Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

Is Cyberpunk an Important Notice?

OP Imon Spartan

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 4
I don’t know, but I do find it weird that Halo games keep releasing at such awkward, sort of terrible times. Launch the new Halo with the new console like was done with Halo 3. Big success, especially if the game is at least decent . Much like 4 should’ve been a One title and 5 probably should’ve been the in-between (like H2) and then Infinite should come out with the Series X. I know it doesn’t matter much if they are taking it back to PC anyway, but still.
Halo 3 released two years after the 360. Your point still stands, especially with Halo 4, it was just that was bothering me more than it should have.

Back on topic, I feel like the Cyberpunk thing is being thrown way out of proportion and is ignoring the variety of successful cross-generation releases this year.

Assassins Creed Valhalla for example runs incredibly well on the Xbox One, keeping a stable 30fps and looking real pretty at the same time.
On the topic of Ubisoft, I’ve not heard much bad things about Immortals, and Watch_Dogs has more issues on Series X than the Xbox One.

Despite its shaky development, the new CoD runs fine and looks good on both generations.

Cyberpunk is definitely a warning but it’s also only one example. I feel like the issues with the game are on the devs, not the platforms it runs on.
You’re right. I guess I remember it feeling like the Xbox 360 wasn’t out until Halo 3 was out, because that’s when I actually bought it. Which probably lends itself to the point, that I think Halo and Xbox would mutually benefit from paired launches, with maybe 1-2 other games (or expansions if they’re really going for a “10 year” thing here”) coming out during a console life cycle.
From what I've experienced playing cyberpunk, the issue of poor graphics or frame rate isn't as big a problem as gameplay or the user interfaces.
Might be just me, but even the driving controls are terrible.
Cyberpunk is far from a finished project, and that scares me, not as much for halo as for the next elder scrolls game. (Hopefully that game and starfield won't be on Xbox one )
Could halo infinite with reduced graphics and frame rate still be a great game? Possibly, but can that be sustained as infinite ages?
I hate to agree, but maybe infinite should be next gen only, the Xbox one is a terrible console.
history shows those f2p systems existing in a 60 game regardless. No matter what, systems were going to be created in order to maximize potential spending over time while also holding onto player retention (the most important factor as player retention = player spending).
One form of corporate overreach does not justify another form of corporate overreach. "Eh corporation's are going to nickel and dime us anyways, might as well just roll over and accept it.
Quote:
Halo is not popular enough to do this with an upfront cost.
It will never not be weird to me that there are a number of Halo fans who are seemingly dedicated to going around telling other fans that "Halo isn't actually popular, with some going so far as to claim it never really was." The only outcome of this sort of rhetoric is whitewashing corporate avarice and absolving developers of all responsibility for the success of their own game.
Quote:
A f2p model is the best headstart a game can get and then retention becomes based on its existing systems (gameplay, modes, maps, free progression etc). Halo needs people to try it, it's not a COD level series anymore and it has to compete with other games with high player retention in the same genre that also have a low barrier for entry (warzone, Apex, fortnight etc). At the end of the day, Halos ability to retain players is the most important, and when put up again f2p multi-players, it's more difficult to even get people to try it. Ya cannot retain those who don't try it.
Its apparently not enough to have brand name of Xbox's mascot franchise, the marketing war chest of Microsoft and a $10 buy in to play not just Halo but a plethora of other games.

"Halo is not a COD level series anymore" 1.) Who said it has to be? There is plenty of room for absolutely massive success between Halo 3's peak and current COD without being a 1:1 peer of COD. 2.) We are still just ignoring the very real possibility that Halo isn't a "COD level series" anymore because the games simply are not as good as they used to be. The low barrier to entry won't mean squat when all these F2P live services demand so much time and energy that even players who do play and enjoy Infinite won't necessarily be able to dedicate any time to it when they and their friends are already invested in another F2P "live service."

