Microsoft justifies price for Halo 3: ODST

from what ive heard ODST will have a campaign disc and a multiplayer one, which well connect you with regular halo 3 players, i think

ODST -is- Halo 3 with an entirely new campaign and a new multiplayer mode. It features -exactly- the same maps as Halo 3 does (or will by the time ODST is released). So yes, you will be able to play with Halo 3.

Also, I don't think I have read a single thing about two separate discs. Wouldn't be surprised though because this will include more than twice the amount of multiplayer maps.

@Josh
in this story (http://www.joystiq.com/2009/06/01/halo-3-odst-priced-collectors-pack-revealed/) it says:
"Halo 3: ODST" also includes a separate, standalone multiplayer disc which includes three new "Halo 3" multiplayer maps, all original "Halo 3" maps, as well as the "Legendary," "Heroic," and "Mythic" Map packs for a total of 24 maps.

In one of the last Bungie updates they said ODST is shipping with 2 discs. The first has ODST, Firefight, Theater, and 'Extras' which contains access to the Reach beta. Disc 2 is the Halo 3 Multiplayer disc, containing all the maps, including the as-yet unreleased ones.

Bungie also kind of hinted at the idea that the H3 MP disc might contain some new achievements as well. That would be cool, and would give slight extra value to the rehashed content.

microsoft unfairly charges its customers?

WAHH?!?!

http://theabutton.com/?p=269

http://theabutton.com/?p=207

How much did losing that goodwill cost them?

Yes. Because if it's fun, actually packing it with content doesn't matter! Hey! I'll sell you a game, it has only one level, but that one level is EXTREMELY fun, so much fun, you'll play it over and over, but unfortunately, the game is only 30 minutes long. Also, this game will be $150. Wanna buy it?

God, I swear. People are becoming more and more accepting of slim content, and all these things that have come this gen, DLC, achievements, and such, have come as some sort of padding excuse to not even try to add content to games anymore. I hate it. Everything is so slim, and shallow. Like Left 4 Dead. God, when that got high marks, and tons of praise, my gaming heart died.

I kind of agree with you Otis. Left 4 Dead was really skimpy on content. It was kind of like "Let's see how many different ways you can play the same thing over and over and still have 'fun'". We have definitly been too quick to judge a game based on so little. Star Wars The Old Republic is a good example. I know a few people that are actually interested based on actual game demonstrations and info and screenshots. But I know a hell of a lot more people who became interested due to solely the new SWtOR trailer. It shows no gameplay footage, no solid facts, no screenshots, no real example of what battles will be like, nor was it even made off of the game engine. It was just a cgi movie trailer made ot promote the game. And if you base your interest off of that trailer, then you my friend have lost the the point of being a gamer. I'll admit. ODST looks fun. Even like a Halo game I actually might buy. But we can't say it will be great yet Esko.

@Otis

Quality > Quantity

I will use L4D as an example since you wanted to mention it. While L4D lacks in total content, the content it does have is some of the most fun I've experienced in a game in year...which has led to a lot of replay value and countless hours lost. I will say that for the lack of content it has, I have still managed to get my $60 worth...and then some.

You say your gaming heart died, but yet you argue for Quantity over Quality and it makes me question just what kind of gamer you are. I bet you also believe that Portal isn't that great because the experience only lasted 2 hours (2 of the greatest hours of gaming might I add)

Portal really isn't that great. Sure it is fun, but it is just a little puzzle. Interesting, but not as so many make it out to be.

"You say your gaming heart died, but yet you argue for Quantity over Quality and it makes me question just what kind of gamer you are. I bet you also believe that Portal isn't that great because the experience only lasted 2 hours (2 of the greatest hours of gaming might I add)"


No. I prefer quality with value.
You're totally confusing what I'm saying.
Portal was fine, in that it was essentially priced at, in the package, what? $5? if you break it down on what part is worth what part, I mean.
But on it's own, it isn't worth very much.
2 hours? It's mostly got a single hour of content!


Quality should be judged on value of the content, along with the general amount of content, AND the quality of the content. Not just "Well, this is fun enough! Who cares if it's short, now let me pay top dollar for it.. PLAY IT OVER AND OVER!".

This isn't the NES days. We should be more discerning.

I know L4D is a darling to many gamers for reasons I still don't understand at all. But, for me L4D was extremely lacking in content to the point that it belonged to be packaged in with the Orange Box instead if sold at retail. There was nothing special about the game in terms of "quality" either. I know I'm going to come off as a hater and a fanboy for saying this (especially with only a PSN in my handle) but I don't see the appeal of the game whatsoever.

