Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

It's my money and ill spend it on what I want

OP HellJumper2397

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. ...
  6. 5
So I just watched a video by B something FTW saying don't preorder Halo 5. I've watched a few of his videos and their basically all the same but he said something like if you preorder Halo 5 then you hate halo and we need to save the MCC first. NO. I'lll preorder Halo 5 because I like what I've seen and played from the beta. I don't even play Halo for the mp I play for the story and so far 343 have done a good job. So I am going to preorder Halo 5 not because I hate Halo but because I love it.

I'm as tempted to pre-order as anyone. I have had special editions in the past, I've been a Halo fanatic since 2002, I love all of the books and games, and I want a nice, fancy special edition to add to my collection. It's my prerogative!

But you people are missing the point.

The game industry has changed from a model of "ship a finished game" to "make the most money" regardless of what condition the game is in when it "goes Gold". We need to have principles and standards by communicating with our money that we do not support this business model. You know who loses? Consumers. Especially those with little or no internet who just want to be able to put the disc in an play on day one.

No, you don't have to listen. Yes, it is your right to pre-order. Just know that when you pre-order (at this time in the gaming industry – not in general), you are undermining the influence that the gaming community has to stop this new business model and demand quality. You are giving publishers and studios the green light to continue putting the consumer experience second to profits.

You can pretend that all of these issues don't exist, that your gaming experience is the only one that matters, that as long as you personally don't have "too many issues" with the game when it launches then it doesn't matter... but it does.

Here's a comparison. If it became public knowledge that Walmart knowingly sold children's toys containing lead-based paint, people would start boycotting Walmart. If you then came along and said, "Hey, I don't have a child. I wasn't affected," how do you think the parents of the affected children would react? Even if you were able to prove that there weren't any other products sold by Walmart with lead-based paint, your continued financial support of Walmart would be enabling at best and selfish at worst.

Obviously, this is a much more extreme example (I don't think anyone got sick from the MCC, except for going insane), but the principal stands.

Stop enabling abuse of consumers, even if you personally weren't heavily affected by the MCC's myriad of problems. Stop scrambling to consume every bit of "bonus" that vendors/publishers are giving you for paying them early without thinking of the consequences.

No doubt many will disagree with me (especially those emotionally attached to their precious pre-orders), but it has to be said.

*prepares for "DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO"-based arguments*
The problem is that people are just not taking into consideration some of the long term affects of this standard of preordering and instead buy the game out of loyalty to the game and not really out of the knowledge of its quality. I'm seriously tired of those arguments stating that they have no control over those who want to preorder but those people completely miss the point. I truly feel that people say this just to convince themselves that the purchase or preorder was a well worth investment and something completely rendered useless. You may have to prepare for those that continuously deny your claim but I will be at your side always.
TryHardFan wrote:
So I just watched a video by B something FTW saying don't preorder Halo 5. I've watched a few of his videos and their basically all the same but he said something like if you preorder Halo 5 then you hate halo and we need to save the MCC first. NO. I'lll preorder Halo 5 because I like what I've seen and played from the beta. I don't even play Halo for the mp I play for the story and so far 343 have done a good job. So I am going to preorder Halo 5 not because I hate Halo but because I love it.


I'm as tempted to pre-order as anyone. I have had special editions in the past, I've been a Halo fanatic since 2002, I love all of the books and games, and I want a nice, fancy special edition to add to my collection. It's my prerogative!

But you people are missing the point.

The game industry has changed from a model of "ship a finished game" to "make the most money" regardless of what condition the game is in when it "goes Gold". We need to have principles and standards by communicating with our money that we do not support this business model. You know who loses? Consumers. Especially those with little or no internet who just want to be able to put the disc in an play on day one.

No, you don't have to listen. Yes, it is your right to pre-order. Just know that when you pre-order (at this time in the gaming industry – not in general), you are undermining the influence that the gaming community has to stop this new business model and demand quality. You are giving publishers and studios the green light to continue putting the consumer experience second to profits.

You can pretend that all of these issues don't exist, that your gaming experience is the only one that matters, that as long as you personally don't have "too many issues" with the game when it launches then it doesn't matter... but it does.

