Rumor: MS and Bungie splitting

[Shifty Geezer]

You will never make all people happy.

I'll just use this as a springboard for my oft repeated observation. The best selling games sell to a minority of console owners. That is, most people don't like your game. At least not enough to buy it. Most people don't buy GTA, GT, Halo, and the like. That's usually most people measured by a platform, though in rare cases where 50% may buy a title, that's nothing like 50% of the console owning public. Trying to make everyone happy is doomed. You can only make as many happy people as you can. Halo has been very successful in this, more successful than many other titles. If H3 is considered a flop by MS, Rare would have got the boot a long time ago. Heck, if MS aren't impressed by their best selling franchise, they'd give everyone the boot!

 

[archangelmorph]

I'll just use this as a springboard for my oft repeated observation. The best selling games sell to a minority of console owners. That is, most people don't like your game. At least not enough to buy it. Most people don't buy GTA, GT, Halo, and the like. That's usually most people measured by a platform, though in rare cases where 50% may buy a title, that's nothing like 50% of the console owning public. Trying to make everyone happy is doomed. You can only make as many happy people as you can. Halo has been very successful in this, more successful than many other titles. If H3 is considered a flop by MS, Rare would have got the boot a long time ago. Heck, if MS aren't impressed by their best selling franchise, they'd give everyone the boot!

That would be a little mean against Rare wouldn't? (especially considering they had nothing to do with the games' development..)

 

[blakjedi]

Maybe wingnut interactive is combining with Bungie...! Just kidding.

What is the Halo movie gonna be based on?

 

[archangelmorph]

Maybe wingnut interactive is combining with Bungie...! Just kidding.

What is the Halo movie gonna be based on?

A female Spartan called "Ms. Chief" (or "mischief" for kicks..)

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That would be a little mean against Rare wouldn't? (especially considering they had nothing to do with the games' development..)

I meant that if Bungie are to get the boot for creating Halo 3 which is supposedly being a disappointment to MS, Rare would also be kicked out by the same criteria - they haven't made anything as successful as Halo. And by that same measurement (H3 being no good) all MS's developers would be got rid of.

 

[iceberg187]

© 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved

That is still on the Bungie.net homepage

 

[patsu]

To impose our narrow view of the industry upon Microsofts view of Bungie/Halo 3 and disregarding the response of their fans in general and the overwhelming critical response was my point.

You absolutely cannot comment on Halo 3's place in the industry based on your own personal bias. It is akin to thinking Gran Turismo is "Gran Borismo" (boring) and imposing that view as Sony's view of the franchise and on the general consumer adoption and critical reception.

You lost me there. Are you saying that fans should not impose their views on the publishers' visions ?

You will never make all people happy. Halo 2 had a lot of dissenters, yet it sold amazingly well -- and continued to be played in droves 3 years later.

Sure. I don't think people are out there to criticize Halo's sales performance. So I'm not sure why you want to compare it to GTA. They are just unhappy with certain aspects of the game in comparison with others, and also their own expectations.

Microsoft doesn't care what "some people" say. What they care about is the general reception of the software relative to the larger market.

Like I said, myopia.

Ok, I think I get you now. It's inevitable. People want Heavenly Sword to be Goddess of War too. Is there any specific case where MS should react to what "some people" are saying ?

To bring that point on topic (PS3 fans are going to be crying bloody murder when LBP is released and people keep comparing it to Forge and deleted posts will follow), this is yet another reason why Bungie is valuable to MS.

I doubt it. They are very different games, for different audience, and even have different goals. The tools are mechanics. As you said before, it doesn't matter who does it first. The outcome depends on how Sony market it, who gets it right w.r.t. the target segment, etc.

Some will compare them but it would be relatively harmless feature requests I think. We shall see. Have you played LBP ? [Personally, I am holding my breathe for a Victoria Secrets LBP level (and my son for Lego ones)].

The rest of your comment spoke about potential impact of Halo 3 on the larger markets. We can easily determine that after one year or so. I don't really want to get into that without playing Halo 3 and Forge. It's off topic anyway.

 

[Acert93]

You lost me there. Are you saying that fans should not impose their views on the publishers' visions ?

You're lost because I don't think you are following the thrust of the topic--a split between Microsoft and Bungie.

