Halo Reach has now reached an all time low in popularity, and has caused many long term halo fans to abandon the game completely. We must never forget halo reach though, and we must study how it failed so that future games do not repeat it’s path.
How has it hit a new low? It’s still in the top 10 Xbox Live activity. if you’re talking about the popularity in the 1 thousands or 2 thousands, that’s just a glitch.
As long as I play it there will always be someone playing it , lol. Fail
I’m still here playing, and enjoying every minute of it! Kind of sad that not everyone does, but whatever. You can’t please anybody. I’'m just glad that I like it, because that gives me another great game to play 
I think some of you (the op) need to step back and look at the bigger picture.
You all claim that the low population figures in Reach are proof that the game is a total failure and was bad from the start. Now, it’s fine if you just don’t like the game, but don’t distort the facts to serve your opinions.
First of all, just how much serious competition did Halo 3 have? 1 game, far as I recall. GoW 2 was the only other game that had the majority of the gaming community hyped up. Reach is staring down 3, count em, 3 CoD games, and a plethora of other shooters nearly as popular.
Secondly, Halo 3 was in 2007 what MW2 was in 2010. It was the game to have. Both games brought a massive amount of new players to each franchise. You think only Halo fans played Halo 3? Hell no. And most of the new guys who jumped on in 07 quit afterward. They didn’t come back for Reach.
Which brings me to my third point: Let’s face it, Halo is old. Really freaking old. Those who are not true fans of Halo just don’t care anymore. And why should they? There are plenty of other games that are a lot easier to play than Halo.
To be honest, I’m a little tired of seeing people post that the majority of real Halo fans left Reach long ago. The exact opposite is true. They are the ones keeping Reach alive. It’s the unbearably loud and rudely vocal late-teens that hopped on board the Halo 3 bandwagon that have left. And until we start seeing only 20,000 players online on a Saturday night, I think Reach will be doing just fine.
Reach only failed on the forums. If you want to talk about a failed game, try getting a match on Fatal Inertia or Midway. In terms of games that are exclusive to Xbox Reach is doing quite well, for a prequel.
In terms of making a new Halo game Reach has done far better than Halo Wars, and in terms of Bungie creations Reach has done far better than ODST.
HaloCE was a mind-blowing game when it came out. Since then the competition has stepped up their game. As a developer, when you put out a game like CE it gets tough to do better because when the next game comes out all of a sudden everyone is a master game developer that knows more than the people that actually did the work. More than half of the people on these forums believe that they could have done better than Bungie and can’t wait to pounce on 343i.
Reach was an experiment, much like ODST. Bungie wanted to try some new net code and a different sort of gameplay that was team-oriented. It should not be compared to the trilogy. Everyone that did was disappointed. Reach is a Halo game, but it’s not the Halo game. That would be Halo 4,5,6.
I believe the only failure with Reach was not putting “This is NOT Halo 4” in big block letters on the cover. There are potentially dozens of Halo spinoffs that could be released over the next 10 years, none of which should be compared to either the old trilogy or the new one. People say Bungie went too far with Reach, but that’s what you do with a spinoff. If you think you have something people might like, especially with a franchise like Halo, you run a spinoff up the flagpole and see who salutes it. You don’t mess with the core game. In that respect, Reach is a huge success because it’s nearly inconceivable now that H4 will have AA’s on loadout and bloom.
Reach is fine.
> How has it hit a new low? It’s still in the top 10 Xbox Live activity. if you’re talking about the popularity in the 1 thousands or 2 thousands, that’s just a glitch.
LOL
Halo should be in top 3 easily.
Like you can compare Reach with Halo Wars and ODST omg…
Its 3 steps backwards compared with the trilogy.
> Halo should be in top 3 easily.
Again, that’s because of the new competition Halo now has. I know many Halo fans who play other games besides Halo!
> > How has it hit a new low? It’s
> > Its 3 steps backwards compared with the trilogy.
>
> Only in the sense that it takes place three games before 
> Halo Reach has now reached an all time low in popularity, and has caused many long term halo fans to abandon the game completely. We must never forget halo reach though, and we must study how it failed so that future games do not repeat it’s path.
As a designer been looking it very carefully, it was mainly down the gameplay which wrecked it, also loved the book, even tried the beta but they shouldn’t have really listened to the feedback before they released it.
a consistant 300,000+ player base is the farthest thing from a “fall” that i know.
300,000 is pretty low for an average Halo game.
> I think some of you (the op) need to step back and look at the bigger picture.
>
> You all claim that the low population figures in Reach are proof that the game is a total failure and was bad from the start. Now, it’s fine if you just don’t like the game, but don’t distort the facts to serve your opinions.
>
> First of all, just how much serious competition did Halo 3 have? 1 game, far as I recall. GoW 2 was the only other game that had the majority of the gaming community hyped up. Reach is staring down 3, count em, 3 CoD games, and a plethora of other shooters nearly as popular.
>
> Secondly, Halo 3 was in 2007 what MW2 was in 2010. It was the game to have. Both games brought a massive amount of new players to each franchise. You think only Halo fans played Halo 3? Hell no. And most of the new guys who jumped on in 07 quit afterward. They didn’t come back for Reach.
>
> Which brings me to my third point: Let’s face it, Halo is old. Really freaking old. Those who are not true fans of Halo just don’t care anymore. And why should they? There are plenty of other games that are a lot easier to play than Halo.