Here's a comparison. If it became public knowledge that Walmart knowingly sold children's toys containing lead-based paint, people would start boycotting Walmart. If you then came along and said, "Hey, I don't have a child. I wasn't affected," how do you think the parents of the affected children would react? Even if you were able to prove that there weren't any other products sold by Walmart with lead-based paint, your continued financial support of Walmart would be enabling at best and selfish at worst.

Obviously, this is a much more extreme example (I don't think anyone got sick from the MCC, except for going insane), but the principal stands.

Stop enabling abuse of consumers, even if you personally weren't heavily affected by the MCC's myriad of problems. Stop scrambling to consume every bit of "bonus" that vendors/publishers are giving you for paying them early without thinking of the consequences.

No doubt many will disagree with me (especially those emotionally attached to their precious pre-orders), but it has to be said.

*prepares for "DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO"-based arguments*

The problem is that people are just not taking into consideration some of the long term affects of this standard of preordering and instead buy the game out of loyalty to the game and not really out of the knowledge of its quality. I'm seriously tired of those arguments stating that they have no control over those who want to preorder but those people completely miss the point. I truly feel that people say this just to convince themselves that the purchase or preorder was a well worth investment and something completely rendered useless. You may have to prepare for those that continuously deny your claim

>>>>>but I will be at your side always.<<<<<
bit.ly/1G68rAP
Dragnet 38 wrote:
Dragnet 38 wrote:
I'd like to add that I read your links. The first one can hardly be taken as fact; it's one of the most blatantly biased things I've ever read. The graphs may or may not be correct, but the fact that writer can't go two lines without slandering 343/MS really tanks his credibility. Also, custom games were definitely horrible in Halo 4. To be fair though, custom games pretty much died with Reach anyway. At least for my friends group they did. Gaming as a whole has gotten to the point where very few people want to play custom matches on any game simply because it doesn't help them "progress" - there aren't any ranks or unlocks or any tangible reason to play customs. It really is a shame that most people don't want to just play a game to have fun anymore, they need to be rewarded for playing.


It's not bias at all. The writer objectively listed the events during Halo 4's downfall and his "slandering" was a direct response to the 343's total ineptitude to support the game after launch. More than enough reason to get angry was given


There is a difference between a game not being the supported the way that you want it to, and it not being supported at all. 343 constantly supported Halo 4 by nerving/buffing guns, changing playlists, adding custom community maps to matchmaking, and fixing other gameplay issues like glitches/bugs. I had a lot more fun playing Halo 4 multiplayer a year after it came out than I did right after it was released.

The writer was looking for any and all reasons to bash 343/MS, whether founded or unfounded, and never once mentioned anything good that they did. That's the definition of biased.



Bro,

It took them 3 months to fix the Boltshot, 7 months to release a title update for global weapon balancing and in the realm of 9 months to release frigging 1-Flag CTF (which was the only alleviation Custom games ever got). This is far from being a shining example of post launch support.


I had a lot more fun playing Halo 4 multiplayer a year after it came out than I did right after it was released.


^Isn't that exactly my case in point?

As for the writer, his article was specifically about the DOWNFALL of Halo 4. The entire purpose was to pinpoint the issues with Halo 4 and 343, hold them accountable and berate them for it.


1. I never said it was "the shining example of post-game support". I just said that you can't claim that they didn't support it, which you were trying to do.

2. I suppose I just have more patience with video games than some other people do. I don't mind if a game's multiplayer doesn't work flawlessly at launch. I realize that in this day and age, that will likely never happen for any video game. I'm completely fine with waiting a few months for the multiplayer to be fully functional, as long as I have campaign/co-op to keep me busy.

3. Whether the information was correct or incorrect, he presented it in a slanderous, offensive, one-sided manner, which is the exact definition of biased. If he would have written a calm and logical article, I would have taken him more seriously. This the last time I will address this particular point, because if I haven't convinced you that he is biased, then there is likely nothing I could say to make you think he is. So it's not worth continuing to talk about.
1. I said that they were inept at supporting the game, not that they didn't do it at all.

