Halo is still synonymous in pop-culture. They'll still treat it as such, hell they're making a TV show for it.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Is Microsoft buying up studios so they no longer have to rely on Halo as a flagship IP?
- Thread starter TheGhost
- Start date
Yeah, Xbox hasn't really "relied" on Halo for many years. It's just one of the franchises.
I now picture Phil and some other higher ups in a room with a conversation that went down like this:
"Halo is having development issues. What do we do?"
"I got an idea, let's spend $7.5 billion on Zenimax to make Elder Scrolls the new Halo."
"Great thinking."
it's still one of their biggest IPs and a guaranteed multi-million seller.
When other big AAA games come out, they'll be pushed as aggressively
For now, it's completely justified for it to be treated as a major release.
I doubt this was on Phil or Satya's mind when they made this purchase but it might be a side effect. When they represented 2 of 6 studios there was an enormous amount of pressure on these games but now they're only 2 of 23. There will be much less reliance on these series going forward once everything is in order.
People are (already) going to say "No." But realistically speaking? ... Maybe.
I think Halo is indicative of Microsoft's diminished presence in gaming over the last decade. Halo as a franchise peaked on the 360 with Halo 3, and while the follow-up titles to 3 did well, the move from Bungie to 343 didn't do MS many favors. Microsoft plain and simply put: Does/did not have the software catalog to compete. Halo has always been the definitive XB experience, and Halo as an IP no longer has the allure to it that it once did.
And as much as anyone would love to say "Yeah but all these dev purchases!" the reality of it all is very simple: Microsoft bought great developers, but not great IPs. Outside of Minecraft, which most people do not associate exclusively with MS thanks to its multi-platform existence, none of those purchases were about franchise titles.
So, was the Bethesda purchase influenced by Halo Infinite's problems? Yes. Absolutely. 100 percent. Microsoft spent 7.5b to make some of history's most important gaming properties its own, and it can now sell them as its own, they no longer have to be identified as the console that has Halo on it. They can now sell their platform with its variety of exclusive, big name IPs like Doom, Elder Scrolls and Quake.
But did they do it solely because of Halo Infinite? Nah.
I think I agree actually...not that I wouldn't love getting more Halo games though! A solid chunk of my highlight reel gaming moments are from Halo games, specifically the FPSs.
Halo though is a M A S S I V E IP to tangle with, so I could see MS using it in other areas even outside of gaming, as they already do.
But I personally think it needs an injection of life. Something like ODST, even though it was another FPS, was a massive breath of life into the franchise when it released, so they could build on that. Survival horror third person action game in Halo universe? I dunno, I'd try it lol. I mean I loved Halo Wars so I'm really down for any Halo-based games...
...which definitely got off track from your original point lol
Wasn't the Zenimax deal started in 2018? They wouldn't have known about the delay then at all.
It was done for gamepass content and that their first party lineup was worse than Sony or Nintendos. Most info seems to indicate that exclusives sell hardware, they needed more fast.
It was done for gamepass content and that their first party lineup was worse than Sony or Nintendos. Most info seems to indicate that exclusives sell hardware, they needed more fast.
OP
OP
In my mind they started panicking with Halo 5 when that didn't stay in the top 10 played games on the system long enough.
I just remembered that the announcement of the Halo delay came 2 days after Zenimax removed their board of directors from their website (August 9th), so clearly there is *some* connection between Microsoft coming to agreement with Bethesda and the Halo delay. Maybe Microsoft became comfortable delaying Halo because they knew they have another big game (Starfield?) being released soon? If that is the case, we should get a Starfield trailer around Xbox series X launch or at TGAs.
MS first party is imo the worst first party software I think I've ever seen from a hardware manufacturer so they needed to do something drastic.
Which is why they bought Zenimax and looking for more imo
Which is why they bought Zenimax and looking for more imo
Last edited:
OP
OP
I just think they need a new figure head for the first party.
I think so, Halo is only gonna last so much longer if it is continually mismanaged and no longer resonates with the player base it used to. Will that mean they're gonna stop making Halo games? Of course not, but they do need to diversify their selection of IPs.
And I agree with him about 343i being dropped and Halo rebooted. There's not many other paths to go that would bring as much attention to the franchise in another decade.
And I agree with him about 343i being dropped and Halo rebooted. There's not many other paths to go that would bring as much attention to the franchise in another decade.
Wild idea, they bought new studios so they have a more diverse catalogue with lots of fresh and wildly varied content coming as often as possible.