I'm going to take the word of the guy who actually played some of ODST, and assume it's worth the $60

@ Otis

But that's the problem with what you are saying. What you are judging quality by is partially by the sheer amount of content it has as a deciding factor. Content should come into play based on the replayability of the game itself. If the game is good for a single play through, then yea, a lot of content is good, but if the game has the appeal to keep bringing you back for more regardless of how much content it has, then the point become moot.

In the end, what matters is how much play you get out of the game. That's what the deciding factor of quality is and that transcends the idea of how much content a game needs to have quality.

but Otis, if that 150 dollar, 30 minute game is so mindblowingly awesome then it wouldnt get repetitive, so youd play those 30 minutes again and again and again and again, regardless of whether youve played it so many times, because it's so fucking awesome, and it wouldnt matter that it didnt have 30 different maps and a 40 hour campaign

This seems a bit silly. The price of the game should reflect the price to develop it. I doubt Bungie spent anywhere near the 30 Million they used to develop Halo 3, yet the expansion back is going to be priced at 60$.

This will forever be an argument that has no clear answer. But I agree with the Dark Wayne, and I also see Johnny's point of view. To me, a shooter just has to have awesome moments and some kind of flexibility for replay value. To me, L4D had that *except* I will agree that content was sorely lacking (maps, characters, weapons) despite the hours of fun it has given me. It's naturally all about your preferences...I never cared for Final Fantasy VII because it dragged ass during the first 2 hours or so. It was a solid game; had a lot of content to explore, but just did not give me that *rush* that I crave from my videogame experiences. I still think ODST should be priced down to $40 or less due to the fact that the engine is already constructed, so IMHO some of the hardest work has been done already.

This argument over quality vs. quantity is basically saying that games should be monetized based on hours of play, and not on development cost, etc. In that case, Peggle (which is $1 on iTunes right now) should probably cost around $200. Or mabye all you "quality" guys would prefer a subscription model, paying $1 for every minute your Xbox is on? You can replay a bad game over and over too, it doesn't mean it should cost more.

Unfortunately, it comes down to the fact that people are too easily parted with their money (I'm saying this a lot lately, huh?). Microsoft knows that they can charge more, as they have a loyal legion of fans who will buy anything new re: Halo, and thus they decided to squeeze more money out of people. It's disappointing to see, as Bungie had better intentions while MS grew more "ambitious" not about the project but about the profits. There is absolutely no chance this game cost as much to develop as Halo 3, since half of the fucking product is Halo 3, but we're all going to buy it anyway.

I wasnt aware there was firefight mode in Halo 3, or for that matter a completely separate campaign that plays distinctly different from the first

Yeah. That's what an expansion is Wayne.

@The Dark Wayne;

I see you're trying to make a point in a semi-comedic, ironic way. You've failed, sir.

A new mode and a short campaign are what is considered for DLC, or Expansions. This is expansion quality material they're providing at full price, and I consider that a fact.

And yes, it will be a short campaign, because every Halo has been short. Then again, I play RPG's, so most games are short to me.

how do you know it will be short compared to the other halos? You havent played it. The things you listed are sometimes considered for DLC, but not all at once, you either get some new maps, a new mission or two, a new mode, new weapons etc. whereas in ODST you're getting all that, a lot more than two or three missions, and if you get the collectors edition, a controller for cheaper than normal. Also, judging by the way you used it, it's clear you don't, like most people, have a firm grasp on irony, but really who gives a shit

Apparently you give a shit Wayne.

Let's not forget, Shivering Isles was an expansion too and it also added a new campaign of sorts plus new items, enemies, and areas.

but shivering isles didnt come with full multiplayer capability as well as 4 map packs. It didnt radically change the gameplay either, every hands on or demo thing has emphasized how it's got a completely different feel, how you're more threatened by brutes and stuff because you arent enhanced like chief, you get the new visor with all it's stuff, and you get a new health system.

also, no, i dont care about proper grammar and rhetorical device usage, but if you're going to criticize me for mine, you should probably make sure yours is right too

Wayne would always be able to smoke your ass in any Halo multiplayer match 6 ways from Sunday.

He likes the game, yeah he gives a shit. He knows more about it than you, and isn't an ass about it.

Ok for one, I'm not sure how criticizing grammar plays into this conversation anywhere.

Two, I'm not sure how Halo skills play into this conversation anywhere. Only immature people would use "I/he/she could kick your ass at Halo anytime" as what they would think was a clever and witty comeback.