My original post which you responded to was the myopia of posters who see a correlation of their tastes/opinions/bias about Bungie/Halo with Microsoft's view of Bungie/Halo.

Zed, you, and posters abroad can kevetch about the graphics and quality all you like. Now if a large contingent of the critical press as well as consumers had these opinions -- and it impacted sales and the value of their IP -- then Microsoft would care.

Just invert the Lair situation. Just because some people liked the game doesn't change the response of the press or consumers at large. Surely Sony is going to look at the general consensus (gamers and press) and its impact on sales above and beyond a single review, your personal review of Lair--so to equate your impression of Factor5/Lair to that of Sony's is irrelevant.

And that is my point. Comments like, "I didn't like Halo 3. Bad graphics and gameplay. Microsoft sees it is overhyped as well and will find someone to make a better Halo 4" is the sort of correlations that have no value, even if they were true.

Maybe I am seeing this more from an analyst position as I don't have a console, but from a business perspective I would be looking at the median and mean reaction. Lets assume Halo 3 is crap. If critics like said crap, consumers buy said crap and tell us they like said crap, then I will continue the crap-train. Why? Because the average and median response to my crapfest is really good.

Seriously, I would be the first person to LAMENT turn based RPG games. Absolutely HATE them--I think they are horrible. Yet I see the production qualities, I hear what fans say, and I see the sales results.

I would be an idiot to suggest that SE should stop making such games because I think they are broken, boring, overhyped, and repetitive with some of the most overdone stories ever.

Sometimes, in threads like this, our opinion really doesn't count for much. Stepping outside our own tastes and looking at the big picture of critical critique and consumer adoption and how the general response is matters much, much more to a company like Microsoft.

Sure. I don't think people are out there to criticize Halo's sales performance. So I'm not sure why you want to compare it to GTA.

Look at Shifty's response. The point of the GTA comparison is to show that from a market perspective even the very best games lag in deep market penetration. There will always be fault with every game in the eyes of not just some but MOST consumers--at least enough fault not to purchase the game.

They are just unhappy with certain aspects of the game in comparison with others, and also their own expectations.

And that makes no difference to this thread.

Is there any specific case where MS should react to what "some people" are saying?

Yeah, if Halo 3 was critically snubbed and sold poorly they would need to impliment some changes.

I don't think you ever react to "some" people. Take GTA: a lot of people, millions even, think the game is too violent. Should Rockstar listen to them?

No.

As for the game making process, you never completely listen to SOME fans (and non-fans / non-consumers kevetching) -- and you never always listen to ALL fans. You weigh the criticisms, look at your talents and the direction you want (and can) take the next title, and you go from there. Not every criticism is valid and some aren't addressible with the current technology, budgets, etc.

But this thread isn't about how Halo 3 didn't live up to 85% of the gaming populations expectations. A perfect Halo wouldn't live up to 70% of gaming consumers' tastes and expectations--because perfect to me isn't perfect to you.

Finally, this isn't a thread about picking out said criticisms of fans and non-fans and linking to how, "See! this poster has complaints!" Nitpicking is fine -- if we were discussing, "Halo 3: Best game ever?" The sort of points you raised about fan complaints you have heard on forums just don't matter, though, for the topic of a Bungie/MS split and the value of the Halo franchise to Microsoft.

The rest of your comment spoke about potential impact of Halo 3 on the larger markets. We can easily determine that after one year or so. I don't really want to get into that without playing Halo 3 and Forge. It's off topic anyway.

What is on-topic is the ability for Microsoft to rely on Bungie/Halo to communicate their social gaming message. The value of a game that is going to sell nearly 5M copies in 3 months, and for it to strategically place such a product with such significant market penetration and impact for a single title, is of extreme value.

Again, you can look forward to half naked women in LBP and how that totally 1-ups Halo 3's social tools (and they very well may), but the on-topic thrust was the value of a title, and developer, who can deliver said tools in a way that delivers the corporate message.

There are a lot of MP3 players that are far better than an iPod, but Apple is able to deliver their message. That was my point about Halo 3/Social Tools. When LBP hits 5M sales in 3 months I will apologize.

 

[patsu]

*Mods, feel free to delete the side track or put them in a separate thread.

You're lost because I don't think you are following the thrust of the topic--a split between Microsoft and Bungie.

Nope. I was replying to Laa-Yosh's post.

