As long as halo doesn't become the next need for speed, where we get a bad one, a worse one, another bad one, a really good one, and then they make it really really bad, and then they decide to remake Halo 1 because they had too many bad ones.
I worry. For all the reasons people stated about Halo going the way of CoD, reasons which I said were unfounded, now I'm far from sure about that... I just think 1 year development cycles can potentially harm the polished and just all around awesome nature of Halo titles. I know 343 are a different developer than Bungie and so will do things in their own different way, but this is the single most worrying thing I've heard on the note of the Halo franchise since this whole Bungie -> 343 shift started. I also hope that these plans entail more than just Halo 4 next year, Halo 5 the year after that etc. and encompass more of a branching out of the franchise. I've always said that I think the Halo canon has insane potential for expansion in to other genres of game, on the level of Star Wars and LotR potential in how expansive and detailed the universe is (or could be made). This needs to be utilised imo, and whilst the single attempt to date in this direction (Halo Wars) didn't do so well, I think that was definitely down to execution rather than a flawed principle. People like the backstory around Halo, and the thought of potentially even making something that revisits the Forerunner period of history would be incredibly exciting, I think the market would definitely be there as long as a little more groundwork is laid for boosting enthusiasm around the whole Halo universe and not just the Master Chief. Not passing judgement on this move towards more frequent release since it'd be senseless at this stage, but I will say that I'm dubious. Nice find though, good thread.
The difference between the two franchises is the staying power of Halo's Forge. The fact that Halo games can still have a strong following of players for 3 years is a testament to the game. This "pumping out games every year" just sounds like Microsoft trying to pump everyone of money...
I honestly foresee a lot of less-than-ODST campaign 'extensions'. On the arcade marketplace that would be excusable. But the fact that they'd try to ship a disk for 50$ is a sham.
They don't need to make an entirely new game every 12 months. Just add campaign extensions, map packs, achievements, etc.. AND it'll give customers the ability to choose whether they want to waste money on certain things or not. If Microsoft's plan is to just gain as much money as possible, then they've sunk very low.
Halo is so enriched because of the customization of the game. But part of it is also the beauty of the game, the enviroments, and the story. If they were just going to keep releasing, it might become like blech or naruto, reptitive and will have a frequent deus ex machina
**** no. KILL HALO NOW. I don't want it turning into any more of a money grab like Call of Duty has become.
What I don't understand is that since 2007, there's been a Halo game released every year. What more do they want? =/
343 and microsoft will no doubt contract other publishers to create the games. Similar to how Activision had IW and Treyarch, this means that the developers need not to cram a production cycle into one year as they they stagger the release dates in between to the different developers allowing more time.
I don't remember there being a Halo game in 2008, Halo Wars and ODST (which even then is technically an expansion, just priced like a full game...) both came out in 2009 unless I'm mistaken, neither of which really count in the terms that MS are talking (ie. sequential Halo games rather than spin offs or expansions).
I agree that there is plenty of potential in continuing the Halo franchise just based on the universe they've created, but I don't think it's going to happen. If Microsoft cared about making a great game, and not just making money, they wouldn't be talking about putting a new game out every year. Halo is Bungie's brainchild, and they're not even going to be continuing with Halo. They want to step away from Halo and continue onto something new. Who's going to give Microsoft and company the direction for all the backstory and canon? Someone else mentioned that COD uses two developers that stagger their releases. Multiple developers would just cause more problems for canon. People look at Call of Duty and say, "If they can do it, why not Halo?". The problem is Call of Duty haven't exactly been the greatest series of games by any stretch. Each game feels the same as the last, and paying $60 for the same game with little changes seem ridiculous. I would love for them to take Halo and consistently put out new games that expand the universe and story. Make Halo games that don't become stale a repetitive from title to title, and don't just become another cash grab series. But I don't see it happening.
it's all about making money, i HIGHLY dislike how companies come off in that tone where they basically sugarcoat "we need to make as much money as possible" and turn it into "WERE LOOKING OUT FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF GAMERS" which we all know is bullshit, and comes off as pretentious bullshit. Sure, people sink their teeth into all the weak attempts at money making, including myself, but dont treat the customers like they're ****ing retarded. I understand the whole thing, it makes sense, franchises would die if they actually cared about the gamer rather than money but it pisses me off when we're treated like idiots.
I don't think they should kill it. But It think that they should add updated Missions for Campaign, More Achievements, etc.
I find it hilarious that the articles states that they do not plan to have annual release and they are looking more along the lines of often dlc, halo wars styled games, expansions. It isn't going to be halo 4 and 5 and 6 every year. You guys need to chill out and read a little closer. However it is 100% a money grab if not an attempt at a reputation grab as well. Halo is known as the best shooter of today but (in the article he nearly says it out right) squeaker 13 year olds are too young to know the franchise and get enthralled by the year after year cods. Thus it is easier for activision to make big bucks off a game without hyping to the extent microsoft does.
Why would they add Campaign missions. The Campaign story ended when Spoiler Noble Six died so what more could they add? It just wouldn't make any sense.