the counter, of course, but that was the design reason for the change.
>
> Posted by: Zekezan88
> why did you switch to the 24 hours, instead of online right now?

Source: Achronos, http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=58160845&postRepeater1-p=4#58166709

  1. Reach is low on the population charts.
    In 2011 Reach was 4th, behind 3 COD games. Not bad.

=====================================================
Ok, I have now shown you the facts behind the actual recording system. Lets get down to the real numbers…
http://metahalo.com/population/
Reach population, October 29th 2010, 1 1/2 months after release.
Approximately 1.15 million 24 hour clock.

Halo 3 population:
http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=13301075&postRepeater1-p=1#13301381
I believe it says a much lower count.

Other threads supporting me…
http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=52924723
http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=59189775&postRepeater1-p=3#59220681

TLDR
Reach’s population was/is higher than 3’s.
Stop this nonsense about low population.

I will update this when I can.

I would have used waybackmachine, but it is not working.

Please point out any missing sources or format/grammar errors.

inb4 bungieislying
inb4 opcantinb4

This thread is not about:
Other non-Halo games population.
Reach’s ranking on the charts.
The quality of the games, Halo 3 and Reach.
Or the supposed reason why the population in Reach is higher.

It is about the fact that it is higher.

2

Please Stop Duplicating Threads.

As usual, something that could be rectified if people took the possible 2 minutes max to use the search engine.

Let alone, this is nothing than a flame fest. There’s enough debate about “The Better Halo” with the population count as is.

This really needs to stop.

<mark>Please Merge with ANY of the following or LOCK</mark>

http://halo.xbox.com/Forums/yaf_postst53077_Halo-Reach-population.aspx

http://halo.xbox.com/Forums/yaf_postst52648_Reach-Online-Is-a-Joke.aspx

3

Lol 1 important thing you forgot: When Reach was released it had 2.5 x as many xboxs on the market than H3.

And that number continues to increase rapidly. So any numbers that you get, you should divide by 2.5 to adjust for the inflation. I spent hours researching this one day, although I think the only record was the one post that I made that I don’t care enough to look for. If you care enough to way your time, you will come to the same conculsion

What you should be researching is the % of xbox owners who play/own reach compared to H3 and H2. Just from the numbers that I had accumulated, nothing gets even close to the % of total xbox players who played H2. Back in 2011 when I did this even BO did not hold the % of the population that H2 did. And H3’s while not as dominant still held the primary population for XBL in it’s time.

The simplest and easiest way to prove that what you believe has no validity, is the fact that CoD is split into 4 different titles, all of which are in the top 20, and 3 of which are beating Reach. MW2, a game even in it’s peak that did not surpass Halo 3’s population control, now 4 years later is beating Reach. If that in itself doesn’t completely disprove your theory, how about the fact that MW3 put in more UU’s in the 1.5 months it had in 2011, than Reach did for the entire year?

Yeah. That’s what I thought. So even if population was a good determinant of the quality of a game, which it isn’t, you’re theory is still fundamentally wrong and shattered by actual objective proof.

thanks for playing :slight_smile:

edit: deadpool there was a better one that had like 10 pages and a lot of research put into it. Did that get locked !? :frowning:

edit: See page 3 for ACTUAL numbers of the populations.

4

> Please Stop Duplicating Threads.
>
>
> As usual, something that could be rectified if people took the possible 2 minutes max to use the search engine.
>
>
> Let alone, this is nothing than a flame fest. There’s enough debate about “The Better Halo” with the population count as is.
>
>
>
> This really needs to stop.
>
> <mark>Please Merge with ANY of the following or LOCK</mark>
>
> http://halo.xbox.com/Forums/yaf_postst53077_Halo-Reach-population.aspx
>
> http://halo.xbox.com/Forums/yaf_postst52648_Reach-Online-Is-a-Joke.aspx

Don’t do it, mods. This is a comprehensive theory and it deserve’s its own thread.

The other threads are complainer threads, and this post wouldn’t be noticed.