Halo will seemingly always be a pillar to some extent within the catalogue and if they're planning on having it be a focus for the next 10 years, clearly they aren't expecting it to disappoint. Ryan has had some stinker takes lately.
Halo will seemingly always be a pillar to some extent within the catalogue and if they're planning on having it be a focus for the next 10 years, clearly they aren't expecting it to disappoint. Ryan has had some stinker takes lately.
OP
OP
This is my take simply implied by something he is throwing at the wall like spaghetti.
My argument is that Halo don't got what it takes to be a successful GaaS and because of that it can't be nothing more than a 6 month pillar. I don't even think they should put it out unless they are 75% through the follow up content drop.
OP
OP
That's what I mean, I guess it could have been a killer launch title but I don't see it as the main stream sponge it use to be.
nope
there's no world where this speculation is, realistically, a "maybe"
there's no world where this speculation is, realistically, a "maybe"
They bought studios so they could release more than 3 games every calendar year.
So technically yes, specifically no
So technically yes, specifically no
I think the point of buying studios is to feed gamepass not necessarily as a backup for Halo potentially falling off.
I don't think this is really a conspiracy.
Like, yes Microsoft should be doing this, regardless of 343's performance, because relying on one franchise is not smart at all. They've had only a few tentpoles for a while. They need to have a greater library that can sustain itself regardless of whether something fails. I think Phil Spencer has been very clear he wants to expand that library.
So yes and no. Yes like, obviously. No, in that it's not like 343 has made them go shit what if the next halo is bad then what will we do. More holistically it's just wiser for them to broaden the strength of their first party. This stuff has been in the works long before Halo infinite seemed to be having troubles.
Like, yes Microsoft should be doing this, regardless of 343's performance, because relying on one franchise is not smart at all. They've had only a few tentpoles for a while. They need to have a greater library that can sustain itself regardless of whether something fails. I think Phil Spencer has been very clear he wants to expand that library.
So yes and no. Yes like, obviously. No, in that it's not like 343 has made them go shit what if the next halo is bad then what will we do. More holistically it's just wiser for them to broaden the strength of their first party. This stuff has been in the works long before Halo infinite seemed to be having troubles.
For me, as a halo fan, I do not like Doom as sustitive, it has nothing to do with halo, and I hope halo does not resemble anything to the new dooms, If only, Destiny 2 campaigns that are a bit haloesque.
Even halo wars 2 is much more classic halo feels than halo 5.
I hope bethesda does its own things, that are complementary to halo as flagship.
Even halo wars 2 is much more classic halo feels than halo 5.
I hope bethesda does its own things, that are complementary to halo as flagship.
They acquire studios to diversify their portfolio. Halo will still be one of their flagship franchises.
They didn't spend $7.5 billion dollars on Zenimax as "Halo insurance", lol. Some ridiculous speculation from Ryan there.
Spencer has publicly acknowledged that part of the impetus in expanding their first party, was to rely less, and put less pressure on, studios like The Coalition, Turn10 and 343. Only having a handful of internal studios meant needing those studios to rhythmically crank out sequels for the big holiday quarter every year.
Also, call me quaint, but I'm still going to actually wait for Halo to come out before I act like it's mediocrity is a fait accompli. Everything I've seen and read of the game up to now, with the noted exception of the visual fidelity of that July demo, has been great. Joe Staten came in, Chris Lee went out, and they lost a creative director and producer. All signs of turbulent development, not necessarily a sign of a bad end product.
Spencer has publicly acknowledged that part of the impetus in expanding their first party, was to rely less, and put less pressure on, studios like The Coalition, Turn10 and 343. Only having a handful of internal studios meant needing those studios to rhythmically crank out sequels for the big holiday quarter every year.
Also, call me quaint, but I'm still going to actually wait for Halo to come out before I act like it's mediocrity is a fait accompli. Everything I've seen and read of the game up to now, with the noted exception of the visual fidelity of that July demo, has been great. Joe Staten came in, Chris Lee went out, and they lost a creative director and producer. All signs of turbulent development, not necessarily a sign of a bad end product.
No lol.
Halo is one of the biggest gaming franchises of all time in terms of money.
Look at the box of the Series X, MS has no probably relying on Halo.
Halo is one of the biggest gaming franchises of all time in terms of money.
Look at the box of the Series X, MS has no probably relying on Halo.
No. Like others have said, it's about having a diverse, and large, portfolio of games. But at the end of the day, Microsoft's play here is for Game Pass to be their flagship, not any individual IP.
