Halo 3 co-op is offline, for now
Currently, it appears that Halo 3 will ship without online co-op, but supposedly Bungie hasn't ruled out bringing the feature to players through a future update (remember when folks wished for the same for Halo 2?). This doesn't mean that 4-player co-op is any less likely; but, if it does exist, you'll be forced to suffer through it using antiquated split-screen methods (unless you've got a LAN setup). Disappointed? We are; many of us naively accepted Gears' online co-op as surrogate confirmation that Halo's campaign would finally become an Xbox Live experience.
We'll leave you with a few hopeful words from Frankie: "If we can make it happen in a way that works well, we will."
Update: 1UP editor Jeremy Parish weighs in on the controversy; Update 2: Bungie's Frankie says, "like other elements of Halo 3, online co-op is a feature we're wrestling with ... as we approach the tail end of development, we will have a clearer picture of whether or not that online feature will be included."
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
JonnyBoy2U @ Jul 18th 2007 12:03PM
"I think the biggest problem for us for online co-op is that we have a situation where you can be in a Warthog with five troops, almost a mile away from the other player. That's a significant challenge," says Frankie.
Maybe I'm just stupid when it comes to Online Co-Op but why the fuck does that matter?
Is this just them being lazy?
And yeah I think you're dumb Bungie.
Stevo @ Jul 18th 2007 12:16PM
It's not a matter of being lazy...gimme a break. With so much riding on this game, how can you doubt that they are trying to make it as awesome as possible?
Am I disappointed? Yeah. But I'm sure the game is going to be awesome otherwise. Hopefully it'll make it in the final game, but it sounds doubtful.
Marty @ Jul 18th 2007 12:22PM
For the same reason you can't have 50 players online at once in Crackdown - it would take loads of CPU time, and loads of data over the net to synchronize events that are happening in full scale in too many locations at once.
Imagine that three players are playing, and all of them are in intense firefights with multiple enemies. Even though they are very far away from each other, their games still need to be synchronized with each other, which means the game must work on 3 times as much data flowing over the network, 3 times as many enemy AI's, and 3 times as many bullets and projectiles flying around. It'd be crippling for any game that isn't made with co-op built in at it's foundation.
Poisoned Al @ Jul 18th 2007 12:37PM
Do you have any knowledge of computer networking, programming or game design. Using your comment as a measure, I would say not. Gee I just LOVE people that have opinions on subjects they know fuck all about!
octoberasian @ Jul 18th 2007 1:05PM
If MMOs can work with multiple players playing in one area at the same time with simultaneous actions, then it shouldn't be difficult to do with online co-op in Halo 3.
ssuk @ Jul 18th 2007 2:11PM
I understand why they've done this, I believe it's because of Halo's map loading features. It loads and unloads parts of a map when needed to conserve CPU and RAM (also makes the game seemless with hardly any load screens). Trying to keep ahold of your partners map data and stream CPU heavy parts of the map can only lead to disaster... Especially since you're not just tracking your friend's data, you're tracking their enemies in the same map as your friend and also your own map's enemies. It would cause considerably strain on system resources.
Mikeawesome @ Jul 18th 2007 2:35PM
Octoberasian: Not quite. Here's the deal, with Halo 3's persistent AI which gives you a different (even if it's only slight) experience every time would amount to a whole lot of syncing over the 'nets that would require not only tons of CPU power but also a huge amount data to transfer.
On top of this you also have to take into account all the data from the other players. Basically I'd have to agree with Marty, any game that isn't built from the ground up with XBL Co-Op in mind is going to suffer, especially with something like Halo 3 where they plan to have AI that's supposed to be dynamic enough that it's even keeping the developers guessing.
Anticrawl @ Jul 18th 2007 5:28PM
With the simple online multiplayer riddled with a bad community the single player was the only thing really keeping me excited for Halo 3. Without the availability of online co-op this is pretty much no a buy for me, and I had the Limited Edition version pre-ordered.
