One Halo Every Three Years = Not Enough Halos.

[Widgetcraft]

Microsoft: One Halo game every three years 'probably not frequent enough' (http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/112/1122586p1.html)

Corporate Vice President for Microsoft Game Studios Phil Spencer told IGN that, "There's no explicit strategy that says we're to ship a Halo game every year. I will say I think one Halo game every three years -- which was kind of our old cadence – is probably not frequent enough."

"I'll just, again, be honest as a gamer. I used to look at annual releases of non-sports games as people just trying to milk me. I figured nobody had enough time to do a good job, and all of the negatives that we would associate with those kinds of scenarios. Kudos to Activision because they've done a good job building a good game, continuing to release each year and I think the fans feel like it's a good thing that they do that. I think there are some things to learn, some positives and some opportunities, in what they do with that. Obviously they've kept the quality extremely high, which I think is important."

So, the Halo franchise is going to start taking lessons from Call of Duty... and coincidentally, both franchises have been abandoned by their original developers.

[DoctorFinger]

Halo hasn't been an 'every 3 years' property for a while now. Reach is the 3rd Halo game released in the last year and a half in fact.

[Mortis]

The later Call of Duty games have been developed by two developers, as everyone knows, so they weren't churning out one game per year per developer like EA does with Madden or Tiger Woods.

If they are going to ask one developer to release a Halo game every year then the quality will surely suffer IMO. That is if anyone new can even step in and make a quality Halo game that will please fans of the franchise.

[fitbabits]

He's right. If Microsoft wants to keep up with CoD (which is obviously the strategy going forth), then a Halo per year is what is needed. It's the only game Microsoft has that can stand toe-to-toe with the CoD juggernaut.

Of course, there's every chance the quality of the titles will suffer, but that remains to be seen.

[burger]

A new Halo game may come out only once every 3 years ago but a GOOD Halo game has only come out once during the lifetime of the franchise.

Halo 2, 3 and Reach are all OK games. For me only the first Halo offered something new and original. Bungie and MS have been unable to pull off a Valve where they always seem to outclass their previous effort.

COD comes out every year but despite that it isn't 1/3rd the game that Halo is. In fact COD games are better so if a new Halo game were to come out every year they would probably suck in comparison

[KillerMcDead]

A new Halo game may come out only once every 3 years ago but a GOOD Halo game has only come out once during the lifetime of the franchise.

Halo 2, 3 and Reach are all OK games.

I happen to disagree with that statement. As good as Halo was, I think a lot of people see it through rose colored glasses. Don't get me wrong it's a great game, but I had just as much if not more fun playing ODST and Reach.

I do however think the quality of the Halo franchise will suffer under Activision's banner. The COD games just keep getting worse and worse, and I think Halo will soon follow. They're a company that is all about the bottom line. Where Bungie genuinely had a desire to make good games, Activision just wants to make a whole lot of money. I'm not saying that the 2 are mutually exclusive, but it's hard to take your time and do things right when you have to worry about getting canned for not meeting deadlines and so forth.

[fitbabits]

I happen to disagree with that statement. As good as Halo was, I think a lot of people see it through rose colored glasses. Don't get me wrong it's a great game, but I had just as much if not more fun playing ODST and Reach.

I do however think the quality of the Halo franchise will suffer under Activision's banner. The COD games just keep getting worse and worse, and I think Halo will soon follow. They're a company that is all about the bottom line. Where Bungie genuinely had a desire to make good games, Activision just wants to make a whole lot of money. I'm not saying that the 2 are mutually exclusive, but it's hard to take your time and do things right when you have to worry about getting canned for not meeting deadlines and so forth.
Halo will never be published under the Activision banner as Microsoft owns the IP. Bungie, on the other hand, will have their titles published by Activision. It's a small, yet crucial, distinction.

I believe 343 Industries is now responsible for developing the Halo legacy/franchise.

[burger]

As good as Halo was, I think a lot of people see it through rose colored glasses. .

I'm not looking to derail this thread into an argument about the merits of the original Halo but I think it's pretty easy to make the case that when Halo came out it added things to the FPS genre that were either new or had been poorly implemented before. It changed the genre...it's place in history is secure because of that. The rest of the Halo's didn't add anything new to the franchise or the genre. More of the same.

[BigJonno]

MOAR HALOS!

:o

Sorry, I'll leave now.

[Kelegacy]

Yes, release as many Halos as possible, as quickly as possible. I'm all for it. Saturating a franchise is always awesome.

I think the quality has already gone down the shitter. I haven't played Reach, but people know my disgust for ODST. That was awful.

[OldJadedGamer]

It doesn't matter to me as Reach is the very last Halo I'm ever buying. If Bungie is done with series, then so am I. Just like MW2 was the last COD I'll ever buy. They could make one once a month and it wouldn't have any effect on me personally.

[KillerMcDead]

I'm not looking to derail this thread into an argument about the merits of the original Halo but I think it's pretty easy to make the case that when Halo came out it added things to the FPS genre that were either new or had been poorly implemented before. It changed the genre...it's place in history is secure because of that. The rest of the Halo's didn't add anything new to the franchise or the genre. More of the same.

While I'd agree Halo was revolutionary for its time, that doesn't take anything away from the other games. I don't know how much time you've spent playing the others, but they did in fact add something new to each game. Wether it was just some new vehicles and weapons (Plasma Swords, Spartan Lasers, Jetpacks etc.) or the way the gameplay changed after you stepped out of MC's boots (You are no longer Jesus). Not every change a franchise makes has to be "Revolutionary". They built a stable foundation with Halo and added to it from there. My biggest complaint about Halo 2 and 3 was how atrocious the story became, which is why I think I like ODST and Reach so much.

