Halo 2 Players Refuse to Leave Xbox Live
- Thread starter Austin MacKenzie
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Thats what i dont get, if you like halo 2 that much,your gonna have a headsplosion when you find halo 3, i dont understand this,i still find it hard to believe there are people with original xbox's plugged in,mine has been down my old shed for years, simple 360's dont even cost THAT much anymore.. seriously..Skullkid4187 said:
Oh, something akin to player run dedicated servers? That should be possible unless Actiblizzion gets a say in the matter.Gjarble said:
Yeah, I still use my original to play games like morrowind and sega football 2k5 (which is still better than any madden game ever made).Armored Prayer said:
That's the end of it then, those few guys hanging on have since logged off for the last time.
The biggest shame is Halo 2 had some of THE best maps I'd ever seen in an FPS game. And not all of them have made it to the later games.
The biggest shame is Halo 2 had some of THE best maps I'd ever seen in an FPS game. And not all of them have made it to the later games.
This happens with pretty much any game- even after a sequel is released, there's always a few people who stick with the old one. Halo is just popular enough that we're hearing about it.Foggy_Fishburne said:Hahaha warriors!Kudos to them
Yeah I've been thinking about that aswell? What's the deal? I'm confused. Maybe Halo 2 is better then 3? I don't knowFinalDream said:
I think Microsoft would be idiots to kick them. This kind of story is free marketing; play it up as a doomed battle, just like the one you'll be fighting in Halo: Reach, coming to your Xbox 360 this fall!
Quake wasn't part of a closed, unified console online system. It's not a matter of MS saying "Hey, let's turn Halo 2 off to get people to buy Reach." Halo 2 will not work under the changes that they want to make to Xbox live. They'd have to either re-program Halo 2 or somehow run two versions of Xbox live side-to-side while somehow sharing your profile information between the two. They can't just allow people to still "set up their own games" because Halo 2 was never programmed that way- it has always been setting up games through live. Even a peer-to-peer service requires a central server to set up connections.fix-the-spade said:
All Quake needs is a single server still running to direct players to player-run server lists.
I honestly think that Halo 2 is a better game for multiplayer than Halo 3.
The graphical change for the third game didn't impress me when contrasted to the overall drop in fun. The cartoonishly unrealistic style of violence that was used to great effect in the first two games. It was this that made it funny. It was this that made H2 a great party game. And it was this that H3 seemed to drop in favour of a hardcore, skill-based, soulless system of "balanced" warfare. So for me, the fun died after Halo 2.
This is why I own a PC and play Half Life 2: Deathmatch instead. Crazy gameplay, plenty of spawn kills and cheap play, but more importantly, there was no nonsense about balance*. It's pure opportunism, which is quite liberating and has its own skill curve to climb, unlike Halo 3, which has one that looks, honestly, very similar to all the others shooters have.
Essentially, I support anyone who prefers Halo 2 over its successor. So these guys are pretty cool in my view. And if Bungie likes them too, I don't know why people think it's necessary to move along early. Except the alleged safety reasons regarding Xbox overheating.
* I have a thing about the balance philosophy in games.
In MMOs it makes sense to fine tune some character skills so that they don't overpower people with other classes or skill sets too much. MMO PvP is predictable and more simple than other forms of gameplay, thanks to its rigidly statistical nature, so balance is both achievable and desirable in that context.
However, in a shooter, trying to reach "balance" doesn't make sense because you're not really dealing with statistics anymore, but rather the split second complexity of when your players decide to shoot, and what they're shooting, and why they chose that weapon, and a hundred other variables.
In a complex battlefield, balance is impossible to achieve, and striving towards it just makes the game more boring without ever reaching the goal of a serious simulation which tests skill on equal grounds. Not to mention, giving equal opportunity to win to each player on a battlefield is very unrealistic, which tends to go against the point of balance anyway. It's a self-defeating concept.
That's why, with shooters, basically, the crazier the design, the better.
The graphical change for the third game didn't impress me when contrasted to the overall drop in fun. The cartoonishly unrealistic style of violence that was used to great effect in the first two games. It was this that made it funny. It was this that made H2 a great party game. And it was this that H3 seemed to drop in favour of a hardcore, skill-based, soulless system of "balanced" warfare. So for me, the fun died after Halo 2.
This is why I own a PC and play Half Life 2: Deathmatch instead. Crazy gameplay, plenty of spawn kills and cheap play, but more importantly, there was no nonsense about balance*. It's pure opportunism, which is quite liberating and has its own skill curve to climb, unlike Halo 3, which has one that looks, honestly, very similar to all the others shooters have.
