In a recent posting, I expressed curiosity about what makes a game a sure fire winner.Statistically, only two percent of games actually return a profit to their developers, so I asked the question, “Why do some games, like Grand Theft Auto, Halo, Max Payne and others become such winners in the marketplace?” One of you supplied an answer that intrigued and pleased me.The response agreed with the theories I had proposed in my article while opening yet a third theory, pointing out that Halo was published by a platform owner on a highly-advertised (not to mention convenient and easy to use) platform.
That comment came from our own Meho:
I am not sure I can give you comments that will move the Earth or something. But, if you try to ask why Halo was successful and Max Payne was less so, there are simple factor to observe:
One was published by a platform owner, on a highly-advertised (not to mention convenient and easy to use) platform and had a very strong marketing push from way before day one. The other was published by a small, indie publisher that went bust shortly after.
What Meho did not mention was exactly why Microsoft pushed Halo so hard.And thus, the third theory about the “The Two-Percenters:” why some games make it big while others never even come close.The answer: simple, the publisher had an ulterior motive.We will discuss that in a moment.
In discussing the two games in question (Max Payne and Halo) Meho said, “Perhaps most crucially, one [game] was a solitary, philosophical romp through one man’s living nightmare, the other was a full-blooded online social experience,”then he added “but Max Payne’s brand of fun is inevitably more cerebral but also more restrictive than Halo’s cooperative online game play.”In so doing, Meho told us his preference in games, and perhaps the preference of most serious gamers…it is the magic in the word “cerebral.”But what he didn’t deal with was the “chicken or the egg” concept.
The fact of the matter is that Halo was on the boards at Bungie as far back as the late nineties.When Microsoft decided to make the Xbox, the company realized it legitimacy in the marketplace – so it purchased a selection of developers, Bungie included, to accomplish this. Also recognizing that ir needed a killer app to launch the console, it assessed its new portfolio and handed the keys to the kingdom to Halo – a game that was, at the time, quite a different animal than what Bungie finally shipped. What is important to remember here, though, is that Halo is really a first-person shooter and first person shooters had been around a long time.In spite of that, Meho had an explanation for Halo’s success.He stated:
[Halo] was published by a platform owner, on a highly-advertised (not to mention convenient and easy to use) platform and had a very strong marketing push from way before day one. The other [Max Payne] was published by a small, indie publisher that went bust shortly after.
(note: Gathering of Developers published the original Max Payne, with this and all of GoD’s IPs transferring to Rockstar/2K after the beleaguered publisher’s collapse —S)
I agree with his perspective, but only to a point.Halo’s existence and history are very complex. It did have a huge advertising blitz, but – and this is important – only in the context of the fact that it was an Xbox launch title. The truth is that while Halo was amusing, it was never that impressive to PC gamers.The game offered nothing – nothing – that hadn’t already been done on the PC by games as much as five years its senior. But to console gamers, Halo was the equivalent of their DOOM.So did the gamers stand in line to buy Halo, or did they stand in line to buy the Xbox?The answer is nebulous; they stood in line to buy both. Halo’s attachment rate at the time of the Xbox’s release was something like 90%. Gamers were led to believe that Halo was the “killer app” for that console, as in fact it turned out to be, and they dutifully bought it along with their new console.
The success of Halo, certainly explains why Halo 2 had gamers standing in line the night before its release.But all gamers who weren’t brain-dead frat boys saw the flaws in Halo 2 quickly. Many were disappointed with the way the game handled playable Covenant characters, by the inept storyline, and by the lack of any real conclusion. When Halo 3 came out it sold millions, but was eventually ridiculed for its shaky level design, incoherent story, and careless mechanics, and forgotten by online players who happily went back to Gears of War once the novelty of a new Halo wore off.But that said, Halo 1 was indeed the game that made the Xbox a fixture in our lives – or, rather, in the lives of Westerners, as neither the game nor its mother system ever made much splash in Japan. Halo lacked cerebral depth, and the depth of social experience it offered was questionable, but the game was so packed with new and different types of adventures, equipment, and challenges (for console gamers unaware of the PC’s depth of offerings), that players couldn’t wait for the second.
