Support NeoGAF

[StUnNeR H2K]

looking forward to both, how wierd was it seeing Halo games being almost tucked away in the middle of an E3 conference :lol

It was weird, but MS is trying to get away from the "Halo Console" image. I don't think they needed Halo for the conference though. Even without the Halo news the conference was pretty awesome.

 

[Striker]

I can't see why somebody would be surprised it's $60.

It's Halo, so they know it will sell. There's going to be some incentives for multiple play through with co-op, skulls, Firefights, and saved films. Then there's going to be the Halo 3 Multiplayer maps, including the three we've yet to witness publicly. Something like this should have been expected.

The beta to Halo: Reach should just be worth half the price, anyways. Hopefully we are given more information on that within the next month or so.

 

[DancingJesus]

No, Bungie's repeatedly said that they didn't think it should be full price. Developers don't set the prices for their games, though.

"The scoop addicts at Game Informer are sporting it as their December cover story which, far from being spartan, is chock full o' details on the unusual offering. As we saw in Tokyo, the boys at Bungie are downplaying the game's length, insisting it's not "a $60 game" and is more like "a three to five-hour expansion pack."

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/929/929686p1.html

 

[vandalvideo]

$60? I'm not paying that much for an expansion, and thats that.

 

[Blader]

I can't see why somebody would be surprised it's $60.

Because Bungie outright said it wouldn't be $60.

 

[Haunted]

Ok wait just a fucking second here.

Who is making this OSDT game, and who is behind the Halo: Reach game exactly?

 

[neoism]

$60, wtf? Didn't Bungie outright say that they weren't envisioning this as a full-price game?

If it was up to bungie it would probably be $40, but it's not!

 

[Blader]

Ok wait just a fucking second here.

Who is making this OSDT game, and who is behind the Halo: Reach game exactly?

Bungie is making both.

 

[Domino Theory]

Because Bungie outright said it wouldn't be $60.

Uh, no. They said they don't necessarily view it as a 60 dollar game. But of course, that was when they said the game would be 3-5hrs long, which we now know that it'll pack more and be exponentially longer than that.

 

[JimiNutz]

Ok wait just a fucking second here.

Who is making this OSDT game, and who is behind the Halo: Reach game exactly?

Bungie are making both I think, or at least heavily involved with both.
I think a small part of Bungie have been working on ODST with the MS Halo team helping, while the rest of Bungie were working on Halo: Reach?

It was explained fully in the MS Conference, so if you get to rewatch it all will become clear.

 

[Striker]

Because Bungie outright said it wouldn't be $60.

By the line of "It's not a $60 game" could also mean since it's not a full game like Halo 2 and Halo 3, the price isn't expected to be so high. But you'll have to factor in the expansion and the Halo 3 DLC maps, and once you do that, it's really not unexpected in my mind that it is priced at 60 bucks.

 

[Deleted member 21120]

"The scoop addicts at Game Informer are sporting it as their December cover story which, far from being spartan, is chock full o' details on the unusual offering. As we saw in Tokyo, the boys at Bungie are downplaying the game's length, insisting it's not "a $60 game" and is more like "a three to five-hour expansion pack."

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/929/929686p1.html

Notice where the quotation marks are. I am not trying to say the price doesn't suck, I'm just saying that Bungie has been very clear from the beginning that it ultimately was not up to them.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/halo-3-recon-interview?page=2

Brian Jarrard: Ultimately it won't be down to us to settle on that, it will be something Microsoft determines. Hopefully it should represent a really compelling value for our fans, but it's not a full-game release as far as we're concerned.

And to be honest, dude, it was obvious to me that Bungie was playing a little dirty and trying to force MS's hand - if they went around giving out interviews and got it in everyone's heads that it should be less than $60, then MS would have to have some kahunas to end up charging over that.

But it looks like they did anyway.

Because Bungie outright said it wouldn't be $60.

Find me a quote where Bungie says "This game won't be $60."

You guys must be the most selective readers ever if you got THAT out of the numerous interviews they gave.

 

[AndersTheSwede]

Uh, no. They said they don't necessarily view it as a 60 dollar game. But of course, that was when they said the game would be 3-5hrs long, which we now know that it'll pack more and be exponentially longer than that.

Really? Cool. Link?

Kinda odd that a game in pre-production is slated for a ~5 hour length, yet in production balloons in length. Very unusual.

 

[DancingJesus]

Notice where the quotation marks are. I am not trying to say the price doesn't suck, I'm just saying that Bungie has been very clear from the beginning that it ultimately was not up to them.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/halo-3-recon-interview?page=2


And to be honest, dude, it was obvious to me that Bungie was playing a little dirty and trying to force MS's hand - if they went around giving out interviews and got it in everyone's heads that it should be less than $60, then MS would have to have some kahunas to end up charging over that.

