"In some ways the internet has made gaming less personal, but in others has helped and made it so people all around the world can connect and have fun."
-TheGamerAccess.com
Remakes of the campaigns featured in Xbox Game Studios' Halo 2 and Halo 3 are currently in development, according to a new rumor.
That's Microsoft's gaming division for you...kill off developers making new ip while trying to capitalize off some long lost glory that has no hope of ever being what it once was thanks to recent decision making favoring unrealistic profit goals and greed. What a joke.
So much bitterness. Why be upset over something like this. Just don't buy it and stick with what you prefer.
Give it rest medman..., take a deep breath and try to not sound so invested in something no one is forcing you to read, buy, or play.
"Console war"is over, Sony won, be happy.
@thesoftware730
I'm invested in people losing their jobs and their livelihoods while Microsoft execs tout record profits for their gaming division. Not sure why you wouldn't be invested. Could be you one day. Good luck.
So what’s their solution to having multiplayer? Wait until Halo 7?
That was one of the most memorable parts of Halo..
I'm not sure spending the heavy investment in time to recreate the multiplayer here is the answer either though.
Remaking the campaigns is a great idea to bring the new players up to speed. But if the multiplayer is included in each it'll just fracture the player base of each release.
I think it might be better to turn these campaigns out quicker and have 1 multiplayer game to keep everyone in one place
Maybe having an Halo Online and just release the Combat Evolve maps. And when Halo 2 releases have those maps release. I don’t know but I would like to play a newer version of Halo multiplayer. I know times have changed, and Fortnite is all younger kids really play. But back then it was Halo and you connecting 6 Xbox’s together lol.
I agree. I think that'll segment the playerbase and once 7 comes out, players might realize it sucks and go back to the older games. Especially if 7 is live-servixe, they'll be shooting themselves in the foot on the one good leg they have to stand on.
Kinda surprised they didn't just port MCC.
Maybe more $ to by made with separate remasters
Wouldn't have that problem if it were MCC being released. Gotta wait for 7 to be disappointed with MP all over again cause if they half baked Infinite what makes people think they won't half bake the next game? MP works in past HALO games not cause of nostalgia but because it's MP that isn't concerned with the endless service approach.
There is so much cognitive dissonance over Infinite. People say they didn't like it because it was a live service. Yet if you look at what the criticisms of it were at the time it came out and when the playerbase started falling off, the primary issue people had was a lack of updates. In other words, it wasn't enough of a live service.
Which is really an encapsulation of the problem with multiplayer today. So many people think that they want to go back to the "good old days" of mid-2000s multiplayer (The first few Halos, Socom, the first few Battlefields, CS 1.6, etc), but in reality if a multiplayer game like that came out today, people would whine about the lack of content within a month of launch and go back to a live service with a grindy progression system.
Why not just port the MCC? 🤔 That was the easiest layup ever and you completely missed it
I thought the same thing, then I realized that they wouldn't include the remakes in that edition. We may get a different version of Halo MCC in the future with all of the remakes included. I just want them to include Halo 5 at some point for PC.
I wonder if Microsoft will port Reach over to Playstation I quite enjoyed that game. I played Halo 3 and it was not bad I have Halo 2 on the OG Xbox I just need some cables to hook up to my tv to play it.
In honour of PlayStation's 30th birthday yesterday in the US, data company Circana has dug out figures showing the top 20 best-selling PlayStation video games ever (date-range Jan 1995 to July 2025). Don't get too excited.
This is a great reminder of how game sales have become more concentrated in a smaller number of games/series over time. In the PS1/PS2 era a game was a success if it sold a million or a few million copies. The GTA games (3/Vice City/San Andreas) were pretty big outliers in selling as much as they did during the PS2 era. So in the minds of a lot of gamers something like FF VII feels like it was as big of a PS1 game as God of War 2018 was for PS4, but in reality far fewer people bought it (though it has obviously reached additional people through remasters, etc.).
What this says to me is, not many people are buying a PS to play PS exclusives. Like so many false narratives, like Xbox gamers don't buy games! It seems Playstation as a default system is a vanilla system to play call of duty, Minecraft, GTA games and a sports games.
if you look back into the PS history, it has always been the 3rd parties who sells the most games. it was just that the PS1 and PS2 were so dominant that many of those 3rd party games were exclusives. so, back during the PS1 and PS2 days, the strategy was "to sell as many consoles as possible in order to sell more 1st party exclusives" to ride on that wave. The strategy to push many 1st party exclusives to sell consoles only started with the PS3 when many of those prior 3rd party exclusives went multiplat but more accurately, it started with the PSP.
Sony saw with the PSP, which was being trounced in sales by the DS, that 3rd party exclusives are hard to come by if you're not dominating the market. So they started building more 1st party games and when the PS3 were facing difficulties in sales, they knew they had to rely on their own to differentiate the PS3 from the 360. So the strategy back then changed to "release more 1st party exclusives in order to sell more consoles".
the only manufacturer that is still consistently selling their hardware to play 1st party exclusives, is Nintendo, and that was because they gave up the armrace for power thus they can't rely on 3rd parties anymore as all multiplats play better on competing consoles. AND that's also why they are the most ominous in going after emulators and also patent trolling!
so, you're not wrong there, but not an "aha!" moment or anything. it has been this way since the last, at least, 15 years for Playstation.
