Microsoft Might've Ditched Halo Multiplayer

[Logan Frederick]

Microsoft Might've Ditched Halo Multiplayer

During the development of the original Halo, two Bungie developers had to convince Microsoft and Bungie's founders to keep one of the series' most popular selling points: multiplayer.

After Microsoft's acquisition of Bungie and the completion of Oni, the studio's lesser-known third person action game for the Playstation 2, both the San Jose and Chicago teams were combined to complete Halo for the launch of the Xbox.

Hardy LeBel, former Oni lead and Halo multiplayer designer, told Gamasutra [http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=20533] that in order to finish before the deadline, features had to be cut, including multiplayer.

LeBel said, "When we got bought by Microsoft, Alex Seropian and Jason Jones, who were the two principals of Bungie, came to me and [former Bungie engineer and animator] Michael Evans, and said, 'Multiplayer is cut from Halo because we're trying to make it really work on the console and we just don't have the resources.'"

Understanding how important multiplayer could be, LeBel and Evans fought for its inclusion. "We threw a fit and were like, 'No way! You can't cut it! It's just too cool!' They said, 'We were hoping you'd say that -- because you two guys have to resurrect it.'"

Microsoft and Bungie should be thankful for the efforts of LeBel, Evans and their team members. Halo and its sequels become the most popular console LAN and Xbox LIVE games, helping sell hundreds of millions of dollars [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/77605] worth of software and merchandise.

Permalink

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Microsoft. Missing the point since...Hold on, haven't I done this before?

 

[fix-the-spade]

Wait, so microsoft bought a developer, then tried to rush out their new game to make a quick buck. Presumably they would have closed down Bungie shortly after Halo fell on it's arse.

Why is it these huge companies can't see what's patently obvious to the rest of the world?

 

[Jhereg42]

Why is it these huge companies can't see what's patently obvious to the rest of the world?

The Halo hype before they were bought by MS was so huge (particularly amongst Mac users, who were shall we say slightly annoyed at how things went down) and the X-Box was such a risk as a PS2 compeditor that they needed Halo as close to launch as they could get it. It makes sense from a marketing point of view, even if it would not have been nearly as successful without the multiplayer improvements.

That being said, MS and Bungie made the right choice in the end and included the multiplayer, so in the end they got it.

 

[shatnershaman]

Wait, so microsoft bought a developer, then tried to rush out their new game to make a quick buck. Presumably they would have closed down Bungie shortly after Halo fell on it's arse.

Why is it these huge companies can't see what's patently obvious to the rest of the world?

It was an RTS for a while... they wasted alot of time on that what did you expect ? "Hey launch title, add more stuff we still got fusion frenzy"

 

[fix-the-spade]

It was an RTS for a while... they wasted alot of time on that what did you expect ? "Hey launch title, add more stuff we still got fusion frenzy"

This may be a very dumb question but.

How many people actually buy a console for it's Launch titles? I always thought there was this assumption that anything out inside the first 6 months will be either hopelessly rushed or a shallow port of an existing game. Maybe one title will be worth keeping, but the rest will be lining bargain bins as quickly as they are forgotten. People seem to buy consoles on the strength of games that will be coming out later, specifically the ones with a decent level of invstment/hype in them.
In turn those games seem to make a pile more money.

 

[shatnershaman]

How many people actually buy a console for it's Launch titles? I always thought there was this assumption that anything out inside the first 6 months will be either hopelessly rushed or a shallow port of an existing game. Maybe one title will be worth keeping, but the rest will be lining bargain bins as quickly as they are forgotten. People seem to buy consoles on the strength of games that will be coming out later, specifically the ones with a decent level of invstment/hype in them.
In turn those games seem to make a pile more money.

Resistance,Halo:Combat Evolved,Zelda Twilight Princess,PGR3,Call of Duty 2, Mario 64, Wii Sports and Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt were all launch titles. A couple just may have convinced some people to buy the console and they all are AAA games (well duck hunt and Wii sports are pack ins and are debatable)

 

[bkd69]

Yes and no.

I would first argue that all things being equal, people will buy a console with a pack in over a console without. Then again, I'd also argue that what with persistent storage, network connectivity, and digital distribution, this is the last generation of consoles to have pack ins.

Now, notice shatnershaman's list. Aside from the pack ins, three of the games in his list are sequels. Of course, two of those are Nintendo titles, which has a slightly different set of launch sale rules.

People do buy consoles for launch titles, but for titles that are things they would have gotten anyway, in franchises they like. I would say it's considerably rarer for people to buy a console at launch for a brand spanking new exclusive piece of original IP.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

How many people actually buy a console for it's Launch titles? I always thought there was this assumption that anything out inside the first 6 months will be either hopelessly rushed or a shallow port of an existing game. Maybe one title will be worth keeping, but the rest will be lining bargain bins as quickly as they are forgotten. People seem to buy consoles on the strength of games that will be coming out later, specifically the ones with a decent level of invstment/hype in them.
In turn those games seem to make a pile more money.