5

> Lol 1 important thing you forgot: When Reach was released it had 2.5 x as many xboxs on the market than H3.
>
> And that number continues to increase rapidly. So any numbers that you get, you should divide by 2.5 to adjust for the inflation. I spent hours researching this one day, although I think the only record was the one post that I made that I don’t care enough to look for. If you care enough to way your time, you will come to the same conculsion
>
> What you should be researching is the % of xbox owners who play/own reach compared to H3 and H2. Just from the numbers that I had accumulated, nothing gets even close to the % of total xbox players who played H2. I forgot the exact % but is was ridiculous the % of xbox owners who played H2. And H3’s while not as dominant still held the primary population for XBL in it’s time.
>
> The simplest and easiest way to prove that what you believe has no validity, is the fact that CoD is split into 4 different titles, all of which are in the top 20, and 3 of which are beating Reach. MW2, a game even in it’s peak that did not surpass Halo 3’s population control, now 4 years later is beating Reach. If that in itself doesn’t completely disprove your theory, how about the fact that MW3 put in more UU’s in the 1.5 months it had in 2011, than Reach did for the entire year?
>
> Yeah. That’s what I thought. So even if population was a good determinant of the quality of a game, which it isn’t, you’re theory is still fundamentally wrong and shattered by actual objective proof.
>
> thanks for playing :slight_smile:

You also forgot one thing.

Halo 3 had little to no competition. COD4 was always below it, anyway.

Also, ranking compared to other games means nothing.

Try sticking to the point that Reach had/has more players. Also, Xbox number is also largely irrelevant. The fact that every game has a growth period and it will only reach a certain number of players.

I will give one example, MW2 was released in 2009, sold 25 mil.

MW3 will do the same, maybe slightly better, even with the Xboxes. That is still spectacular.

Try again, and stick to the point.

6

This is going to start a flame war ya know.

7

> > Lol 1 important thing you forgot: When Reach was released it had 2.5 x as many xboxs on the market than H3.
> >
> > And that number continues to increase rapidly. So any numbers that you get, you should divide by 2.5 to adjust for the inflation. I spent hours researching this one day, although I think the only record was the one post that I made that I don’t care enough to look for. If you care enough to way your time, you will come to the same conculsion
> >
> > What you should be researching is the % of xbox owners who play/own reach compared to H3 and H2. Just from the numbers that I had accumulated, nothing gets even close to the % of total xbox players who played H2. I forgot the exact % but is was ridiculous the % of xbox owners who played H2. And H3’s while not as dominant still held the primary population for XBL in it’s time.
> >
> > The simplest and easiest way to prove that what you believe has no validity, is the fact that CoD is split into 4 different titles, all of which are in the top 20, and 3 of which are beating Reach. MW2, a game even in it’s peak that did not surpass Halo 3’s population control, now 4 years later is beating Reach. If that in itself doesn’t completely disprove your theory, how about the fact that MW3 put in more UU’s in the 1.5 months it had in 2011, than Reach did for the entire year?
> >
> > Yeah. That’s what I thought. So even if population was a good determinant of the quality of a game, which it isn’t, you’re theory is still fundamentally wrong and shattered by actual objective proof.
> >
> > thanks for playing :slight_smile:
>
> You also forgot one thing.
>
> Halo 3 had little to no competition. COD4 was always below it, anyway.
>
> Also, ranking compared to other games means nothing.
>
>
> Try sticking to the point that Reach had/has more players. Also, Xbox number is also largely irrelevant. The fact that every game has a growth period and it will only reach a certain number of players.
>
> I will give one example, MW2 was released in 2009, sold 25 mil.
>
> MW3 will do the same, maybe slightly better, even with the Xboxes. That is still spectacular.
>
> Try again, and stick to the point.

Lol dude H3’s primary competition, MW2, is beating Reach right now. /Thread

Also inflation is unbelievably important to ignore this only provides support of your ignorance and blind defense of Reach.

8

> This is going to start a flame war ya know.

I know. It has already begun. But the truth must be revealed!