2. If you are completely fine, or in fact think its acceptable to release a game that is woefully inadequate then you are part of the problem.

3.If the article was about discussing Halo 4 in general (positives and negatives), it would be bias. If the article has a specific purpose to discuss the shortcomings of Halo 4, it's not bias. How you fail at comprehending this simple principle is beyond me.
If people really want to send a message to developers about their games, don't buy a game on day one. Wait to see if there are problems before purchasing. The problem though is that in order to know if there are problems, you do need people to have bought the game on day one....seems a bit of a catch 22
JV11077 wrote:
Wolf S305 wrote:
In all honesty I hate BDobbinsFTW solely because he's a biased -Yoink-. Now I'm perfectly fine with certain people not wanting to buy Halo 5 after the MCC issues but for the love of god don't force consumers what to buy and not to buy. They rightfully earned the cash and not him hence making it their decision and not his.

His video's titles are very misleading. But I watched the whole thing and he brought up some very interesting and important points. It's just the titles he uses are click bait (Which isn't a good strategy because it makes him lose credibility).
Everyone's entitled to their own opinions dude and I highly respect yours. As much as I respect 343 I understand there is still a lot of work needed to be done with MCC. Now I'm not meaning to offend those who do like him but in my eyes he's just milking views through bad videogame launches and issues with MCC being the prime example.
L377UC3 wrote:
Wolf S305 wrote:
In all honesty I hate BDobbinsFTW solely because he's a biased -Yoink-. Now I'm perfectly fine with certain people not wanting to buy Halo 5 after the MCC issues but for the love of god don't force consumers what to buy and not to buy. They rightfully earned the cash and not him hence making it their decision and not his.

Yeah. He's an entertainer. That's what he does. Of course he's biased. His videos are 45 minute (well-spoken) forum posts with swearing and gameplay and audio. He's not really forcing anyone to do very much of anything. The only power you give him is what you do with your wallet.

He's an activist, not a news outlet. He's biased because he has opinions. He has subscribers because people agree.
I understand there is going to be people who do like him but persoanly I don't and you do. However as ever I respect the views and opinions of others including your own.
TryHardFan wrote:
Quote:
Don't get me wrong about the population drop and general dislike of Halo 4. I do think the population suffered more than should have, and I know that an uncomfortably large amount of people were disappointed with Halo 4. The point that I was trying to make, however, was that I don't think it's fair to put Halo 4's population charts up against say Halo 3's population charts. The gaming industry is not what it was in 2007, and neither are gamers. There are a lot of reasons that a game loses population, not all of them leading to the conclusion that the game was a colossal failure. I also am not trying to measure its success by profits, I was just using that as an objective example of how the game was not a failure. Plenty of games are bad, yet still make money (looking at you, CoD). We all know CoD is terrible, but a lot of people still play/buy it every year and they always turn a profit. I say that CoD cannot be classified as a failure because they still make money and people still play their games. I wasn't using profits as an excuse, merely as an attempt to bring some objectivity into the discussion
I do agree that the quit penalties cannot be too strict, or they will lose players. But as I said (and as you agreed), it is too early to judge yet.
So now we're on the same page with BF4 and Destiny. BF4 was just as bad as MCC, and Destiny was really bad but they got their crap together a lot faster.
As far as "punishing 343 for the MCC's launch" goes, I don't agree. They shouldn't be punished for a botched launch, because it was fixed. It took a really long time, which sucked, but it is fixed. I don't think it's fair of us, the community, to punish 343 for a mistake they made and subsequently rectified. MCC still has work to be done and tweaks to be made, but the game is in an overall working state. Like I had said previously, if MCC was still broken, I probably wouldn't have Halo 5 pre-ordered yet. But since it works, and I enjoy playing it nearly every day, I have no qualms about throwing my money at 343 for the next installment of my favorite series.


