Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Why Halo can't compete with Multi- Platform games
  • Subject: Why Halo can't compete with Multi- Platform games
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Why Halo can't compete with Multi- Platform games

Quit -blam!- stalking me you weirdo.

Many people talk about Halo: Reach is 'Dead', but it is still very much alive and well.

A game that is on Multiple Platforms is always more popular than a game only on 1 platform.

Take Mw3 for example. While this game is tremendously popular on all platforms because CTRL +V games are popular, and because its on multiple platforms.

This all comes to how many people are playing it. Many people are playing Mw3, so that drags more people to it. The reason Mw3 is more popular will be explained below.

I for one got Mw3 because my friends were playing it, and haven't played over 1/2 day online. I have over 10 days on Reach.

Science Fiction games aren't popular anymore either. If you look at game activity, Reach is the best of its genre.

Science Fiction FPS games are dead. Halo is the last good one out, and it is slowly losing population. Modern Military First Person Shooters are taking over the top positions, along with realistic games and Skyrim.

This comes from peoples thoughts on these games. People take Reach at face value, and reputation. Its reputation is that its a sci-fi game, and thats what repels people.

Look at the games above it. All Multi- platformers, and Realistic (Skrim being the exception).

tl;dr your a lazy ass.

  • 12.10.2011 10:57 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Arsyyn
  • user homepage:

i plai 4 fun gtfo

Posted by: The Hired Gun
A game that is on Multiple Platforms is always more popular than a game only on 1 platform.

No -blam!-. Regardless, I'm tired of people making excuses for Reach. It's not #7 or #8 or whatever it is now because of competition. It's not that low because people are tired of Halo. It's that low because it's a bad game.

  • 12.10.2011 10:59 AM PDT

Halo was the reason many People got an Xbox. Halo reach just sucks.

  • 12.10.2011 11:00 AM PDT

rolando garcia

yes all Halo sucks AND YOU SUCK BUNGIE ME AND NEVER WILL REMOVE MY PROFILE OR BLUE FLAMES JAJAJAAJAJJA AM PROOOO AND ALL ARE FU.CKE.RS Bungie V V V V

  • 12.10.2011 11:01 AM PDT


Posted by: Loltastrophe
Posted by: The Hired Gun
A game that is on Multiple Platforms is always more popular than a game only on 1 platform.

No -blam!-. Regardless, I'm tired of people making excuses for Reach. It's not #7 or #8 or whatever it is now because of competition. It's not that low because people are tired of Halo. It's that low because it's a bad game.

Explain why Halo 3 is number 17 and not above Reach, or near it.

  • 12.10.2011 11:05 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Arsyyn
  • user homepage:

i plai 4 fun gtfo

Posted by: InvasionImminent
Explain why Halo 3 is number 17 and not above Reach, or near it.

Because it's four years old? When Halo 3 was a year old it was still right up at the top, but look at Reach after just a year. And don't say it's because of competition now, because Halo 3 had a lot to compete with too.

[Edited on 12.10.2011 11:07 AM PST]

  • 12.10.2011 11:07 AM PDT


Posted by: Loltastrophe
Posted by: InvasionImminent
Explain why Halo 3 is number 17 and not above Reach, or near it.

Because it's four years old? When Halo 3 was a year old it was still right up at the top, but look at Reach after just a year. And don't say it's because of competition now, because Halo 3 had a lot to compete with too.

Like what? Cod 4, MW2? And besides, the more time passes the stronger CoD gets. Its not that Halo sucks, but that CoD is attractive to more people.
Also age means nothing.

[Edited on 12.10.2011 11:10 AM PST]

  • 12.10.2011 11:10 AM PDT

Why do people have to make these threads? Regardless that MW3 is doing way better than Halo I really don't care. It's not gonna stop me from playing it. I'll always love Halo. Even tho Reach was bad I'm still a die hard Halo fan.

  • 12.10.2011 11:49 AM PDT
  • gamertag: razzat
  • user homepage:

Might be going off topic, but why did people only start liking cod after cod4? Cod2 and cod3 were the best

  • 12.10.2011 12:38 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

If Reach allso was a multiplatform game it woulde still have a low online population just as it has now. Sure it's not that high anymore but most games woulde do anything to even be near what Reach has as online population.
What i am saying is that Multi Platform games has nothing to do with the low population.

