Joystiq has uncovered some interesting information on the rumored remake of the original Halo. As expected, the Halo remake will be out by the end of 2011, but the site said that it will not be using the Halo: Reach engine as rumored last December. Here’s the 411:
Sources explain that the re-release is not Bungie’s 2001 Xbox game simply running at a higher resolution — it’s being remade with new art assets. While Halo’s audio will likely remain unaltered, the controls will allow for more recent Halo configurations.
The Halo: Combat Evolved remake is allegedly being developed by New Jersey-based Saber Interactive, the company behind TimeShift and Namco’s upcoming Inversion, but we’ve been unable to confirm the nature of the engine powering it. We understand that it’s something other than the Reach engine.
A Halo remake in 2011 was an obvious choice considering the game’s 10-year anniversary. However, it’s surprising that the game isn’t using the Reach engine. The tech is there and it looks amazing. Using it seems like a no-brainer.
Any thoughts on this Halo remake rumor?
If Bungie isn't making it like this rumor claims, then it can't be made with the Reach engine. Microsoft own no rights to the engine and Bungie isn't likely to sell it out considering the money they are getting from Activision.
That makes sense I suppose, but it is disappointing to not have the Reach engine.
That's a fair point, but I don't know if there were any licensing deals in place prior to the Activision deal.
I was wondering what was taking MS so long with the HD remakes. I have a strong feeling MS will charge a full $60 for this Halo 1 remake though. All they have to do is make a live action trailer for a commercial and millions will buy it thinking it's a brand new Halo game.
You thought it would be out earlier than the 10th anniversary? From a sales and marketing perspective, that's the best time for it.
I was thinking that Sony showed it's just a great idea with the success of all of their HD remakes no matter whether the games are 10 years old or 5 years old. Sony charged $40 for 2 to 3 remake games though.
The Halo remake would be very different than those Sony remakes. Furthermore, whether you like it or not, Halo is a more important game than the ones Sony re-released.
I agree Halo is more important, but still not worth $60.
How can you make that judgement when nobody knows what the remake entails?
ODST
zing
Ditto
That makes no sense at all.
It makes a lot of sense. It's Halo, which means the name alone will sell millions. Just look at ODST, it entailed a reported 4 hour campaign and the Halo 3 multi player which 10 million people already paid $60 and M$ charged $60 for that so what makes you think they won't charge $60 for the Halo 1 remake? Sure, they'll throw in something like access to the Halo 4 beta but that's still hardly worth $60.
It makes no sense at all. It's a remake of the original that's rumored to be using a different engine and rumored to be made by a new dev team. You have no idea what the content will be like in terms of quantity or quality. Making any sort of judgement about its value at this time is just foolish. Making that call based off of ODST is just a poor leap of logic.
Your argument assumes that everyone who bought ODST bought Halo 3, or bought all of the DLC.. This is not always going to be the case, and as such ODST will have had varying value depending on the person making the purchase. You're also completely forgetting about the very good Firefight mode, which was easily the most fun part of ODST and where the majority of people who bought it would have likely spent their time. So while it may be fair to argue that ODST wasn't worth a full $60 retail price, it's also fair to argue that by THAT SAME STANDARD no game that's got a relatively short story mode and relies heavily on multiplayer is worth the $60 price since all multiplayer is based on the use of the same content OVER AND OVER AGAIN and it;s the players who create that which is new and different on each playthrough. So I'm not sure how that separates ODST from Halo 3, CoD:MW2, Killzone 2, M.A.G., or many other MP heavy games in that respect.
@Raymond Padilla
We shall see.
@Nightshade
C'mon, you know no other game could could pull off what ODST did.
MW2 didn't come with the MW1 multi player. That's not a good comparison.
I think what RROD is trying to get at is that the effort for making the Halo remake (and subsequently, ODST) is that it takes half the effort to make those games than it does for an "original" game, yet it is sold at full price instead of $30 or $40.
It does not matter that a new team is going to work on the game from the ground-up with a new engine, the fact of the matter is that these people essentially have a blueprint that will dramatically cut down on the average time it would take to do a regular original game. You don't need storyboard artists or writers or level designers, etc. Oh sure, there could be some tweaks here and there, but if you have less people working on a game that requires less effort than an original, full-fledged game, then it's only logical that i would be reflected in the price. However, brand name recognition and marketing demand that kind of logic be thrown out the window in favor of maximizing margins by keeping the costs of development as low as humanly possible.
-M
It wouldn't take half the effort though. That's a horrible assumption.
How could a remake of an old game take the same amount of effort as building a game from scratch?