And three. No, Shivering Isles didn't reinvent Elder Scrolls IV, but neither will ODST. The title is still Halo 3. No, I'm not so stubborn as to deny that the gameplay will be different and it will be a bit of a different experience, but chances are it will still run off of the Halo 3 engine and will contain most of the same weapons (which doesn't really matter) but the point is the multiplayer here. I don't really want to buy AGAIN what we've been playing for quite a while now. I'm sure ODST is cool and I'd love to give it a try when it comes out. But you gotta understand that the gaming industry isn't so black and white as to say "Is it fun?" "Yes" "Then it is now $60"

Live in the past, man. Gaming was better back then lol.

gaming was awful back in the day, it's just glossed over with a perfect nostalgia, seriously, play some games you did back in the day, and not just Mario or stuff, I played some old NES and Atari games i found in my basement and my God, I had an incredible tolerance for frustration as a child

i guess i just dont understand your line of thinking, i mean, isnt that what sequels are supposed to be? More of the original? I mean if Halo 3 ODST was actually like a Halo RPG or another RTS would you be happy? I doubt the vast majority of Halo players would, maybe they'd enjoy it as a separate game, but as an expansion that'd be crazy. Sequels and expansions arent supposed to deviate wildly from the original, that's the point of a sequel

It wasn't intended as clever or witty, and it wasn't necessarily directed at you anway.

Ahhh christ nevermind.

"The title is still Halo 3. No, I'm not so stubborn as to deny that the gameplay will be different and it will be a bit of a different experience, but chances are it will still run off of the Halo 3 engine and will contain most of the same weapons"

Wait, so are you saying that it would be ok for it to be $60 if it wasn't named Halo 3? Seems kind of fucked up.
Listen, there are plenty of other games that are sold as a sequel that for all intents and purposes probably shouldn't have been.

RB6:Vegas two comes to mind. It's very much more of the same as Vegas 1. A few features added here, some taken away there. But there are tons of people who felt it was still worth their $60 bucks.

Also, I really want to just say that we'll probably need to wait for reviews on this one. They said it now contains more than they originally had conceived it to have... I can't see why we can't believe them at this point.

I dunno, I guess I'm with several of the others around here. I calculate value based on my own set parameters that doesn't solely rest with raw 'amount' of content. The experience, the replayablity, the co-op, etc, all take a drastic role in my feeling of value.

My dad buys the cheap toilet paper. Its single ply sheets of 200 grit sandpaper that he can get two miles of 10 bucks. But I love to wipe my ass with better paper. Paper that I pay a bit more for and get less total sheets, but don't feel like I have to stack 50 of together in order to get one competent sheet of material that my hand won't fall right through.

So yes... value is in the eye of the beholder. And as always, everyone gets to choose what they get to wipe their ass with... so I don't see what all the fighting is about.

Shit. I meant Vegas 2.

are you crazy? Left 4 Dead was worth every penny. Sure there might have only been 4 maps but most people played the fuck out of them

So?

I bet you could play "the fuck" out of pong.
Is it worth $60?

if i got more hours out of it than a JRPG i'd say yes

If an RPG comes out and has 100 hours of gameplay but is extremely boring, is it worth it? I'd rather buy a game that has little content and is very fun instead of a game with lots of content but is boring. With that boring game, you'd probably stop playing a tenth of the way through the game, but the fun game could last hundreds of hours.

that's what I was trying to say, I just meant that If I really enjoyed Pong and played it for as long as it takes for some JRPGs it would definitely be worth 60 dollars, just like L4D was because even with a limited number of maps, it was incredibly fun and never felt repetitive, well until people started blocking exits in versus

"I bet you could play "the fuck" out of pong.
Is it worth $60?"

If I got 60 fun hours out of it, hell yeah.

Going to use F3 as an example- great game, right?
But during those 40 something hours, I wasn't happy the entire time, there were some boring parts, some times when I just wanted to rush through the game and finish- but, those 30 hours of excellent gameplay certainly made it worth my money. Halo 3: ODST, sure it's 60$, but every game is nowadays; I think Bungie originally intended for this game to be an ACTUAL expansion, but then added more and more crap into it until it became a brand new game. Just because the title says Halo 3 in it, doesn't mean it can't be a whole new game- that's just a stupid excuse.
And lastly, who says an expansion can't be worth 60$, if it has a whole new campaign and an entirely new multiplayer system, then I see no reason they shouldn't be charging 60$. If you don't want it, don't buy, but don't use stupid excuses in an attempt to undermine people.

Moral of the story, keep your mouth shut about scope and pricing until you know exactly what the hell you are building, bundling, and selling.

OR.. maybe they were just hoping to spur a bunch of controversy, they'll drop it to $49.99 at the last minute. :)

Didn't they say, at some point, that it was going to be around 3 hours long?

Or was that just fan conjecture? :x

They said that when it was first announced. So by now it could be much longer. Besides you can always double the time by playing on legendary.

I thought I heard it ended up being longer...but to how long is the question.