If we really want the most player retention possible, I guess we better bring back lootboxes right? Nothing keeps players coming back like gambling addictions. But hey as long as the manipulative, greedy game design isn't quite as bad as another form of manipulative, greedy type of design I guess that means its justified right?
Quote:
People wave it off cause its not 2007. The gaming landscape is not the same and the view on multiplayer games is not the same.
The only thing that has demonstrably changed in the gaming is that the industry itself has gotten larger with more potential customers. Otherwise it hasn't really changed much, new trends have come and gone and industry keeps chasing new money making schemes. This is just the latest in a long line industry overreach
Quote:
The idea of one big game that everyone flocks too and consistently holds 1 mil players just does not happen.
This wasn't even true when Halo 3 was new. Once again Halo fans doing their best to downplay the success of their own franchise.
Quote:
Cyberpunk is prob the most recent example and that's an OUTLIER.
Most recent example of what? Incompetent management? Because that I would agree with.

P.S. Its time to stop pretending that the last gen consoles are at fault for the state of Cyberpunk that is on CDPR's management. Main sourceThey "didn't bother much with last gen consoles." Kind of difficult to deliver a solid console release if you don't put much effort into it. There was no "out of the ordinary pressure to release the game" They shoved it out the door with full knowledge of the state of the game before they needed to. They got by console certification with both Sony and MS hoping that CDPR would fix the game on release and they failed to do so.

Long story short, the cyberpunk debacle falls entirely on CDPR management and if Halo Infinite is a mess it is likely going to be the result of 343's management. Though I wouldn't be surprised to see both 343 and certain types of fans around here scapegoat the X1 version rather than talk about the studio's own failures.
WerepyreND wrote:
It will never not be weird to me that there are a number of Halo fans who are seemingly dedicated to going around telling other fans that "Halo isn't actually popular, with some going so far as to claim it never really was." The only outcome of this sort of rhetoric is whitewashing corporate avarice and absolving developers of all
responsibility for the success of their own game.
It isnt otherwise MCC would be huge when it comes to player base (on both pc and console). Its a fine healthy player base, but nowhere near where a series with the halo legacy should be. People look at halo and go "hey, I played that when i was a kid" or younger or whatever. At the end of the day, halo itself, while still holds a place in pop culture, it in itself is not super popular.
WerepyreND wrote:
Its apparently not enough to have brand name of Xbox's mascot franchise, the marketing war chest of Microsoft and a $10 buy in to play not just Halo but a plethora of other games.

"Halo is not a COD level series anymore" 1.) Who said it has to be? There is plenty of room for absolutely massive success between Halo 3's peak and current COD without being a 1:1 peer of COD. 2.) We are still just ignoring the very real possibility that Halo isn't a "COD level series" anymore because the games simply are not as good as they used to be. The low barrier to entry won't mean squat when all these F2P live services demand so much time and energy that even players who do play and enjoy Infinite won't necessarily be able to dedicate any time to it when they and their friends are already invested in another F2P "live service."

If we really want the most player retention possible, I guess we better bring back lootboxes right? Nothing keeps players coming back like gambling addictions. But hey as long as the manipulative, greedy game design isn't quite as bad as another form of manipulative, greedy type of design I guess that means its justified right?
Halo is MS flagship series as of now, they want it to be a popular and a series that's viewed on the level of its competitors. That benefits the player base as a whole given it means a stable and healthy player population. The key thing is making it so the things that made it popular (the systems I mentioned earlier) are all there. Halo is a community-driven series, always has been. In order for Halo to do well, it needs a community. In a gaming landscape where competition is high regarding shooters fighting for one's attention, what better way to attract people to your game than a low barrier for entry multiplayer game that provides its entire multiplayer suite for free (this includes all multiplayer modes, potentially forge, firefight etc emphasis on potentially though as we need to know more first). Is there potential for manipulation in f2p? Yep, but there is just as much potential in a fully priced game.
WerepyreND wrote:
The only thing that has demonstrably changed in the gaming is that the industry itself has gotten larger with more potential customers. Otherwise it hasn't really changed much, new trends have come and gone and industry keeps chasing new money making schemes. This is just the latest in a long line industry overreach
the entire business model has changed for gaming (or is starting too). Whether people want to like it or not, services (such as gamepass), longer supported games (you could argue live service but really that term doesnt even describe all versions of long supported titles), greater competition in the larger AAA and AA landscape, change in player views on worth when it comes to the price of a title etc. All of this is different then what it was in 2007 or 2012, hell even 2015.
WerepyreND wrote:
This wasn't even true when Halo 3 was new. Once again Halo fans doing their best to downplay the success of their own franchise.
then people should stop sharing the 1 mil image of h3 population to say "look its special" (more of a general complaint). I loved H3 but like come on.
WerepyreND wrote:
Most recent example of what? Incompetent management? Because that I would agree with.

