Sony acquires Bungie for $3.6 billion

[Brooksie359]

17 minutes ago, Commodus said:

There was a golden era for Mac gaming, and Bungie was a large part of it... Marathon was one of the best first-person shooters outside of id Software's lineup. But I will definitely agree that gaming hasn't really been Apple's focus outside of the iOS App Store. I can't help but wonder what would've happened if Halo had launched on the Mac as originally planned. A smaller initial audience, to be sure, but it might also have persuaded Apple to court gamers.

Honestly I doubt Xbox would have been very successful against the Playstation without Halo. I mean the biggest reason why the 360 did so well was as a result of Halo and that it was cheaper than the Playstation. I imagine that without Halo alot of people would have gotten the Playstation especially since online was free for Playstation while you had to pay for Xbox live. 

[Be Rock]

58 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Honestly I doubt Xbox would have been very successful against the Playstation without Halo. I mean the biggest reason why the 360 did so well was as a result of Halo and that it was cheaper than the Playstation. I imagine that without Halo alot of people would have gotten the Playstation especially since online was free for Playstation while you had to pay for Xbox live. 

It's impossible to say for certain: not to go all "butterfly effect" since that movie was junk, but the concept applies here. There are just too many variables in history to say why things turned out the way they did. Xbox absolutely needed Halo to succeed in its early years, but that doesn't mean that Halo would have turned out the same on Mac. It's likely a combination of the people who jumped onboard the xbox train, at that specific period in history, and how Halo resonated with them. I can say for certain that Halo was a once-in-a-lifetime experience for my younger self, and had it been released at any other time, on any other platform, the magic wouldn't have been there. 
 

 

[Error 52]

12 minutes ago, Be Rock said:

It's impossible to say for certain: not to go all "butterfly effect" since that movie was junk, but the concept applies here. There are just too many variables in history to say why things turned out the way they did. Xbox absolutely needed Halo to succeed in its early years, but that doesn't mean that Halo would have turned out the same on Mac. It's likely a combination of the people who jumped onboard the xbox train, at that specific period in history, and how Halo resonated with them. I can say for certain that Halo was a once-in-a-lifetime experience for my younger self, and had it been released at any other time, on any other platform, the magic wouldn't have been there. 
 

 

In particular, it's worth remembering that a pretty significant chunk of Halo's popularity was that it was one of the earliest console FPSes that didn't feel like you were controlling an alcoholic robot. Probably would've been a respectable hit on Mac - Bungie certainly had die-hard fans pre-Halo - but definitely not the absolute pop-culture powerhouse it became.

[Be Rock]

41 minutes ago, Error 52 said:

In particular, it's worth remembering that a pretty significant chunk of Halo's popularity was that it was one of the earliest console FPSes that didn't feel like you were controlling an alcoholic robot. Probably would've been a respectable hit on Mac - Bungie certainly had die-hard fans before it - but definitely not the absolute pop-culture powerhouse it became.

Gotta disagree. Apple's disgraceful Pippin console was pretty clear indicator that Apple consumers are not largely interested in gaming on Apple devices. If it wasn't clear then, the fact that Apple Arcade is currently more of a virtual graveyard that Stadia should put the nail in that coffin. 

 

Also, I think that Halo was more than just a capable FPS. Prior to Halo we were in the Dark Ages of FPS'. There were no narrative games in that genre, and the whole industry was cranking out bland, annual rehashes of Unreal Tournament 1999, 2000. 2001, etc. Quake III Arena 1999, Quake III Team Arena 1999, 2000, etc...

Gaming was a story-free, login and shoot arena affair not unlike the modern desert of Fortnite, Apex, PUBG, Warzone, etc. 

Halo was the first in a LONG time to introduce a well-crafted narrative back into the FPS genre. The narrative is 100% of why Halo is what it is. Look no further than Halo 5; It's one of the most technically competent entries in the franchise, but its story was such a pile of crap the fans rightfully hated it. 

 

Bringing this back to SONY's acquisition of Bungie - this is why Bungie has struggled to stay relevant. The Halo 1-3 trilogy was an absolute masterpiece, and even Bungie knew that they had almost no chance of bottling that lightening ever again. ODST was garbage and basically existed to buy the studio time since they didn't really have to work much on it - they just used the Halo 3 engine and told the same story from a different angle. It was boring and slow and there was no heart in it. Reach was a genuine miracle. Bungie somehow managed to get that lightening back in the bottle and made a game that everyone loved. It added to the overall narrative in a good way and fans ate it up! 

