Why did the Xbox One only have one mainline Halo?

Community General Discussion
1

I know we got Halo Wars 2 and The MCC but one is a remaster/collection and the other is an RTS. I’m not bashing them either. I enjoyed Halo Wars 2 and I play The MCC more than any other Halo. I’m just wondering why we went from the OG Xbox and 360 days of a main Halo game every 3 years or less to waiting this long for Infinite. Halo CE (2001), Halo 2(2004), Halo 3 (2007), Halo Reach (2010), Halo 4 (2012), Halo 5 (2015). notice a pattern? We had 2 OG Xbox Halo games, 3 360 Halo games, and 1 Xbox One Halo game. And we’re on the longest wait in Halo’s entire history. If we included all Halos then the number of 360 games jumps to 5 literally every year between 2007 and 2012 and the number of Xbox One games jumps to 3. It still seems kind of sad in comparison to Halo’s hype in the late 2000s.

This issue is noticeable in other games too but it seems quite obvious in the Halo series. Look at Mass Effect. ME1(2007), ME2(2010), ME3(2012), ME:A (2017). So I’m trying to figure out why the 2007-2010 years seemed to have more releases of blockbuster games. I feel like most current game series are on hold for 5 years or more. Do games take longer to make compared to how long it used to take? The only games that I can think of that are still rolling out games at regular intervals are COD games, Assassin Creed, and Gears of War. What happened to Halo, Fable, Bioshock, Dead Space, Mass Effect, and Dragon Age on the Xbox One? I’m going a little off topic but I’m confused why these games never came to Xbox One or just released 1 game.

Also I wonder if part of the decline in certain gaming communities (notably Halo) is the result of losing patient on long development cycles. Think about it. If you were some 13 year old kid in 2007 playing Halo 3, you would still be a teenager and might maintain attention all the way to (going through ODST and Reach in the those years) Halo 4’s release. Say this kid grows up and find more important things to do(or just gets bored of Halo and play different games). Now Let’s say a new 13 year old kid starts playing Halo 5. He’s had no other Halo games to keep him entertained till Infinite’s release. Don’t you think after waiting 6 years for a sequel to Halo 5(possibly his first and only Halo) he could lose interest and move on with his life?

2

I think H4 was actually supposed to release on the Xbox One at one point, being the launch title for the console. But then apparently Microsoft made the decision to push it out a year earlier than originally planned on the Xbox 360 to compete with something Sony was doing. My memory is vague on this so don’t quote me.

3

Because developers and publishers in the AAA-budget tier are too stubborn to have a go at smaller and less ambitious games that would actually provide variety to an oversaturated gaming market.

I want another singleplayer ODST campaign, you hear me?

4

> 2535435902217648;2:
> I think H4 was actually supposed to release on the Xbox One at one point, being the launch title for the console. But then apparently Microsoft made the decision to push it out a year earlier than originally planned on the Xbox 360 to compete with something Sony was doing. My memory is vague on this so don’t quote me.

I don’t have any sources but this rings a bell. Seems plausible.

A more definite answer is modern games are big. Really big. Let’s look at 3D assets for example, modern games need hundreds, perhaps thousands of individual 3D models. Each model needs to be drawn up, given a purpose, modelled, mapped, textured, added to the game environment, maybe animated, and reasonably compressed. Each of these processes can take hours for each model and is likely split between a dozen or so teams.

Think about the weapons of Halo 5 alone, there are so many varieties, all of them have unique textures, most of them have unique animations, some have entirely unique models, and a few have direct interactions with the game environment (like the sword which glows).
When you have this many things you need to ensure that each individual feature can function consistently. A huge chunk of game development is now dedicated to bug fixing and Quality Assurance testing. And that’s just on 3D. Similar process go for map design, story, dialogue, sound, lighting, sandbox, accessibility, GUI, engine, marketing, even the public facing community stuff. Point is, the hours add up fast.

Some companies try and find a work around for this, Ubisoft have a dozen or so studios which collaborate on each of their games letting them get more hands on their most important titles.
CoD has 3 primary teams that release a new game every 3 years which allows a yearly release for the franchise, Activision also dedicates multiple studios to each of their games.
EA do a mix of both, then shut down a studio when they don’t make a successful game.

Halo meanwhile is developed by one or two primary studios.
Same goes for some of you other examples, BioWare exclusively make Mass Effect and Dragon Age (and Anthem). They have a few teams but can’t spread them too thin, that’s why you’ll only get a couple projects at a time from them. Same thing with every Bethesda studio.
The other examples you mentioned, BioShock, Fable and Dead Space, were all made by studios which have shut down. It’s up to the publishers of each franchise to get someone developing sequels.

I went on a bit of a ramble but the point is, games are huge. Making a new game takes too much time, and is one of the reasons you are seeing a push for ‘Games as a Service”. Games are software, it’s a fair argument that you shouldn’t have to make an entirely new version every time you want a change.

