Well, thanks for clearing that up. Nonetheless, there is nothing to support the claim that the decline in population is due to changes in gameplay. Moreover, there isn't even concrete evidence that this drop in population is something abnormal. I have voiced my opinion on this argument before. For numerous reasons, it's a complete waste of our time. First of all, there is not enough statistical information from the time before Reach. Meaning anyone can spout any numbers about the Halo 3 population and how it held at least 200,000 players at any moment all the way until 2009. A claim I refuted with links to the Bungie.net front page through 2008 to 2009, showing population no larger than that of Halo 4 now. What makes you think that the claim that Halo 3 held a higher population longer is any more reliable?Quote:But COD is the best game on the 360. The majority of people enjoy that gameplay. They find it to be a quality game worth spending time playing. That's the point.
I don't think the general public is aware of the specific reasons (gameplay wise) for not enjoying the game like we are, but it all stems from the same thing: Halo has changed. Because of this - people have stopped playing - despite purchasing the game. They may attribute it to something else (being unaware of why the game is suddenly less enjoyable) but there is one constant in all of this: the ever changing Halo gameplay. That must be looked at first.
Secondly, if the population decrease is something out of the ordinary, if Halo 3 really held its population longer, what can we say about it? Who can actually prove that it's the gameplay that drew players away? Simple deduction like "I don't like it, my friends don't like it, therefore other people don't like it" is fallacious because it's based on a very small and carefully selected sample size that in no way represents the general population.
At the same time you are so sure that the population decline was caused by changes in gameplay, you ignore the fact that Halo hasn't been able to maintain a stable population since MW2 released in 2009. You completely ignore the fact that since 2007, the consumer interests may simply have changed.
There is a plethora of plausible reasons why the population dropped after the first weeks. I don't completely deny it could have been the changes in gameplay. But when considering the viability of reasons, I consider it much likely that it's simply because Halo isn't the king of the market anymore. That there are other games people would rather play, regardless of if the gameplay of Halo had changed or not.
The whole argument is so uncertain. Even the premise for the argument is unreliable. The only purpose of the argument is to try to use population as some sort of proof that there is something wrong with the game. But when I consider the most popular game on the market is also the one I consider to have the least gameplay value, it really makes the people, who don't like that Halo has become more like CoD but still argue there is something wrong with the population of Halo, a bunch of hypocrites. Ultimately, I don't care of Halo's population dropped to 100,000 players a day if that meant we would get a proper game that doesn't try to imitate the most popular game to achieve more popularity.
Who bought the game? Aside from the fans who have been around at least since Halo 3? If you think about it, those fifteen million new users are also the users who haven't experienced the change. None of them could possibly have left because the game has changed. Yes, more people have stopped playing the game than at this point in the lifetime of Halo 3. But how large percentage of those people were initially even ready to invest a lot of time to the game compared to Halo 3?Quote:So you're telling me a brand new Halo game that has been marketed out the -Yoink!-, sold better than any previous Halo title, and has over 15 MILLION more Xbox Live users available to it than Halo 3 can barely even match the population numbers of Halo 3?
And then you're telling me arguing that Halo's population isn't a good indication of peoples like/dislike of the game is stupid?
Why? Because I couldn't care less about the popularity of Halo, and because I know that the reasons we don't perceive the game as a fun experience aren't the same reasons why an average Joe wouldn't consider it fun. I have enough objectivity left in me that I can consider other reasons for the population decrease.Quote:I know you and I are in the same boat as to the direction we'd rather see Halo go (aka back to its roots), but I'm not understanding why you're so adamant about Halo 4's population not reinforcing the fact that the changes made are obviously turning players away.
At this point, you also know that I really hate the population argument with a passion. Now, why do you think I only linked one page showing the population of Halo 3 from December 2007? One sample hardly tells anything, it could have as well been a fluctuation and the actual population could have been higher. The Wayback Machine that is the only source for information on Halo 3 player data through old captures of Bungie.net front pages that show the population at the moment of capture is unreliable. Whenever I link those stats, I spend most of my time looking for page captures that work. Those are only a fraction of the total amount. As far as December 2007 goes, 5th was the only day that actually showed the data.
Now, how can we talk about something we have no reliable data about? How can we know Halo 3 didn't go through a similar phase as Halo 4? Because we remember how much the population counter showed? Do we really remember the actual numbers, or do we only remember the rare occasions when the counter was abnormally high? Ultimately, we know nothing about the Halo 3 population for a fact. We only assume it was higher than that of Halo 4, but we can never prove that. How can we debate if the main premise of the whole debate is unreliable?
But it isn't. The premise of the argument is that Halo 3 had a higher population longer than Halo 4. For the argument to have any reliability, that premise needs to be true. But can you really prove me that Halo 3 indeed managed to keep its population more stable than Halo 4? I know I can't, neither can I prove you wrong if you say that. The premise is unreliable, that makes the argument unreliable. And even if the premise was reliable, there are numerous potential reasons for population decline. So why change? I can question every piece of the argument in lack of valid proof, doesn't make it a very good argument, does it?Quote:The population argument seems extremely valid to me.