Phil Spencer Says 343 and Halo are 'Critically Important' to Xbox - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 30 January 2023 / 1,708 Views
Microsoft this month announced it will lay off 10,000 employees and Halo developer, 343 Industries, was hit the hardest out of all first-party Xbox studios with at least 60 people reportedly laid off.
Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer in an interview with IGN stated 343 Industries and the Halo franchise is "critically important" to Xbox.
"Absolutely, but I'm going to start, because I think sometimes it gets a little bit lost in the discussion about Halo and 343, which will always be iconic for Xbox, is just the launch of Halo Infinite a little over a year ago and the quality of execution that that team put into the game," said Spencer. "I thought it was fantastic.
"Obviously, we're talking about the following year, and I think there are some missteps that we made as a team, absolutely. But I don't want to take away from the fact that the team did a really good job delivering a great Halo game. I think reviewers commented on that. We definitely saw players last year playing and the success that that game had.
"At the same time, when we launched that game, we know we needed to make some commitments to people about the content updates and our timing on those and the quality, and we didn't hit our own bar for doing that. I believe in the team that's there, Pierre and the leadership team, and the plan that they have.
"Obviously, [343 studio head Pierre Hintze], he's the studio head now, has been on Halo for a long time. He's worked on [Halo: The Master Chief Collection, he's done some great work there. The team has a very good plan.
"What we're doing now is we want to make sure that leadership team is set up with the flexibility to build the plan that they need to go build. And Halo will remain critically important to what Xbox is doing, and 343 is critically important to the success of Halo.
"In terms of support studios and other things, that's just part of development and having other partners help us. But the heart and soul of Halo is with 343 and the team that's there, and I have the utmost confidence in the team that's there and leading and the plan that they have going forward."
343 Industries Studio Head Pierre Hintze recently reassured its fans its commitment it will continue to work on the franchise.
"Halo and Master Chief are here to stay," said Hintze. "343 Industries will continue to develop Halo now and in the future, including epic stories, multiplayer, and more of what makes Halo great."
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012 and taking over the hardware estimates in 2017. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel. You can contact the author on Twitter @TrunksWD.
More Articles
Yeah the campaign, sandbox, and gunplay are great with Forge being the best it's ever been in Halo, but........there's just so much missing that it still feels barebones. I was hoping that splitscreen would eventually make it into the game along with the campaign DLC, but that's all shattered. Now, the studio has made it clear it's going to focus on the live-service rather than fixing the core issues and adding features the community has been begging for. Pre-game lobbies for example. Theater mode is still broken as hell.
At this point, just move on to a new game. Go back to the Halo business model that worked so you can focus on what made Halo great in the first place rather than chasing the live-service model. Certain Affinity is supposed to be working on that Battle Royale mode. Have that be the live-service and have the core Halo game be what it always was.
Split screen was one of the main selling point of halo just like call of duty
Can anyone tell me if this game was actually successful in terms of profit?
Last I heard it sold around 2 million which is great for any game but this is Halo we're talking about. I know there were tons of people that played it on GP but did this game actually make a lot of money? That's what I'm curious about.
I don't think looking at it in a pure monetary perspective is doing it justice.
Halo was typically sold as a "system seller". - To draw in numbers to Microsoft's platforms, Halo 2 and 3 for example saw an uptick in console sales on their releases.
That in turn meant those new players would buy Microsoft services/games/accessories which bolstered Microsoft's overall financial position more than just what the game sales itself would otherwise imply.
It's also the principle Nintendo works on, which is why they can justify releasing lower volume-selling games like Metroid... It's not just fan service, it's about trying to get every possible customer they can into their ecosystem who will continue to buy stuff for years to come.
So let me get it straight.... it doesn't matter how much revenue a game bring, it is a system seller that we can't really see an acceleration of sales with its release, and you compare it not needing big numbers by comparing to Nintendo lowest sellers? Nintendo games for most parts sell much better than equivalent competition, and Halo should be the highest point of MS ecosystem so you should compare to Mario Oddissey not a 2M seller.
Maybe the focus is gamepass subs thank to Halo infinite, but with MS no giving numbres, this is all just speculation.
I really like Halo Infinite, campaing,gameplay and sandbox design is great. Live service model was not the right choice and very desapointing for me.
What I am saying is that, yes we can bean-count all day, but there is so much more to the story.
For example... My car was dual fuel... LPG and Petroleum, I used to buy both fuels when filling up.
Unfortunately the service station I typically shopped at, stopped selling LPG, so I stopped buying Petroleum as well.. Which meant I also stopped buying drinks and food. - Which means they lost out on more than 1 sale.
