104 replies to this topic

[Syracuse022]

Why single out NeoGAF? There's plenty of other places and communities you could use to make an example.

It's the only other Halo forum I read, that's all - I'm sure it's happening elsewhere too. It's also one of the few where guys like Frankie and urk are actively involved and responding to commentary, questions, and trolls. As such, you really get to see both sides of what I'm talking about (the adulation and the anger).

The Reach content alone is worth $20 - the value it has if is released separately.

Right. Too bad I don't want Reach content. And if I did, I'd prefer to pay for it separately.

Edited by Syracuse022, 30 June 2011 - 02:45 PM.

[Slightly Live]

It's the only other Halo forum I read, that's all - I'm sure it's happening elsewhere too. It's also one of the few where guys like Frankie and urk are actively involved and responding to commentary, questions, and trolls. As such, you really get to see both sides of what I'm talking about (the adulation and the anger).

Yep, HBO has also been a mixed bag in terms of reactions. Seems to be the case in most places I've looked.

[DangerousDave]

I should point out a parallel here. If you didn't know--I imagine you wouldn't--Apple released the latest version of its Final Cut Pro software last week. It's not an upgrade so much as a dramatic reimagining of the nonlinear editing paradigm and a completely new, 1.0-style program. It's also missing a bunch of features that are critical for people in the industry. People who make their living off the software cannot physically make their living off the new version in its current state... their entire workflow is disrupted irrevocably, and there's no easy or simple workaround. The pro editors (who need the missing features), are very very vocal in their complaints, to the point that somehow Conan Obrien's editors got him to a run a spot lampooning it. I personally would like Apple to improve the software for my and their needs. But Apple doesn't have to. Professional editors using Final Cut are maybe... 100,000 in the US? That's a tiny drop in the bucket for the most profitable computer maker in the world, who makes far more hand over fist on iPods and iPads than it does on the very expensive Final Cut software development that has a massively limited selling venue. So they could respond to the feedback... or they could continue to cater to the amateur filmmaker, who is far more numerous and a much bigger target. Those guys will love the new Final Cut, I suspect. To draw it back to Halo, the "Halo fans" on HBO and NeoGAF are a comparatively tiny segment of the Halo playerbase. I would hope (and I don't think) that Microsoft is going to ignore the die-hard fans, but ultimately they are a business aiming at a very broad playerset. In short: the only reason "we" matter is primarily the goodwill of the developers.

[Jironimo]

Right. Too bad I don't want Reach content. And if I did, I'd prefer to pay for it separately.

This is the point of the matter Dani. To people who don't want the maps this is $40 for HA with only campaign and overpriced. To people like you and I who want all the content the HA campaign portion is really $16.66 which is about the same cost as the COD Classic and a very good deal. It all boils down to what part of the "bundle" you care about, to them it's not worth it but saying it's a bad deal is silly.

[Syracuse022]