I'm in college and can't take the time to drive out of town to play Halo 3 co-op with friends. If I can't enjoy co-op with a buddy after work while relaxing on my couch well then count me out. I'll rent the damn thing. And it's hard for me to say considering how much I love the series, but someone has to lay down the law for this generation of games. I for one as a fan won't be walked all over on.
Sad as it may seem, but well I may skip out on buying this, it certain just dropped out of my top five fall/winter game list.
Richie @ Jul 18th 2007 10:44PM
"If MMOs can work with multiple players playing in one area at the same time with simultaneous actions, then it shouldn't be difficult to do with online co-op in Halo 3."
many MMOs either
A) Look like garbage with alot of Anti aliasing and bloom
B) Host private dungeons so you and a very select few can train on the same map.
monmin @ Jul 18th 2007 12:07PM
Ok, really hoping for Bungie update to tell us this is all wrong and that live co-op is locked in. Otherwise Halo 3 just seems kinda old school.
Ska Oreo @ Jul 18th 2007 1:14PM
And last time I checked, Old-School is pretty awesome
Dud @ Jul 18th 2007 12:09PM
Well, that just put the sale off for me. I'm glad I didn't get a 360 for this game, though. Otherwise I'd be pretty ticked.
People have been doing co-op online shooters since Doom came out. The example they gave out isn't any different than playing Terminator: Future Shock and having people flying around miles away from each other.
Why are shooters getting worse and worse as time goes on?
Stevo @ Jul 18th 2007 12:52PM
Think about what you just wrote.
monmin @ Jul 18th 2007 12:10PM
I am really disappointed.
Halo 3 is a must buy, but without co-op it's kinda like must buy that I don't really feel happy about.
JS Beckerist @ Jul 18th 2007 2:03PM
I don't think it means "no co-op," in fact, with the way they worded I think it more STRONGLY points to 4 player co-op. If two people are a mile apart, who cares? If four are, I can see how it gets to be a problem (the same xbox rendering 4 completely different areas simultaneously, AND sending it over the internet to synch...sounds like a mess to me!)
Also, for those of us with gigantic TV's and NO cooperative games (except GRAW and Halo 2...), this will be a VERY welcome addition to my library!
Jake @ Jul 18th 2007 12:14PM
This is terrible news. They have to make this work somehow. I don't care if you have to put a leash on player two so they appear next to player 1 whenever he strays too far away. Hell, that might even be better.
The only real aspect I looked forward to for Halo3 was online co-op. I have so many friends getting this game and I don't want to share my 46" screen with them. All the cool games are doin' it. WTF Bungie!?
I mean, then how does it work when you have 16 players and 12 of them are a mile away in a warthog duel.
If I come to find out that they are delaying online co-op for a download that you have to pay for, I will be very upset. Ugh, I can see it already. Three (or so) months after launch they will release an update that gives 4 extra maps and online co-op for $15.
SoulBlade @ Jul 18th 2007 12:15PM
It's probably a challenge because of memory constraints and the fact that if the players get separated they have to track both. It's not an easy task if you have any clue about programming - being lazy is a pretty ignorant accusation.
That said, I'm sure co-op will be online for the PC version.
Matthew Walsh @ Jul 18th 2007 12:16PM
JonnyBoy; once is enough! And do you know how retarded the line "lazy developers" is?
I didn't interpret the EGM stuff the same way as James seems to have. They've said that online coop hasn't been done yet, but the article wasn't written yesterday - obviously - and there's still a fair way to go before the game goes gold. It doesn't look to me as if the absence of it at launch is in any way certain yet.
Anyhow, I'm a bit confused as to why Bungie continues to give the print media so much attention. Sure, it's good business to get hype going, but the majority of gamers surely get their news online these days? And it's not as if people aren't just getting the scans anyway!
Jake @ Jul 18th 2007 12:20PM
Thank you, I re-read the actual quotes and don't feel as scared now. They didn't dismiss it. They just said they are struggling with it. It confirms that they want to put it in and are trying hard to do so.
