Microsoft Giving Freebies to Broken Master Chief Collection Early Adopters

[Sarah LeBoeuf]

Microsoft Giving Freebies to Broken Master Chief Collection Early Adopters

Gamers who picked up the Xbox One compilation of Master Chief's adventures will get some goodies to make up for the game's troubled multiplayer.

Did you buy broken multiplayer component [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/tag/view/halo?from_search=1]? Microsoft and 343 Industries are really, really sorry. So sorry, in fact, that anyone who has played The Master Chief Collection between its November 11 launch and December 19 will get a free month of Xbox Live Gold, an exclusive in-game nameplate, and an in-game exclusive avatar.

But wait, there's more--the entire Halo 3: ODST campaign is being upgraded to 1080p for the Xbox One, and early adopters of The Master Chief Collection will be able to nab that for free as well. There's no date when it will be available, as "development has just started," but at least Halo fans have another high-def upgrade to look forward to. In the meantime, Halo 2's "Relic" multiplayer map is coming to The Master Chief Collection in all of its 1080p/60fps glory.

It's one thing for a game to launch with a few bugs, but quite another for an entire portion of its gameplay to be unplayable. Sadly, that trend is all too common [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/138619-Ubisoft-Working-on-Assassins-Creed-Unity-Bugs] in the modern era. It's good to see major developers and publishers at least acknowledge the issues and attempt to make up for them with free content, but even better would be the ability to enjoy a game as advertised on the day--or week--or even month--it comes out.

Source: Xbox Wire [http://news.xbox.com/2014/12/games-halo-thank-you-to-our-fans]

Permalink

 

[Story]

That's pretty nice of them. I know at least one of my family members will enjoy these freebies. He never even touched the multiplayer either.

 

[Evonisia]

HOLD THE FUCKING PAPERS

ODST is coming to Xbox One? In 1080p?

I, I think I need to lie down. I can't read this news without smiling.

 

[Andy Shandy]

A decent gesture for a troubled launch.

Now get it working and we'll be golden, 343!

[sub]Also please add Halo Wars at some stage. I'd buy that[/sub]

 

[J Tyran]

Free copy of ODST? Nice, it was weak but it ties the knots about what happened on Earth after the Forward Unto Dawn left and just before the Chief arriving back so it fits well with the MCC even if ODST had nothing to do with him.

 

[VincentX3]

This is starting to become a trend.

Releasing broken shit on the market then giving away free stuff to apologize.
Not saying that free stuff is bad obviously, but how about making sure your product works before releasing it? (Yes I'm still looking at you AC:U )

Just my 2cents.

 

[ecoho]

This is starting to become a trend.

Releasing broken shit on the market then giving away free stuff to apologize.
Not saying that free stuff is bad obviously, but how about making sure your product works before releasing it? (Yes I'm still looking at you AC:U )

Just my 2cents.

the difference is people could still play the single player campaign with no problems were as AC:U is so buggy that even if they gave it away people would still not play it.

 

[truckspond]

Since all 4 halo games are now running on the same system architecture as the PC then why are they not releasing Halo 3 and 4 for PC to complement the Halo 1 and 2 PC versions?

 

[VincentX3]

This is starting to become a trend.

Releasing broken shit on the market then giving away free stuff to apologize.
Not saying that free stuff is bad obviously, but how about making sure your product works before releasing it? (Yes I'm still looking at you AC:U )

Just my 2cents.

the difference is people could still play the single player campaign with no problems were as AC:U is so buggy that even if they gave it away people would still not play it.

The difference is both games should have been playable from the start instead of having to resort too apologies, patches and giving away free stuff.

The difference is that the Halo collection is what it is, a collection of older titles that should have been easy enough for the original company to port them to next gen with little to no problems. Unlike AC:U where it was really a whole new engine based on next-gen.

(It's still not an excuse to forgive it, but there's a difference between what should have been a port of older titles to a next-gen single player campaign)

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

Since all 4 halo games are now running on the same system architecture as the PC then why are they not releasing Halo 3 and 4 for PC to complement the Halo 1 and 2 PC versions?