I seriously cannot wrap my mind of how you consider the amount of feedback given from players for halo 4 and population drops are subjective compared to preorder and sales numbers. The statistics are just as real as anything, so I am truly confused as to why you think population drops and the amount of negative feedback is not considered an objective claim. Also, I think its completely fair to compare halo 4 to halo 3, as halo 3 went up against mass effect, cod 4 and assassins creed, and managed to remain the most played game on xbl a year after release. Halo 4, on the other hand could not maintain a consistent population for just 2 months, and the biggest reason why is that halo 4 strayed away from the foundation or gameplay formula that was already laid out. 343 completely went against equal starts and rendered fighting for power weapons useless because of ordinance killstreaks.

Also, with the fact of not preordering halo 5, this isn't as a means to get back or punish 343 for the mistakes they made. Rather, it is about making halo better because whether you are pro 343 or anti 343, both sides are ultimately pro halo and want the franchise to be as best as it can possibly be. If it means boycotting halo 5 or just simply not preordering the sequel, then so be it, because nothing hurts the company more than bad preorder numbers and it is the biggest protest we can make as a consumer to make 343 earn money by not trying to cut costs, but by creating an awesome game, and by that I mean taking shortcuts and cutting content out of the original game to be resold as dlc. It is nothing by any means as a sort of a personal issue but the gaming industry is suffering more and more by greedy and ultimately harmful acts of earning money in the short term, and it's up to the consumer to put an end to that nonsense.
I never said that the population drop itself was subjective. I just said that population drop cannot be your only argument for Halo 4 being a failure. Only a fool would try to argue that Halo 4's population didn't drop - because of course it did. As far as Halo 3 going up against mass effect, CoD4, and assassin's creed: two of those are purely single player games, and strictly single player games do not [permanently] pull population away from another game's multiplayer. But as I had stated previously, the gaming industry is different. Halo 3 came out in 2007, and the gaming industry changed a lot between then and Halo 4's release in 2012. The part where population drop becomes subjective is when you try to start blaming the drop on specific reasons. Like when you said it was because 343 didn't follow the formula. I'm sure some people did stop playing because of that, but certainly not all of them. I know I contributed to the population drop, but not because I didn't like the game. I went off to school and didn't have time to play any video games. There are a lot of variables which can make a game's population go down, so to blame it entirely on 343's refusal to make Halo 2.5 is just silly.

I guarantee you that not preordering Halo 5 is not going to have any effect on the game's development. 343 doesn't even get the money from preorders until the game releases, so it can't be about depriving them of profits. Bad preorder numbers do not hurt the company. To slap some simple, arbitrary numbers on to it: If a game sells 250 copies at launch, it doesn't matter if it had 200 preorders or 5 preorders, because it still sold 250 copies. If anything, completely boycotting the game is the only way to actually hurt the company. I'm sure I speak for a lot of people when I say that I'm not going to boycott Halo 5 because a handful of purists are upset about sprint, or because MCC had a rocky start. I've said over and over that if MCC was still broken, I would reconsider my preorder. But MCC works and I enjoy it, so I don't see the issue with having Halo 5 preordered. As far as I know, Halo has never actually cut content from the main game to create paid DLC. I think Battlefield and Destiny are probably the biggest offenders as far as that's concerned. Halo 4 was the first Halo that even had a "season pass" (which I don't approve of, by the way), but the game offered a complete experience without it, unlike Battlefield and Destiny. Having heard nothing about a Halo 5 season pass or DLC plan of any kind, I can only hope that it stays that way. Pre-planned paid DLC is what's really ruining video games.

EDIT: I'd like to add that if we're going to continue to talk about this, we should probably stop talking about Halo 4. We clearly don't - and aren't going to - agree, and it's not really important to the main subject of whether or not to preorder Halo 5 anyway. I suggest we try to keep the discussion to MCC and Halo 5. Does that sound reasonable to you?
Dragnet 38 wrote:
Dragnet 38 wrote:
Dragnet 38 wrote:
I'd like to add that I read your links. The first one can hardly be taken as fact; it's one of the most blatantly biased things I've ever read. The graphs may or may not be correct, but the fact that writer can't go two lines without slandering 343/MS really tanks his credibility. Also, custom games were definitely horrible in Halo 4. To be fair though, custom games pretty much died with Reach anyway. At least for my friends group they did. Gaming as a whole has gotten to the point where very few people want to play custom matches on any game simply because it doesn't help them "progress" - there aren't any ranks or unlocks or any tangible reason to play customs. It really is a shame that most people don't want to just play a game to have fun anymore, they need to be rewarded for playing.