The interview is probably 3 weeks old and they have over a month before it goes gold. They also have an additional month after it is gold to install co-op as an automatic update available at launch. Hell, even if they are a little late with it, they can still give it through a download at least near launch.
Actually, I am feeling calmer by the minute. They are trying. They will get it to work. Just believe.
monmin @ Jul 18th 2007 12:16PM
Screw it, Bungie, if your listening don't bother releasing the game until you got co-op working right.
I'd rather the game be delayed. I don't want some tacked on crap later on.
Although I always wondered how they would pull off co-op. Master Chief travels solo alot. But I figured they could always stick an army dude next to him anyway.
Brian @ Jul 18th 2007 12:18PM
Hey Bungie, you really need this in there. Not really even something you get to decide at this point. Consumers are already in doubt about the quality of your game given their reaction to H2 and the E3 showing. You can delay your game, but the reaction to no online co-op will be too strong to risk. Co-op is the only online mode I play anymore. Do you want to end the series with an enormous disappointment and lose fans of your studio? Find a way.
Marty @ Jul 18th 2007 12:20PM
For the same reason you can't have 50 players online at once in Crackdown - it would take loads of CPU time, and loads of data over the net to synchronize events that are happening in full scale in too many locations at once.
Imagine that three players are playing, and all of them are in intense firefights with multiple enemies. Even though they are very far away from each other, their games still need to be synchronized with each other, which means the game must work on 3 times as much data flowing over the network, 3 times as many enemy AI's, and 3 times as many bullets and projectiles flying around. It'd be crippling for any game that isn't made with co-op built in at it's foundation.
monmin @ Jul 18th 2007 12:28PM
Thats what scares me, this news indicates that co-op was not an integral part of the design from the beginning.
Now they are just trying to figure out a way to crowbar it in. That has me scared.
Vidikron @ Jul 18th 2007 12:51PM
What you say makes sense, except then why does it work offline? It would put the same load on the CPU in either case. In fact, if this is local split screen co-op then the load is higher because the same CPU/GPU is having to actually render two locations at once. In LAN/Online situation each machine only has to render the location for the player that is on that machine.
Mike @ Jul 18th 2007 12:21PM
Well, I was only going to buy Halo 3 if it had online co-op. I guess I'll be one of the few that don't get this game.
A0 @ Jul 18th 2007 12:22PM
They'll probably have it in a couple months. I bet they have a team figuring that out right now. Be done before the end of this year maybe November time.
They just need to have a talk with Microsoft Studios and pull a ton of the programmers that did the Crackdown co-op...
MosquitoControl @ Jul 18th 2007 12:26PM
Split screen is antiquated?
Bah. I'll never understand wanting to play either with faceless online people, or with friends too lazy to come over your house (yes, lazy, even if they live hundreds of miles away.)
If the person isn't sitting next to you, and you can't throw your controller at him, what's the point?
People that think split-screen is antiquated are the same that play MMORPGS, right? And the same that think those are valid forms of socialization?
Patrick @ Jul 18th 2007 12:31PM
I'd rather play split screen with a friend, it's so much fun. Halo 2 split screen was great. I'm not a huge fan of online play, i like humans.
Magarnacle @ Jul 18th 2007 1:07PM
You should invent a controller that shocks your friends from 100's of miles away. That would seem to solve some of the problems that you have with online multiplayer. Think of how satisfying that would be, next time he attaches a grenade and blows you up you simply press the shock button and zap. Controller throwing solved.
This really is some terrible news. I loved playing Gears coop on live. It was part of what made the game so great. As a person with friends scattered hundred's of miles apart playing coop on live was a great way to connect. I guess we will have to resort to multiplayer. Still shocking controllers... look into that, I might be able to stake you some capital to get the ball rolling.
Patrick @ Jul 18th 2007 12:26PM
You guys are joking right? You're upset that there's no online co-op? I mean, I understand some people that were upset that there was no Metroid Prime 3 online. But Halo 3 is obviously an awesome game, that has an awesome online multiplayer mode and you guys are bitching about online co-op? What difference does it make? Jeez. Stop bitching.