Why release them now, when they can hold them hostage behind that streaming PC service they might be working on? Also, they would have to put in some extra effort to optimize the collection for PC.

 

[ecoho]

This is starting to become a trend.

Releasing broken shit on the market then giving away free stuff to apologize.
Not saying that free stuff is bad obviously, but how about making sure your product works before releasing it? (Yes I'm still looking at you AC:U )

Just my 2cents.

the difference is people could still play the single player campaign with no problems were as AC:U is so buggy that even if they gave it away people would still not play it.

The difference is both games should have been playable from the start instead of having to resort too apologies, patches and giving away free stuff.

The difference is that the Halo collection is what it is, a collection of older titles that should have been easy enough for the original company to port them to next gen with little to no problems. Unlike AC:U where it was really a whole new engine based on next-gen.

(It's still not an excuse to forgive it, but there's a difference between what should have been a port of older titles to a next-gen single player campaign)

that's just it though the game it self worked fine beautifully in fact it just its online component that went to shit.(and no I don't count the online multiplayer as part of the game as it wasn't online at the start of the series just something added in later down the road because it seemed like a good idea and was)
I guess what im trying to say is even if you couldn't play the multiplayer the single player was good enough to make up for that short coming, were as AC:U is just bad no matter how you play it.

these are my opinions of course and as such may not be the same for everyone

 

[VincentX3]

This is starting to become a trend.

Releasing broken shit on the market then giving away free stuff to apologize.
Not saying that free stuff is bad obviously, but how about making sure your product works before releasing it? (Yes I'm still looking at you AC:U )

Just my 2cents.

the difference is people could still play the single player campaign with no problems were as AC:U is so buggy that even if they gave it away people would still not play it.

The difference is both games should have been playable from the start instead of having to resort too apologies, patches and giving away free stuff.

The difference is that the Halo collection is what it is, a collection of older titles that should have been easy enough for the original company to port them to next gen with little to no problems. Unlike AC:U where it was really a whole new engine based on next-gen.

(It's still not an excuse to forgive it, but there's a difference between what should have been a port of older titles to a next-gen single player campaign)

that's just it though the game it self worked fine beautifully in fact it just its online component that went to shit.(and no I don't count the online multiplayer as part of the game as it wasn't online at the start of the series just something added in later down the road because it seemed like a good idea and was)
I guess what im trying to say is even if you couldn't play the multiplayer the single player was good enough to make up for that short coming, were as AC:U is just bad no matter how you play it.

these are my opinions of course and as such may not be the same for everyone

I see what you're saying, and while I don't disagree that the single player portion of a collection of older titles works, they still messed up the ENTIRE multiplayer portion of the collection.

As in, not a map or two with a few bugs, but the full thing all together.
How does that pass through testing? I'm certain if anyone tested this before release they would notice when an ENTIRE PORTION of their game doesn't work.

So yes, the single player can work just fine, and any game will have bugs for example, but then there's this.
All in all, if a company this big is going to re-release there games for next-gen, this shouldn't be acceptable, free gifts or not.

 

[Buizel91]

This is starting to become a trend.

Releasing broken shit on the market then giving away free stuff to apologize.
Not saying that free stuff is bad obviously, but how about making sure your product works before releasing it? (Yes I'm still looking at you AC:U )

Just my 2cents.

the difference is people could still play the single player campaign with no problems were as AC:U is so buggy that even if they gave it away people would still not play it.

The difference is both games should have been playable from the start instead of having to resort too apologies, patches and giving away free stuff.

The difference is that the Halo collection is what it is, a collection of older titles that should have been easy enough for the original company to port them to next gen with little to no problems. Unlike AC:U where it was really a whole new engine based on next-gen.

(It's still not an excuse to forgive it, but there's a difference between what should have been a port of older titles to a next-gen single player campaign)

Halo MCC wasnt broken like Unity was, i think the problem was there were 4 games different games playing over 1 online feature, but i dno, shouldnt of mattered but then im not the best at coding...