Again, I submit Modern Warfare 2, which was only about 6 hours long, had a completely inconcievable plot and the multiplayer was buggy as hell. I'd argue ODST was a far superior game, and I don't even like Halo.
And since we're discussing the value of the Multiplayer maps, I'd like to remind you that 4 of the 10 DLC maps released for Modern Warfare 2 were reissues of maps from CoD4. That was $30 for essentially $16 worth of work.
I see where you're going with the MW2 DLC re-issue maps but your comparing DLC to a full release. However, that was Activision being greedy charging $15 for it knowing that everyone would buy it anyway.
@Nightshade
Both of those games had very short campaigns, and I did like some of the multiplayer content on both, but neither of them were worth the price for me. Both of those were games that I rented for a couple days (or borrowed) and then beat the campaign, messed around with the multi, and then was done with them. That's all they were good for, but I did really enjoy both campaigns.
@RRoD:
I'm comparing the $90 cost of the "complete" version of CoD:MW2 to the $60 cost of ODST. I'm saying it's fair to argue that either is overpriced depending on the value YOU GOT OUT OF IT. If you never played the CoD 4 maps that were reissued in MW2 or like Thundercracker you are a self described "sucker" who likes reissues, then obviously the value is higher for you. The same can be said for the multiplayer aspect of ODST if you didn't buy them for Halo 3, or if ODST was your entry piint into the series. So when you say "C’mon, you know no other game could could pull off what ODST did," I would argue that that's EXACLTY what Activision pulled off, and due to the way YOU SEE each game/series differently, you are seeing their values differently.
From the same vein, I see almost all MP heavy games as overpriced because I'm much more interested in the single player or co-op campaigns than Deathmatch, Capture the Flag, or any of the other types of multiplayer modes. So why would I spend $60 on the new CoD every year when I'm going to be done with it in 6-8 hours? I'll rent it, beat it in a sitting or two, and then happily send it back to Gamefly for something else. Others would think that the exact same content is a bargain and spend 100's of hours playing the same 4 multiplayer maps over and over again.
Take for instance the HD reissues that Sony has been doing lately. If I already own the God of War or Sly Cooper games, along with two working PS2's in my house…..why would I buy them again? But for those who missed out they're a fabulous bargain. Everyone's perception of value is different dependent on circumstance.
@Nightshade
We can all agree that value is dependent upon the owner. But, I still say the MW2 and ODST comparison is a bad one though. ODST was packaged with the Halo 3 multi player, THE EXACT SAME MULTI PLAYER FROM HALO 3. MW2 did not come with MW1's multi player. It was a brand new multi player with new maps, weapons, guns, and other changes. The DLC are just extra maps that are optional.
Point taken about some people not being big on MP so shooters are better off being rented and that's understandable. I play COD mainly for MP.
Agreed about the Sony remakes if you already own the games and a working PS2. However, I miss out on ICO and SOTC and have heard and read nothing but good about both of them so that is one collection that I will be getting. I also miss the Sly Cooper games and bought that collection as well.
And when you play online with your friends and most of them have the "optional" maps, don't you then have to buy the "optional" maps to be able to play with them? Isn't it much harder to find a game on the old maps once new maps come out? As such, aren't most people who play online regularly pigeonholed into buying the new maps to keep playing the game regularly? How can you not see that as the same type of tactic as releasing the same maps twice on two different games? You're still paying for something you don't need to enjoy the game, and its especially egregious in the case of MW2, where 40% of the DLC maps were reissues.
In fact, I'd say that ODST offering the Halo 3 multiplayer is no worse than a number of other companies releasing "Ultimate" or "GotY" editions of games later with all the DLC added in for free, or the new HD bundled versions of older games that Sony is putting out. In any of the above cases, it's not the person buying the 2nd game that's getting "ripped off" (if you choose to see it that way based on the perceived value of the games) it's the person buying the first game who didn't know they were gonna release it all as a much less expensive collection later.
Let's be honest with ourselves here as well; nearly everything depreciates in value after it's initial release, which is why a $20,000 car is worth $13,000 come the next December when they're trying to make room for the next year's model. So what was once $60 worth of Halo 3 DLC being released as part of one $60 game later is just about par for the course with most other forms of commerce.
@RROD
MW2 is the equivalent of a Madden shooter. It barely changed the multiplayer and had a bad campaign. It sold because of its name and not because IW didn't anything to warrant the 60+ price tag.
(In this discussion, I am a Bad Co2 fanboy.)
Call of Duty hasn't changed the multiplayer since 4. All they do is mess with their perks and weapons in non meaningful/bad ways. New maps doesn't mean the multiplayer is new, it's like forcing you to buy their new dlc.
