Halo 3: ODST has so far achieved a Metacritic ranking of 85 percent; certainly not bad, but not as high as its predecessors. Most of the complaints about the game have focused on the game's price for what many consider an "expansion" to Halo 3, something that Bethsoft's production director Ashley Cheng thinks could have been solved in the marketing of the game.
"Microsoft and/or Bungie totally bungled the marketing on this," said Cheng in his blog. "First saying it was a standalone expansion pack, then coming out and saying wait, no, we're charging full price because - surprise! - we put 'more' stuff in it and it's called Halo ODST now, vs it's original title, Halo Recon. Like Microsoft was ever going to sell this for less than full price. It is a new Halo title, it'll sell like hotcakes no matter what."
"Because of the waffling, reviewers are now mentioning that Halo ODST may not be worth the price point, that it should've been cheaper, etc... Give me a break," he continued. "First off, most games - especially first person shooters - are anywhere from 5 - 10 hours. Tops. What makes Halo different from others? You can't just ping Halo ODST for it. I bet if Microsoft hadn't screwed up the marketing messaging, there would [be] less talk about pricing."
If we had to venture a guess, we'd believe that Bungie originally conceived the game as more of an expansion to Halo 3, but Microsoft's management pushed the idea of it being sold as a full game with a $60 price tag. Saying that you'll sell something for cheaper, then deciding to raise the price always engenders resentment.
3 Comments
September 23, 2009
This would not be the first time M$FT bungled marketing - look at Viva Pinata or H3.
How could I say H3 was bungled? The game didn't actually sell consoles - and it didn't expand their base.
On the flip side look at games like Call of Duty and GTA, they seem to continually be able to expand their base - through good marketing.
September 23, 2009
"Halo 3 didn't sell consoles"? You must have been living in your cave the month it came out lonelygirl13, because the month it came out was the "only" month where the 360 actually beat the Wii in monthly sales. It also outsold the PS3 4 to 1 that month.
Getting back to reality, I agree with your last paragraph David. I'm pretty sure Bungie wanted this to be budget priced at no more than $39.99 but Microsoft stepped in and said "hell no". Something similiar happened with Left 4 Dead. Valve wanted all of their new content to be free on XBL(the same way all of their extra content is free on Pc) but Microsoft stepped in and said "show me the money". I can't really blame Microsoft because this is a business and they have to make money in order to succeed. But it does suck for us fans though because we could have saved a little bit of money and every little bit counts.
September 26, 2009
True, it is more of an add-on than a standalone title, but I think most people won't take notice. If you are a Halo fan, then it is what it is and you buy it. There's only 6 hours of gameplay to the campaign and most of the gamers I've spoken with knew this going in. The multiplayer "extra disc" was a real disappointment as it really didn't introduce anything "wow".
ANY company that has a big branded trademark such as Halo is going to get the brunt of marketing critic comments no matter what they do. It comes with the territory.