My original post which you responded to was the myopia of posters who see a correlation of their tastes/opinions/bias about Bungie/Halo with Microsoft's view of Bungie/Halo.

Zed, you, and posters abroad can kevetch about the graphics and quality all you like. Now if a large contingent of the critical press as well as consumers had these opinions -- and it impacted sales and the value of their IP -- then Microsoft would care.

Me ? kvetch about graphics ? Read my posts again. I have never been a graphics critic since day 1.

I share the same view as you. People are being overly critical about visuals on _both_ PS3 and Xbox 360 these days. B3D can be an exception sometimes when the focus is on the pure technical aspect, but still.

I haven't been following Halo 3 complains at all really. So I can't comment on the specific gameplay, graphics or any issues they take with the game. They may or may not be valid, whether MS chose to listen to them is another story altogether.

Just invert the Lair situation. Just because some people liked the game doesn't change the response of the press or consumers at large. Surely Sony is going to look at the general consensus (gamers and press) and its impact on sales above and beyond a single review, your personal review of Lair--so to equate your impression of Factor5/Lair to that of Sony's is irrelevant.

Yes and no. The majority response is made up of individual opinion. It depends on which side you happen to fall on. You won't know beforehand. Ironically, my score 6 happens to be pretty close to the average at gamerankings and metacritic compared to many major sites ;-)

My impression matters as much/little as everyone else, but it matters most to the friends around me. That's how word of mouth works.

And that is my point. Comments like, "I didn't like Halo 3. Bad graphics and gameplay. Microsoft sees it is overhyped as well and will find someone to make a better Halo 4" is the sort of correlations that have no value, even if they were true.

Well... true or not, this is a forum. As you said, it depends on the majority. If more and more people feel it this way, then according to you, MS has to take issue with it. You and I both have little to do with it... even if you feel that their opinion are worthless.

What is on-topic is the ability for Microsoft to rely on Bungie/Halo to communicate their social gaming message. The value of a game that is going to sell nearly 5M copies in 3 months, and for it to strategically place such a product with such significant market penetration and impact for a single title, is of extreme value.

I thought what's on topic is MS and Bungie splitting (or alternate solutions) ? Halo 3's social gaming message is interesting and we will see its impact within months.

Again, you can look forward to half naked women in LBP and how that totally 1-ups Halo 3's social tools (and they very well may), but the on-topic thrust was the value of a title, and developer, who can deliver said tools in a way that delivers the corporate message.

I am saying LBP and Halo 3 are very different creatures and your previous speculation about Halo 3 social gaming effect on LBP is off-topic and premature.

If a small studio like Media Molecule can do it. Given enough time and resources from MS, I am sure another entity besides Bungie can do it for MS too.

There are a lot of MP3 players that are far better than an iPod, but Apple is able to deliver their message. That was my point about Halo 3/Social Tools. When LBP hits 5M sales in 3 months I will apologize.

Huh, apologize for what ?

Halo 3 took 3 iterations to build the base, and you want a small studio to do it in 3 months ? I don't know why you insist on hyping Halo Forge. The appeal of Halo is FPS. Social gaming is added on. If Halo 3 only has Forge and no SP and MP FPS, will it appeal as much ?

LBP is a game built from the ground up to establish user-created content as its core. There are difficult challenges (since there is no FPS elements to back it up). OTOH, it can have broader appeal to the general public, especially in Asia. The games are incomparable.

And you're complaining about people losing the big picture, etc etc ?

According to Laa-Yosh, people are not talking about Halo Forge as much as he had hope (yet). The question you should ask should be how many people play Forge vs the regular Halo 3 MP today. Why drag LBP into a MS-Bungie thread when it clearly has different things going and also unreleased ?

Again, all these are off topic. Everyone knows that Bungie is a valuable developer. I have little doubt that MS will be very open minded on the negotiation table.

 

[Acert93]

Wow, and you STILL missed the relevance of my point.

I thought what's on topic is MS and Bungie splitting (or alternate solutions) ? Halo 3's social gaming message is interesting and we will see its impact within months.

Bungie, as a studio, to execute MS's agenda, spur on adoption, and to deeply penetrate the market with their vision in a highly visible manner is extremely relevant to any possible split between Microsoft and Bungie.

Lets not forget the press hysteria the last couple weeks over Halo 3 and how gamers and non-gamers alike were bombarded with Halo 3.

