Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PC Games (Games) XBox (Games) Entertainment Games

Halo Sells 3 Million, Gets New Machinima 47

Posted by simoniker from the stunt-driving-par-excellence dept.
Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to the Xbox.com press release announcing "that Halo: Combat Evolved has sold more than three million copies worldwide" , by far the largest-selling software title on Microsoft's console. The press release also plugs the forthcoming PC version of Halo, which, according to Avault, will have a $30,000 team tournament devoted to it at the CPL's Winter 2003 Tournament in Dallas this December. Finally, Bungie.org has news of a great-looking new Halo trick video, called 'Winning Isn't Everything' - thanks to GameTab for providing a BitTorrent mirror for this super-skilful, stunt and exploit-filled romp.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Halo Sells 3 Million, Gets New Machinima More

Halo Sells 3 Million, Gets New Machinima

Comments Filter:

  • a big deal? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Blob Pet ( 86206 ) on Monday July 14, 2003 @07:42PM (#6438555) Homepage
    3 million?

    Halo is arguably X-Box' flagship title. If you consider that Super Mario Bros. has sold over 40 million copies and Super Mario 64 has sold over 11 million copies (see here [216.239.53.104]) and that Enter the Matrix has already sold [pcgameworld.com] 1 million copies in the brief time it's been released, this isn't that big a deal. Posted by an anonymous coward? More like posted by a desperate XBox sales force.

    • Re:a big deal? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by MBCook ( 132727 )
      It's a BIG DEAL!

      Super Mario Brothers has been out for nearly 20 years, Mario 64 has been out for 7, and Enter the Matrix was based on a MASSIVE movie license and had tons of promotion. Halo has only been out for 2 years. Let's do some math, shall we?

      SMB: 40/18 = 2.22 million copies per year.
      Mario64: 11/7 = 1.56 million copies per year.
      Halo: 3/2 = 1.5 million per year.

      That puts Halo right up there with Mario 64 and not TOO far from SMB if you take into account the MASSIVE amount of time it's been out. P

      • Re:a big deal? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Allanon01 ( 673502 )
        To add to MBCook's argument, Enter The Matrix was release to all world markets at the same time and is playable on the PS2, XBOX, GameCube, And PC. It really can't be compared to Halo that's only available for the XBox at the moment and has only been available is some of the world's markets for about a year. Let's do this comparison when Halo is released for the PC then we will probably see Halo's sales numbers out pace most of the games mentioned.

      • Re:a big deal? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Blob Pet ( 86206 ) on Monday July 14, 2003 @08:15PM (#6438797) Homepage
        SMB: 40/18 = 2.22 million copies per year. Mario64: 11/7 = 1.56 million copies per year. Halo: 3/2 = 1.5 million per year.

        Your numbers suggest that sales of all 3 games are at a constant rate. Significant sales of SMB hasn't occured in a decade and Mario 64 probably hasn't sold more than a few in the past 3 or 4 years.

        Halo didn't become bundles for until later, and even then you had a choice of non-bundled usually.

        Before the bundling took place, remember that there weren't that many XBox games. What was the one game an Xbox purchaser was likely to buy even if it wasn't going to bundled? Halo

        In the US, quality is no match for marketing tied to a big movie (unfortunatly).
        Don't tell me Microsoft didn't spend millions upon millions on Halo marketing.

      • Re:a big deal? (Score:3, Informative)

        by nathanh ( 1214 )

        Super Mario Brothers has been out for nearly 20 years, Mario 64 has been out for 7, and Enter the Matrix was based on a MASSIVE movie license and had tons of promotion. Halo has only been out for 2 years. Let's do some math, shall we?

        SMB: 40/18 = 2.22 million copies per year.
        Mario64: 11/7 = 1.56 million copies per year.
        Halo: 3/2 = 1.5 million per year.

        That puts Halo right up there with Mario 64 and not TOO far from SMB if you take into account the MASSIVE amount of time it's been out. Plus let's not

      • F A N B O I.

    • Re:a big deal? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by kryptoknight ( 638324 )
      Both of your examples are bad.

      from your Super Mario 64 link: "However, because these games were bundled with console hardware, their sales may not be fairly compared to other games"

      The Matrix Reloaded was sold for the PlayStation 2, Xbox, GameCube and the PC simultaneous as the movie came out in the theater. With all the platforms, marketing and the Matrix brand attached, it is no wonder that it sold 1 million in a brief time. I doubt that with all the reviews about the rushed buggy release, this game

      • Er, Halo has been bundled with hardware for a while now.

        • Re:a big deal? (Score:2, Informative)

          by kryptoknight ( 638324 )
          The standard xbox system which originally retailed for $199 (it's $179 now) did not come which any other game; just an extra controller.