It's not bias at all. The writer objectively listed the events during Halo 4's downfall and his "slandering" was a direct response to the 343's total ineptitude to support the game after launch. More than enough reason to get angry was given


There is a difference between a game not being the supported the way that you want it to, and it not being supported at all. 343 constantly supported Halo 4 by nerving/buffing guns, changing playlists, adding custom community maps to matchmaking, and fixing other gameplay issues like glitches/bugs. I had a lot more fun playing Halo 4 multiplayer a year after it came out than I did right after it was released.

The writer was looking for any and all reasons to bash 343/MS, whether founded or unfounded, and never once mentioned anything good that they did. That's the definition of biased.



Bro,

It took them 3 months to fix the Boltshot, 7 months to release a title update for global weapon balancing and in the realm of 9 months to release frigging 1-Flag CTF (which was the only alleviation Custom games ever got). This is far from being a shining example of post launch support.


I had a lot more fun playing Halo 4 multiplayer a year after it came out than I did right after it was released.


^Isn't that exactly my case in point?

As for the writer, his article was specifically about the DOWNFALL of Halo 4. The entire purpose was to pinpoint the issues with Halo 4 and 343, hold them accountable and berate them for it.


1. I never said it was "the shining example of post-game support". I just said that you can't claim that they didn't support it, which you were trying to do.

2. I suppose I just have more patience with video games than some other people do. I don't mind if a game's multiplayer doesn't work flawlessly at launch. I realize that in this day and age, that will likely never happen for any video game. I'm completely fine with waiting a few months for the multiplayer to be fully functional, as long as I have campaign/co-op to keep me busy.

3. Whether the information was correct or incorrect, he presented it in a slanderous, offensive, one-sided manner, which is the exact definition of biased. If he would have written a calm and logical article, I would have taken him more seriously. This the last time I will address this particular point, because if I haven't convinced you that he is biased, then there is likely nothing I could say to make you think he is. So it's not worth continuing to talk about.


1. I said that they were inept at supporting the game, not that they didn't do it at all.

2. If you are completely fine, or in fact think its acceptable to release a game that is woefully inadequate then you are part of the problem.

3.If the article was about discussing Halo 4 in general (positives and negatives), it would be bias. If the article has a specific purpose to discuss the shortcomings of Halo 4, it's not bias. How you fail at comprehending this simple principle is beyond me.
1. If the game was completely fixed with regards to balance and glitch issues within a few months, I don't see how that is "ineptitude".

2. I used the wrong phrasing before. I'm not so much "okay" with it as I am "accustomed" to it. Every game for every franchise is broken at launch nowadays, and I think it has more to do with the cloud-operating parts of the games and how they interact with the hundreds of thousands of players worldwide, rather than the actual pre-launch work that the developer put in. The achilles heel of modern gaming and the cloud technology is that some problems just can't be detected until everybody is playing it at home on their consoles. I prefer to just find something else to do until it works, because that's easier than bashing my brains out against the wall in frustration. I'm not much for multiplayer anyway, so it doesn't kill me to not be able to play for a few months, as long as the story/co-op works.

3. Again, I'm done with this subject. I suggest you look up the definition of "bias" and maybe search for some examples on the internet so you can get a better understanding of what it actually means. Fair warning, anything else you post about that article will be completely ignored on my end. It's pointless to argue about something that neither side is going to budge on.
Dragnet 38 wrote:
Dragnet 38 wrote:
Dragnet 38 wrote:
I'd like to add that I read your links. The first one can hardly be taken as fact; it's one of the most blatantly biased things I've ever read. The graphs may or may not be correct, but the fact that writer can't go two lines without slandering 343/MS really tanks his credibility. Also, custom games were definitely horrible in Halo 4. To be fair though, custom games pretty much died with Reach anyway. At least for my friends group they did. Gaming as a whole has gotten to the point where very few people want to play custom matches on any game simply because it doesn't help them "progress" - there aren't any ranks or unlocks or any tangible reason to play customs. It really is a shame that most people don't want to just play a game to have fun anymore, they need to be rewarded for playing.


