Halo 3 - Spring 2006 Confirmed (pre-orders up on EB & GS)

[quote name='KaneRobot']Plus, like I said elsewhere...it'll probably be really annoying for people standing in line for a PS3 at midnight (or whatever) to have to deal with a bunch of people in line for Halo 3. A lot more people can afford a $50 game than they can afford a $300-$400 system.[/QUOTE]

Jesus, I didn't even think of that. I gotta make sure I'm no longer at GS by then. That would be a hellacious shift...
 
[quote name='Ugamer_X']I'm sorry, but this notion that Microsoft is going to release Halo 3 on the same day as the PS3 launch is laughable. It doesn't even make sense from a business perspective. What Microsoft will likely do, is release Halo 3 1-6 months before the PS3 launch. That way, people will play the game beforehand and put their money with Microsoft rather than Sony. Releasing Halo 3 on the same day as the PS3 would only serve to create a living hell for retail employees.

Of course, this is assuming that Halo 3 will be any good. If Halo 3 ends up being a rushed title, there is that slim chance that it will be released on the PS3 launch...But it's effect will only be short term in that case.[/QUOTE]
Its not at all laughable, I find it very likely. There is a precedent for this. Sony released Final Fantasy VIII the same day that the Dreamcast launched (9/9/99). It may not make perfect business sense, but it makes perfect sense from a marketing standpoint. The perception will be that Microsoft has huge balls. And they get to rain on Sony's parade. Think of the marketing potential. They'll out-Sony Sony.

Has PS3 even been confirmed for a spring launch though?
 
Too bad I don't like FPS's.

This move by Microsoft is actually pretty predictable. They want to overpower Sony at their own game. As time goes by though people tend to stick with games they dig. If someone owns a PS2 and loves Jak, Sly, and Ratchet they will most likely wait for the PS3 to come out rather than ante up for a new Xbox 360. It is pretty obvious that Nintendo's first party titles are what have kept them from vanishing all together. Microsoft has secured a lot of 3rd party support. If they add new unique franchises up to par with Halo then maybe their strategy will work. Otherwise I don't see too many people passing on the PS3.
 
Halo 3 will not come out in spring, it will most likely be delayed. MS has to rush it so it's in time for the PS3 and N5 launchs.

PD0 will replace Halo as the shooter to have, even through it looks terrible.
 
[quote name='David85']Halo 3 will not come out in spring, it will most likely be delayed. MS has to rush it so it's in time for the PS3 and N5 launchs.

PD0 will replace Halo as the shooter to have, even through it looks terrible.[/QUOTE]

I'm not only thinking of making a line on about the Perfect Dark Zero as being the "Halo Killer" but I'm thinking of making one that asks if "PD0" will be an acceptable acronym.

Early odds say: No, on both.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Its not at all laughable, I find it very likely. There is a precedent for this. Sony released Final Fantasy VIII the same day that the Dreamcast launched (9/9/99).[/QUOTE]

Glad to see I'm not the only one that remembers this. I remember EGM even had some cover story calling it "the biggest 24 hours in entertainment history" or something that was overblowing it a bit.

That was kind of a "junior version" of what MS and Sony are fixing to do now.

I can't possibly see Bungie getting Halo 3 done in time for the PS3 launch if it really does show up around April-June 2006ish - but it's not impossible. Keep in mind they essentially restarted from scratch on Halo 1 once it was moved to the XBox and finished it in 1 year. I'm sure that after Halo 2 was done they probably took a few weeks off and then got right back to work on the next one, so it's already well underway.
 
[quote name='KaneRobot']Glad to see I'm not the only one that remembers this. I remember EGM even had some cover story calling it "the biggest 24 hours in entertainment history" or something that was overblowing it a bit.

That was kind of a "junior version" of what MS and Sony are fixing to do now.