And you are right, that Halo is a Xbox-leading franchise that should be on the "same pillar" as Mario.
But I would also argue, outside of Disney there are not many franchises/characters on the same level as Mario anyway, it's an iconic character that is embedded into society.
But that is also not the point, Nintendo releases Mario games all the time which may not sell 10+ million copies, but they can still justify their release, because of the above reason.
I can point you several Sony IPs that are selling over 10M, some even called "trash" like Days Gone, so not really Disney level to reach those numbers.
No main franchise of Nintendo have done below 10M. We aren't talking about a game with Master Chief not selling as well as mainline Halo, we are talking about their most important title not selling well, not pushing that many units, not really doing anything.
You're comparing sales of games that aren't part of a day-1 subscription service, to a game that is part of a day-1 subscription service, though.
And some people buy Halo just for the multiplayer, and the multiplayer is free.
So I don't think you're making an apples-to-apples comparison.
Anecdotally, I've bought every previous Halo game (and I do mean everything... all the mainline Halos, plus ODST, plus Reach, plus all the RTS Halos, plus all the twin-stick shooter Halos). But I didn't buy this.
But I nonetheless have played a bunch of its campaign on Game Pass. Halo Infinite is the only Halo game I haven't bought, yet I continue to play it.
For that I have some points.
1) MS have said being on GP improve sales, and fanbase everywhere holds that point.
2) Halo never gone over 15M or so, so comparing it to Nintendo flagships is not an apple to apple ever.
3) Being Halo the flagship of MS and being free on GP (SP is as well right?) should increase sales of consoles and GP subs
4) As far as we know even titles that aren't day one we haven't see titles on Xbox doing well on sales ranking.
Microsoft has said that GP does improve sales, but for some games a lot of those sales are for when a game leaves Game Pass, and people playing it have to decide if they want to continue or not.
In some cases it increases sales of DLC, but not the game itself.
In some cases it's an older game that's no longer full price.
So it depends.
Brain-farting here perhaps... "SP" is what?
We can't be sure about Xbox sales for any title, as the Xbox has the largest proportion of digitally-sold games of any of the platforms, from what I understand.
SP is single player =p
Yes I can certainly see (and have said in the past) that for some situations GP indeed will lead to more sales of DLC/MTX, etc or even more sales of the game itself (as you said, small or older games). But MS didn't disclaim that it hurt the sales of day one AAA games much less games that won't leave GP, and fanbase here also keep holding that it increase sales even in those case because they wouldn't try the game but will buy since they'll get a discount.
Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall Microsoft being explicit about how well AAA games sold in Game Pass vs. outside it. I just recall them saying things like "Game Pass subscribers buy more games than non-subscribers", and other statements equally unspecific about what games they're talking about.
I do remember seeing blank statements of "GP increase sw sales" (that most likely would need the caveats that we discussed, but didn't had them, but sure could have been just someone making partial report).
Halo 3 had sold 14.5 million copies as of 2012. - It's been 11 years since that count... I am sure they made 0.5 million copies in digital sales on Xbox 360/Xbox One/Xbox Series since then.
I have no issue considering Halo 3 to be 15M sales (not sure why that would be important to you), that only makes the drop to Halo 5 and Infinite much more evident.
Mario Tennis sold 4 million copies. Hence my point.
However Microsoft "counts" success differently than the older traditional copies sold... Infinite ended up having 20 million different gamers.
Do we assume Mario Tennis with 4 milion copies sold was more successful than Halo Infinite? Probably not.
Not sure why you are so adamant to pick a spin off with very low sales by Nintendo standard to consider Halo Infinite a success.
Compare flagship to flagship. Mario Tennis isn't used as the poster child of the company, main reason to buy the console, etc.
Because that is my point exactly?
Just because it has "Mario" in the name, doesn't guarantee success.
And my point is that if it is your flagship game you have to threat it with care and deliver. Phil is saying Halo is critically important to Xbox, I doubt Nintendo thinks Mario Tennis is critically important to them. And where did I say having Halo on the name makes the success granted? And that wasn't even your initial point on the subject, you were justifying why the numbers may not be as high.
How could we see a bump in hardware sales when Halo Infinite came out when the Xbox was supply constrained?
And this was the first time a mainline Halo game launched day-and-date on PC, which further muddies the hardware waters.
You are perfectly right on here, and I pointed it to show that we weren't able to see any significant positive impact of Halo release this time (well except the positive reception of MP release, that later started to receive complains due to delays of further content).
For all those reasons and more, Halo Infinite should have been delayed.