It's not bias at all. The writer objectively listed the events during Halo 4's downfall and his "slandering" was a direct response to the 343's total ineptitude to support the game after launch. More than enough reason to get angry was given


There is a difference between a game not being the supported the way that you want it to, and it not being supported at all. 343 constantly supported Halo 4 by nerving/buffing guns, changing playlists, adding custom community maps to matchmaking, and fixing other gameplay issues like glitches/bugs. I had a lot more fun playing Halo 4 multiplayer a year after it came out than I did right after it was released.

The writer was looking for any and all reasons to bash 343/MS, whether founded or unfounded, and never once mentioned anything good that they did. That's the definition of biased.



Bro,

It took them 3 months to fix the Boltshot, 7 months to release a title update for global weapon balancing and in the realm of 9 months to release frigging 1-Flag CTF (which was the only alleviation Custom games ever got). This is far from being a shining example of post launch support.


I had a lot more fun playing Halo 4 multiplayer a year after it came out than I did right after it was released.


^Isn't that exactly my case in point?

As for the writer, his article was specifically about the DOWNFALL of Halo 4. The entire purpose was to pinpoint the issues with Halo 4 and 343, hold them accountable and berate them for it.


1. I never said it was "the shining example of post-game support". I just said that you can't claim that they didn't support it, which you were trying to do.

2. I suppose I just have more patience with video games than some other people do. I don't mind if a game's multiplayer doesn't work flawlessly at launch. I realize that in this day and age, that will likely never happen for any video game. I'm completely fine with waiting a few months for the multiplayer to be fully functional, as long as I have campaign/co-op to keep me busy.

3. Whether the information was correct or incorrect, he presented it in a slanderous, offensive, one-sided manner, which is the exact definition of biased. If he would have written a calm and logical article, I would have taken him more seriously. This the last time I will address this particular point, because if I haven't convinced you that he is biased, then there is likely nothing I could say to make you think he is. So it's not worth continuing to talk about.


1. I said that they were inept at supporting the game, not that they didn't do it at all.

2. If you are completely fine, or in fact think its acceptable to release a game that is woefully inadequate then you are part of the problem.

3.If the article was about discussing Halo 4 in general (positives and negatives), it would be bias. If the article has a specific purpose to discuss the shortcomings of Halo 4, it's not bias. How you fail at comprehending this simple principle is beyond me.


1. If the game was completely fixed with regards to balance and glitch issues within a few months, I don't see how that is "ineptitude".

2. I used the wrong phrasing before. I'm not so much "okay" with it as I am "accustomed" to it. Every game for every franchise is broken at launch nowadays, and I think it has more to do with the cloud-operating parts of the games and how they interact with the hundreds of thousands of players worldwide, rather than the actual pre-launch work that the developer put in. The achilles heel of modern gaming and the cloud technology is that some problems just can't be detected until everybody is playing it at home on their consoles. I prefer to just find something else to do until it works, because that's easier than bashing my brains out against the wall in frustration. I'm not much for multiplayer anyway, so it doesn't kill me to not be able to play for a few months, as long as the story/co-op works.

3. Again, I'm done with this subject. I suggest you look up the definition of "bias" and maybe search for some examples on the internet so you can get a better understanding of what it actually means. Fair warning, anything else you post about that article will be completely ignored on my end. It's pointless to argue about something that neither side is going to budge on.
1. 7 months to receive global balancing is not a few months. It's over half a year okay, don't try and trivialise it.

There's two parts to support, its what you fix and when you fix it. By the time 343 got around to releasing the update, it was too little, too late. Instead of fixing the game when it was relevant, they fixed it after the full damage had been done. That is ineptitude. Need I explain once more?