So while critically, the result was thumbs down on the second and the third, the sales figures were in the stratosphere.Do you think the publisher cared?Typically, if games have those intrinsic qualities that tend to move us emotionally as well as cerebrally, we yearn for a follow-up. One sad aspect of this business is that mediocre or even poor games can, when heavily advertised, sell millions of copies and earn a place in Sequelia (think Assassin’s Creed) while outstanding titles with low market awareness are doomed to last only one installment. Microsoft took advantage of its success with Halo, producing a mighty franchise now valued at well over a billion dollars; but a franchise of creative bombs that we fell for… and shame on us.
It seems to me that gives more credibility to word of mouth ascause for a game’s success…and that is the way it should be.Customers who talk up a product can be trusted.But we too often fall for the advertising.Yet, the fact is, a full court press of a publisher is of little consequence if the work of mouth is not there.Word of mouth made Max Payne a two-percenter, an advertising blitz made Halo a two-percenter, but the real question is which made us feel better – Halo 2 or Max Payne 2? Since Meho started this discussion, it seems appropriate to close it with a quote by Meho.
“Make no mistake, I personally prefer Max Payne to Halo by a considerable margin”
So do I, Meho, so do I.That pretty much says it all.
I never liked Halo exactly for the reason you mentioned, T3: “The game offered nothing – nothing – that hadn’t already been done on the PC by games as much as five years its senior.”
I found the game to be pretty dull and just couldn’t get used to a using a joy paddle in a first person shooter. I’d come too comfortable with the mouse and keyboard. While, over time, I have gotten used to (though by no means at all proficient with) using a joy paddle with first person shooters, the subsequent Halo games always just felt a little bland and behind the times.
Ajax, you are the man. We have that in common. Using a joystick and paddle in a shooter is a lot like trying to thread a needle with five thumbs on each hand. I just can’t do it and frankly, I don’t even like to try…suddenly, I become very dangerous if I have a weapon in my hands, couldn’t hit a target right in front of me. For PC gamers, Halo WAS behind the times.
Heh… Your most recent essay on advertising and sales can be boiled to two points in my simple mind: 1) Heavily advertised product sells better than lightly advertised product and 2) That doesn’t mean that this product is better.
Both valid points, of course, and well said. For the record though, let me say that I in fact love Halo and that I think you are being too harsh towards it. Especially the ‘does nothing that five year old shooters on PC didn’t already do’. I mean, yeah, you had bits and pieces of those things before but Halo pulled them together and made it all very convenient and comfortable. I mean, I certainly can’t think of any game that had such comfortable balance of on foot and vehicular fighting prior to 2001. Then, the co-op campaign. Yes, Quake 2 had it and Serious Sam had it, but remember this was on Xbox, so instant success without any fiddling with connections, servers and stuff.
I liked Halo 1 very much back in the day and I still think it’s a very good shooter with an amusing story and great art direction.
Max Payne, of course, is special because it has ultra crisp, hyper-realistic visuals that make you take seriously its hard boiled prose and emotions, it has a strong focus on storytelling and it has really competent shooting. But in a direct gameplay comparison between MP and Halo, it’s pretty easy to conclude that Halo is more expansive, has a far greater variety of gameplay and more of a replay potential. I Mean, Max Payne has really memorable gunfights and maps but everything about it is hardcoded and static. In comparison, Halo has level design that allows for varying gameplay (there are chokepoints, alternate routes etc.) and enemy AI that actually makes fighting the same battle twice a different experience, sometimes radically different.
And then there is comfortable competitive multiplayer to boot.
So, Halo can be seen as a very successful package catering to different kinds of gamers with almost the same level of quality on offer in different areas of the game, while Max Payne has a singular goal in mind that it reaches majestically, but it can’t be denied that in proces it does look somewhat elitist. And it’s only normal that elitist goods will sell less than goods made for general population.