Actually, I would have released it when it released, but campaign only, and Xbox One only. I would have then kept working on the multiplayer until Forge was ready, as that way the community would have had the tools to make their own content. And I would have kept the Series X|S version back until campaign co-op was ready, and make campaign co-op exclusive to Xbox Series consoles (because it's a performance demanding mode).
Multiplayer would have been better had the community had the tools to make their own content, so they wouldn't be stuck waiting for more official content.
And campaign would have been better received with campaign co-op in place.
Yes, I'm speaking of an ADDITIONAL delay over the delays it had already had. I would have released an Xbox One version only in December 2021 to celebrate Halo's 20th anniversary. This version would be campaign only, and get no new content, but it would be backwards compatible on Xbox Series.
I would have kept the PC and Xbox Series versions for when Forge and campaign co-op were ready, and not a minute sooner.
I agree with you, but unfortunately there are pressures that sometimes the company have to bend over to address. More delays would likely be good for Halo, but bad for Xbox image.
So he should have gave it a lot more attention and love.
Are you talking about Halo Infinite, the Players choice winner in 2021 and sits on a solid 87 Meta?
Halo should be sitting at 95 plus.
What fps franchise to date sits in the 90+ meta zone?
Halo is what made xbox, and mr chief is the mascot. Anything under 90 is a disgrace.
A score doesn't define a series. CoD makes $1b a year and is the biggest gaming IP in the world and its scores are all over the place. The New Doom Series hasnt scored 90s, Horizon Zero Dawn series hasnt, Spiderman hasnt. Infinite sits on a healthy 87.
I didn't say it wasn't a good game, but the earlier games were sitting in the mid 90's. Halo infinite should have been a must have title, and team xbox should have made sure their biggest game should have been as best as it could be.
I am sure that's what they thought when they released it. If you like SP campaigns than Halo nails it. If you like MP, than it needs work.
The shooting was solid, but the overall campaign was good, not great.
And Halo Infinite doesn't hit 10M sales lifetime. So deflecting to that don't help your case, plus no one ever accused CoD games of being product of love from developers.
I never said Halo sold 10m..
But you brought CoD to the discussion based on revenue brought and Sony games that also sold well. Yet Halo Infinite have neither the massive revenue of CoD, nor the good reception or sales of the Sony games you listed, so you bringing them to defend Halo served what purpose? Making Halo look even worse?
Erm.. remember when Halo 5 made over $400m in its first week? 5 never sold anywhere near 10m either. Revenue is based off many factors not just Game physical sales. Also Infinite is on GP so its not about copies sold.
I do remember and I remember you never understood that was counting the full price of the consoles bundled as part of the revenue of Halo.
That goes with all games that are bundled. Halo 5 was also the most expensive bundle compare to lets say Uncharted 4 which was one of the cheapest bundles available.
Nope, never saw any other game or company considering the price of the console as part of the revenue of the game.
Ok, so Halo Infinite have no issues, ok then.
Never said it was perfect either. Its a Solid game. Especially compared to other shooters at the time.
And as the flagship of the platform being "solid" is hardly enough.
Thats debatable. A good game is still a good game. No FPS series currently hold 90+ meta scores. Even the GOTY nominated Doom Reboots dont hit 90s. You also cant find that Halo experience anywhere else. Yes Destiny isnt Halo.
In this point I wasn't talking metacritic (although yes it have its validity) I was talking about you saying it is solid instead of excepcional. GoW I found excepcional and would be sad if Sony had delivered only solid. But I get you said solid on a more meaningful way. As I said in a different thread in this report the MP was certainly well received by the userbase that is all that matters the only real problem was the support a few months later that was felt as underwhelming.
In terms of a FPS game, Halo Infinite was the best going around. Remember Vangaurd and 2042 its too giant competitors. EA even went on to blame Infinite for 2042s horrible launch. Id say its a great game for the genre. Exceptional overall, probably not but no game needs to be.
Well I would say the 2042 was making silly excuses. But as I said, I understand you used the solid meaning a very good title and I'm fine with it both because it is your impression and second the MP was very well received by fanbase.
They own so many IPs now. Its not the end of the world. The plethora of FPS games under their belt is staggering. If Halo fails, another will rise.
That is certainly true althought sad, I hope they can really make the team get to great performance and deliver another great Halo.
I hope so too. They tried a new engine and it has clearly backfired on them. Going UE5 will definitely help the series moving forward, especially for those contract workers.
They don't need a new engine though. They spend all that time to get it working, why abandon it now. In the end the visuals and end effects were good.
Because the engine is causing issues and is the reason the game lacks content.
Yes I do believe UE5 will be a good thing for Halo, plus it would make easier on hiring people to help on portions of the work or even support studio than with an internal engine.