5

> 2533274882881665;4:
> > 2535435902217648;2:
> > I think H4 was actually supposed to release on the Xbox One at one point, being the launch title for the console. But then apparently Microsoft made the decision to push it out a year earlier than originally planned on the Xbox 360 to compete with something Sony was doing. My memory is vague on this so don’t quote me.
>
> I don’t have any sources but this rings a bell. Seems plausible.
>
> A more definite answer is modern games are big. Really big. Let’s look at 3D assets for example, modern games need hundreds, perhaps thousands of individual 3D models. Each model needs to be drawn up, given a purpose, modelled, mapped, textured, added to the game environment, maybe animated, and reasonably compressed. Each of these processes can take hours for each model and is likely split between a dozen or so teams.
>
> Think about the weapons of Halo 5 alone, there are so many varieties, all of them have unique textures, most of them have unique animations, some have entirely unique models, and a few have direct interactions with the game environment (like the sword which glows).
> When you have this many things you need to ensure that each individual feature can function consistently. A huge chunk of game development is now dedicated to bug fixing and Quality Assurance testing. And that’s just on 3D. Similar process go for map design, story, dialogue, sound, lighting, sandbox, accessibility, GUI, engine, marketing, even the public facing community stuff. Point is, the hours add up fast.
>
> Some companies try and find a work around for this, Ubisoft have a dozen or so studios which collaborate on each of their games letting them get more hands on their most important titles.
> CoD has 3 primary teams that release a new game every 3 years which allows a yearly release for the franchise, Activision also dedicates multiple studios to each of their games.
> EA do a mix of both, then shut down a studio when they don’t make a successful game.
>
> Halo meanwhile is developed by one or two primary studios.
> Same goes for some of you other examples, BioWare exclusively make Mass Effect and Dragon Age (and Anthem). They have a few teams but can’t spread them too thin, that’s why you’ll only get a couple projects at a time from them. Same thing with every Bethesda studio.
> The other examples you mentioned, BioShock, Fable and Dead Space, were all made by studios which have shut down. It’s up to the publishers of each franchise to get someone developing sequels.
>
> I went on a bit of a ramble but the point is, games are huge. Making a new game takes too much time, and is one of the reasons you are seeing a push for ‘Games as a Service”. Games are software, it’s a fair argument that you shouldn’t have to make an entirely new version every time you want a change.

I guess I’m just confused why games take longer now. For example we haven’t seen any Mass Effect or Dragon Age games for a few years. If you ask someone, they would probably blame the time used on making Anthem. Except in 2007-2008 BioWare released Mass Effect and Dragon age. Then in 2010 they released ME2 and DA2. It’s pretty clear to me that they are capable of releasing multiple games within a short period of time.

I think the problem comes down to games trying to be over bloated masterpieces with amazing graphics. Maybe if they just concentrated on making a good story and stopped trying to blow us all away with graphics, their games would release faster. I mean why is Halo 4 a 7GB game while Halo 5 is 100GBs? The graphics don’t even reflect this change. Then there’s hype around games like Infinite. They’ll claim it’s going to last 10 years and be a live service game. I’m sorry but I’ve heard this before. Seems way too ambitious. Maybe if they just concentrated on making a good story we could have had 2 Halo releases by now. Would they have been amazing? Probably not but they could have been decent entries in to the Halo series. Instead they’re betting everything on one game. That’s puts a lot of pressure on Infinite while building up expectations that likely won’t be filled.

6

> 2535416616313329;5:
> > 2533274882881665;4:
> > > 2535435902217648;2:
> > >
>
> I guess I’m just confused why games take longer now. For example we haven’t seen any Mass Effect or Dragon Age games for a few years. If you ask someone, they would probably blame the time used on making Anthem. Except in 2007-2008 BioWare released Mass Effect and Dragon age. Then in 2010 they released ME2 and DA2. It’s pretty clear to me that they are capable of releasing multiple games within a short period of time.
>
> I think the problem comes down to games trying to be over bloated masterpieces with amazing graphics. Maybe if they just concentrated on making a good story and stopped trying to blow us all away with graphics, their games would release faster. I mean why is Halo 4 a 7GB game while Halo 5 is 100GBs? The graphics don’t even reflect this change. Then there’s hype around games like Infinite. They’ll claim it’s going to last 10 years and be a live service game. I’m sorry but I’ve heard this before. Seems way too ambitious. Maybe if they just concentrated on making a good story we could have had 2 Halo releases by now. Would they have been amazing? Probably not but they could have been decent entries in to the Halo series. Instead they’re betting everything on one game. That’s puts a lot of pressure on Infinite while building up expectations that likely won’t be filled.

I was trying to get across the point that modern games are ridiculously complex, if you wanted to take advantage of new tech and build a good looking game with modern techniques (and they have to if they want to impress anyone), It’s going to take a while. If I couldn’t get that across in my “mini essay” then I guess that idea won’t stick.

Regardless I still agree with you to some extent, modern games are too big. Red Dead 2 for example is awfully big in the worst possible way, the scale of that game is boring. You spend so much time on a horse doing nothing, maintaining things for your character and playing in what is close to a nature simulator. I do not see the point in that game.

