Forums / Community / General Discussion

[Locked] Steve Downes Retirement

OP AlphaEx0

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 4
Back in 2015 I heard Steve was retiring. Haven't heard anything since, but now here it is 2018. He has finally retired from what I heard. So if this is true will he be replaced? Or if he has finished his work with voicing Master Chief's lines for Halo Infinite, could Halo Infinite be Chief's final game? Or will 343 gonna continue to milk Halo dry without the Master Chief in it? I highly doubt 343 will replace Steve since his voice IS the Master Chief, but who knows what the future holds for Halo now if Steve has retired. And if he has, shall we, the Halo Community give back to him for what he has given to us for so many years?
AlphaEx0 wrote:
Back in 2015 I heard Steve was retiring. Haven't heard anything since, but now here it is 2018. He has finally retired from what I heard. So if this is true will he be replaced? Or if he has finished his work with voicing Master Chief's lines for Halo Infinite, could Halo Infinite be Chief's final game? Or will 343 gonna continue to milk Halo dry without the Master Chief in it? I highly doubt 343 will replace Steve since his voice IS the Master Chief, but who knows what the future holds for Halo now if Steve has retired. And if he has, shall we, the Halo Community give back to him for what he has given to us for so many years?
I wouldn't really say it's uncommon for actors to come out of retirement to reprise specific roles. For Steve, the Master Chief is a role that really only he can play. You could try and replace them, as they have done in live action and animated adaptations except Fall of Reach, but it just doesn't sound the same. He's already said that if they call him for Halo Infinite, which they undoubtedly will, he'll do it. He loves the character as much as the fans do.
He retired his radio DJ gig in 2015. He has not retired from voice acting as of yet. But we do need to face the reality that Steve is an aging man. His retirement and eventual death is coming and 343 should wrap up the chief's story considering, as you indicated OP, that "his voice IS the Master Chief." However, replacing him is likely due to the fact that 343 is placing a much larger focus on chief for the upcoming games.
He just recently voiced a special excerpt for newest Halo book: Silent Storm-"A Master Chief Story".So he surely is working on Halo Infinite.
Chief needs to go as is, there's much you can do with a Halo setting and various protagonists that can come out of it.
I doubt that Steve Downes will throw in the towel anytime soon. Charles Martinet (Mario) has been going strong for years, so I think Steve Downes can do the same.
HaXoR73 wrote:
I doubt that Steve Downes will throw in the towel anytime soon. Charles Martinet (Mario) has been going strong for years, so I think Steve Downes can do the same.
You're exactly right!

Chief needs to go as is, there's much you can do with a Halo setting and various protagonists that can come out of it.
No, Chief doesn't need to go. If they want to focus elsewhere, they can put him in Cyro Sleep
HaXoR73 wrote:
I doubt that Steve Downes will throw in the towel anytime soon. Charles Martinet (Mario) has been going strong for years, so I think Steve Downes can do the same.
You're exactly right!

Chief needs to go as is, there's much you can do with a Halo setting and various protagonists that can come out of it.
No, Chief doesn't need to go. If they want to focus elsewhere, they can put him in Cyro Sleep
Why cryo sleep?

Cryo sleep sounds like a terrible way to shelve a character, he'd be better off sacrificing himself for whatever reason he chooses to do so as I don't see retirement as a "respectable" way to go out as others do. All you're doing is holding onto him with future plans to use him again and letting him become a shell of his self, effectively milking the character because of attachment.
HaXoR73 wrote:
I doubt that Steve Downes will throw in the towel anytime soon. Charles Martinet (Mario) has been going strong for years, so I think Steve Downes can do the same.
You're exactly right!

Chief needs to go as is, there's much you can do with a Halo setting and various protagonists that can come out of it.
No, Chief doesn't need to go. If they want to focus elsewhere, they can put him in Cyro Sleep
Why cryo sleep?