2. Firstly, just because you are accustomed to it doesn't mean you should give concession to it. Secondly, Halo 4 being "broken" is less to do with the actual networking of the game and much more to do with the game it self just being bad and hence the Halo experience being "broken". 343 lack of foresight in regards to shameful DMR/LR weapon balancing, ordnance and certain load out options were some of the main contentions, along with many other problems.
Dragnet 38 wrote:
1. 7 months to receive global balancing is not a few months. It's over half a year okay, don't try and trivialise it.

There's two parts to support, its what you fix and when you fix it. By the time 343 got around to releasing the update, it was too little, too late. Instead of fixing the game when it was relevant, they fixed it after the full damage had been done. That is ineptitude. Need I explain once more?

2. Firstly, just because you are accustomed to it doesn't mean you should give concession to it. Secondly, Halo 4 being "broken" is less to do with the actual networking of the game and much more to do with the game it self just being bad and hence the Halo experience being "broken". 343 lack of foresight in regards to shameful DMR/LR weapon balancing, ordnance and certain load out options were some of the main contentions, along with many other problems.
1. The game worked. It wasn't unplayable. There weapon balance issues, nothing like MCC's launch. You can't say that Halo 4 had a botched launched just because some weapons weren't balanced very well at first. There's a difference between it being broken and needing work. Pretty much every game needs some weapon balancing after launch. It's the mass "testing" provided by the people who play the game after launch that show what does and does not need fixing. To accuse 343 of being the only company that balances weapons post-launch, and then to use that as an excuse to call them inept, is just silly.

2. The Xbox One works a lot differently than the 360, so I just think it's going to take a few botched game launches before companies figure out what exactly they need to do to make the games work 100% at launch. I think it's unfair to give game dev a new console with new hardware and expect them to be able to produce something that works flawlessly at launch. Like I said, basically every game has had a crappy launch so far. But I feel confident in saying that most companies will have a better understanding of how the console works after these launches. I didn't play Hardline, but I didn't hear any of my friends complaining that it was broken. I assume that's because Battlefield 4 was busted and needed to be fixed, which gave the devs a better idea of what exactly needed to be done for a smooth launch.

343 has only released the MCC for the One so far, so I don't think it's fair to judge their competence on solely that. One instance cannot be considered a pattern. Again, Halo 4 wasn't actually broken, it just needed better balancing, so you can't say that they've botched two launches. As far as your comment about how it wasn't the game that was broken, it was the experience goes: I think we saw from the Halo 5 beta that 343 really listened to what people didn't like about Halo 4. Namely the things you mentioned like loadouts. We're back to completely equal starts, and the weapon balance (at least from what I saw in the beta) is probably the best weapon balance I've ever seen in Halo. The Light Rifle is now a low mag capacity, slow rate of fire, heavy hitting gun. The DMR has a slower rate of fire and it's way more balanced with the Battle Rifle now.

My point is: As much as people want to say otherwise, 343 hasn't given me any reasons to not buy Halo 5. I recognize Halo 4's inherent faults and I take solace in the fact that those aren't going to be present in Halo 5. I also understand the broken launch of MCC, and I feel confident that 343 has a better feel now for what needs to be done to make Halo 5's launch much smoother.
Dragnet 38 wrote:
1. 7 months to receive global balancing is not a few months. It's over half a year okay, don't try and trivialise it.

There's two parts to support, its what you fix and when you fix it. By the time 343 got around to releasing the update, it was too little, too late. Instead of fixing the game when it was relevant, they fixed it after the full damage had been done. That is ineptitude. Need I explain once more?

2. Firstly, just because you are accustomed to it doesn't mean you should give concession to it. Secondly, Halo 4 being "broken" is less to do with the actual networking of the game and much more to do with the game it self just being bad and hence the Halo experience being "broken". 343 lack of foresight in regards to shameful DMR/LR weapon balancing, ordnance and certain load out options were some of the main contentions, along with many other problems.

1. The game worked. It wasn't unplayable. There weapon balance issues, nothing like MCC's launch. You can't say that Halo 4 had a botched launched just because some weapons weren't balanced very well at first. There's a difference between it being broken and needing work. Pretty much every game needs some weapon balancing after launch. It's the mass "testing" provided by the people who play the game after launch that show what does and does not need fixing. To accuse 343 of being the only company that balances weapons post-launch, and then to use that as an excuse to call them inept, is just silly.