You’ll absolutely want to look at indie games they sound like your kind of thing (if you have game pass on console, play the Outer Wilds now). Frankly AAA games have too much money behind them for small regular releases to make sense.
Indie games are lower budget, less ambitious games which usually focus on a good story and a unique style in place of photo realism. They don’t generally franchise out but they are common and can be found with a little bit of searching. Game Pass has many on it, give them a go. You will be pleasantly surprised by their quality.

7

> 2533274823699327;3:
> Because developers and publishers in the AAA-budget tier are too stubborn to have a go at smaller and less ambitious games that would actually provide variety to an oversaturated gaming market.
>
> I want another singleplayer ODST campaign, you hear me?

Tbh I just wanna play as a non-Chief Spartan doing their bit in the galaxy whilst Chief is on the highest priority missions, like a B-team. I would say similar to Reach but hopefully without the same ending if that ever happened.

But I mean I’d take any non-Chief stories. Playing as a non human would be cool as well. Imagine if they made a Swords of Sanghelios single player campaign, I’d play it is all im saying.

8

I think there’s quite a few reasons XB1 only had one mainline game. Granted some of my points are speculation on my end but some of them are fact.

  1. H4 was originally planned as an XB1 launch title but Microsoft (specifically Don Mattrick who was the Xbox boss back then who has thankfully since been fired) rushed them to release it a year early in 2012. If H4 launched with the XB1 in 2013 like originally planned then we can assume H5 would’ve launched 2016 instead of 2015. Meaning instead of 3 games on 360 and 1 game one XB1, we would’ve had 2 and 2.

  2. The experience difference between Bungie and 343i as a studio making games is huge. Before even making Halo, Bungie had made several games together already. 343i was solely created to take the Halo mantle once Bungie was done. I think 343i’s first take on Halo was some Reach map DLC, then they made the CE remake, and then finally their first mainline Halo game of their own was H4. So by the time 343i was even created or at least started working on Halo, Bungie had been making games already for like 20 years. These are the nuts that basically started from scratch on H2 part way through development and remade it in like a year. That proves their impressive experience. I feel like if it was 343i making H2 in a year back then, they would’ve failed miserably and understandingly so. That’s not a dig at 343i, just saying they’re not nearly as experienced as a studio working together.

As to why I think we are waiting so long for Infinite, going way past the regular 3 year interval which if they did follow would’ve seen Infinite released on XB1 in 2018, I think there’s many reasons for that too.

  1. Part way in the XB1 launch/life cycle (I’m not sure exactly when) Don Mattrick (ex head of xbox) got fired and replaced by Phil Spencer. Spencer has shown he has a very different approach to game development. If Don was still boss there’s no doubt in my mind we would’ve gotten a H6 within the XB1 generation probably in 2018 or 19 which would’ve been the second mainline game on that console. Phil is giving 343i the time they ask to develop the game they want to for the first time since they’ve been created, as we can obviously as we’re on year 6 of development lol To add to this, before deciding on a game plan for H5’s sequel, 343i basically had a sit down with Phil and suggested two types of games they could go ahead with. Option 1 was continue working with the (at the time) current tools and development philosophy and basically make a more shallow sequel which would come out earlier. Option 2, basically start from scratch and make the game they want to make which would take a lot more time. Phil chose option 2.

  2. Moving backwards a bit now, I don’t know if you recall but H5 development continued post launch. It took like a year or so to add in all that post launch content which took away time from building Infinite. So because of that I think development (to an extent) started later than it usually has.

  3. Even after starting later, part way through development they realized they wanted to make a new engine to accomplish what they wanted to achieve. Building a new engine basically from scratch is a huge endeavor and can take years. I think because of this, Infinite wasn’t in full production for quite a while, multiple years I bet. From all the information I’ve seen out there, it seems like the Infinite we saw last year was only in full production since like 2018, 2-3 years after H5. That one is huge speculation though, I could be entirely wrong. Just making guesses based on what I’ve read.

  4. You mentioned this one too. It seems like as the industry grows, big AAA games seem to be taking longer and longer to develop than ever before. These days it’s normal for games like Infinite to be in development for 5+ years instead of 2-3. The only reason you see games like AC and CoD come out basically yearly is because multiple studios are working on the same franchise at the same time. It’s not that AC or CoD only take a year to develop, rather there’s several studios working on their own games in the same franchise, they just line up and alternate their releases. CoD for example has 3 main studios, each releasing their own game every 3 years but because of the way they time their development we get a game every year.

  5. Position changing. 343i has gone through so many studio shake ups during Infinite’s development it’s insane. Even last year, when the game was supposed to launch a few months later, the creative lead leaves the studio and is replaced by Joseph Staten. All that constant swapping must’ve affected development, how could it not.

  6. Last reason I can think of is one that I think has affected pretty much every studio in one way or another, good ol’ covid. I wonder if the pandemic never happened, would we be playing Infinite right now?

Anyway those are the reasons I can think of, there’s probably many more.