9

> > > Lol 1 important thing you forgot: When Reach was released it had 2.5 x as many xboxs on the market than H3.
> > >
> > > And that number continues to increase rapidly. So any numbers that you get, you should divide by 2.5 to adjust for the inflation. I spent hours researching this one day, although I think the only record was the one post that I made that I don’t care enough to look for. If you care enough to way your time, you will come to the same conculsion
> > >
> > > What you should be researching is the % of xbox owners who play/own reach compared to H3 and H2. Just from the numbers that I had accumulated, nothing gets even close to the % of total xbox players who played H2. I forgot the exact % but is was ridiculous the % of xbox owners who played H2. And H3’s while not as dominant still held the primary population for XBL in it’s time.
> > >
> > > The simplest and easiest way to prove that what you believe has no validity, is the fact that CoD is split into 4 different titles, all of which are in the top 20, and 3 of which are beating Reach. MW2, a game even in it’s peak that did not surpass Halo 3’s population control, now 4 years later is beating Reach. If that in itself doesn’t completely disprove your theory, how about the fact that MW3 put in more UU’s in the 1.5 months it had in 2011, than Reach did for the entire year?
> > >
> > > Yeah. That’s what I thought. So even if population was a good determinant of the quality of a game, which it isn’t, you’re theory is still fundamentally wrong and shattered by actual objective proof.
> > >
> > > thanks for playing :slight_smile:
> >
> > You also forgot one thing.
> >
> > Halo 3 had little to no competition. COD4 was always below it, anyway.
> >
> > Also, ranking compared to other games means nothing.
> >
> >
> > Try sticking to the point that Reach had/has more players. Also, Xbox number is also largely irrelevant. The fact that every game has a growth period and it will only reach a certain number of players.
> >
> > I will give one example, MW2 was released in 2009, sold 25 mil.
> >
> > MW3 will do the same, maybe slightly better, even with the Xboxes. That is still spectacular.
> >
> > Try again, and stick to the point.
>
> Lol dude H3’s primary competition, MW2, is beating Reach right now. /Thread
>
> Also inflation is unbelievably important to ignore this only provides support of your ignorance and blind defense of Reach.

Did you not read my last post?

Inflation means nothing.

MW3 is going to sell only slightly more than MW2, even with the many more X’s on the market. That doesn’t mean it sold bad, or is doing bad.

This thread is about Halo 3 vs Reach for the last time. It’s ranking compared to other games is irrelevant, but you yourself fail to take account of the new competition Reach faced, none of which existed for 3.

Also, inflation, you say?
Irrelevant. It doesn’t matter for whatever reason Reach is doing better. It is, and that is what this thread is trying to prove. Not the reason behind it.

10

Its obvious that reach is not nearly as popular. if there was a way to find out gamestop’s used game sales I Guarantee they are higher than halo 3.

11

> Did you not read my last post?
>
> Inflation means nothing.
>
> MW3 is going to sell only slightly more than MW2, even with the many more X’s on the market. That doesn’t mean it sold bad, or is doing bad.
>
> This thread is about Halo 3 vs Reach for the last time. It’s ranking compared to other games is irrelevant, but you yourself fail to take account of the new competition Reach faced, none of which existed for 3.
>
> Also, inflation, you say?
> Irrelevant. It doesn’t matter for whatever reason Reach is doing better. It is, and that is what this thread is trying to prove. Not the reason behind it.

Uh MW3 already sold a crap load more than MW2 did. Inflation IS very important. The gaming population has increased greatly, therefore EVERY GAMES numbers will be higher. MW3 Sold 10 million copies on day 1, MW2 Sold 7 million,Halo 3 sold 3 million, Halo 2 sold 3 million. Yet why is it that pretty much every single person who owned an xbox had Halo 2? Because there were only so many xbox at the time.

Not to say that day 1 sales are the end all be all, as Reach is clearly proof of; If anyone know how bad of a game it would turn out to be the day 1 sales would have been pitifut, but they do paint a decent picture of what is to come. And the total sales numbers are not something readily available.

> Don’t do it, mods. This is a comprehensive theory and it deserve’s its own thread.
>
> The other threads are complainer threads, and this post wouldn’t be noticed.

Lolno. It’s a muster-up-whatever-I-can-to-prove-that-Reach-doesn’t-suck. And most people, including myself don’t think Reach sucks, it just is not worthy of the Halo title.

And even if you were to prove that Reach held a higher % of the population, which you absolutely wouldn’t ever, but even if you did; that doesn’t change what we can plainly see: that the game sucks for a Halo game. Period.

