Mircosoft: One Halo Game Every Three Years Not Frequent Enough

Recommended Videos

Korten12

Now I want ma...!
Aug 26, 2009
10,766
0
0
From IGN: http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/112/1122586p1.html

Article Below--------

For more than the first half of Microsoft's foray into the videogame world, players looked on with interest for years as they waited for the next Halo game to materialize. Recently, with the releases of Halo Wars, Halo 3: ODST and Halo: Reach, that wait has been reduced to 12 months or less. Expect that trend of short waits to continue, though perhaps not necessarily on an annualized pace.

Corporate Vice President for Microsoft Game Studios Phil Spencer told IGN that, "There's no explicit strategy that says we're to ship a Halo game every year. I will say I think one Halo game every three years -- which was kind of our old cadence ? is probably not frequent enough."

Spencer noted the long life of the Halo franchise and pointed out that leaving such large gaps in between releases can be detrimental to audience engagement.

"We're coming up on, what, next year is the 10th anniversary. You watch the change in gamers in 10 years. The percentage of players are playing Reach that were I'll say not old enough to play Halo 1 at the time, 10 years is a long time between launches. We definitely think about a more persistent Halo engagement for customers and not going dark for two years, and Live helps obviously with multiplayer to keep people engaged."

"343 Industries is thinking a lot about how to take this franchise and turn it into something that people feel like they have an ongoing relationship with and they can entertain themselves more often. But it's not, hey every November 6 or whatever we have to ship a game and build a production plan around that. We want to do things that make sense as a first party."

Asked if Microsoft took cues from the success Activision has had with its annualized Call of Duty franchise, Spencer had high praise for the mega-publisher.

"I'll just, again, be honest as a gamer. I used to look at annual releases of non-sports games as people just trying to milk me. I figured nobody had enough time to do a good job, and all of the negatives that we would associate with those kinds of scenarios. Kudos to Activision because they've done a good job building a good game, continuing to release each year and I think the fans feel like it's a good thing that they do that. I think there are some things to learn, some positives and some opportunities, in what they do with that. Obviously they've kept the quality extremely high, which I think is important."

"We have some unique challenges and opportunities with Halo because it is a story based game built around a certain set of characters, which is a bit different than what they do with Call of Duty. Not better or worse, it's just different. But watching them and seeing what they do -- we take inspiration from a lot of places -- but obviously they're a big success."

If Microsoft annualized the Halo franchise, would you continue to buy each release? Leave a comment below and let us know your thoughts.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Oh shi- This is bad... Bungie I knows its impossible but go steal Halo back and make it so you can only develop for it. :(
 

JUMBO PALACE

Elite Member
Legacy
Jun 17, 2009
3,552
7
43
Country
USA
Well Call Of Duty also had 2 studios working on the series. And while I don't name Halo among my favorite series, (I only like Combat Evolved and Reach) I hope Microsoft doesn't give the Halo fans too much of a good thing and either ruin it, or release games so often it gets old for the fans.
 

Mighty Lighty

New member
Mar 23, 2009
508
0
0
I`d like to see what happens to the microsoft icon as I can see him going the way of crash or spyro
 

fix-the-spade

New member
Feb 25, 2008
8,639
0
0
Oh well, considering 343 Ind has a lot of ex-Bungie staff in it, I'm not overly concerned right now.

Although if they start doing CoD style dual developers I'll be more sceptical.
 

maddawg IAJI

I prefer the term "Zomguard"
Feb 12, 2009
7,840
0
0
......Please Microsoft...find some other way to get milk. Let the Halo series end on a good note.
 

Buizel91

Autobot
Aug 25, 2008
5,265
0
0
If they don't fuck up the cannon...i don't mind, i want to know what happened at Onyx...after Halo 3, and what happened in the other books (sorry i really hate reading...to understand summit, i need to see it, e.g. Tv/Games/Computer)

But we always have the haters, if they do a good job, i see no problem...343 studio's was made for a reason, hell the clue is in the name...

We all knew this would happen eventually.
 

Armored Prayer

New member
Mar 10, 2009
5,319
0
0
That doesn't sound good.

Part of me I wonders what they will do with the franchise, and the other part worries that they will ruin it.