At least it's a good game with an amazing multiplayer mode!
Ska Oreo @ Jul 18th 2007 1:18PM
Honestly I think people really don't care. They just like to make a lot of noise.
Charli3 @ Jul 18th 2007 12:28PM
@JonnyBoy2U
I think the purpose of co-op is to go through the game together, taking on the same obstacles at the same time. Halo isn't a massive free-roaming sandbox-type game. It's more linear. Have two players miles apart can present some challenges when trying to progress through chapters. I can see why it can be a problem. It's nice to know Bungie is working on a solution.
DBX00 @ Jul 18th 2007 12:39PM
Maybe I'm not understanding, but how is this different than regular multiplayer with 16 to 20 players? You only have to sync the portions of the game that are changing. If one player is at mile one, then you synce everything at mile one to player two/three at mile 5. Everything in between shouldn't change from the single player or standard map (hence that data doesn't need to be transferred). I guess they are running into the same problem they had with multiplayer; they had to dumb down the graphics to support the large maps and number of players. However, they couldn't do that will online co-op b/c it is using single player missions (the enhanced graphics part of the game)?
Krish the Fish @ Jul 18th 2007 1:38PM
@DBX00
regular multiplayer isn't the same as campaign. In multiplayer, the objectives are pretty primitive: accumulate x number of kills, kill y person, capture z locations for any given amount of time. In campaign, you must kill x person, keep y person alive, and maybe even do it all in y amount of time. So, if the game is hosted on one 360, the other 360 will constantly be pinging it to see which NPCs died, where Player 1 on the Host System is, and whether any of the objectives were complete/failed. It's slightly more complicated.
Brian @ Jul 18th 2007 12:30PM
I'm hoping Bungie subscribes to the Under Promise/Over Deliver school of PR. Maybe they got burned by the bad reaction to H2 and are trying to keep expectations low this time around. Probably not :(
k0sm0s @ Jul 18th 2007 12:32PM
well if the game isn't hyped up that much, I understand what they mean from a programmer's point of view.. yea it's memory intensive to track 2 players far from each other.. because of the loading of the map.. and the internet connection taken in consideration.. it's memory unwise..
still, if other games can do it, why not halo 3.. it will take more work though
rdj75 @ Jul 18th 2007 12:40PM
I am just as dissapointed with no online co-op as the next person, but if you are going to say that you are not going to buy the game because it doesn't have online co-op means to me that you probably wasn't going to buy the game anyway. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not Halo 3 will be a great game and it will be worth purchasing whether it has online co-op or not.
Ally @ Jul 18th 2007 12:41PM
I really dont see what the big fuss is, they never actually said that there was no co-op, only that it was a challenge for them.
People seem to be taking this waaaaay out of context. Show me where Frankie said it couldnt be done.
I think joystiq is being a litle sensationalist with this article, taking it waaaaaay out of proportion.
Sircolby45 @ Jul 18th 2007 12:45PM
Wow...That is a HUGE bummer. :'(
JonnyBoy2U @ Jul 18th 2007 12:53PM
Thanks Charli3.
To the idiots who didn't understand my first post...bite me.
I'm not a programmer so I was wondering if this was really a big problem or not. Not accusing them of being lazy. Just wondering if they ARE being lazy or not.
Now that I know it involves a lot of stuff I can honestly say that it doesn't sound like they're being lazy. Just a lil slow.
However I'm still disappointed.
Jake @ Jul 18th 2007 2:12PM
It is just that calling developers lazy is a retarded thing to do. Developers have a certain amount of resources, capabilities, etc. to work with to make the best game possible. Saying they are lazy implies that they have decided to lounge around and post on Joystiq rather than work hard to get co-op going.
All Frankie said is that they are struggling. He did not say it won't happen.