Essentially, I support anyone who prefers Halo 2 over its successor. So these guys are pretty cool in my view. And if Bungie likes them too, I don't know why people think it's necessary to move along early. Except the alleged safety reasons regarding Xbox overheating.
* I have a thing about the balance philosophy in games.
In MMOs it makes sense to fine tune some character skills so that they don't overpower people with other classes or skill sets too much. MMO PvP is predictable and more simple than other forms of gameplay, thanks to its rigidly statistical nature, so balance is both achievable and desirable in that context.
However, in a shooter, trying to reach "balance" doesn't make sense because you're not really dealing with statistics anymore, but rather the split second complexity of when your players decide to shoot, and what they're shooting, and why they chose that weapon, and a hundred other variables.
In a complex battlefield, balance is impossible to achieve, and striving towards it just makes the game more boring without ever reaching the goal of a serious simulation which tests skill on equal grounds. Not to mention, giving equal opportunity to win to each player on a battlefield is very unrealistic, which tends to go against the point of balance anyway. It's a self-defeating concept.
That's why, with shooters, basically, the crazier the design, the better.
maveric101 said:
tsd said:
These are the only sane comments in this hate filled thread. My salutes to you all.lhrsikkill said:
If Microsoft really wanted to, they could kick them off rather easily.Trivun said:
As I posted above, Microsoft would be morons if they did. This kind of thing is free marketing. This isn't something you put down, it's something you milk. Put something on your website showing how they're holding out.
A house burning down because they are playing Halo 2 past the cut-off? Are you kidding? You better not leave your house today because a meteor might fall on you. The drivel on here by many proves to me that the Halo 2 community was unmatched by those in other games. We play Halo 2 because we love the game. Why play a second-rate game like Halo 3 when you have the game that defined X-box? What's wrong with people who love Halo 2 not logging out so they can play longer? You people need to get a life.
Sexual Harassment Panda said:
I've received a lot of responses to my last message in this thread. Some agreeing, some disagreeing, and some in between. Thanks for your responses and attention.
I did want to say that to some of those who disagreed with me, that I think part of my point has been misinterpted.
Simply put I do not think that age is relevent to a product you own. It doesn't matter if there is a bigger, better, flashier game, if I want to play my old one the way I bought it and have the hardware and software to do it, such should be my right. The financial realities of the situation for the company being totally irrelevent to me as the consumer. The bottom line is that I feel I have a right to what I paid for. If in 10 years nobody is playing on the server, but me and a buddy both have copies to play, and want to, then we have that right.
Of course this ties heavily into the fact that many years ago I was also saying that things like XBL were a bad idea, and saw this kind of thing coming, but nobody believe it would be an issue, what's more people were saying that they trusted Microsoft to keep the online active indefinatly and ensure backwards compadibility if it comes to that.
Speaking for myself I *DO* play old games, and do so with some frequency. I also look back to other consoles like the SNES, Genesis, Coleco Vision, and others. They did not go online, but basically if I plug in my old Coleco Vision, and plug in a Cartridge I can play the game I bought on the hardware I bought (and occasionally might get in the mood). I do not believe that the progess of technology invalidates the right of a consumer to his product, no matter what might be hidden in fine print.
Generally speaking my arguement that Microsoft should be forced to keep XBL online for Halo 2 indefinatly is kind of "ridiculous", but then again I feel the entire situation is ridiculous, and personally felt that the idea of putting consoles online was both stupid and unfair.
The issue of digital property also enters into this equasion (though a seperate issue) because basically there is no guarantee that a company will last indefinatly and be able to provide the material you bought 10-20-30 years down the road. Hence why I am a big believe in "disc in hand", and see older consoles and computer games as being representitive of what my rights should be as a consumer.
I will also say that I feel the issues of wanting to see gaming technology progress can be addressed and make used of online systems and such, while at the same protecting consumer rights. As I said years ago, I feel that companies like Microsoft or Sony should be required to create a trust fund as part of game development to maintain the servers and infrastructure for each game they produce. A Trust Fund being a pile of money that generates and pays out interest, a big enough trust fund can produce enough money to pay building rent, run servers, and pay some dude to do maitnence once a game becomes obselete. With the game budgets being what they are right now, I think some of that money could be used to do that. The big obstacle of course being greed, which of course goes into other arguements. The bottom line is that I feel there is more than enough room within current development budgets to do this without raising prices, the big "cost" would be to some of these salaries being paid to game developers (which of course goes into another discussion, and one of my continuous arguements that have involved everything from people who work for the industry, to Maxim magazine doing a report).