12

> > Did you not read my last post?
> >
> > Inflation means nothing.
> >
> > MW3 is going to sell only slightly more than MW2, even with the many more X’s on the market. That doesn’t mean it sold bad, or is doing bad.
> >
> > This thread is about Halo 3 vs Reach for the last time. It’s ranking compared to other games is irrelevant, but you yourself fail to take account of the new competition Reach faced, none of which existed for 3.
> >
> > Also, inflation, you say?
> > Irrelevant. It doesn’t matter for whatever reason Reach is doing better. It is, and that is what this thread is trying to prove. Not the reason behind it.
>
> Uh MW3 already sold a crap load more than MW2 did. Inflation IS very important. The gaming population has increased greatly, therefore EVERY GAMES numbers will be higher. MW3 Sold 10 million copies on day 1, MW2 Sold 7 million,Halo 3 sold 3 million, Halo 2 sold 3 million. Yet why is it that pretty much every single person who owned an xbox had Halo 2? Because there were only so many xbox at the time.
>
> Not to say that day 1 sales are the end all be all, as Reach is clearly proof of; If anyone know how bad of a game it would turn out to be the day 1 sales would have been pitifut, but they do paint a decent picture of what is to come. And the total sales numbers are not something readily available.

Source on MW3 sold a lot more than MW2? Mw2 sold 24 million copies, last time I checked.

You are saying more and more lies.

The percentage for Xbox to Halo 2 owners is not pretty much everyone, it is 33%.

Nice opinion, btw on Reach.

This is not about the quality of the game, or the reason why it is more popular than 3.

It is about the FACT that the population is higher.

13

The population is higher because the amount of XBL accounts are much higher.
Not to mention halo reach came free with that holiday bundle.
It may be higher, but its not more popular, percentage wise.

14

> Source on MW3 sold more than MW2? Mw2 sold 24 million copies, last time I checked.
>
> You are saying more and more lies.
>
> The percentage for Xbox to Halo 2 owners is not pretty much everyone, it is 33%.
>
> Nice opinion, btw on Reach.
>
> This is not about the quality of the game, or the reason why it is more popular than 3.
>
> It is about the FACT that the population is higher.

lol I said day 1 sales. No game that hasn’t been out for multiple years is going to have a cumulative sales. Type in MW3 day 1 sales on google and you will find the information I posted. Along with every other title I mentioned.

I am done arguing with you, you clearly will believe what you want to believe regardless of the facts.

Also, were you around during H2? I would assume not with an opinion like this. Anyone who was into console FPS’s back then has no doubt in their mind that H2 was the most popular xbox title, even to this day. Every single gamer I knew played it. H2 was more popular in it’s day than CoD is today (at least during BO). period. Anyone who was there can tell you that.

Done arguing, bye.

15

> The population is higher because the amount of XBL accounts are much higher.
> Not to mention halo reach came free with that holiday bundle.
> It may be higher, but its not more popular, percentage wise.

This thread is not about that. It is about the actual figures, as in Reach Population>3 population.

There is only so much a game’s popularity can be. Even COD is stuck around the 25 million mark for the past 3 years, with inflation.

That doesn’t mean MW3 is struggling, although you are right about the percentage wise, but we don’t have a source to confirm that fully.

16

> > Source on MW3 sold more than MW2? Mw2 sold 24 million copies, last time I checked.
> >
> > You are saying more and more lies.
> >
> > The percentage for Xbox to Halo 2 owners is not pretty much everyone, it is 33%.
> >
> > Nice opinion, btw on Reach.
> >
> > This is not about the quality of the game, or the reason why it is more popular than 3.
> >
> > It is about the FACT that the population is higher.
>
> lol I said day 1 sales. No game that hasn’t been out for multiple years is going to have a cumulative sales. Type in MW3 day 1 sales on google and you will find the information I posted. Along with every other title I mentioned.
>
> I am done arguing with you, you clearly will believe what you want to believe regardless of the facts.
>
> Also, were you around during H2? I would assume not with an opinion like this. Anyone who was into Halo back then has no doubt in their mind that H2 was the most popular xbox title pretty much ever. Every single gamer I knew played it. It was H2 was more popular in it’s day than CoD is today (at least during BO).
>
> Done arguing, bye.

Yes, I was around, and numbers wise BO is far more popular than Halo 2 ever was. Halo 2 was the king of the original Xbox no doubt, but you are going off topic.