Part of the problem with the Final Cut Pro situation (and yes, this continues to be a parallel) is this: There are these legendary stories where Steve Jobs (when he was re-hired in 1996) went around and asked Apple's corporate leaders who used Macs. None of them could answer, so he gave a speech and pointed it out: artists, educators, photographers, filmmakers. These people were a small portion of the overall computer audience, but a huge portion of the Mac userbase. It was time to get back to targeting their core users' needs. They started doing things like packaging Photoshop with Macs, improving offerings like Final Cut, etc. Part of the purpose of this movement was the realization that if someone really, truly loves the product you provide, they will become an evangelist and increase your product's reach. If Apple continues to take the "so what motherfuckers, we're big time now" stance as you've suggested (and as is suggested by the fact that they're offering refunds, not promises of a patch or anything like that, at least as far as I've seen), that is an indication that their market is larger and their fanbase is different than it used to be. Steve Jobs is not an idiot - he still knows who is using his products. But you're right - it's a huge affront to those one-time evangelists. Furthermore, even if you are Steve Jobs, if you're going to release an amateur video editing solution, don't pretend that it's Final Cut Pro. Just release the amateur video editing solution under a different name. I feel that it is extremely disingenuous to try and generate sales with a pedigree when the actual offering doesn't live up to that name. All of this feels exactly like the situation we're in right now. I was in at the Halo 1 ground floor. Because of my passion for that game, some 20 friends (at least - this is a very conservative estimate) ended up with Xboxes and Halo 1, myriad LANs were hosted and undoubtedly more and more fans found their way to Halo (the potential viral network we're talking about because of these LANs is pretty large on its own, but once you start talking about all of these friends going to college in 2005 it gets even larger). By the time Halo 2 was released, instead of just one gamer, a huge group found itself excited and ready for the midnight launch. That same group continued to follow the series and moved to the 360. That's a lot of momentum gained from what was, initially, one single evangelist. Now, 343i has done some pretty exhaustive market research. They know what the Halo fanbase looks like as a whole. As business decisions go, I'm sure they're quite confident that Anniversary represents what the general Halo population wants/needs. I find it extremely insulting, however, that this package is being marketed as though it's targeted at the true Halo fans who've been there since the beginning. It decidedly is not. Oh well, they'll keep that broader market and lose me. Small potatoes.

Edited by Syracuse022, 01 July 2011 - 07:39 AM.

[JCTucker]

This is the point of the matter Dani. To people who don't want the maps this is $40 for HA with only campaign and overpriced. To people like you and I who want all the content the HA campaign portion is really $16.66 which is about the same cost as the COD Classic and a very good deal. It all boils down to what part of the "bundle" you care about, to them it's not worth it but saying it's a bad deal is silly.

Actually, to say that every 3 maps should increase the cost $10 is silly.

So, the next time I go to buy a game, I should expect to pay $100 if it has 12 maps for online multiplayer, according to your logic.

It is a game. It is a 10 year old game. They are charging $40 for a remake of a 10 year old game that won't even allow you to play the original multiplayer in system-link. It's been excised from the game entirely.

It is the FPS that defined console FPS gaming. It was never playable online, and now will NEVER be playable online. There was much gnashing of teeth when it was announced that nothing would be done to make it playable when Xbox Live launched. Instead, we got Halo 2, a game that stayed atop the Live most-played lists for YEARS. Then we got Halo 3, and it didn't have the staying the power. Then we got Reach, and it didn't feel like Halo.

CoD Classic featured 8 player multiplayer. No rankings, perks, unlockables, no stat-tracking, no saved films...

Just the original campaign and multiplayer experience from the PC, playable on Xbox Live, which wasn't around in 2001. And it was only $15. That's what we want.

The attitude of "It's a privilege that we're only charging $40 for this game" is mind-boggling to me, honestly, and not at all how I expected 343i's first ever video game effort to be handled.

[Slightly Live]

The attitude of "It's a privilege that we're only charging $40 for this game" is mind-boggling to me, honestly, and not at all how I expected 343i's first ever video game effort to be handled.

Where is this privilege crap coming from? You should really stop with that kind of crap.

Dude, I'm a consumer and fan as much as you or anyone else. I wasn't sold on a CE re-release when I thought the project was rebuilt from the ground up in the Reach engine (which would have been a much more costly and expensive proposition than the current offering). I was expecting a $60 full priced retail package but CEA isn't that. It's budget retail release, a premium budget retail release, but notably 1/3 cheaper than a proper new game.

For the $40 asking price I get;

- Original campaign
- Online co-op
- Re orchestrated sound
- New graphical remake of the entire campaign
- Extras and bonuses
- No CE multiplayer

I'm more than happy to pay $20 for all of the above. Obviously some people are not happy with the price or the content but that's decision to make as a consumer and fan.
The there's the Reach content.

- 7 New and Exclusive maps and Full multiplayer environment (Matchmaking, Saved Films, Forge, Theatre)
- Ability to transfer the 7 maps back into Halo: Reach
- TU scheduled to hit to make multiplayer gameplay on new maps more traditional than the standard Reach gameplay

I'm more than happy to pay $20 for this Reach content too. Again, others may not find it's worth the value placed on it or may not like Reach so DLC content doesn't appeal to them. I do and the price is right.