Resistance,Halo:Combat Evolved,Zelda Twilight Princess,PGR3,Call of Duty 2, Mario 64, Wii Sports and Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt were all launch titles. A couple just may have convinced some people to buy the console and they all are AAA games (well duck hunt and Wii sports are pack ins and are debatable)

There's a Wii Duck Hunt? Does it come with a Zapper gun?

...Can you shoot the dog!?

 

[fix-the-spade]

Resistance,Halo:Combat Evolved,Zelda Twilight Princess,PGR3,Call of Duty 2, Mario 64, Wii Sports and Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt

Twilight Princess is a Gamecube Port, Cod 2 is a Pc port, four are sequels and Wii Sports?!
Of those only Halo, Resistance and Mario have started any kind of running franchise. Granted in Mario and Chief's case that's a pretty massive franchise. But it's still only three.
People hardly ever buy consoles for brand new, never before seen launch titles, they almost always want the next title in series X.

 

[TOGSolid]

People hardly ever buy consoles for brand new, never before seen launch titles, they almost always want the next title in series X.

Sadly, that's why I bought my 360 and also why I'm probably going to sell it soon. I haven't touched it in months and all the games I want to play are coming out on PC. Only reason I haven't dumped it is because Geometry Wars 2 hasn't jumped to PC yet.

 

[DamienHell]

LOL MS fails! good thing they kept it though, what would I play without halo 3 multiplayer

 

[eggdog14]

"One of the series' most popular selling points"?

how many are there?

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

"One of the series' most popular selling points"?

how many are there?

There's the vehicles, wacky physics, beautiful art-direction, good story, good level design, good voice-acting, some very unique weapons.

That makes 8.

 

[Blind0bserver]

There's the vehicles, wacky physics, beautiful art-direction, good story, good level design, good voice-acting, some very unique weapons.

That makes 8.

Alright, before someone jumps in and starts questioning those points (trust me, someone will) it needs to be brought up that the Halo franchise may not have survived if Microsoft had their way to begin with. The original Halo was really, more than anything, a good launch title. If it wasn't for the multiplayer (which made it a popular LAN game and built it a following), there may not have even been a Halo 2.

I figured that somebody would bring that one up sooner or later. It's a scary thought for some, a reassuring one for others.

 

[hippo24]

Actually this is completely believable because the statistics from halo one revealed that a large percentage of owners had not connected their xbox. So its not to far fetched to say that Microsoft perceived the massive amount of work that would have to go into multiplayer to be a waste.

 

[Blind0bserver]

Actually this is completely believable because the statistics from halo one revealed that a large percentage of owners had not connected their xbox. So its not to far fetched to say that Microsoft perceived the massive amount of work that would have to go into multiplayer to be a waste.

Really? Huh, to be honest I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for bringing that one up. After you said that, it actually somewhat makes a little bit of sense...

 

[shatnershaman]

Resistance,Halo:Combat Evolved,Zelda Twilight Princess,PGR3,Call of Duty 2, Mario 64, Wii Sports and Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt

Twilight Princess is a Gamecube Port, Cod 2 is a Pc port, four are sequels and Wii Sports?!
Of those only Halo, Resistance and Mario have started any kind of running franchise. Granted in Mario and Chief's case that's a pretty massive franchise. But it's still only three.
People hardly ever buy consoles for brand new, never before seen launch titles, they almost always want the next title in series X.

Resistance isn't running? Did they cancel Resistance 2 or Resistance:Retribution? You said launch title not sequel launch title Mario 64 still counts.

 

[Lt. Sera]

Why is it these huge companies can't see what's patently obvious to the rest of the world?

Because investors want quick easy money, multiplayer development takes time and is thus not neccesary. Mammoth companies don't want to make great games, they want to make great money. The individual dev might want to make something awesome, but the higher ups don't give them the time to do it in.

Whenever a company grow too big, this is what happens. I find it quite amazing that Blizzard hasn't fallen into this yet, but with the recent developments it might just be a matter of time.

 

[hippo24]

Why is it these huge companies can't see what's patently obvious to the rest of the world?

Because investors want quick easy money, multiplayer development takes time and is thus not neccesary. Mammoth companies don't want to make great games, they want to make great money. The individual dev might want to make something awesome, but the higher ups don't give them the time to do it in.

Whenever a company grow too big, this is what happens. I find it quite amazing that Blizzard hasn't fallen into this yet, but with the recent developments it might just be a matter of time.

How much money do you think was made off downloadable content and xbox live subscriptions (these things have almost no overhead cost).