@zerobalance
So... what this tells you is that Call of duty, being the absolute check writer that it is, has been outsold by Last of us, God of war, 2 Spider man games..... Saying Playstation exclusives doesn't sell is like saying call of duty doesn't sell because they have outsold some of iterations. Does that make sense to you?
Gears of War's creator has spoken out against the trend of turning established franchises into live services, urging developers to focus on single-player experiences.
Too bad he didn't have this opinion when he chased trends with Lawbreakers. Or when he chased trends with Radical Heights.
He learned from the mistake or he wouldn’t be advocating for more single player experiences. I find this refreshing in a world where we often see people so stubborn that they tend to double down on a mistake which results in making things even worse. Seriously, good for him!
@Popsicle
Oh for sure, better late than never. And better to somewhat own up to your mistakes, rather than just blaming your release window, or advertising partners, or gamers lol.
@Popsicle
Of course we will never know his intentions, but it's hard to believe he is just a naive agent that is learning from his mistakes.
He could have done one himself after Gears of War but he did Lawbreakers…look how that turned out.
Jawbreakers would have been a better name! Heck, I might just go and trademark that right now.
You're missing the point. His studio's short lifespan is what *inspired* him to make this comment in the first place.
Oh I know the point...I'm just stating the obvious and how stupid he was in the beginning to jump on a trend he had no real experience in. A first person hero shooter with heavy GaaS elements is a lot different than the multiplayer in Gears of War.
He'd have been better creating something like Gears of War again, a great single player story and a good online mode.
-"A first person hero shooter with heavy GaaS elements is a lot different than the multiplayer in Gears of War."
I mean... you're kinda muddying terms when Gears has always had a strong multiplayer component. Even if I grant you that, Cliffy B started cementing himself at Epic with Unreal Tournament, which was among the earliest shooter series to have "proto-GaaS elements" (downloadable maps, cosmetics, special editions that bundle stuff together). Lawbreakers and Radical Heights (were it finished) weren't major career shifts to him like they would be for, say, Fumito Ueda.
Regardless of that, it's still kinda useless to state the obvious when CliffyB himself made his comments with the benefit of hindsight already.
Look, these a-hole publishers can do this, in fact I want them to, so they can f*ck around and find out and fail hard scaring away everyone else from doing this live service push.
This industry is run by some of the dumbest corporate pieces of sh*t I’ve ever seen. They spend stupid amount of money with literally nothing that stands out from games from the previous generation (look at Arkham Knight to the $200 mill Suicide Squad comparison vids), you’re overpaying devs, and you focus on games as a service to milk consumers that a lot of them grew up off traditional games. We’re not idiots, we sniff this sh*t out and won’t touch it.
So, what’s your answer to not getting a ROI? Raise game prices and double down on GaaS so you can suck your consumers dry. That model only works for some games and even then how in hell do you expect it to work with multiple games!? They’re ruining the damn hobby with this corporate greed.
Cut back on dev budgets, cut back on how much your staff is getting paid, until sales for games bring in a profit. That’s the answer and make some games that feel like there’s passion behind them, not some cookie cut up game that feels like the entire existence behind it is to offer as little as it can with repetitive bullsh*t and selling off all this content throughout its life. It’s gross.
Games do bring in a profit, it's the greed that is killing the industry. Here is a fact, live service games overall make more, significantly more money than single player games
What you should be asking is executives not wanting continuous growth or firing them. Saying devs should be fired when those who are fitting the bills and setting unrealistic expectations would make things worse. What do y9u think would happen if they released say, 30 single player games and over half of them fail? You are going after the wrong crowd.
About time he learned. I guess he finally stopped blaming everyone else and took accountability for his mistakes and realized that people really don't care that much for trends or live service.
I would replace Uncharted 3 with Uncharted 2
Uncharted 2s multiplayer was much better, especialy in the pre 1.5 update days.
The game was just much more balanced and unique then what Uncharted 3 turned into.
Kickbacks, upgradable perks, weapon mods, powerplays, loadouts.............no thanks.
I can agree with you on the Uncharted 2 multiplayer having the advantage over 3. I preferred the story of Uncharted 3, but strictly multiplayer goes to 2 for me.
"Halo 2: Now while Reach, ODST, and Halo 3 are all better games..."
Gotta disagree with that. At least for Reach, never played ODST, but I thought Halo 2 was way better than Reach.
I have trouble getting into online multiplayer games, the only online shooters I've been able to really get into this gen was Killzone 2-3, bad company 2, and Halo 3. I'm bout to try out the Ghost Recon beta, hope that's pretty good.
Nice list, but I would have personally included GTA4 in there.