So put it all together on one disk for $40 at retail and I'm pretty happy with the product. It' appeals enough to me to warrant a purchase. I'm a consumer and if a product doesn't appeal to me then I won't buy it. I think they have learned from the price point of Halo 3: ODST and struck a decent balance between content and price.

If I didn't play Reach, then I don't think CEA would appeal enough to me to buy it on day one, I would probably wait for a price drop.

[Jironimo]

Actually, to say that every 3 maps should increase the cost $10 is silly.

So, the next time I go to buy a game, I should expect to pay $100 if it has 12 maps for online multiplayer, according to your logic.

CoD Classic featured 8 player multiplayer. No rankings, perks, unlockables, no stat-tracking, no saved films...

Just the original campaign and multiplayer experience from the PC, playable on Xbox Live, which wasn't around in 2001. And it was only $15. That's what we want.

Every 3 DLC maps do cost $10. If you don't buy HA, when the maps are sold as a stand-alone release they'll be $20 so we know that is what they're worth. The initial maps which are part of a new game are a totally different situation so your argument is not sound.

The original CoD was also a game which was released 2 years after H1 and was made to go online, it's much simpler to make that game work on XBL since it already worked online. It's a totally different situation and it's comparing apples to oranges.

Once again, the price is fair. It's not fair to you so don't buy it. It will go down to $15 eventually just like ODST has and if you think that's a reasonable price for online coop then pick it up then.

[JCTucker]

Where is this privilege crap coming from? You should really stop with that kind of crap.

Dude, I'm a consumer and fan as much as you or anyone else. I wasn't sold on a CE re-release when I thought the project was rebuilt from the ground up in the Reach engine (which would have been a much more costly and expensive proposition than the current offering). I was expecting a $60 full priced retail package but CEA isn't that. It's budget retail release, a premium budget retail release, but notably 1/3 cheaper than a proper new game.

For the $40 asking price I get: (fixed this for you, dawg)

- Shat upon
- pissed on
- bent over a barrel
- raped
- and then thank them for it

I'm more than happy to pay $20 for all of the above. Obviously some people are not happy with the price or the content but that's decision to make as a consumer and fan.
The there's the Shadowrun 2 content.

...

No YOU.

That^

That's the kind of bullshit spin I'm talking about. "It's NOTABLY 1/3 less than a full retail game should be."

So, because you were EXPECTING them to go the full $60 route (and just how much is the game costing YOU again?), but instead they only went $40 when comparable remakes (which, furthermore, are released via the lower cost digital method) cost no more than $20 and feature online multiplayer... Somehow, that's a bargain.

[Jironimo]

I wouldn't say it's a bargain, but it is a fair price. They're not giving it away for sure. Honestly what this boils down to is that whoever's butthurt about no multiplayer is just wanting to make this thing sound like it's shit no matter what. Since it's not worth it to you, then just wait till it's $15 or don't get it at all. It doesn't mean that it's not a good content or a good bundle.

[JCTucker]

Every 3 DLC maps do cost $10. If you don't buy HA, when the maps are sold as a stand-alone release they'll be $20 so we know that is what they're worth. The initial maps which are part of a new game are a totally different situation so your argument is not sound.

How is it totally different?

It's not DLC for Reach. It's competitive multiplayer using the Reach engine. If you only have the CEA disc, then you can only play those maps. Just like if you download CoD Classic or Perfect Dark. You play those games online on the maps that came with the game you purchased. It doesn't matter if the game cost $10, $15, or $40.

You want to talk about not sound? Shipping a FPS in 2011 with no competitive multiplayer mode, which is what your argument states they're doing.

The original CoD was also a game which was released 2 years after H1 and was made to go online, it's much simpler to make that game work on XBL since it already worked online. It's a totally different situation and it's comparing apples to oranges.

Allow me to fix this. I'm not going to change much. But see if you can figure out what I changed.