          Bundling halo or other games were vendor specific and promotional.

          I believe that you couldn't get a NES or SNES system without a bundled game back then.

          • The thing is, it was done and done often. Regardless of who initiated the bundle. Halo has been bundled with xbox's in Australia since about 3-6 months after launch.

            I believe that you couldn't get a NES or SNES system without a bundled game back then.
            Utter rubbish. The NES only got bundled with Mario and Duck Hunt years after release. Mario Allstars ended up being available as a bundle with SNES, but Allstars wasn't anywhere near a launch title.
            • Halo has been bundled with xbox's in Australia since about 3-6 months after launch.

              In the US, I have never seen an XBox bundled with Halo unless I ordered it online (and it costs roughly the same as buying an XBox and buying Halo seperately). My XBox came with Sega GT 2002 and Jet Grind, which is a pretty standard bundle.

              Utter rubbish. The NES only got bundled with Mario and Duck Hunt years after release.

              3 years after release (when the NES hit $100), SMB was bundled (at that price point). SMB/Duck Hun

  • Not a surprise (Score:2, Informative)

    by kryptoknight ( 638324 )
    Halo is a great game.

    - The story is engaging.
    - The graphics are superb.
    - The gameplay is almost flawless.
    - The physics engine is great, as proven by all the trick videos like the "warthog jump" video.
    - Cooperative play option not seen in many other fps.
    - System-Link play makes it easy to set up xbox lan parties. 2 tv's + 2 xbox + 8 controllers + 7 friends = 4v4 Fun

    It is not a surprise that Halo has passed the 3 million mark. Most retailers still sell it for $50 even though it was a xbox launch g

  • It's sad to see such a good game languish on x-box (Score:3, Funny)

    by RalphBNumbers ( 655475 ) on Monday July 14, 2003 @07:50PM (#6438596)
    As other posters have mentioned, while Halo is by far the best selling X-box game, it's still vastly outsold by games for other platforms.

    It really makes be wonder how big Halo could have been if Microsoft had released it for PC/Mac/etc.., as Bungie planned before they got bought, instead of using it to prop up thier doomed console venture.
    • I know alot of MS bashing goes on here, but come on. For the numbers arguement, look at my post above [slashdot.org]. Yes, Halo would have been huge if it was released for PC (and that will now happen), but FAILED CONSOLE?

      Why has it failed? Because it's still in the market place? Because it's outselling the GC (IIRC)? It's got some great games (Halo, JSRF, Oddworld: Munch's Odessy, Mech Assault, etc) and has some great things going for it too (only console with a hard drive in every unit, XBox Live). The system is also the most powerful of the big 3 out there, which means that it can keep having great looking and running games for years. The fact is, the X-Box is a fantastic console, and I'm VERY happy I own one. I know it's fun to bash MS for all they do, but they really did their homework when they decided to enter the video game market (unlike many other consoles (indream, phantom, that terrible thing that was integrated into DVD players.. the Nuon). Let's not forget that the X-Box is the ONLY console that could get a port of Doom 3 without a massive graphics rewrite (due to the graphics abilities).

      You want a failed console? There are plenty. NeoGeo, Virtual Boy (which had fantastic games, system was just named wrong), TurboGraphics 16, Jaguar, Jaguar CD, Sega CD, Saturn, 32X, Lynx, 3DO, Nuon, indreama, GP32, and more (these are in the US, I know some of these succeded over seas).

      Repeat after me: the X-Box HASN'T FAILED and it WON'T.

      Time to just face up to the fact that MS hasn't fallen on their face like many people wanted them to.

      • Why has it failed? Because it's still in the market place? Because it's outselling the GC (IIRC)?

        It's only outselling GC in some countries and the GC has also been called a failure.

        The fact is, the X-Box is a fantastic console, and I'm VERY happy I own one.

        That's the real reason for your cheerleading; it's called denial.

        • That's the real reason for your cheerleading; it's called denial.

          I'm not in denial. I thought the X-Box was junk for months. I didn't buy one untill I had some spare cash about a year ago (that's about a year after launch) and decided that I wanted to try Halo and I wanted to play JSRF (because the origional was so great). I haven't regretted that purchase to this day. It was worth it. I've played many great games. And even if I had doubted the purchase later, a new reason came along: X-Box live. There is

          • I'm not in denial. I thought the X-Box was junk for months. I didn't buy one untill I had some spare cash about a year ago (that's about a year after launch) and decided that I wanted to try Halo and I wanted to play JSRF (because the origional was so great). I haven't regretted that purchase to this day.

            Even worse, you're born again.