And of course, the power of almighty dollar can not be denied. I am not sure it’s correct to ‘accuse’ Microsoft of having an ‘ulterior’ motive in Halo’s promotion since Microsoft’s primary motive is brand creation, market share increase and selling goods. And they all did that with Halo/ Xbox. They made a FPS game that can be still used to benchmark other console FPS games (well, Bungie did) and then they marketed the hell out of it, with smashing results. Yes, I was born and lived half my life in socialism, but still I have to give respect where it’s due. 40 Million dollars spent on marketing Halo 3 were spent well, as that game made 170 Million in retail in 48 hours and more than 300 Million in the first seven days. Yes, I too would have preferred this money being spent on curing cancer and world hunger but still, let’s not be hypocritical about it, it was a very good campaign for a decent game (that I still prefer to Gears of War games, if anyone cares… and I do prefer Max Payne games to both).
Well, I don’t blame Microsoft for pushing Halo hard; the company needed a killer app to establish credibility in the space, as Tony stated. I myself was never impressed with Halo (in part because I’m not much of a multiplayer guy; Left 4 Dead is the only multiplayer game that’s held my attention unless I’m in the same room as the other players, and those other players are my friends or loved ones).
I preferred Max Payne because it told what I considered a heartbreaking and brilliantly conceived story, whether or not the action was hardcoded.
My guess is that Tony’s remark about Halo doing nothing that hadn’t been achieved in PC shooters long before was pointed at a few specific things, like linear storyline, elegant controls, swappable weapons, grenades, etc.
The truth is that all Halo really did that was revolutionary is make FPS games playable with thumbsticks. Not playable very WELL, as Tony and Ajax say, but playable – FPS games had never fared well on console controllers before Halo. That is an innovation and Bungie deserves credit for it. But there’s this misconception that Halo was some kind of miracle of innovation, from tech to narrative to mechanics. It was not.
The real key is what both Tony and Meho say: games often reach success through their marketing, not their quality. This is because the industry’s press has essentially no credibility, and the industry’s consumers are willing to buy game after game even if they know that they’ll be disappointed by the result. An odd situation, one we haven’t seen before.
Great article, Tony!
Excellent article, Tony, though I’m not sure I agree with the blanket statement, “The game offered nothing – nothing – that hadn’t already been done on the PC by games as much as five years its senior.” In a sense, you are correct; Halo’s switchable weapons, driving sequences, cooperative gameplay, grenades, and soundtrack were available in PC games. What made Halo so appealing is that I had not seen all of these elements wrapped together in one seamless experience my any platform or PC. Bungie and Microsoft gave us cooperative game play, kick ass immersive gun fights, decent pacing, varied weaponry, and fun enemy death animations in one relatively inexpensive package. Perhaps someone else can think of a PC game that featured all of these elements in one game (not three PC games that each feature some-I can do that), but I cannot.
Sakey is quick to point out that Halo’s main innovation was providing a quality console FPS, and I agree. This, however, is a monster innovation, one that cannot be overstated, especially to people like me (at the time) who could not afford to drop $2 to $3K on a new gaming machine to play whatever was hot back then.
All that said, I vote for Max Payne over Halo, though whoever thought of those dream sequences should be eaten feet-first by sewer rats.
Jason,
Thanks for your comment. You and I can agree that the star was Bungie, and Bungie, I believe, has been cut loose from Microsoft. One other thing we can agree on is that Max Payne, for its time, was pretty special…don’t see many like that nowadays.
Bungie actually bought itself back from Microsoft. There’s a difference. And even so, they keep on making Halo games (as in Halo: Reach). As Jason put it majestically (unlike my crude attempts at arguing the point): Halo provided a very good package AND a quality console FPS.
Dream sequences in Max Payne could be painful, but in Max Payne 2 they were actually great. As in non-frustrating, very atmospheric and actually beneficial to the story. I hope that R* Vancouver paid close attention.