But it looks like they did anyway.

I'm not saying it's Bungie's fault. I'm saying its horseshit. Regardless of whose decision it is. It certainly is not acceptable and I'm sure the communities’ voice will be heard, much like the recent Gears of War price change.

 

[Deleted member 21120]

I'm not saying it's Bungie's fault. I'm saying its horseshit. Regardless of whose decision it is. It certainly is not acceptable and I'm sure the communities’ voice will be heard, much like the recent Gears of War price change.

Oh, okay. Yeah, it does suck, but from what we've seen today, I think it's worth it. No one had any idea about the multiplayer mode and Bungie's been saying in their Weekly Updates that the game is turning out to be a lot bigger than they'd anticipated.

 

[AFreak]

Two questions...is the new Pistol the same as the old pistol? As in, 3 head shots, 2X Zoom, or is it just a pretender.

Next question: Is Halo:Reach the same as that Halo Chronicle shit with Peter Jackson, or is that Vaporware?

 

[Domino Theory]

Really? Cool. Link?

Kinda odd that a game in pre-production is slated for a ~5 hour length, yet in production balloons in length. Very unusual.

Honestly it's impossible to really quantify this. Even with Halo 3 an individual's play time can vary dramatically based on difficulty level, modifiers like skulls, and whether or not it's played individually, cooperatively, or within the multiplayer portions of the game, which can amount to near infinite play time. While it's true that we view Halo 3: Recon as an extension to the Halo 3 game experience, it's too early to settle on a specific number of hours of gameplay.

First of all, while Halo 3: Recon did originate with the goal of building a 3 to 5 hour campaign experience, I can safely say that as is always the case with Bungie, the team is continuing to put more and more into it and the final product will end up being some order of magnitude more than the initial design. Game Informer also touches on the new structure to the campaign experience and how there are basically two separate components to the campaign. The initial play time targets were focused on one of those components. And lastly, there are still plenty of things we're not talking about with Recon that will further enhance and add to the experience, play time, and replayability of the final package.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/970/970595p3.html

 

[Insertia]

Ugh. Create a new engine please. Halo 3 wasn't that impressive when it came out, and from the demo it looked really bad visually and gameplay wise. Like Halo 2.5.

After MW2 and K2, Bungie needs to step it up a bit.

 

[Striker]

Ugh. Create a new engine please. Halo 3 wasn't that impressive when it came out, and from the demo it looked really bad visually and gameplay wise. Like Halo 2.5.

After MW2 and K2, Bungie needs to step it up a bit.

Nobody was thinking ODST was something entirely new. We'll see when Halo: Reach is unfolded.

 

[DancingJesus]

Why are you guys defending this pricepoint?

I'm as big as a Halo fan as it gets and I love Bungie dearly but this reaks of serious milking by MS.

You can still like the product and hate the pricepoint at the same time.

Personally, I'm stoked for ODST but this news left a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[Shake Appeal]

It won't appeal to everyone. But to the Halo audience it's aimed at, holy jebus.

Yep, it's total fan service, and when that drop pod began its descent I was giddy as a schoolboy.

 

[Deleted member 21120]

Two questions...is the new Pistol the same as the old pistol? As in, 3 head shots, 2X Zoom, or is it just a pretender.

Next question: Is Halo:Reach the same as that Halo Chronicle shit with Peter Jackson, or is that Vaporware?

Halo Reach is not Halo Chronicles. Bungie is no longer involved with Chronicles.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I'm not saying it's Bungie's fault. I'm saying its horseshit. Regardless of whose decision it is. It certainly is not acceptable and I'm sure the communities’ voice will be heard, much like the recent Gears of War price change.

Good luck with that. Microsoft clearly recognized that the game wasn't a full $60 release. The pushed three maps finished last fall into ODST so they could inflate the price. And DLC is one thing, but shifting say $20 on a game that's going to sell a few million unit at the least is a much bigger deal.

Simplified illustration: If they project ODST will sell 5m units (conservative estimate) and cut the price by $20, that's $100m left on the table. To make up that revenue, it would have to sell 2.5m more copies at $40 than $60.

Microsoft clearly believes their premier franchise should merit full price, regardless of the scale of the content in the box. And the marketplace will likely reinforce that. I'd worry about precedent, but I don't see a lot of these kind of expansions coming down the pipe.

FWIW, this *sounds* like a $40 expansion, with some extra maps tossed into to justify a $60 price. But that wasn't Bungie's call. And I'm a big enough fan of Halo 3 that I'm there day one for this, hands wrapped around my ankles. I'm not happy about it. But I want the damn game. :\

 

[Walshicus]

Ugh. Create a new engine please. Halo 3 wasn't that impressive when it came out, and from the demo it looked really bad visually and gameplay wise. Like Halo 2.5.