>
> To be honest, I’m a little tired of seeing people post that the majority of real Halo fans left Reach long ago. The exact opposite is true. They are the ones keeping Reach alive. It’s the unbearably loud and rudely vocal late-teens that hopped on board the Halo 3 bandwagon that have left. And until we start seeing only 20,000 players online on a Saturday night, I think Reach will be doing just fine.
just gears 2?
Call of duty name as been around for ages. so that argument is out the window.
No We had GTA 4, Red dead, Call of duty 4, Call of duty world at war, Cal of duty MW 2, then gears 1 and gears 2.
research before you start making statements.
> a consistant 300,000+ player base is the farthest thing from a “fall” that i know.
I seen population on reach hit 9k players before.
Yup…
I mean it was pretty early in the morning (3 am) but in other parts of the world, Like Australia, Seeing we have some fans over there.
This game is pretty much dead to them.
> I think some of you (the op) need to step back and look at the bigger picture.
>
> You all claim that the low population figures in Reach are proof that the game is a total failure and was bad from the start. Now, it’s fine if you just don’t like the game, but don’t distort the facts to serve your opinions.
>
> First of all, just how much serious competition did Halo 3 have? 1 game, far as I recall. GoW 2 was the only other game that had the majority of the gaming community hyped up. Reach is staring down 3, count em, 3 CoD games, and a plethora of other shooters nearly as popular.
>
> Secondly, Halo 3 was in 2007 what MW2 was in 2010. It was the game to have. Both games brought a massive amount of new players to each franchise. You think only Halo fans played Halo 3? Hell no. And most of the new guys who jumped on in 07 quit afterward. They didn’t come back for Reach.
>
> Which brings me to my third point: Let’s face it, Halo is old. Really freaking old. Those who are not true fans of Halo just don’t care anymore. And why should they? There are plenty of other games that are a lot easier to play than Halo.
>
> To be honest, I’m a little tired of seeing people post that the majority of real Halo fans left Reach long ago. The exact opposite is true. They are the ones keeping Reach alive. It’s the unbearably loud and rudely vocal late-teens that hopped on board the Halo 3 bandwagon that have left. And until we start seeing only 20,000 players online on a Saturday night, I think Reach will be doing just fine.
Only GoW 2? You’re kidding? Call of Duty 4 (one of the best FPS games of all time - it’s still virtually being bought by the millions now, albeit with small graphical improvements) competed with Halo 3 and whilst both games shared 1st and 2nd for XBL activity it was CoD 4 that was 1st more often.
It isn’t just competition. Competition has never mattered, Halo simply lost touch with what made it so great when Halo 3 was released. It’s too different from what made the series the phenomenon it is. The downfall began with Halo 3.
And Reach is a failure. It’s completely failed to live up to legacy of it’s previous games, in popularity, continuity and gameplay. Halo should be #1 on the XBL list.
> I think some of you (the op) need to step back and look at the bigger picture.
>
> You all claim that the low population figures in Reach are proof that the game is a total failure and was bad from the start. Now, it’s fine if you just don’t like the game, but don’t distort the facts to serve your opinions.
>
> First of all, just how much serious competition did Halo 3 have? 1 game, far as I recall. GoW 2 was the only other game that had the majority of the gaming community hyped up. Reach is staring down 3, count em, 3 CoD games, and a plethora of other shooters nearly as popular.
>
> Secondly, Halo 3 was in 2007 what MW2 was in 2010. It was the game to have. Both games brought a massive amount of new players to each franchise. You think only Halo fans played Halo 3? Hell no. And most of the new guys who jumped on in 07 quit afterward. They didn’t come back for Reach.
>
> Which brings me to my third point: Let’s face it, Halo is old. Really freaking old. Those who are not true fans of Halo just don’t care anymore. And why should they? There are plenty of other games that are a lot easier to play than Halo.
>
> To be honest, I’m a little tired of seeing people post that the majority of real Halo fans left Reach long ago. The exact opposite is true. They are the ones keeping Reach alive. It’s the unbearably loud and rudely vocal late-teens that hopped on board the Halo 3 bandwagon that have left. And until we start seeing only 20,000 players online on a Saturday night, I think Reach will be doing just fine.
This is exactly what I have been thinking while reading about how people hate reach.
Total failure? lets see:
Dmr: Spammed to hell.
Abilities: Annoying, abilities like armor lock cheat death, sprint is annoying in swat.
Ranking: there is no proper ranking, has become a joke with credit spamming.
Campaign: Mainly copy, paste, at least 2 of them off my head is pretty much the same level, pretty bland.
Multiplayer: Spammed forge maps which look terrible, default maps never show up hardly.
Should I go on?
Even some people says its dead or it ended, Reich is still going on and alive
> Even some people says its dead or it ended, Reich is still going on and alive
The main reason it’s still going is because most of us like me are just grinding credit’s its the latest halo game, its the same thing with other games like mw3 where mw2 sales dropped for mw3 even though people hate mw3.
An example is me, a lot of my friends hate Reach but have the game, it isn’t popular with us, this is no different to the online community.
> just gears 2?
> Only GoW 2?
Yes. I didn’t say Gears 2 was the only game, but it was the only other game of that level of popularity.