Please Microsoft, don't ruin one of my all time favorite games.
 

duchaked

New member
Dec 25, 2008
4,451
0
0
Irridium said:
And this is why I consider the Halo series over now that Bungie's done with it.
yup

IamSofaKingRaw said:
So I guess Sony was right...they do rely heavily on FPS's
which is fine...but Microsoft better let 343 have a lot of creativity with future Halo games if they want even Halo fans to really care (all eyes on Bungie, Microsoft...not you or Kinect)
 

kintaris

New member
Apr 5, 2010
237
0
0
Korten12 said:
"...Halo... is a story based game built around a certain set of characters, which is a bit different than what they do with Call of Duty."
Um.

What?

the Halo series is a gameplay-based game built around a very loose and malleable story with potential for thousands of characters.

Like COD.

I really don't think this is going to end well for Halo.
 

Buizel91

Autobot
Aug 25, 2008
5,265
0
0
fix-the-spade said:
Oh well, considering 343 Ind has a lot of ex-Bungie staff in it, I'm not overly concerned right now.

Although if they start doing CoD style dual developers I'll be more sceptical.
And this just proved it might be good...

Seen as though i love Bungie. Hearing their are Ex staff their just boosted my confidence with the team at 343.
 

Enigmers

New member
Dec 14, 2008
1,745
0
0
If frequency of sequels or shorter release dates are a concern for you, you don't deserve to be a game publisher. The quality of a game should never be compromised just because some guy who gets paid millions to do nothing that contributes to gaming as an art form says you do. Your concern should be to make a quality product, and it is at the discretion of the developers to tell you when it's going to be done.

The only game that didn't benefit from this philosophy was Duke Nukem Forever. Look at VALVe and Blizzard's titles. Each one of them is extremely polished and sells truckloads, because they're quality products that take time and care to make, unlike the cookie-cutter sequels and repackages that sports/rhythm games seem to love throwing at us on a yearly basis.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,595
0
0
I think they have to expand.

They have to come up with new ideas or expand in all the right areas on old ones.

If they don't then Halo is doomed to fall into the dreaded 'meh' pile...
 

Delock

New member
Mar 4, 2009
1,085
0
0
Irridium said:
And this is why I consider the Halo series over now that Bungie's done with it.
This was exactly my sentiment that I told rabid Halo fans at the launch (I was suffering from insomnia that week, so I thought I might as well pick up my game in the time in which I would not be sleeping). It's also the reason why that was my last Halo preorder (technically it was my only one, but who cares). Even if 343 proves themselves a capable development team, they're a development team made of fans (hell, they were made to replace Bungie and named after Bungie's character) who are at the whim of a large corporation.
Halo, as a game series, chronologically ended with 3, and now ends with Reach. If the books want to continue, then I have no problem, as they've proved themselves capable enough of expanding on the universe. However, I'm not paying $60 every three years for a game in a series I consider dead [sub][sub][sub] That would mean I was a Sonic fan [/sub][/sub][/sub]

However, that being said, I can see why Microsoft wants this. Halo was what really cemented them into the console market and has helped keep the Gold subscriptions coming. They don't want more Halo games, they want more success the game has produced. Of course, what they're risking now is that people aren't going to notice that Bungie isn't a part of the development any more, and that no one will mind the series growing way too big. This is where I find fault with them, as they are gambling that the game industry is less than other forms of entertainment, where both of these would be noticed by the consumers (if a developer quit a movie series, people notice, and if a movie reaches a certain number, the makers have to come up with new ways to make the title seem "smaller."). This feels like once again, games are almost being regarded as toys rather than a medium, as Microsoft is hoping for "buy no matter what"s rather than people investing for an experience.
 

Rusty Bucket

New member
Dec 2, 2008
1,588
0
0
Irridium said:
And this is why I consider the Halo series over now that Bungie's done with it.
Same here. 343 may be good, but they won't be able to do as good a job as Bungie has. Besides, Reach was the perfect game to end the series on.

I likely won't have anything to do with the 343 stuff, unless they make some sort of Halo based cooking game. That would be awesome.
 

Cpu46

Gloria ex machina
Sep 21, 2009
1,604
0
41
Well with so many games their going to have to try some ideas that are way out in left field to keep the series from stagnating. Not a horrible idea in my mind but even so I'm still not completely on board with this idea of cranking the games out.