[Edited on 12.10.2011 12:50 PM PST]

  • 12.10.2011 12:45 PM PDT

Flash Kicks beat Armor Lock.

TheLab.


Posted by: Loltastrophe
Posted by: The Hired Gun
A game that is on Multiple Platforms is always more popular than a game only on 1 platform.

No -blam!-. Regardless, I'm tired of people making excuses for Reach. It's not #7 or #8 or whatever it is now because of competition. It's not that low because people are tired of Halo. It's that low because it's a bad game.


So does that mean games ranked 2-6 are bad games? If you aren't #1 you're a bad game?

  • 12.10.2011 1:29 PM PDT

Marine Corps.
Semper Fi.

Posted by: Wikked Navajoe
My problems [with Reach] are basically just full parties, mlg, and people who go out of their way not to get killed.


Posted by: Darkside Eric

Posted by: Loltastrophe
Posted by: The Hired Gun
A game that is on Multiple Platforms is always more popular than a game only on 1 platform.

No -blam!-. Regardless, I'm tired of people making excuses for Reach. It's not #7 or #8 or whatever it is now because of competition. It's not that low because people are tired of Halo. It's that low because it's a bad game.


So does that mean games ranked 2-6 are bad games? If you aren't #1 you're a bad game?


Not when this community is so used to being top dog for nearly a decade.

  • 12.10.2011 1:36 PM PDT

Flash Kicks beat Armor Lock.

TheLab.


Posted by: Viper Skills

Posted by: Darkside Eric

Posted by: Loltastrophe
Posted by: The Hired Gun
A game that is on Multiple Platforms is always more popular than a game only on 1 platform.

No -blam!-. Regardless, I'm tired of people making excuses for Reach. It's not #7 or #8 or whatever it is now because of competition. It's not that low because people are tired of Halo. It's that low because it's a bad game.


So does that mean games ranked 2-6 are bad games? If you aren't #1 you're a bad game?


Not when this community is so used to being top dog for nearly a decade.


But that doesn't answer the question I asked. Are games that aren't #1 automatically bad because they aren't #1?

  • 12.10.2011 1:42 PM PDT

Marine Corps.
Semper Fi.

Posted by: Wikked Navajoe
My problems [with Reach] are basically just full parties, mlg, and people who go out of their way not to get killed.


Posted by: Darkside Eric
But that doesn't answer the question I asked. Are games that aren't #1 automatically bad because they aren't #1?


Obviously not.

  • 12.10.2011 1:43 PM PDT

Flash Kicks beat Armor Lock.

TheLab.


Posted by: Viper Skills

Posted by: Darkside Eric
But that doesn't answer the question I asked. Are games that aren't #1 automatically bad because they aren't #1?


Obviously not.


Damn... so we have thousands of bad games and only.. what, 3-6 good ones?

  • 12.10.2011 1:46 PM PDT

Marine Corps.
Semper Fi.

Posted by: Wikked Navajoe
My problems [with Reach] are basically just full parties, mlg, and people who go out of their way not to get killed.


Posted by: Darkside Eric

Posted by: Viper Skills

Posted by: Darkside Eric
But that doesn't answer the question I asked. Are games that aren't #1 automatically bad because they aren't #1?


Obviously not.


Damn... so we have thousands of bad games and only.. what, 3-6 good ones?


That's not at all what I was saying and you know exactly what I meant.

  • 12.10.2011 1:47 PM PDT

Forget it man, and get with the countdown. Shake this square world and blast off for Kicksville.

Reach host ranking algorithm: (a*quit_percentage + b*isMexican + c*(1/KDR) + d*hasGuest) * 100
where a > b = d > c

So, Halo is losing out to other games just because they are on multiple platforms?

Interesting logic. It could almost be convincing if you could play multiplayer across platforms. But you can't. Halo Reach is not competing with Black Ops or MW3 on PS3, or PC.

Seriously, do the numbers of people playing a game on other platforms affect your decision to play it on a 360? Hopefully not.

You could argue in the opposite direction: since other games are multi-platform, owners of multiple systems may choose to buy a competing title on a different platform, reducing Halo's competition in the LIVE activity list. I can't imagine many people with a 360 and a good gaming PC bought Call of Duty on 360 (although some will, for reasons such as the size of their friends list).

Either way, the fact that other games are multiplatform does not grant them some sort of immutable inertia that means a platform exclusive cannot compete on its own platform.