2. The Xbox One works a lot differently than the 360, so I just think it's going to take a few botched game launches before companies figure out what exactly they need to do to make the games work 100% at launch. I think it's unfair to give game dev a new console with new hardware and expect them to be able to produce something that works flawlessly at launch. Like I said, basically every game has had a crappy launch so far. But I feel confident in saying that most companies will have a better understanding of how the console works after these launches. I didn't play Hardline, but I didn't hear any of my friends complaining that it was broken. I assume that's because Battlefield 4 was busted and needed to be fixed, which gave the devs a better idea of what exactly needed to be done for a smooth launch.

343 has only released the MCC for the One so far, so I don't think it's fair to judge their competence on solely that. One instance cannot be considered a pattern. Again, Halo 4 wasn't actually broken, it just needed better balancing, so you can't say that they've botched two launches. As far as your comment about how it wasn't the game that was broken, it was the experience goes: I think we saw from the Halo 5 beta that 343 really listened to what people didn't like about Halo 4. Namely the things you mentioned like loadouts. We're back to completely equal starts, and the weapon balance (at least from what I saw in the beta) is probably the best weapon balance I've ever seen in Halo. The Light Rifle is now a low mag capacity, slow rate of fire, heavy hitting gun. The DMR has a slower rate of fire and it's way more balanced with the Battle Rifle now.

My point is: As much as people want to say otherwise, 343 hasn't given me any reasons to not buy Halo 5. I recognize Halo 4's inherent faults and I take solace in the fact that those aren't going to be present in Halo 5. I also understand the broken launch of MCC, and I feel confident that 343 has a better feel now for what needs to be done to make Halo 5's launch much smoother.
1. "To accuse 343 of being the only company that balances weapons post-launch, and then to use that as an excuse to call them inept, is just silly." Please quote me where I have said 343 was the only company to do so. Please do. Arguing based on an incorrect accusation is both inept and silly. Well done.

You also completely disregard the entire point. The point is the TIME 343 TOOK to release said updates. The weapons weren't balanced at launch and they were not balanced half a year after. Do you understand? It's not hard, really, it isn't.

2. First of all, not understanding the Xbone hardware is absolutely no concession for releasing a botched game. If they don't understand the system and go ahead and release a game anyway, then thats even WORSE. We can't just go, "oops, it was their first time". Hell no. If they dont understand the system, they shouldn't release a game until they do. Is that really a principle that you can argue against?
The fact that anyone feels they have to justify their purchases at all is absurd nobody should care how you or I decide to spend our hard earned money.
dajhier1 wrote:
The fact that anyone feels they have to justify their purchases at all is absurd nobody should care how you or I decide to spend our hard earned money.
This! ^

I think people have been forgetting what the title of the thread is. The point is that if we feel like Halo 5 is a good buy, we're going to buy it. And if anyone thinks less of anyone else for buying/preordering, that's just sad.

I've been humoring a few guys on this thread with factual arguments for why preordering Halo 5 is fine, but in the end it's my decision and I'll buy it if I want it (which do and have already preordered).
Since they actually gave a solid release date, I think its okay now to pre-order.
I preorderd the limited edition the day it was available at gamestop. I love halo. Bought xboxone over ps4 because i love the halo story and the lore. I can't wait for this game to drop!
dajhier1 wrote:
The fact that anyone feels they have to justify their purchases at all is absurd nobody should care how you or I decide to spend our hard earned money.

This! ^

I think people have been forgetting what the title of the thread is. The point is that if we feel like Halo 5 is a good buy, we're going to buy it. And if anyone thinks less of anyone else for buying/preordering, that's just sad.

I've been humoring a few guys on this thread with factual arguments for why preordering Halo 5 is fine, but in the end it's my decision and I'll buy it if I want it (which do and have already preordered).
The problem with the people are getting little upset because it nothing like the past halo game.
PREORDER HALO 5 AND XBOX ONE
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. ...
  6. 5