Bungie Expects Over 3 Million Players For Reach Beta
"It could be upwards of 3 million people. I think that's a fairly conservative estimate," Jarrard said. "Certainly there will never be a console beta of this magnitude."
The beta will begin on May 3 for owners of Halo 3: ODST, which is required to access to the test.
When asked about Project Natal support, Jarrard explained why Halo: Reach wouldn't use Microsoft's upcoming motion-sensing technology:
Natal has unique experiences to offer that are different than what "Reach" has to offer. "Reach" is very much a core, twitch game that really does rely on something that millions of people have spent about 10 years getting accustomed to, so we're not looking to reinvent that right now.
This is a sentiment that I share. The less motion-control in games like Halo, the better. We need motion games designed around motion and not crammed in to existing game design.
-
clok1966
replyThat many people want to play halo over for the 4th (or is it 5th?) time? I guess i shouldnt talk i have um all in my rack.
-
Let's get the facts straight. Halo Reach is for the gamer who is just looking to have a good time with his buddies who can't afford the tech upgrades for a PC. I'm so tired of people saying Halo is a disgrace to FPS. It's a fun experience if FUN is what you are looking for. I think Halo Reach will be successful to that group of people for sure just as it's proven to be in the past.
If I want to play competitively, trust me I'll jump on my PC and play CSS, MW2 or BF2.-
I wholeheartedly endorse this comment and I say this as a PC gamer who sometimes jumps over to the 360 side of the house for Halo or MW2 rounds. Sure it's not CSS or Battlefield but Halo's multiplayer is well balanced, has its own style of play/mechanics, and is great fun. I don't mind the Xbox Live trash talkers. Beating them in a game that they think is the pinnacle of competitive FPS is actually pretty fun.
-
so people with no money want to buy the same game 4 times? I dont think Halo is a disgrace, it stacked right up there with other FPS when it came out 10 years ago, other then the 2 weapon limit, it was a pretty solid FPS, the best in fact .. on a console. But as i mentioned i have bought um all, and they are really the same game, just new maps. New maps are good, but not at $60. 4 X $60= $240 that would get ya a PC that would play Crysis (if you dont mind used and dont need 2800X1900 (err, you play consoles you play in 1080, err no you play in 1152×640 (halo 3 and ODST), a $100 used PC will play any game in 1024X768. The uber expensive PC argument is a myth. Please use the actual correct ones. Consoles have more exclusive games that the PC never see (very good argument). You dont have to be older then 2 to run one, (in fact by how most act on LIve (and I will admit even PC voice games) you might be. Just one button and a web like interface, they just work... oh after you send to MS for your 2nd or 3rd RROD.
Halo is just fine game wise, never argued that, Argued its the same game you are buying for $60. And yes the PC does that too.. But then again i dont buy every BF game (after the bf42 to Vietnam joke i vowed never to buy a game for its name).
-
-
[deleted]
-
We're on the 6th Call of Duty game and the 6th Battlefield Game as well.
-