            You sound exactly like the Sega Saturn owners did only a decade ago. It's sad and funny at the same time.

            • I also own an XBOX and have been happy with the purchase, though I do not enjoy Halo. Many of the best Sega games have only come out on this platform in the current generation. I just finished Toe Jam & Earl III and it was great. The parallel you draw to Sega consoles is undeniable, but just because you truly hate, doesn't mean we don't truly enjoy. Your hate is likewise sad and funny at the same time in my perception. So what is the cause of this hate? That I have a good job and can easily afford

            • Even worse, you're born again.

              You sound exactly like the Sega Saturn owners did only a decade ago. It's sad and funny at the same time.

              Hey! The Saturn is alive and well, I'll have you know! Radiant Silvergun still sells for $150 on Ebay. :)

              Ironically, "born again" is not an inappropriate description for the life that old consoles gain after they go out of production. For the Saturn, it took the form of Americans discovering the vast library of Japanese titles that were never ported. For the Dreamcast,

          • I own an xbox, and am quite happy with the purchase. As non-handware-mod-linux-on-xbox gets closer and closer to reality, I get even happier. I also own Halo, and am very happy with it.

            However, there seem to be some factual problems with your story. Microsoft spent several tens of millions of dollars advertising the XBox based on Halo alone. The *PlayStation* was a surprise breakaway hit; it was only expected to do numbers roughly equivalent to the current XBox/GameCube numbers. Instead, it dramatic
            • the GameCube more so than the XBox, if for no other reason than the lack of a statement from Nintendo that they're expecting to lose approximately US$1.5 *billion* per year on the XBox for at least the next couple years (over US$40 billion in the bank lets you do things like that).

              So why should Nintendo be the ones mentioning they expect to lose money on the Xbox? Microsoft puts that out.

              Nintendo is profiting from sales of the GameCube, its games, and the GameBoy Advance and its games.

              Microsoft is

              • Nintendo is notoriously closed-mouth about such financial details (even more so than, say, Sony or Sega are/were), but the indications are that Nintendo is losing somewhere around US$20-US$30 per GameCube sold in the US, at the new prices. It is believed that Microsoft is losing in the neghborhood of US$120 per XBox sold in the US, again at the `new' prices.

                I'll grant that these numbers are highly suspicious, especially since the people who *do* have the data *do not* want most people to have it. That sa
                • Nintendo is notoriously closed-mouth about such financial details (even more so than, say, Sony or Sega are/were), but the indications are that Nintendo is losing somewhere around US$20-US$30 per GameCube sold in the US, at the new prices. It is believed that Microsoft is losing in the neghborhood of US$120 per XBox sold in the US, again at the `new' prices.

                  I meant as a whole on their video game endeavors.

                  Nintendo's SEC filing for their end of fiscal year back in March showed them with over US $500 mil

      • Ok, first off, where do you see the word "failed" in my post? The closest I see is "doomed". And how did you miss the term 'prop-up'? As in, it would have failed, but they propped it up for now.

        The X-box, may avoid utter failure only because MS is willing to sacrifice lots of money and potential profits to insure they can get a stranglehold on an industry later.

        So, your arguments to defend the x-box are as follows :
        "Because it's still in the market place"
        Still on the market, and still loosing mo
    • You hit the nail right on its head. You have to wonder about the upcoming PC version. (I hesitate to call it a port since most believe that Halo was meant for the PC to begin with) With the XBox version being out for a while now and everybody anticipating games like Doom 3, will the PC version sell a significant number of copies of what is essentially a game that's nearly 2 years old (released Nov 9, 2001)?
      • A slight correction...

        Halo was originally announced for the Mac. MWSF 1998. You could even pre-order Halo for the Mac here [cdmag.com]

        Halo is for all intents and purposes, Marathon IV [/dons flame retardant jump suit].

        The original Marathon series is available via the Marathon Aleph One project here [bungie.org]

        Finally, there's Marathon Resurrection [bungie.org], a Marathon Unreal Tournament mod.

        Bungie's abandoning their promise to release Halo on the Mac first and then selling out to Microsoft is one of the few valid reasons for fan

  • That wasn't machinima as we've come to expect... it was just gameplay set to music. I had hoped for something more (after watching some of the Red vs Blue stuff the other day, which someone linked to in anotehr thread about machinima).
  • Anyone know what the sales figures for Myth and Myth 2 are? It's sad that such a great developer got sucked into Microsoft. Maybe if they ever get around to releasing the game for PC i might be willing to give it a shot, given how much i enjoyed the Myth series.

Slashdot Top Deals

"All the people are so happy now, their heads are caving in. I'm glad they are a snowman with protective rubber skin" -- They Might Be Giants

Close