When Bungie left MS to publish Destiny, 343 picked up the Halo franchise and it did okay - I think most people liked Halo 4; it also added to the narrative and gave players something new to look forward to. (They pissed all over it in later entries but, 4 itself was fine). 

In fact, Narrative was so crucial the success of Halo that players came to expect that sort of story-telling-expertise from Bungie, and when Destiny launched, everyone picked up a copy because that's what they were promised - all the original adverts were really heavy with concept of "light and dark", the dichotomy of good and evil - that sort of thing. And what we got was a total vacuum of story. In fact, Destiny ended up being a massive disappointment for most of the people to jumped in early. That's why they had to reboot 2 years into their 10-year plan and released Destiny 2, which was even worse! 

Destiny is currently sustained by absolute die-hard fans. They're dedicated - they'll buy whatever Bungie makes - but it's not exactly a growing demographic and Bungie knows it. They know that Destiny isn't going to make it to 10 years, and they know that with no ace up their sleeve the franchise's days are numbered. They need an out, and they found it. If SONY will pay out $3.6 Billion then they can afford to wait out the clock. 

I'll say the same thing I said about MS' acquisition of Activision Blizzard. These developers are looking at the writing on the wall and they know that the future doesn't look good for them so when MS offered them a golden parachute they took it - they would have been fools not too! SONY just made the same mistake. Bungie doesn't have a bright future, and they just saw an opportunity to get out while the gettin' is good.

I guess, in SONY's defense... they spent substantially less than MS so they didn't get ripped off as badly. 
 

[Needfuldoer]

4 hours ago, Video Beagle said:

hell..a fully done Oni 1 for modern machines would be good.

Agreed! They could lean into a grungy, cyberpunk dystopia, grindhouse kung-fu action movie feel. Make it run on video cards people can actually afford and it would sell.

  

3 hours ago, Commodus said:

There was a golden era for Mac gaming, and Bungie was a large part of it... Marathon was one of the best first-person shooters outside of id Software's lineup. But I will definitely agree that gaming hasn't really been Apple's focus outside of the iOS App Store. I can't help but wonder what would've happened if Halo had launched on the Mac as originally planned. A smaller initial audience, to be sure, but it might also have persuaded Apple to court gamers.

Yup! Bungie, Ambrosia, Pangea Software, MacPlay, Aspyr, and a thriving shareware scene kept Mac gaming alive through the Sculley/Spindler/Amelio years. It started seeing more releases with OS X, and the switch to Intel opened the floodgates.

 

[Error 52]

45 minutes ago, Be Rock said:

Gotta disagree. Apple's disgraceful Pippin console was pretty clear indicator that Apple consumers are not largely interested in gaming on Apple devices. If it wasn't clear then, the fact that Apple Arcade is currently more of a virtual graveyard that Stadia should put the nail in that coffin. 

 

Also, I think that Halo was more than just a capable FPS. Prior to Halo we were in the Dark Ages of FPS'. There were no narrative games in that genre, and the whole industry was cranking out bland, annual rehashes of Unreal Tournament 1999, 2000. 2001, etc. Quake III Arena 1999, Quake III Team Arena 1999, 2000, etc...

Gaming was a story-free, login and shoot arena affair not unlike the modern desert of Fortnite, Apex, PUBG, Warzone, etc. 

Halo was the first in a LONG time to introduce a well-crafted narrative back into the FPS genre. The narrative is 100% of why Halo is what it is. Look no further than Halo 5; It's one of the most technically competent entries in the franchise, but its story was such a pile of crap the fans rightfully hated it.

[...]

Destiny is currently sustained by absolute die-hard fans. They're dedicated - they'll buy whatever Bungie makes - but it's not exactly a growing demographic and Bungie knows it. They know that Destiny isn't going to make it to 10 years, and they know that with no ace up their sleeve the franchise's days are numbered. They need an out, and they found it. If SONY will pay out $3.6 Billion then they can afford to wait out the clock. 

