Frequently Asked Forum Questions
Search the HBO News Archives Any All Exact		Search the Halo Updates DBs Halo Halo2		Bungie Webcam HBO XBL Gamertags *Ar's Simple HTML Guide Shishka's Guide for Newcomers The Lowdown on Download Accelerators Red Loser's Anti-Spamming Guide Egg FAQ | More Egg Stuff c0ld's Movie Starter Guide Shishka's HaloPC Pre-Release FAQ 3.1 AutoMagic 117 StripzMaker
Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts

Re: IMO: somebody missed the boat *really LONG*
Posted By: gspawn	Date: 5/26/06 8:08 a.m.
In Response To: bungie burnout (visibledetritus) It's weird that I'm going to say this when Narcogen is involved, but it seems like this article is totally, completely off base. Like not even in the ballpark where the bases are... here's why: [And yes, this is all going from my interpretation of how things went down, using mostly Bungie's own words instead of a third party's reporting. My interpretation could be wrong, so I'll throw the salt shaker out the window ahead of time.] -Halo 2 was the final game from the beginning. And yes, that was obvious from the beginning (wasn't it even in the FAQ for a while?). Bungie said they planned on wrapping everything up there, and on the H2SpecialEd DVD, you can see confirmation. Halo 3 only came to exist when Bungie couldn't make their own deadline (because we see confirmation they had the clout to truly make their own deadline here, even in the article). [btw: The "3 levels" thing often gets a lot of hubbub- Bungie talked about the cut on the DVD and called it a "final chapter" or so, and given their earlier statement that Halo 2 would conclude the series mismatched with the game's ending, the announcement wasn't too necessary... if they thought Halo 3 could be turned into a full game, is 3 levels really that dramatic?] --This puts the entire first half of the article into the land of meaninglessness, as the struggle over "what would happen to Halo 3" didn't actually exist at the time. Sure, Microsoft would want a sequel- who doesn't like money? But Bungie wasn't making one. And when Bungie chose to counter that, it was an entirely internal decision based on their own release and their own expectations for the series. --The REAL battle for 'Halo 3' at the time seems like it was just trilogy syndrome. Microsoft had a massive hit, so the natural expectation was for the cash cow to crank out a trilogy (Allard's expectation was based on this, not any actual relation the 'game' Halo 3- he just expected the 'idea' of Halo 3 to become reality, or that's my immediate interpretation). This is certainly how it's done in Hollywood. And you can't blame Microsoft for wanting that- Bungie and Halo made the Xbox. If they could finish the Xbox and start the 360, they'd have built Microsoft's future for them. I'd want that too. -Microsoft's decision to push Halo made the Xbox, and made Bungie the publicly adored genius stepchild that it is today. Don't get me wrong, they'd still be brilliant developers with a massive following, but they probably wouldn't be getting regular front-page trips to the Wall Street Journal, either. I'm talking about the scale of the success, not the quality. Pushing Halo was a brilliant move, and should an Xbox console someday "win" the console wars, the Halo move will have basically been the cornerstone of the whole battle. It was this move that made Xbox, set up the console early on, and made all of Microsoft's efforts after that possible- er, at least as fast and easy as it went down. (Who in their right mind thought Microsoft would top Nintendo in only one generation?) --The best move for Microsoft was to have Halo at launch. The best move for Bungie, and the entire console, was Halo at launch. There wasn't any other option, if Xbox was going to be a big success. And knowing the ruthless businesspeople at Microsoft, I can't help but think this was known and planned for. Both Bungie and Microsoft made out like bandits from this move, so it's hard to find any negatives here. --If the decision to push Halo was one of the smartest moves in console history, you gotta imagine people knew what they were doing when it came to sequels. The immediate, smartest business move was "where's my trilogy?" just like Hollywood does. And Bungie had pushed out 2 trilogies before (er, does Myth really count?), so Microsoft saw Bungie had more than enough potential and skill to pull off a trilogy in grand fashion. I would have been all over them for it, too, and I couldn't fault Allard for thinking similarly. the profit generated by Halo 2 might have been the difference between forging ahead and throwing in the towel. -Dead wrong. Microsoft is in this console race to push Sony out of the home market, not to sell consoles. It's an institutional investment with hazards, and Microsoft is willing to foot the bill. You'll see in other interviews that Microsoft didn't really ever care if Xbox turned a profit- the whole first gen venture was understood to be an investment in the home market. Turning a profit was a great bonus, not anything necessary. -The part of the article detailing the "committee vote" to push Halo 2 out the door full of resentment from all sides seems worrying. But with all of the overdramatization and oddness above, I'm thinking back to the salt that flew over my shoulder. Was it REALLY that bad? See the above note- Halo2's profit didn't mean nearly as much to the Xbox as Takashi claimed... and in fact, having Halo 2 as a 360 title would have been a MUCH bigger win for Microsoft. And with 360 already launching, Microsoft could have taken a loss on Xbox for a profit on 360 and broken even financially, so talking about profits here makes no sense. Also, lots of Bungie staffers did leave at this time, but we know a lot of them already had expiring contracts or (like Seropian) already had a urge to do something else anyway. It was a season of change for a lot of people, even without any Halo 2 debacles. This makes it hard to take Takashi too seriously on the committee section... was he overdramatizing again? -Takashi's final claim also throws me off. He says Halo 3 will only be good if Microsoft gives Bungie room... but it seems the included passages make Halo 2 seem like a success despite Microsoft, and I assume he'd agree that Halo's success (or at least its importance to Xbox) was because of Microsoft. He's obviously overdramatizing here. So again, I'm having trouble taking him seriously elsewhere. Diaclaimer: Yes, this is based on my own knowledge of events. And no, I haven't read the rest of the book, so maybe things are a bit out of context. And I'm not saying Takashi or Narc don't know what they're talking about. But I've seen big figures mess up regarding Bungie in the past (see: Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Halo 3 "announcements"). Forgive me, all. Finally: What comes next? Bungie. Delicious Bungie. (heh) And if Bungie staffers really are burning out, they have only to mention it to the fans and scores of letters (re: death threats) will pour into Microsoft on their behalf. We're ready and willing to assist. Don't make us kick your ass! (again, heh)