Cryo sleep sounds like a terrible way to shelve a character, he'd be better off sacrificing himself for whatever reason he chooses to do so as I don't see retirement as a "respectable" way to go out as others do. All you're doing is holding onto him with future plans to use him again and letting him become a shell of his self, effectively milking the character because of attachment.
It would leave open possibilities for new material, down the road, without having the need or desire to reboot the series. It would introduce a new generation to Halo and the Master Chief. There are ways of telling stories, within the Halo Universe, without the Master Chief. That being said, you don't have to kill off the protagonist just because he's been around since the beginning.
If it's true he retired from voice acting in 2015 then that would mean Chief in Infinite would have a different voice. It'll feel really weird if true but hey, you can't just cut Chief out in the middle of a story that he's part of just because the voice actor retired. However after Chief's current story is done is a different matter. If they got the right voice actor after Steve I wouldn't mind more Chief. I'm also fine with Halo moving away from Chief of the replacement is good if there even will be a new "main character" that stars in all the new mainline games.
I think if 343i had to find a new voice actor they would do everything they could to try to make the transition as seamless as possible. But I think they should only consider this if they absolutely have to. Steve Downes did such a good job with John that I think he should be allowed to finish alongside John. And if 343i gets a replacement then the replacement should be the voice of John in a reboot.

I think it would be both touching and great if the story of the original Master Chief started and ended with the original voice actor.
As noted already, Steve retired from his daytime radio show. He didn't retire from voice acting.

343 has plans for Halo for at least the next 12 years, and going by Steve's comments from the Halo 5 Launch event and the anniversary event streams, he doesn't have plans to stop right now. In his (Master Chief) words, he's just getting started ;)
Saw him in that new Fireteam Raven commercial. My guess is he'll still be around for awhile.
Two seconds of googling would've saved you a whole lot of time. The day he does decide to hang it up though, I can't see his replacement going over well.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not bump.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not bump.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
Chief needs to go as is, there's much you can do with a Halo setting and various protagonists that can come out of it.
It makes zero sense to kill off such a well established protagonist just because they want to focus elsewhere. Halo 2, Reach, ODST and Wars have all proven that it is in fact possible to tell a story that's not about Chief without killing him. Killing off the main character isn't going to suddenly make 343's Halos good, least of all when arguably their best work was almost entirely focused on The Master Chief. All you need to do is look to Spartan Ops and Halo 5 to see how well an original cast of 343 characters will turn out.
It makes perfect sense else you'll have people clamboring for him to be back as a protagonist while he's alive. Furthermore killing him off has nothing to do with getting a better story, but a chance to explore other stories entirely without the chief being involved or brought up as you Branch out. You know why reach could get away with it? Because it's a spin off and not a mainline game, what happens when 343 try to set a new series? Can people go 3 or 4 games without the chief? This is why he can't be around cause he will be brought up.

If people weren't so attached to him, I wouldn't see a need to off him as a character.
Chief needs to go as is, there's much you can do with a Halo setting and various protagonists that can come out of it.
It makes zero sense to kill off such a well established protagonist just because they want to focus elsewhere. Halo 2, Reach, ODST and Wars have all proven that it is in fact possible to tell a story that's not about Chief without killing him. Killing off the main character isn't going to suddenly make 343's Halos good, least of all when arguably their best work was almost entirely focused on The Master Chief. All you need to do is look to Spartan Ops and Halo 5 to see how well an original cast of 343 characters will turn out.
It makes perfect sense else you'll have people clamboring for him to be back as a protagonist while he's alive. Furthermore killing him off has nothing to do with getting a better story, but a chance to explore other stories entirely without the chief being involved or brought up as you Branch out. You know why reach could get away with it? Because it's a spin off and not a mainline game, what happens when 343 try to set a new series? Can people go 3 or 4 games without the chief? This is why he can't be around cause he will be brought up.