I'll say the same thing I said about MS' acquisition of Activision Blizzard. These developers are looking at the writing on the wall and they know that the future doesn't look good for them so when MS offered them a golden parachute they took it - they would have been fools not too! SONY just made the same mistake. Bungie doesn't have a bright future, and they just saw an opportunity to get out while the gettin' is good.

I guess, in SONY's defense... they spent substantially less than MS so they didn't get ripped off as badly. 
 

The Pippin failed for reasons that were pretty self-explanatory (and the 90's were arguably when Mac gaming was at its peak) and Apple Arcade came out 20 years after the first Halo. And Bungie had done pretty well with Mac gaming up to that point. It was still a bit of a niche, but certainly a lucrative one.

 

And my point isn't that Halo didn't have any innovations going on, not by a long shot - but I think if it was a PC/Mac game exclusively, it would probably have been closer to a No One Lives Forever tier hit. Y'know, does a lot of neat stuff, it sells well, reviews well, and gets a sequel or two, but eventually fades into the background and only really remembered among the nerdiest of gamers. (Also a single-player FPS game that came out in that "dark age" you mentioned, come to think of it.)

 

Your second point I quoted is interesting, because while I think you have something of a point, you really get hyperbolic. It is true that Destiny is such a nightmare to get into that it's only really appealing to long-time fans for the most part right now, but it's still one of the most-played games on Steam and Bungie has at least one other game in that pipeline. Plus, we're on year 8, I think it's a pretty safe bet that Destiny 2 will be around for 2 more of those.

[vetali]

Maybe now we can get more new content than removed content in a D2 expansion.

[Be Rock]

49 minutes ago, Error 52 said:

Your second point I quoted is interesting, because while I think you have something of a point, you really get hyperbolic. It is true that Destiny is such a nightmare to get into that it's only really appealing to long-time fans for the most part right now, but it's still one of the most-played games on Steam and Bungie has at least one other game in that pipeline. Plus, we're on year 8, I think it's a pretty safe bet that Destiny 2 will be around for 2 more of those.

O.o

 

I played Year 1 Destiny. Was one of the last games I pre-ordered. So much time has passed that I didn't realize it was on year 8. Times gets away from you. 

In a way, that helps to illustrate my hyperbolic point. ^_~ Destiny has so little substance to it that 8 years have passed and the game has no more to it now than it did 8 years ago. 

Hyperbole isn't always a bad thing. It serves a useful, illustrative purpose but I agree I did get a bit carried away. Not sure it undermines my point though. I don't think Bungie has a great future. I think it's fair to say that Bungie spent a good deal of its marketing time leading up to Destiny's release talking about its narrative and what players could expect. And there is almost no story at all to Destiny. Saying that Destiny has a story is no different than saying that Apex Legends is a deeply narrative-driven game. While it isn't technically untrue because if you download 5 apps and collect a bunch of cards and read all the fan-fac posts that Bungie drops on Twitter - there is technically a story there. But If what you wanted was a narrative that plays out in-game... 0% true. 

I'll stick with my Apex Legends comparison; I think it's pretty clear that not many people are playing it for the deep and moving narrative - but people are playing it. The same thing is true of Destiny. It's a very safe, very formulaic, and very polished game. Just because it has no story doesn't make it bad; the reason it hurt Destiny so much was because it was delivered under false pretenses. 

 

Again, tying this back into the topic at hand; at present, Bungie = Destiny. While Marathon was a niche hit (I'm being generous here) I don't think that it's going to be the next big property for them. And with Halo now under 343's banner, Bungie doesn't have much else to build their house on. SONY's acquisition of Bungie could be more accurately described as SONY's acquisition of Destiny. What else is Bungie bringing with them? 

More importantly, even if there is something new brewing at Bungie HQ, Bungie's name doesn't instill the confidence that it did 8 years ago. What's good for the pocketbook isn't always what's good for your reputation. Microsoft makes loads of money from MS Office, but not many people have kind things to say about it. In fact, there are quite a few companies that have very poor reputations and are known for releasing vapid, exploitative, micro-transactions disguised as games that make oodles and oodles of money. 

I think Bungie now falls squarely in that category. They may or may not have money of their own (who knows after all the corporate breakups they've been through), but what they do have is a reputation for deceptive marketing, and unfulfilled promises. Add to that the fact that MS parted with them for a reason - so did Activision. SONY might be banking on whatever they make next, but I think the more likely scenario is that SONY picked them up so that they can milk Destiny for another few years.  