The original Halo PC was also a game which was released 2 years after H1 and was made to go online, it's much simpler to make that game work on XBL since it already worked online.

Oh, didn't see that one coming, apparently...

Once again, the price is fair. It's not fair to you so don't buy it. It will go down to $15 eventually just like ODST has and if you think that's a reasonable price for online coop then pick it up then.

Stating something as fact doesn't make it so, Ivan. This game has no business being more than $20.

Edited by JCTucker, 01 July 2011 - 10:36 AM.

[Slightly Live]

No YOU.

That^

That's the kind of bullshit spin I'm talking about. "It's NOTABLY 1/3 less than a full retail game should be."

So, because you were EXPECTING them to go the full $60 route (and just how much is the game costing YOU again?), but instead they only went $40 when comparable remakes (which, furthermore, are released via the lower cost digital method) cost no more than $20 and feature online multiplayer... Somehow, that's a bargain.

Just what are you trying to prove here?

I've explained in detail why I am buying the game. I've explained in detail why I think the price is attractive to me as a customer and fan. If the price was higher, I'd reconsider the purchase. If I didn't play Reach, I'd reconsider my purchase.

It's pretty simple really. I'm not calling anything a bargain. It's fair price. Just like I didn't say anything about being privileged. Stop making shit up.

[Jironimo]

How is it totally different?

Stating something as fact doesn't make it so, Ivan. This game has no business being more than $20.

It's totally different because this is DLC, you even get a code with the game so you have the DLC for Halo Reach. You could download the DLC and never put in the HA disc if you didn't want to.

Halo PC was dedicated servers, again apples and oranges. The first COD was 2 years later and could be played peer to peer and not just on dedicated servers.

You're Butthurt that multiplayer isn't there. Fine so criticize the lack of multiplayer, you're so set on making this sound like a bad deal just because you're so hung up on no multiplayer. Being objective based on the content in the bundle (DLC & game), $40 is fair. Just because you state $20 should be the price as fact doesn't make it so.

[JCTucker]

I'm so set on making it sound like it's a bad deal because it is a bad deal. It is the EXPECTED online multiplayer component included with the game. Releasing a FPS in 2011 without some sort of competitive online play is guaranteed failure. It's a remastering of a 10 year old game that has been stripped of its genre-defining multiplayer for $40. That's a bad deal. You're referring to it as "bundle" to justify the price tag. How do you not understand that? I know you're smarter than this Ivan. For the record, the first CoD was in October 2003. Halo PC was September 2003. Halo set the bar for console FPS. They said it couldn't be done due to the controller, and they did it anyway. Halo 2 set the bar for online multiplayer. People have yearned for the ability to play the first game like they could the 2nd. You know this, because you're one of them.

[Jironimo]

"Stating something as fact doesn't make it so, JC" A guaranteed failure huh? So it won't sell and no one will like it?

[Slightly Live]

It is the EXPECTED online multiplayer component included with the game. Releasing a FPS in 2011 without some sort of competitive online play is guaranteed failure.

ODST

All I see here is aching butthurt. Sing another tune if you can't face up to it.

[JCTucker]

"Stating something as fact doesn't make it so, JC"

A guaranteed failure huh? So it won't sell and no one will like it?

My God. It has an online mode done in the Reach engine, you trog.

[Syracuse022]

I'll be interested to see how it sells. Let's put it that way. I would also love to know what kind of numbers 343i is hoping/thinking that they will garner with this release.


Most favorably reviewed game in the series gets remade... with multiplayer from the least favorably reviewed game. Cool.

[JCTucker]

ODST

All I see here is aching butthurt. Sing another tune if you can't face up to it.

How is this an example?
ODST had the whole Halo 3 multiplayer experience and a halfassed Horde mode copy. Because everyone expects a FPS to have an online component.

All I see is blatant water-carrying.

[Jironimo]

My God. It has an online mode done in the Reach engine, you trog.

A guaranteed failure huh? So it won't sell and no one will like it?