After MW2 and K2, Bungie needs to step it up a bit.

I don't think the CoD or K2 style would work with Halo. There are two different approaches to graphical fidelity at play there - and while CoD or K2 may on the surface show more whizz bang, Halo's graphical excellence shows through when examined deeper.

Not saying either's the right approach - but I know which one I prefer.

 

[vandalvideo]

Microsoft clearly believes their premier franchise should merit full price, regardless of the scale of the content in the box. And the marketplace will likely reinforce that. I'd worry about precedent, but I don't see a lot of these kind of expansions coming down the pipe.

As a PC gamer, that price point just killed it for me. I mean I was interested by the story telling method they're employing with objects and flashbacks, but I am going to rent this game. No purchase, rent.

 

[sprocket]

looks great! i will have that limited edition controller too!

 

[DancingJesus]

Good luck with that. Microsoft clearly recognized that the game wasn't a full $60 release. The pushed three maps finished last fall into ODST so they could inflate the price. And DLC is one thing, but shifting say $20 on a game that's going to sell a few million unit at the least is a much bigger deal.

Simplified illustration: If they project ODST will sell 5m units (conservative estimate) and cut the price by $20, that's $100m left on the table. To make up that revenue, it would have to sell 2.5m more copies at $40 than $60.

Microsoft clearly believes their premier franchise should merit full price, regardless of the scale of the content in the box. And the marketplace will likely reinforce that. I'd worry about precedent, but I don't see a lot of these kind of expansions coming down the pipe.

Yeah, but by doing that you are pissing off the casual Halo player and alienating the Halo fanbase. Suddenly it sells less copies at a higher price point and people become less and less interested in the Halo franchise. This hurts future sales of Halo titles.

 

[Blader]

And I'm a big enough fan of Halo 3 that I'm there day one for this, hands wrapped around my ankles.

GhaleonEB
knows his self-worth.
(Today, 07:27 PM)

 

[AndersTheSwede]

I don't think the CoD or K2 style would work with Halo. There are two different approaches to graphical fidelity at play there - and while CoD or K2 may on the surface show more whizz bang, Halo's graphical excellence shows through when examined deeper.

Not saying either's the right approach - but I know which one I prefer.

I'd have to agree. The Halo 3 engine can look absolutely fantastic.

Honestly though, I think much of the graphical griping stems for really (really) poor and inconsistent texture work by Bungie.

See Sierra 117, which is absolutely gorgeous, then the subsequent Crows Nest. No better illustration of this.

 

[brain_stew]

Because it was described from the beginning as essentially a beefy expansion, not a full title.

Expansions by nature don't have the same price as their full predecessors.

Kinda puts the L4D2 drama into perspective I suppose. How the hell they can get away with this, I'll never know. I'll wait till it can be had under £20, thanks.

 

[Chittagong]

Did anyone mention the new more stylish Bungie logo?

Old

New

Also, looks like the new, more stylish typography extends to Halo Reach logo and cover. Much better than the cheap looking earlier covers and logos:

 

[GhaleonEB]

Yeah, but by doing that you are pissing off the casual Halo player and alienating the Halo fanbase. Suddenly it sells less copies at a higher price point and people become less and less interested in the Halo franchise. This hurts future sales of Halo titles.

But to be fair, this game isn't aimed at the casual Halo player. It's at least in part fan service for the hardcore, and they won't skip it over $20. Sure, Microsoft will lose a few protest sales over it. But an expansion was always going to sell to a subset of the original customer base. And from their perspective, they've clearly calculated that they'll make more at this price than at $40. It will be a net gain for MS, like it or not.

GhaleonEB
knows his self-worth.
(Today, 07:27 PM)

Heh. My spreadsheet says I can afford an extra $20 for a game I'll be playing for months on end.

 

[brain_stew]

I'd have to agree. The Halo 3 engine can look absolutely fantastic.

Honestly though, I think much of the graphical griping stems for really (really) poor and inconsistent texture work by Bungie.

See Sierra 117, which is absolutely gorgeous, then the subsequent Crows Nest. No better illustration of this.

The texture work wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't for the ludicrously antiquated bilinear filtering and extremely harsh mipmap bias. Honestly the assets and lighting on Halo 3 are fine, the IQ is just utter shit and makes it all look ten times worse than it should do. The fact that the photo mode shots look like they're from a totally different game should illustrate this more than anything.

 

[MirageDwarf]

Fuck you MS. I don't need controller and no way paying $60 for this. Rental only for me.


WTF, Bungie? Even if this was far in development, you should have pushed it back for other projects (assuming they aren't Halo related). Now, no new IP from Bungie until 2011.