 

 

[dizmo]

It's a completely different situation and kind of deal than the Activison purchase by Microsoft, and they're not related in any way.

This is more about Sony getting a studio that has experience with live service games.

 

7 hours ago, Vishera said:

Gaming should be as decentralized as possible,

I don't want the industry to become an oligarchy.

Some companies in the industry have too much power in their hands.

There are very, very few people that have the money to release large scale games. That's one of the reasons Bungie (who was already fairly large) partnered with Activision. They simply couldn't afford to do the scale of games they wanted to on their own. Having publishers is also very important, otherwise you'd get things like Star Citizen that simply runs off and never actually releases anything.

7 hours ago, Commodus said:

Bungie has been gearing up to release a non-Destiny game, so I suspect that's the real endgame here. I'm sure Sony isn't counting on a future D2 expansion being the exclusive that makes Xbox owners switch in droves.

 

And yes, Sony is clearly doing this in response to Microsoft's Activision purchase. It's not nearly on the same scale, but it doesn't have to be... Sony knows its exclusives have generally been stronger, and even the Bethesda deal wasn't about to have PS5 buyers regretting their choices.

Clearly isn't. Deals of this scale can take years to come to fruition. Microsoft said that their deal with Activision happened incredibly quickly, and that took a few months. Companies don't throw around billions of dollars in spite.

5 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Honestly I trust Sony more than other companies to make good games so I would rather have Sony own Bungie than have some other big company buying them and ruining them. Honestly I think console companies are better about trying to create compelling games to attract people to buy their consoles rather than being like EA and just releasing a ton of crap games every year just so they can make money on the game sales. 

I don't think they bought them persay. That's how it's being reported, but it's going to remain an "independent subsidiary", so I imagine they could decide to split ways in the future much as they did with the Activision deal.

 

[Letgomyleghoe.]

6 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Honestly I trust Sony more than other companies to make good games so I would rather have Sony own Bungie than have some other big company buying them and ruining them. Honestly I think console companies are better about trying to create compelling games to attract people to buy their consoles rather than being like EA and just releasing a ton of crap games every year just so they can make money on the game sales. 

I would like to see evidence that Bungie isn't a ruined company at this point. The only thing Bungie has is destiny, which is just a cow being squeezed dry at this point. While this is pure speculation on my part Sony just wants to jump in on the destiny milk and maybe as a bonus put some new IP on their play-stations. Sony is a business first and foremost. They don't care if their money comes from selling 20 million god of war copies or the 10 people buying all the micro transactions in destiny 2 remembering the good ol days when they did raids in destiny with their friends. 

[dogwitch]

on top of that the engine bungie is using is awful.. like it takes weeks to do simple 1 bug fix compile.

[Kisai]

5 hours ago, Be Rock said:

It's impossible to say for certain: not to go all "butterfly effect" since that movie was junk, but the concept applies here. There are just too many variables in history to say why things turned out the way they did. Xbox absolutely needed Halo to succeed in its early years, but that doesn't mean that Halo would have turned out the same on Mac. 

My opinion is that Microsoft was the idiot in the room (owing to some really crappy hardware designs, that all but ensured zero-reliability for Xbox 360 units until the S model, and even then, those models had low reliability for their hard drive units.) 

 

For some reason, the "xbox" brand has survived. Nothing else Microsoft makes other than Windows and Office has a longer life span.

 

But despite that Microsoft clearly has made a lot of mistakes in software, owning nothing that is really a trademark of it's brand other than Halo, and then it promptly sat on that IP without innovating on it very much.

 

Sony, likewise has very little "brand" on it's platform. I can't even think of what Sony uses as a brand mascot.

 

So acquiring bungie does seem like a spite purchase, though I don't think it's going to be a big deal either. 

 

[AlwaysFSX]

5 hours ago, Be Rock said:

Also, I think that Halo was more than just a capable FPS. Prior to Halo we were in the Dark Ages of FPS'. There were no narrative games in that genre, and the whole industry was cranking out bland, annual rehashes of Unreal Tournament 1999, 2000. 2001, etc. Quake III Arena 1999, Quake III Team Arena 1999, 2000, etc...

Gaming was a story-free, login and shoot arena affair not unlike the modern desert of Fortnite, Apex, PUBG, Warzone, etc. 