If people weren't so attached to him, I wouldn't see a need to off him as a character.
Yes, yes they can go without him. It's why all of the games not featuring the Chief were still a success—because they can go without him. If 343 were capable of creating a compelling character who people actually wanted to play, people could go without him a lot longer. As is, killing him off and not being able to replace him isn't going to make people want to keep playing, it's going to make people want to stop buying. Out of the ten Halo games currently out, three of them solely focus on Master Chief (Halo: CE, Halo 3, and Halo 4); it's not even feasible to argue that he's holding back further exploration of the universe. It makes zero sense to kill him off.
Chief needs to go as is, there's much you can do with a Halo setting and various protagonists that can come out of it.
It makes zero sense to kill off such a well established protagonist just because they want to focus elsewhere. Halo 2, Reach, ODST and Wars have all proven that it is in fact possible to tell a story that's not about Chief without killing him. Killing off the main character isn't going to suddenly make 343's Halos good, least of all when arguably their best work was almost entirely focused on The Master Chief. All you need to do is look to Spartan Ops and Halo 5 to see how well an original cast of 343 characters will turn out.
It makes perfect sense else you'll have people clamboring for him to be back as a protagonist while he's alive. Furthermore killing him off has nothing to do with getting a better story, but a chance to explore other stories entirely without the chief being involved or brought up as you Branch out. You know why reach could get away with it? Because it's a spin off and not a mainline game, what happens when 343 try to set a new series? Can people go 3 or 4 games without the chief? This is why he can't be around cause he will be brought up.

If people weren't so attached to him, I wouldn't see a need to off him as a character.
Yes, yes they can go without him. It's why all of the games not featuring the Chief were still a success—because they can go without him. If 343 were capable of creating a compelling character who people actually wanted to play, people could go without him a lot longer. As is, killing him off and not being able to replace him isn't going to make people want to keep playing, it's going to make people want to stop buying. Out of the ten Halo games currently out, three of them solely focus on Master Chief (Halo: CE, Halo 3, and Halo 4); it's not even feasible to argue that he's holding back further exploration of the universe. It makes zero sense to kill him off.
Not feasible yet Halo 5 shows just that. Why is 343 promising to feature him more after the backlash if he isn't holding further settings back? As I said, reach worked cause it's a spin off and not a mainline game, what happens when 343 goes multiple games without him? The attachment to chief is the issue here as even if there are compelling characters, people still aren't going to want to not play as chief. Why is it an attachment issue? Cause when I see statements like the chief "is Halo" there's going to be issues trying to Branch out.

You mention games without him being successful, but I'd like to hear how so? Halo wars sells like crap when compared to the shooter side of Halo (one to two million), it sells fine when you compare it to other RTS console games but when matched vs the rest of the franchise it's not even close and shows most fans of the franchise don't even acknowledge it. How about Halo reach? It's a shooter so it's already going to compare much better with the rest of the series as it's a shooter franchise. Did it sell like crap? No. Where did it's success come from? Well for one it came out right after Halo 3, still had the bungie brand making it and was marketed as a spin off to try a new Halo experience. I don't see how it could fail when you consider all of that. What about odst? Also marketed as a spin off but also had a crowd wanting to see the experience from an odst perspective, even then it sold half of what H3 sold, for a spin off it did good.

"Out of the ten Halo games currently out, three of them solely focus on Master Chief (Halo: CE, Halo 3, and Halo 4); it's not even feasible to argue that he's holding back further exploration of the universe. It makes zero sense to kill him off." Sure only 3 games solely focus on him, but how would H2 have done without him entirely? Or Halo 5? Both games came under criticism because of not featuring him and only him. Why did they even get criticized for it? Because they're part of the mainline series wouldn't you agree? This just reinforces my point "chief is Halo" from earlier.

"People will stop buying" I mean people have already been doing that with the spin offs, Halo wars doesn't even compare at all, odst sold half of what H3 did and Reach is the only one that even came close in matching up between two mainline games. Furthermore it's not like the mainline series hasn't been dropping in sales anyways right? The estimation for H5 is 5 million, the lowest it's been since the very first mainline game. Is there anything to lose? If it costs more in sales in a franchise that I already think is falling off a cliff I have no issue with just dropping even more if it means a new setting with a new cast comes out of it. Sometimes destruction is in order to rebuild which I ultimately think is needed. So you're quite right people will not buy but that's already been proven with the games not featuring him 👍
He retired his radio DJ gig in 2015. He has not retired from voice acting as of yet. But we do need to face the reality that Steve is an aging man. His retirement and eventual death is coming and 343 should wrap up the chief's story considering, as you indicated OP, that "his voice IS the Master Chief." However, replacing him is likely due to the fact that 343 is placing a much larger focus on chief for the upcoming games.
The man's only 67. Jesus Christ.
Precisely, not everyone will make it to that age and those that do will begin to face medical complications, or if he has any currently, will become more burdensome as time progresses. It is a simple fact of life.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 4