no, everyone jumping to one game and having hundreds of thousands of players even 1 mil plus on at the same time on steam.
Tariq9898 wrote:
Let me ask a simple question...

Why support the Xbox One version if Halo Infinite is going to last 10 years?By the 2nd or 3rd year, everyone will have moved on from Xbox One to Series X/S. And by focusing purely on next gen consoles now, 343 will have a much higher chance of setting up a perfect masterpiece for 10 years. And not to mention, development will be much easier and less hectic on the developers. Which leads to healthier mindset, more inspiration, more passion, and overall better teamwork.Think long term success. Not short term.

As Dead End 24 said, Halo Infinite should be THE GAME that will get people to buy the Series X just like Halo Combat Evolved was the game that got people to buy the Xbox 20 years ago. What a perfect opportunity to mirror that!

I do not have anywhere near the money to buy the Series X anytime soon due to school tuition. But I know I will. And even I say 343 should drop the Xbox One version.

Maybe it's because I'm willing to set aside short term gratification and focus on long term gratification.
I couldn't agree more with this!!! Well said! I'll add, I also don't understand all the people that argue I'm not buying a system for one game. It always starts with one game!! Why do you think so many people bought Xbox in the first place!?!?!?! 😆

Then there's the classic I can't afford it...it should be on both. Well, start saving up money!! You've known for years now that Microsoft is bringing out a new system. Start budgeting for it. There's nothing to say that you have to get the system day one either. I didn't and won't be. "Oh but my friends got it day 1...well tough!!! In the past, I never got any system day one when I was younger as I couldn't afford them off the bat, yet most of my friends did (usually because of parents) My parents always said, you want something you have to save up enough money through working and get it. Budget your money, but most people don't. There's also plenty of jobs out there for people, but the problem is a lot of people in North America are too lazy and don't want to do them. They see those jobs as "beneath them" and I've seen this first hand, many, many times!!! It generally took me a YEAR or TWO to save up enough money when I was younger.

If there's a will there's a way. I know this first hand. Great post Tariq9898. I wish more people thought along your lines 👍
It isnt otherwise MCC would be huge when it comes to player base (on both pc and console). Its a fine healthy player base, but nowhere near where a series with the halo legacy should be. People look at halo and go "hey, I played that when i was a kid" or younger or whatever. At the end of the day, halo itself, while still holds a place in pop culture, it in itself is not super popular.
Its almost like famously broken ports of older games many players have already played to death isn't a good example of a franchise's populartiy. Halo 5 certainly isn't as popular as previous games, but by any reasonable human standard it is still a popular game. Of course by corporate standards if profits are not growing year on year at a greater and greater rate it is never enough, but I couldn't care less about unrealistic corporate expectations of infinite growth.
Quote:
Halo is MS flagship series as of now, they want it to be a popular and a series that's viewed on the level of its competitors. That benefits the player base as a whole given it means a stable and healthy player population. The key thing is making it so the things that made it popular (the systems I mentioned earlier) are all there. Halo is a community-driven series, always has been. In order for Halo to do well, it needs a community. In a gaming landscape where competition is high regarding shooters fighting for one's attention, what better way to attract people to your game than a low barrier for entry multiplayer game that provides its entire multiplayer suite for free (this includes all multiplayer modes, potentially forge, firefight etc emphasis on potentially though as we need to know more first). Is there potential for manipulation in f2p? Yep, but there is just as much potential in a fully priced game.
Again, you don't have to get every last possible player to have a incredible success and a healthy population without the drawbacks of especially manipulative microtransactions or the low barrier of entry for hackers. With how large the industry has gotten you don't even need to directly compete with or try to steal away anyone from the other successful shooters. This isn't a zero sum game with an inherently limited number of players to go around. And like I said, when you and all your competitors are following the same all consuming business model you won't have much crossover potential when every high profile release demands every last bit of your attention.
The risk for manipulative microtransactions is not the same in a full price title compared to a F2P, the standards are not the same. The fact that you are making the distinction between a full price game with MTX and a F2P game with MTX demonstrates this rather nicely That many in the industry have gone on to add F2P style mechanics into full price games is not a justification for going F2P, it is just another example of industry overreach. "Well they might try and exploit the playerbase anyway, so you should just get over and accept the industries new favorite reason to justify squeezing the playerbase for more cash."
Quote:
the entire business model has changed for gaming (or is starting too). Whether people want to like it or not, services (such as gamepass), longer supported games (you could argue live service but really that term doesnt even describe all versions of long supported titles), greater competition in the larger AAA and AA landscape, change in player views on worth when it comes to the price of a title etc. All of this is different then what it was in 2007 or 2012, hell even 2015.
Oh the business model is changing? Silly me I guess we just have to go ahead and accept it then. Just like we accepted Xbox changing its business model to be an always online console or how we just need to accept that the industry is changing its business model to rely on gambling mechanics. This is nothing but the same "well they're a business" cop out defense used to defend the aforementioned gambling mechanics and always online consoles and every other anti-consumer practice the industry has tried to put in place to varying degrees of success
Quote:
then people should stop sharing the 1 mil image of h3 population to say "look its special" (more of a general complaint). I loved H3 but like come on.
Its still relevant no matter how much you wish it wasn't. What I was pointing out is that there was never "one big game everyone flocks to" to begin with. There were higher profile games from studios with a pedigree like Bungie that got a lot of attention just like Cyberpunk, but that is just par for the course for the industry with big AAA releases, not some phenomenon unique to 2k's.
Quote:
no, everyone jumping to one game and having hundreds of thousands of players even 1 mil plus on at the same time on steam.
I know what you meant, its just funny when you sink your own case by bringing up the success of a full price single player game with no microtransactions. Still weird how some Halo fans insist Halo can't possibly be an exception to whatever "standards" they seem to think exist.
There have been plenty of great looking expansive games on the older systems. But Cyberpunk definitely opened up my eyes to the possibility of a game being so atrociously optimized that the game just doesn't work. I hope that 343 doesn't make the same mistake. I suppose only time will tell
Tariq9898 wrote:
Let me ask a simple question...

Why support the Xbox One version if Halo Infinite is going to last 10 years?By the 2nd or 3rd year, everyone will have moved on from Xbox One to Series X/S. And by focusing purely on next gen consoles now, 343 will have a much higher chance of setting up a perfect masterpiece for 10 years. And not to mention, development will be much easier and less hectic on the developers. Which leads to healthier mindset, more inspiration, more passion, and overall better teamwork.Think long term success. Not short term.

As Dead End 24 said, Halo Infinite should be THE GAME that will get people to buy the Series X just like Halo Combat Evolved was the game that got people to buy the Xbox 20 years ago. What a perfect opportunity to mirror that!

I do not have anywhere near the money to buy the Series X anytime soon due to school tuition. But I know I will. And even I say 343 should drop the Xbox One version.

Maybe it's because I'm willing to set aside short term gratification and focus on long term gratification.
It always starts with one game!! Why do you think so many people bought Xbox in the first place!?!?!?! 😆
For sure. It always starts with one game. I bought my PS4 for Nioh, I bought an N64 for Super Mario 64, I bought my Series X for The Medium and games like CyberPunk 2077 because I wanted a better performing version of it and so on. I think 2021 is a perfect opportunity to launch Halo Infinite as a Series X / S console exclusive and commemorate the 20th anniversary of Halo.

The Xbox One is not good enough anymore. I can see it being ok for streaming X Cloud in the future, but there are already games on the way that are PC and Series X / S only, and it's because last gen is not powerful enough for some titles. The Xbox One was a terrible console with an even worse reveal. The sooner it's dropped the better imo, it has consistently delivered the worst optomised version of every game this gen, in both first a and 3rd party.

It will be another year older by the time Halo Infinite drops.
If 343i thinks this will improve the product, then I am 100% for it.
If Infinite was another typical Halo game that lasts for 3-4 years before Halo 7, I may have been okay with it being on Xbox One.

But since 343 really wants Infinite to last 10 years (which is high level goal), then allowing it to be exclusively on next gen consoles will increase the chance of success in the long run.

The 10 year plan is most definitely possible. But is 343 willing to sacrifice highly to achieve greatly?
Tariq9898 wrote:
If Infinite was another typical Halo game that lasts for 3-4 years before Halo 7, I may have been okay with it being on Xbox One.

But since 343 really wants Infinite to last 10 years (which is high level goal), then allowing it to be exclusively on next gen consoles will increase the chance of success in the long run.

The 10 year plan is most definitely possible. But is 343 willing to sacrifice highly to achieve greatly?
I still want to fully understand the statement 343 made that Halo Infinite will be a ten-year game:

1) Will it be like Destiny's "ten-year game" that simply had another sequel game come a few years later?

or

2) Will it be a stand-alone game that sink-or-swim will remain the primary and only mainline Halo title for the next ten years?

- It seems too ambitious to assume the game has the ability to last ten years, though I could get down with it if they pull it off.
With what we're seeing from cyberpunk, I think there is almost no chance at all that that local coop in Infinite on the vanilla Xbox One will be playable...
C0RRuPTT wrote:
Tariq9898 wrote:
If Infinite was another typical Halo game that lasts for 3-4 years before Halo 7, I may have been okay with it being on Xbox One.

But since 343 really wants Infinite to last 10 years (which is high level goal), then allowing it to be exclusively on next gen consoles will increase the chance of success in the long run.

The 10 year plan is most definitely possible. But is 343 willing to sacrifice highly to achieve greatly?
I still want to fully understand the statement 343 made that Halo Infinite will be a ten-year game:

1) Will it be like Destiny's "ten-year game" that simply had another sequel game come a few years later?

or

2) Will it be a stand-alone game that sink-or-swim will remain the primary and only mainline Halo title for the next ten years?

- It seems too ambitious to assume the game has the ability to last ten years, though I could get down with it if they pull it off.
I do too! I wish they would explain there 10 year plan a little more, but being secretive seems to be 343I thing. Even though they keep saying they're going to be more transparent with us all the time and in every community update... 🙄 LoL
There probably isn't much to tell because any plans past maybe year 2(and that's pushing it) are total vaporware. About the only thing they could conceivably promise is "we won't turn off the servers before 10 years have passed." Other than that the potential for radical change in plans is so great that announcing anything more concrete would likely end up burning them down the road.

To be honest the even talking about a "10 year plan" before the game is even released is ill advised. They could have been more less specific and just stated they plan to support Infinite long term.

Who's to say whether the community at large will even want to be playing Infinite 10 years down the line? If Cyberpunk is a notice of anything, its that bad management can cause even the most promising projects to fall flat on their face. The possibility that Infinite is bad/broken is not zero, its not even especially low considering it seemed like they were going to go ahead with releasing Infinite in such a state before the public backlash. Delay's don't guarentee a good, more or less bug free game.