Halo was the first in a LONG time to introduce a well-crafted narrative back into the FPS genre. The narrative is 100% of why Halo is what it is.

Medal of Honor, which led to Call of Duty, which like it or not, got huge for a reason between 2000-2012.

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

Bungie has been wanting to make a movie or TV series for Destiny. I guess the Spiderman company can help them out in that regard. 

 

3 hours ago, Letgomyleghoe. said:

I would like to see evidence that Bungie isn't a ruined company at this point. The only thing Bungie has is destiny, which is just a cow being squeezed dry at this point. While this is pure speculation on my part Sony just wants to jump in on the destiny milk and maybe as a bonus put some new IP on their play-stations. Sony is a business first and foremost. They don't care if their money comes from selling 20 million god of war copies or the 10 people buying all the micro transactions in destiny 2 remembering the good ol days when they did raids in destiny with their friends. 

In some respects, Bungie has been one of the worse offenders with microtransactions and milking money from their player base. Don't even talk about the egregious prices they charge for armor/weapon ornament sets. DLCs are pretty much guaranteed to be sunset after 2-3 years. Forsaken will be the next one vaulted on the 22nd when Witch Queen launches. And even though the campaign is vaulted, if you thought this meant everyone will now have access to the Class Abilities, Weapons, and Armor Forsaken came with? Guess again, because they're selling a "Forsaken Pack" just for access to those items. Items that were released back in 2018. Almost 4 year old content and they still can't make it free for all players. I can only hope with more money from Sony, they can at least move away from penny pitching old content. 

[suicidalfranco]

52 minutes ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

can only hope with more money from Sony, they can at least move away from penny pitching old content. 

Isn't this what people said when everyone thought it was because of acti that d2 was nickle and dimming every aspect of the game

[AldiPrayogi]

Destiny 2 was a great FPS tbh, the gameplay was so good. Too bad it was grindy as hell though lol

[Avocado Diaboli]

8 hours ago, Be Rock said:

Halo was the first in a LONG time to introduce a well-crafted narrative back into the FPS genre.

1998: Half-Life

1999: System Shock 2

2000: Deus Ex, The Operative: No One Lives Forever

2001: Halo: Combat Evolved

 

Not sure what timeline you inhabit that you only played tournament shooters back then.

 

And among those shooters that had a narrative, Halo really isn't that outstanding. It's Ringworld by way of Culture, but filled with clichés. The success of Halo was entirely because of its online multiplayer. Just like every trend shooter in the last 20 years. And maybe also because the way it played with a controller was genuinely better than many previous attempts, though not by much. An FPS with a controller will always feel like driving a tank while undergoing a lobotomy.

[Video Beagle]

9 hours ago, Error 52 said:

In particular, it's worth remembering that a pretty significant chunk of Halo's popularity was that it was one of the earliest console FPSes that didn't feel like you were controlling an alcoholic robot.

 

HALO was, though, aiming at being a 3rd person game when it was showcased at Mac World. I don't know if the switch to 1st person was before/after/due to the Microsoft purchase, but would it have become the game it is without that?

 

8 hours ago, Needfuldoer said:

Agreed! They could lean into a grungy, cyberpunk dystopia, grindhouse kung-fu action movie feel. Make it run on video cards people can actually afford and it would sell.

  

Yup! Bungie, Ambrosia, Pangea Software, MacPlay, Aspyr, and a thriving shareware scene kept Mac gaming alive through the Sculley/Spindler/Amelio years. It started seeing more releases with OS X, and the switch to Intel opened the floodgates.

 

I don't know about grungy cyperpunk...but Oni as a fluid anime combat game, with one of the best combat systems ever would be a big hit updated, I think.

 

and it's easy to forget that EA was also a big game player in those early days... can't quite recall them on the Mac (did they do Dark Forces and other Star Wars games at the time?) but I can remember the EA logo on Apple II games.

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, AldiPrayogi said:

Destiny 2 was a great FPS tbh, the gameplay was so good. Too bad it was grindy as hell though lol

Honestly destiny 2 feels great to play and the guns are fun same with combat. It's everything else that makes it less appealing to me. 

[Commodus]

10 hours ago, dizmo said:

Clearly isn't. Deals of this scale can take years to come to fruition. Microsoft said that their deal with Activision happened incredibly quickly, and that took a few months. Companies don't throw around billions of dollars in spite.