You may like the example of Social-Tools, but Social-Tools are just one example. I am not even saying LBP and Halo 3 cater to the same audiance. Not at all. But they DO approach the same general theme of social gaming and customization.

Trend setting, visibility, association, etc were the points I was making, and notably the value of a studio like Bungie to effectively deliver such to the market is very hard to quantify.

Put closer to home for most here, it is the difference between the EyeToy and Wii-mote. They may preach a similar message (in different ways... I am not saying they are the same or equal!), but the visibility and consumer association with the general concept is much, much more effectively communicated by the Wii-mote due to market penetration, visibility, association, etc

Putting this back into the Bungie universe, there may be better Xbox Live games on the Xbox, but Halo 2 is the poster-child for Live and many of its features. It doesn't matter if other titles are better... what matters is that the success of Halo 2 allowed it to deeply penetrate the market and condition consumers.

If MS loses Bungie, I don't see any other internal studio MS could use as effectively as Bungie has been used.

 

[Zaphod]

Bungie, as a studio, to execute MS's agenda, spur on adoption, and to deeply penetrate the market with their vision in a highly visible manner is extremely relevant to any possible split between Microsoft and Bungie. [...] If MS loses Bungie, I don't see any other internal studio MS could use as effectively as Bungie has been used.

Why? From a gamer point of view, I certainly see your point, but from a corporate point of view I don't find it unfeasible that MS might see themselves in a position where they believe they'll be able to get better returns on future investments as well as bolstering their short-to-intermediate bottom line further by selling off Bungie now. Happens all the time in other industries, so why not gaming.

 

[Acert93]

Why? From a gamer point of view, I certainly see your point

I wasn't talking about a gamers point of view. My point was the execution of Microsoft's message and agenda. Someone has to be able to provide the carry through. If the PS4/Wii2 launch before the Xbox 3 (or day and date) those funded exclusives quickly dissappear due to financial reasons, so you are left relying on 1st party to not only differentiate your product as well to evangelize your platform's selling points.

Just look at Xbox Live. It is a central pillar to the Xbox 360 and is nothing without software. Ditto the Wii.

You cannot always count on 3rd parties to effectively execute your vision, especially if you are in an environment rich with multiplatform development. In such a situation distinctive elements of a platform tend to get ignored.

Someone has to differentiate your platform, and you cannot always expect to be in a position to get the easy exclusives.

but from a corporate point of view I don't find it unfeasible that MS might see themselves in a position where they believe they'll be able to get better returns on future investments as well as bolstering their short-to-intermediate bottom line further by selling off Bungie now. Happens all the time in other industries, so why not gaming.

If Microsoft retains the Halo IP, right of first refusal on Bungie developed titles, and gets a hundred (or two) million out of the deal it could work out.

But they also may lose some input on maximizing the Bungie design (and how it accents their platform), and lest everyone forget: The Xbox had 1 profitable quarter--when Halo 2 launched. The first profitable Xbox 360 quarter will be the one where Halo 3 was released.

Any move by Microsoft will need to account for that stream of revenue and the impact it has on hardware sales, platform image, etc.

But you are right, MS could do a move like I mentioned above and then even snag some Bungie developers to form a new internal studio of former Bungie staff and have plenty of cash for more exclusives...

But a direct spin-off where Bungie is a free agent may net some cash, but the damages within the next 5 years will far, far outweigh the benefit. While sales aren't always huge of single titles, the mindshare and consumer movement by big apps is important for establishing a platform. Just look at the PS3 and the effect of, among other things, having no "killer app" software.

 

[patsu]

Wow, and you STILL missed the relevance of my point.

Bungie, as a studio, to execute MS's agenda, spur on adoption, and to deeply penetrate the market with their vision in a highly visible manner is extremely relevant to any possible split between Microsoft and Bungie.

Lets not forget the press hysteria the last couple weeks over Halo 3 and how gamers and non-gamers alike were bombarded with Halo 3.

As I mentioned, let's wait and see. MS can hype all they want. It is widespread usage/adoption that will determine success. It won't be the first time for a company to hype something to no effect (e.g., if the public still don't "get" Forge, or if people perceive it as just a better UT3 mods).

Today, people see Halo as a premium FPS. Forge is nice but it is still young. How far it can carry that message is unknown.