Message Index

bungie burnout	visibledetritus	5/25/06 7:30 p.m.
Re: bungie burnout	Frankie	5/25/06 7:47 p.m.
Re: bungie burnout	UrsusArctos	5/25/06 8:08 p.m.
Hogan's Heroes...	Pratch™	5/25/06 8:20 p.m.
Allard was right, Fries was wrong.	JakeDaGreat	5/25/06 8:53 p.m.
Re: Allard was right, Fries was wrong.	visibledetritus	5/25/06 8:57 p.m.
Re: Allard was right, Fries was wrong.	MSN	5/25/06 9:25 p.m.
Re: Allard was right, Fries was wrong.	visibledetritus	5/25/06 10:54 p.m.
Real Artists Ship	Narcogen	5/26/06 1:29 a.m.
Re: Real Artists Ship	Count Zero	5/26/06 12:36 p.m.
Not to mention	Pratch™	5/26/06 12:50 p.m.
Re: bungie burnout	Roger Wilco	5/25/06 9:15 p.m.
Re: bungie burnout	Rade	5/25/06 10:31 p.m.
Harsh	Narcogen	5/26/06 1:41 a.m.
Re: bungie burnout	Narcogen	5/26/06 1:35 a.m.
Re: bungie burnout	Roger Wilco	5/26/06 2:32 p.m.
Re: IMO: somebody missed the boat *really LONG*	gspawn	5/26/06 8:08 a.m.
Don't worry, one comes along every 5 minutes	Narcogen	5/26/06 10:18 a.m.
Re: Don't worry, one comes along every 5 minutes	Matt	5/26/06 10:28 a.m.
Re: Don't worry, one comes along every 5 minutes	Narcogen	5/26/06 10:38 a.m.
Re: Don't worry, one comes along every 5 minutes	Matt	5/26/06 11:02 a.m.
Re: Don't worry, one comes along every 5 minutes	Narcogen	5/26/06 12:01 p.m.
Re:The three levels deal	ShortRoundMcfly	5/26/06 12:08 p.m.
Re:The three levels deal	Count Zero	5/26/06 12:42 p.m.
Re:The three levels deal	Narcogen	5/26/06 1:16 p.m.
Re: Don't worry, one comes along every 5 minutes	MSN	5/26/06 10:59 a.m.
LIES!	Pratch™	5/26/06 11:45 a.m.
Refutation	Narcogen	5/26/06 11:54 a.m.
Re: Refutation	MSN	5/26/06 9:06 p.m.
Re: Refutation	Narcogen	5/26/06 9:58 p.m.
Re: Don't worry, one comes along every 5 minutes	Ma1agate	5/26/06 1:00 p.m.
So why not...	Pratch™	5/26/06 1:27 p.m.
Re: So why not...	Ma1agate	5/26/06 2:07 p.m.
By all means	Pratch™	5/26/06 2:29 p.m.
Well...	Pratch™	5/26/06 2:43 p.m.
Re: IMO: somebody missed the boat *really LONG*	Matt	5/26/06 10:22 a.m.
Re: IMO: somebody missed the boat *really LONG*	Narcogen	5/26/06 10:40 a.m.
Re: IMO: somebody missed the boat *really LONG*	Sep7imus [subnova]	5/26/06 12:42 p.m.
Re: IMO: somebody missed the boat *really LONG*	KP	5/26/06 1:23 p.m.
Re: IMO: somebody missed the boat *really LONG*	Louis Wu	5/26/06 1:42 p.m.
Re: IMO: somebody missed the boat *really LONG*	Narcogen	5/26/06 3:22 p.m.
Re: IMO: somebody missed the boat *really LONG*	UrsusArctos	5/26/06 8:33 p.m.
Re: bungie burnout	Twelve Large	5/26/06 10:41 p.m.
Re: bungie burnout	Narcogen	5/27/06 6:55 a.m.