I can't possibly see Bungie getting Halo 3 done in time for the PS3 launch if it really does show up around April-June 2006ish - but it's not impossible. Keep in mind they essentially restarted from scratch on Halo 1 once it was moved to the XBox and finished it in 1 year. I'm sure that after Halo 2 was done they probably took a few weeks off and then got right back to work on the next one, so it's already well underway.[/QUOTE]

I can think of two primary issues. First, how much of what will be in the game do they already have defined? The way Halo 2 ended left many suspecting they had a third already scripted. Who knows how much additionally material the voice actor recording sessions may have covered? Along the way they may also have a long list of all the things they would have included given more RAM and other resources.

Second, Bungie did a lot of hiring last year after it was a bit late to add personnel to the Halo 2 team. (Throwing personnel at software projects late in the process is a formula for disaster.) This may have been a separate effort starting work on the engine for Xbox 360 titles.

Depending on how many already defined game assets they had going in and how ambitious the engine is, they may be able to pull it off.
 
If the framework for H3 was already there when Bungie wrapped H2, it is quite possible that it will be ready next summer - time will tell. As far as the strategy, I think it could prove rather brilliant. If the 360 launches as $300 or so and moves well over the holidays, there could be a nice little established fan base by the time PS3 is ready - with a lot more people undecided. If PS3 launches, as a lot of analysts are predicting, at $400+.... Well I wouldn't be at all surprised if MS dropped to $199-249 range and launched H3. Now you're looking at a $150+ price difference, a hugely popular "killer ap", and six months + worth of titles on the store shelves to compete with the PS3 launch. A lot of the people who are not brand loyal or hardcore enough to shell out $500 for a system may easily decide to check out the 360 instead.

In any case, I don't think the next gen market will be %70 sony, %17 MS, and %13 Nintendo. I'm thinking more like %50, %42, %8....
 
I've always found trhe notion that Halo 2 was nothing more than an expasion pack to the first one to be bullshit, plain and simple. Anyone who can grasp the concept of gameplay and graphics can easily see that H2 is above an Beyound a different game than H1. What these individuals have been saying is pretty much akin to saying that MSG3:SE is a bare bones update to MGS (PSOne) or even better, comparing the technical achievements of Star Wars Eps 3 to Esp 4 and saying there has been no real improvement. To these people I suggest thinking, MORE.

Anywho, back on topic, as others have pointed out this wouldn't be the first time game companies have done this, I wouldn't put it past M$. As for those who perdict massive delays, keep 3 things in mind; (1) Bungie never set a realese date for H2 untill the Nov date, Halo 2 never got pushed back or delayed. (2) It's pretty well known by now that H2 lacks a definate conclusion (at least from a storyline perspective), it's also a widely known fact that it was purposely split up with the intention that the conclusion would be on X360. (3) Bungie was the first developers to recieve X360 dev kits, they've been working on H3 the very minute H2 went gold (at least according to their very own words).

As for a launch killer app: Rare, Live, 55 simultaneous players online and Jet Packs. Need I say more? :)
 
I gotta go with Trakan here. Anything more than 8 in a (console) FPS is over-kill. It becomes so impersonal, you may as well be playing against bots. And even if it was fun, how often would you see full 55-player games?
 
I gotta disagree when it comes to the amount of players. I think Live makes it a lot more personal than the huge PC games because of the mic. Sure not every match should have 50 some players or whatever, but I like forward to finally getting more than 16 in typical deathmatch type of games. Now, something like 32 might be better for CTF, but that's still better than what we are currently getting. Coagulation and some of the other maps sure could use more players on the map to fill empty space.
 
Question to those that say PD0 looks like shit, have you seen the E3 footage? Not the pre-release pics, those were horrid, but the exctal vids from E3. Even with all the grainy-ness and lack luster resolution that is real time video you clearly see that it looks above and beyond anything on any of the 3 current gen systems.

As for 55 (or was it 54?) players playing at once. That comment was made more to apeal to the PC gamers who flock to crap like Battlefield and other FPS games were there are hundreds of people playing simultanously. Me personally I prefer 8 or less player games, it's easier to establish a team feeling and stradegy.
 