Put closer to home for most here, it is the difference between the EyeToy and Wii-mote. They may preach a similar message (in different ways... I am not saying they are the same or equal!), but the visibility and consumer association with the general concept is much, much more effectively communicated by the Wii-mote due to market penetration, visibility, association, etc

That is one of the reasons Halo 3 Forge effect is unknown, my friend. Wii is first and foremost a motion sensing game console. Wii is synonymous with motion control entertainment. The entire pitch is very simple and focused. Sony only wants to project the overall Playstation experience, and does not want to limit it to just EyeToy like games. The products are not positioned the same in the first place. And in this case, less can be more.

It is not just about large numbers (Wii starts from zero). Marketing is not so trivial/simple.

If MS loses Bungie, I don't see any other internal studio MS could use as effectively as Bungie has been used.

It is certainly a great loss. I am sure MS has access to other talented teams but for various reasons, Bungie can probably execute more naturally and boldly than them.


EDIT:
Plus I don't think MS will lose Bungie. They will most likely adjust their terms and reformulate their bonds, that's all.

 

[aselto]

EDIT:
Plus I don't think MS will lose Bungie. They will most likely adjust their terms and reformulate their bonds, that's all.

If that happens, I think we gamers ultimately will win. Halo stuff will be outsourced to external studios who I'm sure would love to make a Halo game (prestige and guaranteed revenues), and Bungie doing its new, creative and fresh IP(s) and universe(s). I mean, the timespan between Marathon 1, Myth 1 and Halo 1 was 3 and 4 years, now it's been 6 years since Halo 1 and it's time to move on for Bungie.:smile:

 

[Zaphod]

and lest everyone forget: The Xbox had 1 profitable quarter--when Halo 2 launched. The first profitable Xbox 360 quarter will be the one where Halo 3 was released.

And that's exactly why right now is the best time to make a move such as this. Halo 3 revenue isn't going anywhere, but the investment required in running Bunge until they deliver the 'in potential' Halo 4 will. Keeping Bungie operating at their current level must cost a pretty penny, and if you're not putting them straight back to work on a new Halo installment, is that cost worth it? Is the Bungie brand (and talent) enough of a guarantee for success besides Halo?

the damages within the next 5 years will far, far outweigh the benefit. While sales aren't always huge of single titles, the mindshare and consumer movement by big apps is important for establishing a platform.

I think you're overestimating this problem. As mentioned previously , I am sure MS researches these things, and 'Halo the brand' may very well have eclipsed 'Halo the game'. Bungie leaving probably isn't deemed as detrimental to the former.

Just look at the PS3 and the effect of, among other things, having no "killer app" software.

Not that their internal studios have done them much good in this regard so far...

 

[patsu]

If that happens, I think we gamers ultimately will win. Halo stuff will be outsourced to external studios who I'm sure would love to make a Halo game (prestige and guaranteed revenues), and Bungie doing its new, creative and fresh IP(s) and universe(s). I mean, the timespan between Marathon 1, Myth 1 and Halo 1 was 3 and 4 years, now it's been 6 years since Halo 1 and it's time to move on for Bungie.:smile:

Yes... I expect that outcome because it is win-win and easier for both to execute.

Should it turn out otherwise, Bungie probably has some concrete plans in mind already, and the wild child in them refuse to be tied down by anything. In that case, I would expect great things to come too.

Either way, I don't see this as a bad thing for gamers. ;-)

 

[dobwal]

I wasn't talking about a gamers point of view. My point was the execution of Microsoft's message and agenda. Someone has to be able to provide the carry through. If the PS4/Wii2 launch before the Xbox 3 (or day and date) those funded exclusives quickly dissappear due to financial reasons, so you are left relying on 1st party to not only differentiate your product as well to evangelize your platform's selling points.

The PS2 is mostly diffentiated by the presence of third party exclusives, so was the PS1.

If the Xbox1 had no first party dev'd games including Halo but exclusively retain the Devil May Cry, Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, GTA and everty other high profile third party franchises then how well would the PS2 have done with sole dependence on its first party lineup and a bunch of mediocre multiplatform games.

You cannot always count on 3rd parties to effectively execute your vision, especially if you are in an environment rich with multiplatform development. In such a situation distinctive elements of a platform tend to get ignored.

Someone has to differentiate your platform, and you cannot always expect to be in a position to get the easy exclusives.