[DoctorFinger]

It doesn't matter to me as Reach is the very last Halo I'm ever buying. If Bungie is done with series, then so am I. Just like MW2 was the last COD I'll ever buy. They could make one once a month and it wouldn't have any effect on me personally.So you won't even give 343 Studios a chance with the franchise?

[Yeti2005]

I wouldn't mind seeing a new Halo before 3 years but I don't think I need them at 1-2 year clip. I know they'll never do it but I'd like 343 to branch out and try some new things with the Halo universe (space shooter like Wing Commander? 3rd person action game?).

[DoctorFinger]

Actually at least one of the Halo games 343 is working on is supposedly not a "traditional" Halo game. Whether that means flight sim, RPG, or card battle game, I don't know.

[KillerMcDead]

Halo will never be published under the Activision banner as Microsoft owns the IP. Bungie, on the other hand, will have their titles published by Activision. It's a small, yet crucial, distinction.

I believe 343 Industries is now responsible for developing the Halo legacy/franchise.

My bad. It still worries me when a company talks about milking a franchise though. If they can pull it off, great, I'll be the first to commend them for their efforts. But if there's one constant I've learned about game development, it's that nothing is ever finished on time. I love a company like Valve because they've never release a hurried product. I just don't want to see Halo go the way of COD.

[Vermillion]

It doesn't matter to me as Reach is the very last Halo I'm ever buying. If Bungie is done with series, then so am I. Just like MW2 was the last COD I'll ever buy. They could make one once a month and it wouldn't have any effect on me personally.

You know, it is possible that a company other than Bungie could crap out a quality Halo title. That's like saying "ZOMG, I'm never watching another Bond movie unless it's directed by John Glen".

You sound like some kind of disinfranchised, elderly gamer!

[OldJadedGamer]

So you won't even give 343 Studios a chance with the franchise?

No, because it was a big stretch to even buy Reach for me. I'm done with Halo, it's been way too long and I get bored of the settings and want something new after that long. While I'm sure that 343 will make a decent game, I'm just personally done with Halo as a series and Bungie left at the right time and with the right game. I'll go out with a high note on the series. It's like when a TV show introduces a new character. Halo being taken over by 343 is like cousin Oliver coming into the family.

[DoctorFinger]

So it's not that you don't think anyone but Bungie should make the series, just that you're bored with it?

[Karak]

Unlike others in this thread I can't read the future. So I am one of the sad gamers who will just have to wait till the games come out to you know...see if they are fun. Damn I wish I could just know like other people. It would mean I could spend my money on Rage since I know that will rock because...well I don't cause I can't see the future.

[OldJadedGamer]

So it's not that you don't think anyone but Bungie should make the series, just that you're bored with it?

I used to think that the original developer was the only one that could do sequels that were real sequels until I played Dead Rising 2 Case Zero and that changed my mind a little. For the vast majority of the time, when another developer picks up the series it loses a little bit of it's soul.

I really believe though that no matter what 343 pulls out, it won't be better than Bungie's worst Halo. Bungie sent the series out with a bang with Reach and there really isn't any more they can do. But who knows, I could be wrong but I really doubt I will be in this instance.

So to me, I was never going to buy another Halo anyway so if they beat it into the ground I couldn't care less.

[Jason]

I'm ok with more Halo, just don't run it into the ground as Activision has done with several of their franchises. As for 343 making the Halo games, I'll see what they can do. Crystal Dynamics proved to me a different studio can do better work on a sequel than the original developers with Tomb Raider. CD's Tomb Raider games are much better than anything Eidos has done since the first Tomb Raider.

[evilgoodwin]

Man, I hope the Flood is in every one. Because that was the best part. The Flood. I can't wait. Maybe they'll let me play as the Flood. Oh, and I especially hope they throw in Master Chief as a cameo every chance they can. Because I love cameos in franchises. That's why I play Star Wars games, so that I can see what Luke Skywalker does. This idea is awesome.

[Vigil80]

I am not trying to be that guy who comes into a thread that isn't meant for him in the first place and rains on the parade, but I don't get Halo. Don't get me wrong, they are solid, well built titles, and the first game arguably paved the way for FPS games on consoles. But, I already feel like it's been run into the ground before any annual milking scheme starts.

If all that is left is a stream of CoD-like iterations pouring into stores like strait-to-disc movie releases, then just letting the series end with Reach would be better, in my opinion. (Not a chance, I know.)

[Karak]

I am not trying to be that guy who comes into a thread that isn't meant for him in the first place and rains on the parade, but I don't get Halo. Don't get me wrong, they are solid, well built titles, and the first game arguably paved the way for FPS games on consoles. But, I already feel like it's been run into the ground before any annual milking scheme starts.

If all that is left is a stream of CoD-like iterations pouring into stores like strait-to-disc movie releases, then just letting the series end with Reach would be better, in my opinion. (Not a chance, I know.)

Dude there is nothing wrong with your valid opinion at all. And well written.
After playing Reach I found it to be a refreshing reboot of my own enjoyment of Halo which had lessened a bit. I am a little excited for a new Halo from a different team though.

In addition I like games. I usually can't ignore anything and want to have fun. If something has some fun for me. I play it. If not I just move on.

[Xerxes]

3 years is fine if I do say myself. They can't keep a good Halo marketing machine going for yearly titles.