I dont think 343 is stupid enough to make quickly made 1-year throw away games for halo. It just wouldnt make sense if they were trying to both compliment and out do the previous trilogy.
Actually true... although I am still playing MW2 so maybe they got something right with that one. BUT ANYWAY halo!
They work on them for 2 years, but the life-span of the average call of duty game is just about a year, being that the alternate studio releases the next one the following year, making them "throw away" games. Halo is a game that I expect 2-3 years out of. If they can't keep up with that, then they aren't going to get my money. This is all out of assumption, so it doesn't mean that they are going to pump them out, I am merely showing concern that they might.
Ultimately it's up to Microsoft, whose biggest concern is profit. They didn't force Bungie to make a game every year or two, though, so I don't think we have to worry.
it would be effectively impossible for 343 to make a game a year, we dont have to worry about that. i would prefer a 3 year cycle to 2, but i dont really mind that much either way.
What if bungie came back and 343 and bungie did alternating 6-year cycles? I would be in heaven, that's what.
I'm actually glad 343i is working on it now. I don't think Bungie would had done the things 343i has done like Spartan Ops. Now don't get me wrong, I still love Bungie, but it's good to have something fresh added. and lets hope for another decade of Halo
This, Ever since the stream where someone from 343i said games have a shelf life on one year these days, that's what I'm expecting. Along with TU in Reach trying to cater to masses seems reasonable 343i will emulate cods mass appeal tactics (spawing system/yearly releases) I'm just more curious how many more Halos there gonna squeeze in before xbox 720 comes out. No doubt all halo games will be fun though that's no question.
not necessarily true. a lot of studios outsource stuff to other smaller studios. for examples, the multiplayer maps being made by another studio while the core game made by the main one. this could be expanded to a large scale in order to churn out games and rake in profits as fast as possible. just sayin. happens all the time.
I wonder if we are going to be able to use the Promethean Sword.. If you watch the most recent Vidoc, at 4:40 Cheif uses one to assassinate a promethean knight
its never happened on a scale like that though, and i dont think it would. no game series has ever had a one year dev cycle, thats just silly. [br][/br]Edited by merge: one year shelf life doesnt mean one year play life. dee el cee
Think about how bad the three year cycle would be if we had to wait three years from Reach for a new Halo? Halo would be dead. I'm okay with two year cycles. Halo is already never going to be as good and long lasting as it once was, it's the nature of games today. May as well have something fresh a little sooner.
League of Legends (2009-), Starcraft (1 from 1998 on, 2 from 2010-), Team Fortress (2007-), Civilization (IV from 2005 on and V from 2010-) and more would like to have a word with you. Even CoD 4 could have probably survived to this day if the servers got any attention. All of the other games have kept a high population alive from their release to today, and they don't look like they are slowing down. Not only that, but the games are still money-making machines, especially LoL and TF2. Games can still be built with longevity in mind. So long as the core game plays fluidly and attracts a solid audience, a steady stream of small updates dotted with expansions seems to be sufficient to keep a good game afloat for long periods of time. Even today. I would rather an experience built to last every 3-5 years than a speedy game every 1-2.
The man has a point. Console games have wayyyy less than half of the average lifespan of a really good (or easy to mod) PC game.