I am done arguing with you too.

You launched an attack on the game and the reason behind it’s success instead of sourcing information and sticking to the topic.

17

Why thank you for calling my thread a complainer thread, or whatever reach doesn’t suck thing… But on topic… Like the data, didn’t see that first post before. Helps a lot. Not sure why people like to care about Reach so much, it’s just a game, and I just wanted to see if I could get people to stop complaining about it. I hope they do with your’s. A bit. and about halo 2 online… That was pretty much the only good MM title back in it’s day, all the rest sucked -Yoink-. Kind of like with Halo 3, though a few other good ones remained as well.

Edit: And also, the reason behind Reach’s success (at least in the beginning) was the domination and popularity of earlier Halo titles. Not to say the game sucks, not as bad as people make it out to be anyway. But please don’t start a troll/flame war… This forum has enough as is.

18

> Why thank you for calling my thread a complainer thread, or whatever reach doesn’t suck thing… But on topic… Like the data, didn’t see that first post before. Helps a lot. Not sure why people like to care about Reach so much, it’s just a game, and I just wanted to see if I could get people to stop complaining about it. I hope they do with your’s. A bit. and about halo 2 online… That was pretty much the only good MM title back in it’s day, all the rest sucked -Yoink!-. Kind of like with Halo 3, though a few other good ones remained as well.
>
> Edit: And also, the reason behind Reach’s success (at least in the beginning) was the domination and popularity of earlier Halo titles. Not to say the game sucks, not as bad as people make it out to be anyway. But please don’t start a troll/flame war… This forum has enough as is.

Sorry about your thread. Thank you for a mature response.

I just wanted to prove a point about the numbers, with a little help from the past.

Anyway I liked all the games, and Halo 2 was my favorite.

19

> > Why thank you for calling my thread a complainer thread, or whatever reach doesn’t suck thing… But on topic… Like the data, didn’t see that first post before. Helps a lot. Not sure why people like to care about Reach so much, it’s just a game, and I just wanted to see if I could get people to stop complaining about it. I hope they do with your’s. A bit. and about halo 2 online… That was pretty much the only good MM title back in it’s day, all the rest sucked -Yoink!-. Kind of like with Halo 3, though a few other good ones remained as well.
> >
> > Edit: And also, the reason behind Reach’s success (at least in the beginning) was the domination and popularity of earlier Halo titles. Not to say the game sucks, not as bad as people make it out to be anyway. But please don’t start a troll/flame war… This forum has enough as is.
>
> Sorry about your thread. Thank you for a mature response.
>
> I just wanted to prove a point about the numbers, with a little help from the past.
>
> Anyway I liked all the games, and Halo 2 was my favorite.

Ye I liked all the games too. Though Halo: CE was my favorite. I hope some people actually view this too. Because half of all the arguments against Reach are population wise. Anyways, good luck, hope for a better variety of posters on the thread :smiley:

20

> > > Why thank you for calling my thread a complainer thread, or whatever reach doesn’t suck thing… But on topic… Like the data, didn’t see that first post before. Helps a lot. Not sure why people like to care about Reach so much, it’s just a game, and I just wanted to see if I could get people to stop complaining about it. I hope they do with your’s. A bit. and about halo 2 online… That was pretty much the only good MM title back in it’s day, all the rest sucked -Yoink!-. Kind of like with Halo 3, though a few other good ones remained as well.
> > >
> > > Edit: And also, the reason behind Reach’s success (at least in the beginning) was the domination and popularity of earlier Halo titles. Not to say the game sucks, not as bad as people make it out to be anyway. But please don’t start a troll/flame war… This forum has enough as is.
> >
> > Sorry about your thread. Thank you for a mature response.
> >
> > I just wanted to prove a point about the numbers, with a little help from the past.
> >
> > Anyway I liked all the games, and Halo 2 was my favorite.
>
> Ye I liked all the games too. Though Halo: CE was my favorite. I hope some people actually view this too. Because half of all the arguments against Reach are population wise. Anyways, good luck, hope for a better variety of posters on the thread :smiley:

Thanks.

CE would have been top for my campaign had it not been so repetitive in the environment, but it still finishes second behind Halo 2.

Thanks for the kind words!