 

[neoism]

Ugh. Create a new engine please. Halo 3 wasn't that impressive when it came out, and from the demo it looked really bad visually and gameplay wise. Like Halo 2.5.

After MW2 and K2, Bungie needs to step it up a bit.

:lol :lol :lol

 

[IJoel]

I think I'm becoming too jaded. I thought the demo was decent, but since this is Bungie, I expected more.

I hope MS has a different developer working on a true Halo sequel. My hatred for prequels burns!

 

[DancingJesus]

Anyway, I'm not going to lose sleep over $20.

Another point though, reviews will criticize it's lack of bang for your buck and thus resulting in lower scores. Which surely means bad signs for sales. It is what is though.

 

[Striker]

Fuck you MS. I don't need controller and no way paying $60 for this. Rental only for me.


WTF, Bungie? Even if this was far in development, you should have pushed it back for other projects (assuming they aren't Halo related). Now, no new IP from Bungie until 2011.

 

[soldat7]

The texture work wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't for the ludicrously antiquated bilinear filtering and extremely harsh mipmap bias. Honestly the assets and lighting on Halo 3 are fine, the IQ is just utter shit and makes it all look ten times worse than it should do. The fact that the photo mode shots look like they're from a totally different game should illustrate this more than anything.

blah blah...the game looks HAWT. Maybe they could have improved the look if they scaled their engine back to not allow saved films, etc. etc.

All I know is that after that trailer, hype +1 for me.

 

[RBH]

:lol :lol :lol

 

[Rorschach]

Lots of really subtle beauty.

 

[EazyB]

Fuck you MS. I don't need controller and no way paying $60 for this. Rental only for me.


WTF, Bungie? Even if this was far in development, you should have pushed it back for other projects (assuming they aren't Halo related). Now, no new IP from Bungie until 2011.

ODST will definitely be worth it for me but I can see why others would complain. That's MS for ya though.

And believe me, I'm equally, if not more, peeved about not seeing Bungie's new IP until 2011 or 2012.

 

[The Librarian]

I had very low expectations for ODST, and it delivered. It looks mediocre on all accounts.

I will never understand the feeling people have to come into a thread and shit on a game like this. You guys feel better about yourselves or something?

 

[kuYuri]

Will not be there day one like I was for Halo 3. Not a big fan of Halo 3 these days and I don't want to pay full price for ODST. I'll wait for a price drop.

Good luck with that. Microsoft clearly recognized that the game wasn't a full $60 release. The pushed three maps finished last fall into ODST so they could inflate the price. And DLC is one thing, but shifting say $20 on a game that's going to sell a few million unit at the least is a much bigger deal.

Simplified illustration: If they project ODST will sell 5m units (conservative estimate) and cut the price by $20, that's $100m left on the table. To make up that revenue, it would have to sell 2.5m more copies at $40 than $60.

Microsoft clearly believes their premier franchise should merit full price, regardless of the scale of the content in the box. And the marketplace will likely reinforce that. I'd worry about precedent, but I don't see a lot of these kind of expansions coming down the pipe.

FWIW, this *sounds* like a $40 expansion, with some extra maps tossed into to justify a $60 price. But that wasn't Bungie's call. And I'm a big enough fan of Halo 3 that I'm there day one for this, hands wrapped around my ankles. I'm not happy about it. But I want the damn game. :\

GhaleonEB
Would gladly bend over and grab ankles for Halo
(Today, 07:27 PM)

 

[The Librarian]

GhaleonEB
knows his self-worth.
(Today, 07:27 PM)

Still waiting on that quote that shows that Bungie said Halo 3: ODST won't be $60.

 

[FFChris]

Such a shame that it's full price. People are going to expect a full game, and what they get will be a disappointment, as Bungie didn't intend to market ODST as a full game.

 

[duk]

bungie said it was supposed to be 3-5 hours long, but now they are adding much much more to it.

what if it ends up around 8 hours long and has a full compliment of replayability and MP?

$50-60 would be worth it for me

 

[soldat7]

Such a shame that it's full price. People are going to expect a full game, and what they get will be a disappointment, as Bungie didn't intend to market ODST as a full game.

Well I think it's become one. I'm pretty sure they alluded to that fact in a recent podcast.

bungie said it was supposed to be 3-5 hours long, but now they are adding much much more to it.

what if it ends up around 8 hours long and has a full compliment of replayability and MP?

$50-60 would be worth it for me

I'm guessing this is the case.

 

[CrazedArabMan]

I got to say showing halo after that MW2 gameplay session was a bad move.

Not really MW2 didn't look all that great, I'm much more interested in ODST.

 

[Blackface]

$60 and you get new Halo game, even if it`s 5 hours, new maps for Halo 3, and into the Halo Reach MP beta.

That is more then worth the price tag.