The above "Trust Fund" idea isn't perfect (no need to rant at me about it, though some people doubtlessly will) but the point is I'm sure there are plenty of things that can be done. Of course in the end it comes down to the industry not really wanting to, or caring. Right now there is more of a focus on how to squeeze more money out of consumers and make ownership of games and such as transient and intangible as possible, rather than giving people a quality, solid, enduring product.
That's my opinion at least, and no, I don't expect everyone to agree with it. Still I hope this clarifies some things.
I did want to say that to some of those who disagreed with me, that I think part of my point has been misinterpted.
Simply put I do not think that age is relevent to a product you own. It doesn't matter if there is a bigger, better, flashier game, if I want to play my old one the way I bought it and have the hardware and software to do it, such should be my right. The financial realities of the situation for the company being totally irrelevent to me as the consumer. The bottom line is that I feel I have a right to what I paid for. If in 10 years nobody is playing on the server, but me and a buddy both have copies to play, and want to, then we have that right.
Of course this ties heavily into the fact that many years ago I was also saying that things like XBL were a bad idea, and saw this kind of thing coming, but nobody believe it would be an issue, what's more people were saying that they trusted Microsoft to keep the online active indefinatly and ensure backwards compadibility if it comes to that.
Speaking for myself I *DO* play old games, and do so with some frequency. I also look back to other consoles like the SNES, Genesis, Coleco Vision, and others. They did not go online, but basically if I plug in my old Coleco Vision, and plug in a Cartridge I can play the game I bought on the hardware I bought (and occasionally might get in the mood). I do not believe that the progess of technology invalidates the right of a consumer to his product, no matter what might be hidden in fine print.
Generally speaking my arguement that Microsoft should be forced to keep XBL online for Halo 2 indefinatly is kind of "ridiculous", but then again I feel the entire situation is ridiculous, and personally felt that the idea of putting consoles online was both stupid and unfair.
The issue of digital property also enters into this equasion (though a seperate issue) because basically there is no guarantee that a company will last indefinatly and be able to provide the material you bought 10-20-30 years down the road. Hence why I am a big believe in "disc in hand", and see older consoles and computer games as being representitive of what my rights should be as a consumer.
I will also say that I feel the issues of wanting to see gaming technology progress can be addressed and make used of online systems and such, while at the same protecting consumer rights. As I said years ago, I feel that companies like Microsoft or Sony should be required to create a trust fund as part of game development to maintain the servers and infrastructure for each game they produce. A Trust Fund being a pile of money that generates and pays out interest, a big enough trust fund can produce enough money to pay building rent, run servers, and pay some dude to do maitnence once a game becomes obselete. With the game budgets being what they are right now, I think some of that money could be used to do that. The big obstacle of course being greed, which of course goes into other arguements. The bottom line is that I feel there is more than enough room within current development budgets to do this without raising prices, the big "cost" would be to some of these salaries being paid to game developers (which of course goes into another discussion, and one of my continuous arguements that have involved everything from people who work for the industry, to Maxim magazine doing a report).
The above "Trust Fund" idea isn't perfect (no need to rant at me about it, though some people doubtlessly will) but the point is I'm sure there are plenty of things that can be done. Of course in the end it comes down to the industry not really wanting to, or caring. Right now there is more of a focus on how to squeeze more money out of consumers and make ownership of games and such as transient and intangible as possible, rather than giving people a quality, solid, enduring product.
That's my opinion at least, and no, I don't expect everyone to agree with it. Still I hope this clarifies some things.
There may still be hope: people devised a way to play PS2 games over the internet using something along the lines of a "LANtunnel", using the LAN features of games. This meant games like Timesplitters 2 could be played online even though they never had online support.
I think something along these lines has already been developed for the Xbox.
I think something along these lines has already been developed for the Xbox.
...?lhrsikkill said:
My brother's plug melted after he left his on too long, and that was a matter of hours...not a week. That's all I said, that leaving a console on for a week is pretty hazardous...they get hot.
Your little tirade is misguided. I made no mention of the Halo 2 community, I'm sure they're all lovely people. Definitely not teabagging degenerates who offend easily(and without provocation, might I add), screech down their microphones and are so afraid of change that they would rather play the same game over and over than experience something new...definitely not.
These may or may not be my opinions. But seeing as how you're already offended, I figured I'd actually give you something to whine about.
They may fall one after the other in the series but they are VASTLY different. I actually preferred the way that the Matchmaking was done on Halo 2 over Halo 3. The way the maps were laid out. The weapons. You name it I thought Halo 2 was better than Halo 3 in every aspect especially story line. Yeah Halo 3 closed the story but Halo 2 was actually unique and not a rehash of Halo 1 on a different ring.Evil the White said: