Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

What if Infinite is not a massive success?

OP TRUe REDEMPTI0N

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3
GRNT WRK wrote:
Halo 1-3 are amazing. Reach doesn't even compare. Reach started us on the path Halo is on now, so no I don't see it as a good game. [CUT]
I never understood the comparisons of Reach towards H4/5 frankly. Aside the fact that HR was a spin-off/prequel in which you don't even play as a Spartan 2, so it's obvious it was intended to be different from the get-go... What Reach did wrong and what brought 343i Halos downfall are two complete different pairs of shoes. As such the paths both devs took a two clearly and distinct paths imho:

Reach was a classic Halo experience at its core with every "modern" feature added in a modular fashion through Armor Abilities. AAs are not part of the core movement set, those are sandbox elements and a direct evolution to equipment. It's "downfall" (it holed the top five spot for two years in the X360 charts, so downfall ain't the right adjective here imho, but still) was relegating to the implementation and nothing else. The new gimmick were bound to loadouts instead of map pick-ups in most playlists! Next issue was not visualizing what AA the player was holding, adding a level of randomness in a firefight (similar to the rockets in H2, if a player didn't equipped the SPNKR you didn't knew he he had it unlike future installments). It had other minor issues like bloom and an extremely restrictive strafe speed, but loadouts is what hurt its modular gameplay.

Halo 4 and 5 dropped that modular sandbox style completely. There, this is what 343i never understood and kept even now in Hi. Every new innovation and modernization was part of the core movement mechanics - or a set of personalized loadouts in H4, so the same mistake of Reach and than some plus sprint as a base mechanic, which uterly destroyed vehicle combat and made social playlist a mess. While Reach (a spin-off mind you) tried to add new mechanics in a manner that fits the arena gameplay of Halo, H4/5 just destroyed the sandbox and replaced it with advanced movement mechanics like every other console-twitch shooter out there.

Now I'm not trying to defend Reach, because it had its fair share of disappointing feature as well like I already said, but I think it's also dangerous to put it in the same category to 343i era Halos. Reach was a full Halo experience with bad mechanics, while the new dev never created a Halo game to begin with. And now Halo Infinite does the same mistake by adding sprint as a core mechanic as well as dashing, climb and so on. If it was like Reach without the mistakes Bungie did back in the day I would be happy! Reach as a blue-print is not a mistake at all, because the the idea itself works. It's the execution that failed!

My only hope at this point? The multiplayer isn't balanced around sprint, meaning it isn't activated in arena PvP modes, while the grappling hook is just an AA rather than an equipment and obviously not bound to loadouts -> you have to fight for it on the map! As a tool in the sandbox I completely accept it! If that's the case though we would already know at this point in time. 343i was adamant to call the hook an equipment for instance, even though it clearly functions like an AA. There fore I highly doubt we'll get a real Halo game in the multiplayer, the SP already is what I was afraid of though: a weird middle ground between Halo 4 and Halo 5 Guardians with a H3 paint-job over it. And that's why it will fail together with the 10 years plan. Unless they completely redeem themselves with future updates like other games pulled of, but not every story ended like Fortnight and No Man's Sky.
If Halo Infinite is NOT a massive success, it will prove not only that 343 needs to stop learning the wrong lessons from their mistakes, but also that the Halo community is truly at fault for ruining this franchise.
I'm not really following here.
What part exactly is the fault of the community?
Naqser wrote:
If Halo Infinite is NOT a massive success, it will prove not only that 343 needs to stop learning the wrong lessons from their mistakes, but also that the Halo community is truly at fault for ruining this franchise.
I'm not really following here.
What part exactly is the fault of the community?
Knowing exactly what we want I guess and making H5 fans angry when we disagree with their specific vision of an non-modular AMM Halo experience.

So yeah, it's not the communitie's fault, but it is a nice scapegoat for sure!
honestly, i don't think halo infinite will be a success. everything we've seen looks to me like an attempt to be like other successful games which are already out and not to be like a good halo game. also the focus on monetization and the 10 year life span lie we've already heard.

maybe a lot of people will check it out, but will drop it again quickly for the OG destiny (thats the vibe i get from infinite). a small core will stay but i think that will be about it.

i think the game will be more successful than most games, but not successful for a halo game, or any other AAA game.

i don't know what happens after that. i honestly do hope that 343i will be relieved from making halo games and can finally make the game they want without having to slap the halo titel on it. i think 343i could make a real good and successful new franchise, but i don't think they can make a good successful halo game (or maybe they don't want to)
I dislike everything I’ve seen from the game so I definitely hope it isn’t successful. I can’t think of a single thing I approve of for this game. Even the attempt at classic art style is a failure. 343 needs a massive shakeup.
Let me start off by saying that I do believe that Infinite will be a success, so do not worry. This is just on the crazy unlikely off chance that it may not be a massive success. Let's say that if Infinite isn't a huge seller (and it's budget is $500 mil like rumored), and doesn't have have a big online presence, what do you think will happen? These are a few ideas I think could be possible, and would be interested in seeing what you have to say. 1st possibility I see happening is that either 343 is completely reorganized, basically a totally reshuffling of the entire studio. Another possibility with this is having 1 of the other Xbox studios assume development of Halo. Another option I could also see them doing is deciding to sell the IP to another company. Finally, the last option I could see possibly happening is that they decide to cancel the games altogether, and continuing the story in the books. In the end, I don't think we'll have any of these options as I suspect it'll be a big success.
The IP will never be sold. They would sit on it and do nothing before selling. They could contract any other studio to make games for the IP though.
tsassi wrote:
Realistically, Halo 4 was not a massive success. Halo 5 was not a massive success. There is nothing indicating that Halo Infinite has any better chance of being a massive success than these two games. But, this also gives a hint of what will happen if the game isn't a massive success: probably nothing special. 343i will keep making Halo games. We won't hear about any changes in the studio that are out of the ordinary.

I sometimes feel like the Halo community hasn't gotten over the fact that Halo these days is just another shooter franchise. It's not breaking sales records or making headlines in mainstream news, and it won't remain massively popular a year after release. It hasn't done any of that in a decade. Microsoft and 343i are probably aware of that, and the boring truth is that they probably have some sort of realistic performance target that they have set based prior and expected performance, and unless they massively underperform that, things will just go on.

Finally, just to clarify, I'm not saying Halo Infinite won't be a success under some definition of "success". I'm definitely not saying it will be a failure. I'm saying it probably won't be a massive success under any reasonable defintion of "massive". If you believe Halo 5 was a success, then Halo Infinite will also most likely be a success.
Halo 4 sold 8 million in its first year and Halo 5 sold 5 million in its first year (on a dead console)

there may not be another halo as successful as 3 (14.5 million lifetime sales) but the series can keep chugging along fine
This is a surface level take that doesn’t really provide an useful analysis. Microsoft’s expectations are clearly significantly higher especially in halo 5s case as they expected it to move hardware for the Xbox one like halo CE , and halo 3 did. That did not happen at all.

also the very poor player retention both 4 and 5 had shows seriously diminished. Which has Huguenot implications for the player base going forward.

halo is much more important than just units sold to Microsoft. It’s an ambassador IP for their entire Xbox brand. And infinite clearly is not exciting people.
GRNT WRK wrote:
Halo 1-3 are amazing. Reach doesn't even compare. Reach started us on the path Halo is on now, so no I don't see it as a good game. [CUT]
I never understood the comparisons of Reach towards H4/5 frankly. Aside the fact that HR was a spin-off/prequel in which you don't even play as a Spartan 2, so it's obvious it was intended to be different from the get-go... What Reach did wrong and what brought 343i Halos downfall are two complete different pairs of shoes. As such the paths both devs took a two clearly and distinct paths imho:

Reach was a classic Halo experience at its core with every "modern" feature added in a modular fashion through Armor Abilities. AAs are not part of the core movement set, those are sandbox elements and a direct evolution to equipment. It's "downfall" (it holed the top five spot for two years in the X360 charts, so downfall ain't the right adjective here imho, but still) was relegating to the implementation and nothing else.
I agree with this. If they had been on the map as pickups then I think we could see them as an evolution to equipment, but having players choose which AA they wanted to spawn in with changed Halo.
Having every single player be able to choose what were basically power weapons/Pickups(OS/AC) off of spawn was a really bad move.
I think H4 having custom loadouts was the next step after that. You were already given the choice between having a Jetpack, Camo, or bloody Armor Lock off of spawn. I think if they had been treated as a blend of equipment and powerups then maybe H4 wouldn't have had loadouts and would have also had them as pickups. Maybe then we wouldn't have H5's charge, thrust, groundpound, etc.

I understand that Reach was always going to be different, but I think if Reach didn't change so much of what made Halo great in the first place then maybe we would be in a better spot right now. I give Halo 4 an easier go because it reversed a lot of the problems many players had with Reach like the movement speed, bleedthrough, bloom, etc.
GRNT WRK wrote:
GRNT WRK wrote:
Halo 1-3 are amazing. Reach doesn't even compare. Reach started us on the path Halo is on now, so no I don't see it as a good game. [CUT]
I never understood the comparisons of Reach towards H4/5 frankly. Aside the fact that HR was a spin-off/prequel in which you don't even play as a Spartan 2, so it's obvious it was intended to be different from the get-go... What Reach did wrong and what brought 343i Halos downfall are two complete different pairs of shoes. As such the paths both devs took a two clearly and distinct paths imho:

Reach was a classic Halo experience at its core with every "modern" feature added in a modular fashion through Armor Abilities. AAs are not part of the core movement set, those are sandbox elements and a direct evolution to equipment. It's "downfall" (it holed the top five spot for two years in the X360 charts, so downfall ain't the right adjective here imho, but still) was relegating to the implementation and nothing else.
I agree with this. If they had been on the map as pickups then I think we could see them as an evolution to equipment, but having players choose which AA they wanted to spawn in with changed Halo.
Having every single player be able to choose what were basically power weapons/Pickups(OS/AC) off of spawn was a really bad move.
I think H4 having custom loadouts was the next step after that. You were already given the choice between having a Jetpack, Camo, or bloody Armor Lock off of spawn. I think if they had been treated as a blend of equipment and powerups then maybe H4 wouldn't have had loadouts and would have also had them as pickups. Maybe then we wouldn't have H5's charge, thrust, groundpound, etc.

I understand that Reach was always going to be different, but I think if Reach didn't change so much of what made Halo great in the first place then maybe we would be in a better spot right now. I give Halo 4 an easier go because it reversed a lot of the problems many players had with Reach like the movement speed, bleedthrough, bloom, etc.
But H4 made far more mistakes than it made up for against Reach
If it were not to be a massive success, it would hardly be a surprise at this point. It will still make millions of dollars however because the amount of people who are educated as to what's really going on with this game's development ills in comparison to those who don't. This happens more often than not.

While it might not be as much of a success as Microsoft or 343 wish it to be, it will still be relatively successful more than likely. It's Halo. It's a household name.
Bungie made a lot of mistakes with Reach, but it was still an Arena Shooter as everyone had the same options to spawn as everyone else. 343 though actually took player feedback and then improved Reach with the TU. One of the major issues with Bungie's original version of Reach was having something like Armor Lock be a default spawn item for most gametypes, and so it needed some adjustments for balance.

If Armor Abilities like Camo, Jetpack, and Armor Lock were actually placed on maps instead of being default-tiered Abilities, then it would have been better for the game as a whole.

Though while 343 fixed up Reach, that extra step to custom loadouts witin H4 was one too far as Halo was no longer an Arena Shooter. Only worsened by allowing players to spawn with the "Noob Combo", a mini-shotgun (aka Boltshot), and wall-hacks (aka Promethean Vision). If 343 stuck with the game being an Arena Shooter instead of changing one of the fundamental pillars of Halo, then Halo 4 would have been received better (though the forerunner art style changes and the "wordy" announcer still are grating to me).

But then Halo 5 came out which went on the "P2W" bandwagon with Req Packs in Warzone, and now they're on the "let's make every ounce of cosmetics be locked behind a large grindwall for easy money". Never been a fan of supporting games that do either of those things, and I have a feeling I'm not alone in that regard, so unless 343 changes course, I can't see Infinite having a long lifespan. Doesn't matter if the multiplayer is "free", lots of games out there and I'd rather enjoy the ones that respect my time.
I'll be honest, I will ABSOLUTELY floored if Halo Infinite is a massive success. I measure success by selling mass amounts, having a huge population playing your game for many months, years even and being popular in the mainstream aka I can go to any public school and ask a kid about Halo and they know what I'm talking about because right now trust me when I say there's lots out there that don't even know what it is or have ever played it. Smashing sales records is always good too 🙃

Unless they do something mind-blowingly amazing in multiplayer (which could happen who knows...) I just don't see Infinite being a "massive success" at all. 343I have pretty much told their older fans that If they like Halo 1 to 3 style, just play MCC because they don't seem to be willing to go back to more of that style of Halo at all or even listen to those fans or if they do, it's very little. I'm not trying to be harsh here but I feel like that's the hard truth. I'm not just talking about the sprint animation either here (though admittingly that is a big issue) there's quite a few things. I think the game will do above average in sales and It will probably have a decent population after 3 months but nothing to write home about.