@Sandrock
I built a new PC to play BC2 on just because I saw it recently at max settings. I am buying it off of Steam with the vietnam pack. Oh I cannot wait. Best competitive FPS on the market in my opinion. Maybe Crisis will give it a good run for its money but I think only a new Battlefield running Frostbite will do so.
@Sandrock
I'll give you that but COD does have a brand new campaign like I said so you can't compare it to Madden which is played on the same field every year with roster updates.
@RROD
so did ODST :P
@Smartguy
Crysis will push almost any PC to its knees. The Crytech engine is insanely powerful and not well optimized for current tech. Bad Co2 is still the best FPS on the market though. Can't wait to see what they reveal about Battlefield 3 next.
That’s not true. COD has a brand new campaign and new multi player every year. Madden is just roster updates with a couple gameplay tweaks.
Halo nuts would bitch about the price but buy it anyway if it were to be $60. They already proved it with ODST.
Ha. I paid less than $30 for ODST brand new and I enjoyed every minute of it. The game was really not worth $60, in my opinion so I waited for the street price to reflect it's value (to me).
I've said it once, I'll say it again: Patience pays.
-M
i just cant resist taking a shot at ODST :)
every halo game was important, they are all very good in some way. They revolutionized the fps, and should be given credit. Im not sure anyone will buy this though. FPS Multiplayer games dont retain their popularity forever. MW2 was the dominant force, until black ops came out. Black ops will see its servers thin out come november as well. People have already played the first halo, it will be a novelty. People will buy this game, but they wont stay long….
and one more thing…i LOVE when they bring back old maps, i loved seeing overgrown amd strike in mw2
>>>>>>sucker
I think old maps should be free if you bought the game and still own the disc from the first. Great way to reward customer loyalty and remove some used copies from the market.
The DLC for black ops is 4 maps and a zombie map. Never played the zombie mode. CoD really should come with a multiplayer only sku that costs less than $60
It could be really good though. Twin Snakes was a hell of a lot better than the original MGS.
Depends though how MS chops it up. It could be bastardized like CoD and Madden.
A remake can easily take as much time as a new game. You save time on level design, but you lose time trying to make old tech and design work with a new engine and modernized gameplay sensibilities. Thinking that it would take "half" the time shows poor familiarity with the development process. In some ways, it's harder and more time consuming trying to "recreate" because the dev team — particular the artists — doesn't have the freedom they would when working on something entirely new.
People keep clamoring for a FFVII remake, but the main reason that hasn't happened is because it would be crazy expensive to make a game that big with modern graphics. There's a perfect example of a remake taking more time to make than an original game.
@Nightshade
Actually, I play COD online but I didn't buy the map packs when Activision started charging $15 for it just because they could. When I play with friends who did buy it then the new maps were disabled because I didn't buy them. Also, finding games for just the old maps is no trouble at all. I'd argue that there are less games for the new maps because everybody that bought COD didn't buy those maps.
The bottom line is if you want to play COD you can play it without buying optional DLC map packs which contains "40%" of maps that you already paid for with the last COD game. But if you want to play ODST you are forced to re-buy the Halo 3 multi player when you have already paid for that 2 years prior.
As far as GOTY releases, games depreciate over time like you said. I don't see the problem with that because the original version will be at least half price. We all know prices will drop. Uncharted 3 is my most anticipated game this year and I'm buying it day one. However, I know that in 2012 there will be an Uncharted 3 GOTY version with all DLC for $60 if I wait a year but I'm not waiting. If Uncharted 3 was packaged with the exact same multi player from Uncharted 2 then I would have a problem with that because I already paid $60 for Uncharted 2 and don't want to pay for it again just to play Uncharted 3.
I agree with RROD mostly. CoD4 MW would bring up a new map and if you didn’t buy it you got the boot. The last 3 games in the series do not do that. They keep version numbers the same in the lobby with the last 3 titles. So with the exception of the last 3 games you did not have to buy the DLC in order to continue playing the game.
That said…they do not offer enough to justify $60 every year for realigning perks and rewards. CoD should be offered with a multiplayer only SKU for less than $60. Like $30 or $40 would be very generous and fair I think.
GoTY editions…meh. That’s the same as being an early adopter of a new gadget. You pay a premium for gotta have it right now whereas late adopters (Iceman) reap the benefits of having too many things to do lol.
Halo 3 lobby and ODST lobby are different right? Isn’t that the same content though? Just asking.
ODST has no matchmaking. It has Firefight multiplayer, but there is no matchmaking support for it. The Halo 3 multiplayer packaged with it is the exact same multiplayer as the one on your original Halo 3 disc. Same lobbies, same matchmaking.