As for the popularity of sci-fi themed content, that has nothing to do with multi-platform development whatsoever.


Posted by: Darkside Eric
But that doesn't answer the question I asked. Are games that aren't #1 automatically bad because they aren't #1?
Posted by: Viper Skills
Obviously not.
Posted by: Darkside Eric
Damn... so we have thousands of bad games and only.. what, 3-6 good ones?

Holy insane extrapolation, Batman.

Edit: sorry, holy terrible attempt at sarcasm, Batman.

[Edited on 12.10.2011 1:53 PM PST]

  • 12.10.2011 1:51 PM PDT

Flash Kicks beat Armor Lock.

TheLab.


Posted by: Viper Skills

Posted by: Darkside Eric

Posted by: Viper Skills

Posted by: Darkside Eric
But that doesn't answer the question I asked. Are games that aren't #1 automatically bad because they aren't #1?


Obviously not.


Damn... so we have thousands of bad games and only.. what, 3-6 good ones?


That's not at all what I was saying and you know exactly what I meant.


Sarcasm Viper.

  • 12.10.2011 1:52 PM PDT

Marine Corps.
Semper Fi.

Posted by: Wikked Navajoe
My problems [with Reach] are basically just full parties, mlg, and people who go out of their way not to get killed.


Posted by: Darkside Eric
Sarcasm Viper.


Sorry. On the mains my sarcasm detector is broken because sheer stupidity is more common than sarcasm 'round these parts.

  • 12.10.2011 1:53 PM PDT

Your presence here is quite unneeded. Begone you!!!

Console exclusive games can only hold out for so long. That and console exclusive games exist so customers will go and buy the (PS3, WII, XBOX) so they can play that game.

  • 12.10.2011 1:53 PM PDT

Flash Kicks beat Armor Lock.

TheLab.


Posted by: Sentox6

Actually you bring up a fairly good question.

To my knowledge Final Fantasy XI is still the only game that allowed PC, 360, and PS2/3 players to play together.

Why is this?

  • 12.10.2011 1:54 PM PDT

Flash Kicks beat Armor Lock.

TheLab.


Posted by: Viper Skills

Posted by: Darkside Eric
Sarcasm Viper.


Sorry. On the mains my sarcasm detector is broken because sheer stupidity is more common than sarcasm 'round these parts.


Yes, I know.

  • 12.10.2011 1:54 PM PDT

Forget it man, and get with the countdown. Shake this square world and blast off for Kicksville.

Reach host ranking algorithm: (a*quit_percentage + b*isMexican + c*(1/KDR) + d*hasGuest) * 100
where a > b = d > c

Posted by: Darkside Eric
Actually you bring up a fairly good question.

I can almost sense the surpise :P

To my knowledge Final Fantasy XI is still the only game that allowed PC, 360, and PS2/3 players to play together.

Why is this?

I tend to assume because of technical challenges and corporate distaste for the idea.

I can think of two obvious reasons why game developers don't go for cross platform play between consoles and PC, though: the difficulty in preventing hackers on PC, and (in the case of the FPS genre) the absolutely superiority of the PC's input device.

  • 12.10.2011 1:58 PM PDT

Flash Kicks beat Armor Lock.

TheLab.


Posted by: Sentox6
Posted by: Darkside Eric
Actually you bring up a fairly good question.

I can almost sense the surpise :P

To my knowledge Final Fantasy XI is still the only game that allowed PC, 360, and PS2/3 players to play together.

Why is this?

I tend to assume because of technical challenges and corporate distaste for the idea.

I can think of two obvious reasons why game developers don't go for cross platform play between consoles and PC, though: the difficulty in preventing hackers on PC, and (in the case of the FPS genre) the absolutely superiority of the PC's input device.


I wonder if there would be a fairly decent way to bridge FPS games (and non-FPS games) between PC and console.

  • 12.10.2011 1:59 PM PDT

Planking : Parkour for people who don't move very fast.


Posted by: Darkside Eric

Posted by: Sentox6

Actually you bring up a fairly good question.

To my knowledge Final Fantasy XI is still the only game that allowed PC, 360, and PS2/3 players to play together.

Why is this?


Might not be a game to mention around here, but ShadowRun was cross platform for 360 and Windows. The new CounterStrike is rumored to have cross platform as well.

  • 12.10.2011 3:15 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2