[quote name='Ultimate Matt X']I gotta disagree when it comes to the amount of players. I think Live makes it a lot more personal than the huge PC games because of the mic. Sure not every match should have 50 some players or whatever, but I like forward to finally getting more than 16 in typical deathmatch type of games. Now, something like 32 might be better for CTF, but that's still better than what we are currently getting. Coagulation and some of the other maps sure could use more players on the map to fill empty space.[/QUOTE]

Imagine a battalion of like 20 players marching down the field in Coag, preparing to launch an assualt on the opps base. :drool:

Damn shame people are retarded nowadays. Somethying like that could almost never be achieved.
 
[quote name='-Never4ever-']Damn shame people are retarded nowadays. Somethying like that could almost never be achieved.[/QUOTE]

Which is why this sounds great on paper, but won't be much fun at all in execution.
 
I'm definately more of a fan of 4 on 4, or even 2 on 2. Still, it's cool that the 360 will be able to handle large games. It's always nice to have the option. The cool thing about PDZ is that maps are scalable, so they can be sized up or down for the number of players currently in the game. Plus with bots available, that'll open up a lot of option. Apparently you can even open and close various parts of maps to limit the size, if you're more interested in the smaller games.
 
A game that would favor tactics rather than running and gunning would work well with 55 people. A war strategy game would work well with a huge amount of players.
 
[quote name='sighlintbob']Anyone know if it can be preodered at a store yet?[/QUOTE]
I'm sure that both EB and Gamestop would take your money for a Halo 3 preorder.
 
I preordered mine at EB two days ago. They didn't say anything bout a limit on how many they plan on taking at my store. I put down $300. I'm also planning on getting one using http://www.trialclix.com/index.asp?refID=132555 It's the best free trial and referral site to get free stuff. It tells you how many points you get for each thing you try. Xbox 360 is at 5,500 points. Or you can get other stuff and sell it on ebay for xbox360 money.. =) So I'll have 2 xbox 360's... One when it comes out and one I'm gonna prolly put on ebay. XBOX 360 IS GONNA OWN! Oh by the way, while I was at EB preordering my 360 and games. The games list showed a date of 11/02/05.... So I'm guessing that is a possible release date.
 
God damn, I just realized how much of a fix I'm in. I was relieing on the PS3 to come out at least somewhat close to the 2006 holiday season so I could actually afford it. I guess this will be the second Sony system I'll have to wait on (1st: PSP). I must admit I'm rather proud of my ability to not go insane over the PSP, I tell you!
 
[quote name='Ultimate Matt X']I gotta disagree when it comes to the amount of players. I think Live makes it a lot more personal than the huge PC games because of the mic. Sure not every match should have 50 some players or whatever, but I like forward to finally getting more than 16 in typical deathmatch type of games. Now, something like 32 might be better for CTF, but that's still better than what we are currently getting. Coagulation and some of the other maps sure could use more players on the map to fill empty space.[/QUOTE]
Can't you limit the number of people in a match if you're the one setting it up?

It seems like you'd just be able to stay away from the giant deathmatches if you're bothered by them that much.
 
[quote name='Trakan']PD0 looks like shit. 55 players? WTF, that's not fun. I don't like 16 in Halo.[/QUOTE]


PD0 will have much bigger maps than Halo 2 can offer and I'm sure the core gameplay for multiplayer will be designed to be more enjoyable with so many players. Although, I do agree with you: I don't like 16 ppl in a Halo game neither (most of the time).
 
[quote name='supadupacheap']Yeah but even worse, imagine the Fanboy fights....good lord!!![/QUOTE]

hey maybe Legend of Zelda for GC will be released this same day.. crazy shit is going down that night.

in regards to the massive FPS games.. I do like 32 players in a "battlefront" type game.. it makes you feel part of a war. but for Halo.. i stick to team slayer or 2 on 2 matches.. those are more fun.....and I love the big maps for small games because you can hide and wait for your opponents or slowly stalk them.. i love it.. it gives a realism that you're actually playing a real area instead of a really small close quarters kind of game. (because in a real outdoor environment there are no barricades to stop you from going anywhere).. so thats what i like.. I can't wait for halo 3. but i'll hold off on a system until then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top