Uncle Red @ Jul 18th 2007 12:54PM
WTF? Current Halo Co-Op was that if you got too far away from your co'p partner, you'd warp ahead to them (and at time frustrating if looking to grab a power up or weapon). So they wouldn't allow you to get that faraway in a warthog.
Bungie, you just made Gears of War look that much better.
I can't wait to see how Bungie-MS gouges us on the map-packs after release. (Let's see, some Capture the Flag maps, a Big map and some Assault map for 800pts. Then another pack and maybe a third set by Christmas. Then these will all be free by July of 2008). No thanks.
horngreen @ Jul 18th 2007 12:57PM
For myself I guess I don't care. I thought Co-op GOW would be awesome but it grows tiresome pretty soon. I still like R6 and GRAW co-op but it has a different feel than GOW and H3 would have so this is no big deal to me. Of course I'm just one dude!
JW @ Jul 18th 2007 1:03PM
This is quite simply, the most pathetic turn of events to com from bungie in a while. Co-op was supposed to be a no brainer. Well, apparently common-sense and the expectations of thousands of gamers are of no consequence to Bungie. Nice.
jason @ Jul 18th 2007 1:07PM
This SUCKS
Bungie shouldn't have announced a release date they should have waited to get the online co op feature in the game cuz its a must have feature.
MosquitoControl @ Jul 18th 2007 1:09PM
This isn't a fraction as annoying as their "no-bots" policy.
No bots means you're forced to play online. Playing online sucks. You're thrown in with random people (always at least one faux-racist 14 year old), you have no control over the difficulty level, and you have to sit through an obnoxious, five minute matchmaking service.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD MICROSOFT LET US BROWSE SERVERS AND MAKE IT QUICKER THAN IT WAS IN GEARS OF WAR!
I can't play games over Xbox Live. I spend more time sitting there, waiting to join a server than I do actually playing. Even with Gears, which allowed server browsing, you'd spend 10 minutes trying to connect, only to get "the server is full" then have to reload the master list all over again.
Can't stand it. If I have half an hour to game I don't want a third spent in matchmaking. If I'm playing with two roommates I don't want to be forced to go online split screen.
Is it so damn hard to give us bots? Don't make me go back to PD0, which was the far, far, FAR better solution for split-screen gaming, even if it is a piece of garbage game.
Spilt_Milk @ Jul 18th 2007 1:12PM
No online co-op = no purchase for me. I refuse to take a step backward from Gears of War for what is supposed to be the AAA+ 360 fps title.
Ska Oreo @ Jul 18th 2007 1:17PM
...Are you kidding me? Are you seriously saying that you won't buy Halo 3 because it won't have online co-op. Halo 3 could be the greatest game in teh world and you won't bother with it simply because you can't play the campaign with some annoying 12 year old asshole living in cuba?
Seriously go kill yourself. No one will miss you.
JonnyBoy2U @ Jul 18th 2007 1:26PM
Uh fuck off ska orea. Thats HIS perogative and if you don't like well then YOU can go kill yourself.
I basically made the same deal when it comes to Smash Bros for the Wii. If it doesn't have the type of Online which allows me to easily browse thru and play again anyone I want to then the chances of me buying it are going to drop severely.
Bungie knows what people want. And if they don't want to deliver the goods then they should NOT be surprised when people are pissed off at them and refuse point blank to buy the game.
And I think its valid to compare it to Gears. They've had plenty of time to work on Halo 3 and I hope the graphics are close to Gears quality but if not then they need to make up for it with OTHER things we want in it.
So don't trip Split_Milk. Ska Oreo is just a troll.
Michael McGuire @ Jul 18th 2007 1:36PM
Are we seriously at a point where we wish people to die just because we disagree with them?
I'm sure I'll be buying Halo 3 eventually, but with the ridiculous amount of incredible titles coming out this fall and winter for the Wii & Xbox 360, this might be a purchase I hold off on for a while. Yes, I want Halo 3, but for me, co-op was just a given. Yes, multiplayer is fun, but I'd really like to play the campaign with some of my friends that don't live in the same state. This makes offline co-op... um... rather difficult.