The answer is not that simple. Did they spend 7.5 billion on Bethesda to replace Halo? No...but having so many eggs in the Halo basket has been a liability of the Xbox division for awhile. They needed to diversify. Halo not coming through is no doubt a talking point of why they needed more tent pole IPs. If Halo was still Halo and expected to clean up this Holiday, they still would've needed to buy studios. Maybe they wouldn't have needed to go as big. So while Halo isn't the reason...it could've been a tipping point in this specific instance.
I don't see the tinfoil hat, or maybe I'm not getting his point. Halo is not the killer app because they've had it all this time and "lost" by a considerable margin. Microsoft's choice to focus on a very select few tentpole exclusives during the transition from 360 to One backfired completely and them revving MGS back up with lots of studio acquisitions over the last three years is an explicit concession that they needed additional "insurance". Unless he means that if Halo fails to sell all the consoles all by itself they now have a single Bethesda game to do it in its place, in which case, er, that's missing the point.
They've needed more exclusives for a long time.
And regardless of how good the new Halo is, it's passed its hey day. Halo's fundamental style of design has always been in question ever since Call of Duty 4 took to popularity. Games that focus on player progression and variety hold consumer attention for longer than games that don't, hence the death of the arena shooter and Halo with it. Every effort to modernise the series has seen backlash from fans, and it feels like the developers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. I just don't think Halo can be the flagship it once was, and of course that factors into Microsoft's desire to make new acquisitions, but that isn't to say that they bought Bethesda specifically because of Halo.
Microsoft acquired Bethesda because they want more titles guaranteed to feature on their cloud services, without having to broker specific deals with each developer, they can use a company like Bethesda to make that platform more appealing, which will in turn, also encourage studios that they do not own to participate in their ecosystem. So in that sense the value of Bethesda goes far beyond just Elder Scrolls and what have you.
The status of Halo, ultimately doesn't matter at this stage, and hasn't really for quite some time. Maybe if Halo was still the worlds hottest new IP they wouldn't have been quite so inclined to purchase a new studio, but expand internally with more Halo games and content, but that ship sailed a long time ago, with Halo 4, Halo 5, Halo Wars etc. all showing a decline in the series popularity. Regardless of how good the new Halo game is, it seems unlikely that it will light the world on fire.
The only context in which Halo really did matter was the launch. It would have been a great title to get the ball rolling. That's why it made sense to leverage it strategically as a launch title while the rest of their studios span up, but sadly 343 couldn't make that deadline and retain the high quality that the series is generally known for, so the delay made sense.
Halo, Gears and Forza weren't enough at the start of the last generation either, and I think this is just Microsoft slowly recognising that while also trying to pull more people into their cloud services with games that have strong brand attachments.
And regardless of how good the new Halo is, it's passed its hey day. Halo's fundamental style of design has always been in question ever since Call of Duty 4 took to popularity. Games that focus on player progression and variety hold consumer attention for longer than games that don't, hence the death of the arena shooter and Halo with it. Every effort to modernise the series has seen backlash from fans, and it feels like the developers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. I just don't think Halo can be the flagship it once was, and of course that factors into Microsoft's desire to make new acquisitions, but that isn't to say that they bought Bethesda specifically because of Halo.
Microsoft acquired Bethesda because they want more titles guaranteed to feature on their cloud services, without having to broker specific deals with each developer, they can use a company like Bethesda to make that platform more appealing, which will in turn, also encourage studios that they do not own to participate in their ecosystem. So in that sense the value of Bethesda goes far beyond just Elder Scrolls and what have you.
The status of Halo, ultimately doesn't matter at this stage, and hasn't really for quite some time. Maybe if Halo was still the worlds hottest new IP they wouldn't have been quite so inclined to purchase a new studio, but expand internally with more Halo games and content, but that ship sailed a long time ago, with Halo 4, Halo 5, Halo Wars etc. all showing a decline in the series popularity. Regardless of how good the new Halo game is, it seems unlikely that it will light the world on fire.
The only context in which Halo really did matter was the launch. It would have been a great title to get the ball rolling. That's why it made sense to leverage it strategically as a launch title while the rest of their studios span up, but sadly 343 couldn't make that deadline and retain the high quality that the series is generally known for, so the delay made sense.
Halo, Gears and Forza weren't enough at the start of the last generation either, and I think this is just Microsoft slowly recognising that while also trying to pull more people into their cloud services with games that have strong brand attachments.
As many a user has posted it is all about filling out their subscription service with games. They want exclusives launching on a consistent basis.
Not for Halo, but these buys are obviously so that they can provide diversity and don't have to be supremely reliant on single titles like Halo and Gears.