What I would like to happen if infinite doesn't meet expectations is for them to finally have some guts and make a Halo game that is more along the lines of what Halo was when it first started!!! Bring in people that also want to do this...and It's okay to add new things, actually we want new things!! lol but not things that drastically change how the game plays. Take Battle Royale for example. I'm not a big battle Royale player at all, But I could actually see that working in Halo. You could have maps that are big enough for that and double for big team battle. You don't need to make weapons that are specific to that mode so the weapons would work across the board and you can make all weapons map pickups still like how Halo should be, so no loadouts!! have equipment and vehicles on the maps aswell and so on. Yeah you are copying a trend per se but it's a trend that could fit into your game without changing how the game plays if you did it right and to me that's okay.....whereas something like Warzone completely changes how Halo plays and feels nothing like Halo!!! and use the whole pile of resources that were only for Warzone and nothing else in the game. So borrowing ideas from other games CAN BE okay as long as it doesn't change how your game plays at its core which in my opinion that's what 343 have done basically since taking over Halo, especially with their new modes they have always added.

I see a few promising things in Infinite but overall I think it's just going to be a tone down version of Halo 5. The rest of Infinite to me unfortunately just screams gimmicks, chasing trends and trying to please new fans while forgetting about the ones that made the series big in the first place I'm sorry to say. 343 / MS don't care if Halo's a top game or even one of the most popular, as long as they're making decent money that's all that matters to them and that's the sad truth unfortunately.
If it fails I'll be disappointed. If it's good I'll be happy. Though I don't have high hopes.
I suspect it will be like every halo game I've played since Reach: I'll play for a year or so until my friends grow tired of it then we look for something new. Halo CE and Halo 2 were probably the only ones that I played until the next game came out. I was so engrossed in Halo CE that I would even play multiplayer by myself almost everyday until the next planed LAN party, which was about once a month. A few of my friends and I would get together to do split screen a few times a week, but I played every day. I doubt a game will ever be as good as CE was, in my eyes.
I will honestly be blown away if the game is a massive success. I think it will do well, but not set any records or anything. Halo hasn't been on top in ages. Halo Infinite, with the bad press, criticized visuals despite being rumoured to have a massive budget, annoyed fans over the removal of armor colors, halo content creators moving on due to the content drought, and the games delay(which I'm not against) make it all hard to see this game coming off as a success. Maybe, just maybe, the low expectations will make Infinite this heroic underdog and will blow us all away. One can hope.
I was so engrossed in Halo CE that I would even play multiplayer by myself almost everyday until the next planed LAN party, which was about once a month.
How do you play multiplayer by yourself? Halo CE didn't have bots nor Xbox Live support.
Are you talking about XBC or XLink Kai, or did you really run around the maps alone?^^
Who knows, but one thing’s for sure. Regardless of how much lesser each title performs compared to the previous, in the end, Microsoft is making money. They will keep cranking them out, but I assume with Infinite 10 yr plan so they say, they’ve found some type of plan to crank out huge content worth being that long. Meaning entire campaign levels and new features my guess. They will keep chugging along fine, and Xbox will too. So our definitions of a successful Halo game doesn’t seem to hold as much weight as we’d like to think. They have deadlines and goals for success in the company, that’s always more realistic for them...it’s business
1
TweeFoThwee IndaTrees-“You are the Battle-scared veterans, seasoned and accomplished Halo fans, the heart, soul and will of the Franchise. But these are my games now, monetization and needless changes matter to me, your thoughts not.”

Halo Fans-“👁👄👁.”
Celestis wrote:
I was so engrossed in Halo CE that I would even play multiplayer by myself almost everyday until the next planed LAN party, which was about once a month.
How do you play multiplayer by yourself? Halo CE didn't have bots nor Xbox Live support.
Are you talking about XBC or XLink Kai, or did you really run around the maps alone?^^
I actually used to run around maps in CE,2 and even 3 a bit by myself lol I liked to learn the map, try new jumps, things like this. So I can definitely relate to BlueDevistator lol
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3