Maybe, but remember Activision is a much larger company than Bungie with more hoops to jump through for closing a deal. And not throwing billions around in spite? Well, the failed Microsoft-Yahoo deal comes to mind...

[Brooksie359]

6 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

1998: Half-Life

1999: System Shock 2

2000: Deus Ex, The Operative: No One Lives Forever

2001: Halo: Combat Evolved

 

Not sure what timeline you inhabit that you only played tournament shooters back then.

 

And among those shooters that had a narrative, Halo really isn't that outstanding. It's Ringworld by way of Culture, but filled with clichés. The success of Halo was entirely because of its online multiplayer. Just like every trend shooter in the last 20 years. And maybe also because the way it played with a controller was genuinely better than many previous attempts, though not by much. An FPS with a controller will always feel like driving a tank while undergoing a lobotomy.

I would have to disagree with the sentiment that the storyline wasn't outstanding. When playing it growing up playing through the campaign was some of the best times and the atmosphere that was created through the cutsceens and soundtrack made you feel something that I didn't in basically most games I have played since. It should also be noted that online multi-player wasn't really much of a thing until halo 2. I won't deny that halo did have some of the best multi-player experience for its time especially in the halo 3 and halo reach era. Anyways I just thing it's disingenuous to say that halos storyline wasn't outstanding when so many gamers across the world would disagree. Maybe you didn't particularly like the storyline but so many other did. I mean I remember playing the campaign as a kid and being scared so much by the flood missions. Also I loved the end mission where you have to drive the warthog off to the ship while everything around you blowing up. Anyways it was a great game with a great story that many people loved. Also halos soundtrack is probably one of my all time favorites out of any game I have played. So many iconic songs that genuinely make the atmosphere of the game totally different. 

[Shreyas1]

20 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

The best games in the halo series were all released under bungie is also something to note. 

Id argue that the campaign of Infinite is better than reach or odst, but ce, 2, 3 cannot be beat

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, Shreyas1 said:

Id argue that the campaign of Infinite is better than reach or odst, but ce, 2, 3 cannot be beat

I honestly haven't played infinite campaign so I couldn't tell. I do know 4 and 5 couldn't compare to Bungies halo games. I was never a fan of odst but I do know people who liked it's style. Personally I found it annoying to play tbh. But yeah the first 3 games is very hard to beat as the story was just so good and made you super hyped for when the next one would come out. Honestly reach campaign was also very good but just not as good as the first 3 yet reach had some of the best multi-player experience of the halo games especially for custom games. Reach custom games was probably one of the funniest experiences in gaming for me personally be it duck hunt or any of the other crazy game modes. One of my all time favorites was the one where you would ride on warthogs down this incline that is looped by teleporters so when you reach the bottom you go back to the top of the incline but you have to try and not die from the infected who have grav hammers. Or another favorite was one where the infected has to launch vehicles through grav lifts at some tower of boxes you have to stand on. Basically trying to know you down to your death. Man there were alot of fun custom games for reach. 

[IPD]

Well I guess that answers the question.  Halo will now be PS property and CoD will be an XBOX property.

 

Halo?  Story?  ROFLMFAO.  Um, no.

 

SiN

Half-Life 1

Deus-Ex 1

Unreal

NOLF

Blood 1

Blood 2

 

Halo was simply another me-too shooter that had a tepid story offering and derivative gameplay that was never as good as Quake 3, let alone Unreal Tournament.

[Brooksie359]

12 minutes ago, IPD said:

Well I guess that answers the question.  Halo will now be PS property and CoD will be an XBOX property.

 

Halo?  Story?  ROFLMFAO.  Um, no.

 

SiN

Half-Life 1

Deus-Ex 1

Unreal

NOLF

Blood 1

Blood 2

 

Halo was simply another me-too shooter that had a tepid story offering and derivative gameplay that was never as good as Quake 3, let alone Unreal Tournament.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you were probably a pc gamer during when halo was on of the biggest game out there and probably didn't really play halo on Xbox so you wouldn't get it. So many people would disagree with you as halo is loved by many and campaign was a huge reason for that. I bet you can play a song from the halo soundtrack and most people would recognize it while of you did the same with any of the games you stated probably less people would recognize where the song was from.