Even with it's problems the single player is still a beaut and works 100% fine, and as far as im aware, it was possible to get online matches it just took forever and the matchmaking wasn't woring properly (skilled players been put in with lvl 1's etc) so even then it kinda worked.

Most companies wouldn't give anything away, Ubi kinda had to cause Unity's launch was inexcusable. 343 however didn't have to do f all, but they still did.

 

[J Tyran]

I see what you're saying, and while I don't disagree that the single player portion of a collection of older titles works, they still messed up the ENTIRE multiplayer portion of the collection.

As in, not a map or two with a few bugs, but the full thing all together.
How does that pass through testing? I'm certain if anyone tested this before release they would notice when an ENTIRE PORTION of their game doesn't work.

So yes, the single player can work just fine, and any game will have bugs for example, but then there's this.
All in all, if a company this big is going to re-release there games for next-gen, this shouldn't be acceptable, free gifts or not.

The single player was broken for a short while as well, one of their attempted "fixes" a couple of weeks into the fiasco caused the entire menu to crash shortly after it loaded. It was down to random luck if you could get through to the menu, select which of the four titles you wanted and the desired option (resume, mission select, skull options etc) before it crashed.

Lasted nearly a week before that was fixed and the multiplayer still was'nt fixed.

 

[VincentX3]

This is starting to become a trend.

Releasing broken shit on the market then giving away free stuff to apologize.
Not saying that free stuff is bad obviously, but how about making sure your product works before releasing it? (Yes I'm still looking at you AC:U )

Just my 2cents.

the difference is people could still play the single player campaign with no problems were as AC:U is so buggy that even if they gave it away people would still not play it.

The difference is both games should have been playable from the start instead of having to resort too apologies, patches and giving away free stuff.

The difference is that the Halo collection is what it is, a collection of older titles that should have been easy enough for the original company to port them to next gen with little to no problems. Unlike AC:U where it was really a whole new engine based on next-gen.

(It's still not an excuse to forgive it, but there's a difference between what should have been a port of older titles to a next-gen single player campaign)

Halo MCC wasnt broken like Unity was, i think the problem was there were 4 games different games playing over 1 online feature, but i dno, shouldnt of mattered but then im not the best at coding...

Even with it's problems the single player is still a beaut and works 100% fine, and as far as im aware, it was possible to get online matches it just took forever and the matchmaking wasn't woring properly (skilled players been put in with lvl 1's etc) so even then it kinda worked.

Most companies wouldn't give anything away, Ubi kinda had to cause Unity's launch was inexcusable. 343 however didn't have to do f all, but they still did.

I've already replyed to something similar in the post above. But yes, even if the single player works fine, it's still a port of older titles onto next-gen, made by the same company no less.

All in all, free gifts or not, it still doesn't excuse the fact that the whole multiplayer aspect of the collection didn't work at all (Which in itself is a huge oversight)

What I'm worried about is this turning into a trend of releasing broken games onto the market and then if it doesn't work just give away free stuff. (Which is better than getting nothing, but my point is quality control)

 

[BloodRed Pixel]

M$: what? the Dev team ask for additional QA? that's $5000? NO, forget it. ...and you are fired.

three weeks later:

M$: we need to make good for the fuck up of the QA-team, we have to give out freebies worth $5.000.000 but that's ok, it's taken from the PR budget.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

Im still baffled at how the online multiplayer for this game turned out, im pretty sure 95% of the total playtime for Halo is spent on the online multiplayer aspect. You'd think that would be the one thing they made sure to not fuck up.

Good on them for releasing the best single player campaign in the series for free though

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

This is starting to become a trend.

Releasing broken shit on the market then giving away free stuff to apologize.
Not saying that free stuff is bad obviously, but how about making sure your product works before releasing it? (Yes I'm still looking at you AC:U )

Just my 2cents.

This echoes my sentiment. I don't think giving away content or exclusive cosmetic items makes up for launching a games that's half broken. Developers shouldn't be able to wipe away the ill will they created by releasing an unfinished game with a few freebies. This kind of behavior is already looking like a trend and it really doesn't need to get any more prevalent.