Unless you are Nintendo you can't get away with strong dependence of first party releases. You can't always depend on your internal studios to execute properly either. How well you do as a software publisher is more important then how well you perform as a first party developer. MS as a publisher can fund external projects and capture new ips to make up for the short comings of its internal studios.

But a direct spin-off where Bungie is a free agent may net some cash, but the damages within the next 5 years will far, far outweigh the benefit. While sales aren't always huge of single titles, the mindshare and consumer movement by big apps is important for establishing a platform. Just look at the PS3 and the effect of, among other things, having no "killer app" software.

Its not a given that a Bungie developed Halo4 outperforms in terms of quality and popularity a Halo4 deved by another studio. A "Bungie minus a Halo" and a "Halo4 minus a Bungie" might show in time that the majority contributor to the success of the Halo franchise came and comes from the heavy investment provided by MS.

 

[rbushner]

A "Bungie minus a Halo" and a "Halo4 minus a Bungie" might show in time that the majority contributor to the success of the Halo franchise came and comes from the heavy investment provided by MS.

I'm quite certain that both Brute Force and Perfect Dark Zero had much higher initial budgets than Halo. Halo was barely marketed at first, it's success was very similiar to BioShocks earlier this year, by word of mouth and excellent reviews.

Investment does not make great games anymore than it makes great movies. There is no mistake why all of the Halo console games are highly rated and sell well, it's because they are great games that are fun to play.

Throwing engineers and marketers at a problem doesn't make a game fun to play.

 

[Acert93]

And that's exactly why right now is the best time to make a move such as this. Halo 3 revenue isn't going anywhere, but the investment required in running Bunge until they deliver the 'in potential' Halo 4 will. Keeping Bungie operating at their current level must cost a pretty penny, and if you're not putting them straight back to work on a new Halo installment, is that cost worth it? Is the Bungie brand (and talent) enough of a guarantee for success besides Halo?

I think you're overestimating the cost of mainting a AAA developer studio. I don't see Sony, Nintendo, EA, Activision, Ubisoft, et al dumping their #1 developers.

I think you're overestimating this problem. As mentioned previously , I am sure MS researches these things

Yes. And Sony researched the market impact of a $600 console and MS researched preventing hardware defects before launching the 360 with inadequate cooling (?). And lets not discuss that... thing... called the Virtual Boy!

What you are saying this is MS's choice (we don't know that--Bungie could have forced the issue through the threat of massive defections) and that MS knows better than anyone else (not always true, especially if the former assumption isn't true). The market is full of examples where Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo totally mis-judged the market.

Not that their internal studios have done them much good in this regard so far...

Nice try with the wink, but this really isn't a clever "gotcha". As you told Nav, apples and oranges.

First, this is exactly WHY Microsoft should keep Bungie. Bungie -- unlike studios like Rare, FASA, Digital Anvil, etc -- has actually done a lot in terms of sales, platform visibility, and evengalizing the merits of Microsoft's vision. I see everyone is taking a HUGE pass on finding studios to fill these specific roles.

As for Sony, their first parties were quite tied up doing PS2 titles seeing as Sony rode the PS2 hard (to great success mind you) well into 2005. They even released God of War 2 on the PS2 in 2006.

Bungie started Halo 3 in 2004 when MS essentially dropped Xbox software development. We will see the value of Sony internal studios in 2008 and 2009 if their timeline is similar to Bungie's timeline

 

[dobwal]

I'm quite certain that both Brute Force and Perfect Dark Zero had much higher initial budgets than Halo. Halo was barely marketed at first, it's success was very similiar to BioShocks earlier this year, by word of mouth and excellent reviews.

Investment does not make great games anymore than it makes great movies. There is no mistake why all of the Halo console games are highly rated and sell well, it's because they are great games that are fun to play.

Throwing engineers and marketers at a problem doesn't make a game fun to play.

Halo was intially developed for the Mac and PC. A lot of dev work had already gone into Halo before MS acquired Bungie.

Halo came with built in buzz built from its inclusion of vehicles, past Bungie success and the odditiy that it might be the first exclusive Mac title that made PC gamers salivate. How many titles have you ever heard Steve Jobs announce at MacWorld?

Half of all gamers who bought a Xbox bought Halo at purchase, it was well recieved from the get go. MS purchase Bungie for the Halo franchise, the potential of the franchise was seen way before its release.