I don't think that trying to preserve the "10 year plan" is worth cutting off last gen support when the 10 year plan is so uncertain to begin with.
i think 343 needs to learn some good things about the big fail launch off Cyberpunk.
that there not can make the same mistake and bring a game out with a lot off bug's.
for me i like to see that Halo Infinite gets a other 1 year delay that it will be release in 2022 and not in 2021 to make sure that the big problems we see now with cyberpunk not will get a replay with halo.
and that it will become only next gen game only and not cant play on the xbox one then i am happy more if there gone delay it again for a year to make sure that there are no big problems at launch like we all have see with cyberpunk now and not forget the big fail launch off halo MCC
WerepyreND wrote:
There probably isn't much to tell because any plans past maybe year 2(and that's pushing it) are total vaporware. About the only thing they could conceivably promise is "we won't turn off the servers before 10 years have passed." Other than that the potential for radical change in plans is so great that announcing anything more concrete would likely end up burning them down the road.

To be honest the even talking about a "10 year plan" before the game is even released is ill advised. They could have been more less specific and just stated they plan to support Infinite long term.

Who's to say whether the community at large will even want to be playing Infinite 10 years down the line? If Cyberpunk is a notice of anything, its that bad management can cause even the most promising projects to fall flat on their face. The possibility that Infinite is bad/broken is not zero, its not even especially low considering it seemed like they were going to go ahead with releasing Infinite in such a state before the public backlash. Delay's don't guarentee a good, more or less bug free game.

I don't think that trying to preserve the "10 year plan" is worth cutting off last gen support when the 10 year plan is so uncertain to begin with.
I'm not sure how worried I am about the 10 year plan. I think it's hard to compare Infinite's "10 year plan" approach to other games who have declared similar desires, because Infinite's revenue model is going to be so different.

The easiest comparison is Destiny and how it went to Destiny 2 within just a few years. But this comparison fails apart in my minds skiboat immediately because of Infinite's free-to-play model.

I think the free-to-play setup for Infinite gives it a much higher chance to sustain a long term population without needing a complete game reset.
Marcin Iwinski, co-founder of CD Projekt Red, released a video where he touched on some of the things that went wrong with Cyberpunk 2077. Specifically, he mentioned the unexpected difficulties of crafting a next-gen experience and porting it to last-gen hardware. Might be worth a watch.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/cyberpunk-2077-studio-co-founder-releases-a-personal-explanation-about-what-happened/1100-6486275/
Oakspear wrote:
Marcin Iwinski, co-founder of CD Projekt Red, released a video where he touched on some of the things that went wrong with Cyberpunk 2077. Specifically, he mentioned the unexpected difficulties of crafting a next-gen experience and porting it to last-gen hardware. Might be worth a watch.
Lazy link here. It's an intersting read, there's a video too. I'm not sure if Halo Infinite will have the same issue but it might. The base Xbox One is limited but it depends how the game is designed. I firmly believe Halo Infinite is having similar issues though, but that's just my opinion.
I'm for dropping Xbox One Version of Infinite. It can't push the Series X if the core mechanics have to work on a console that's 7/8 years old.

CyberPunk is a stark warning.... and if Infinite tanks/ has a similar launch - the warning was clear as day...
eviltedi wrote:
Oakspear wrote:
Marcin Iwinski, co-founder of CD Projekt Red, released a video where he touched on some of the things that went wrong with Cyberpunk 2077. Specifically, he mentioned the unexpected difficulties of crafting a next-gen experience and porting it to last-gen hardware. Might be worth a watch.
Lazy link here. It's an intersting read, there's a video too. I'm not sure if Halo Infinite will have the same issue but it might. The base Xbox One is limited but it depends how the game is designed. I firmly believe Halo Infinite is having similar issues though, but that's just my opinion.
A lot of defenders of a Xbox One release for Halo Infinite contend that since the Xbox One is the "base" console for the game, it shouldn't have any problems running on both Xbox One and Xbox Series X.

However, I don't know if that still holds true. Halo Infinite has had a long development cycle and the Xbox Series X is clearly Microsoft's flagship console now; 343 could have shifted to Series X as their baseline platform. But that's just speculation on my part.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 4