Shocker: ‘No Plans’ For PC Version Of Halo 4

By Nathan Grayson on November 7th, 2012 at 12:00 pm.

That's not a ship. It's a giant future sky PC. Master Chief just blows them up for fun. Because he's a monster.

You may have heard recent tell of a certain tall green man’s return to the videogame shoot-o-sphere. He’s technically called John, and – contrary to popular belief – he’s related to RPS’ resident owner of that moniker in name and combat prowess only. Unfortunately, in spite of the fact that Halo 4‘s apparently one of the best in the series’ billowing legacy, Microsoft’s not too keen on telling its Master Chief chefs to serve up a helping of the new adventure on our humble, Halo-starved biggest gaming platform on Earth. You’d think the big M would at least consider it, too, seeing as it’s trying valiantly to push Windows 8 as a gaming platform at the moment. That, however, does not appear to be the case.

Penny Arcade Report got in touch with Microsoft about a potential Halo 4 PC port, and the software behemoth was refreshingly (though disappointingly) cut-and-dry in its response.

“Halo 4 was designed specifically for Xbox 360, and while we’re always exploring new ways to expand the franchise and share the Halo experience with as many fans as possible, we do not currently have any plans to port Halo 4 to PC.”

Which really doesn’t come as much of a surprise, given Microsoft’s recent dishonest-lover-style support of PC gaming. “Don’t worry, baby, I’m really back this time,” it pleadingly proclaims one day, only to suddenly go on a “business trip” to the oh-so-tempting land of tablets the next.

Still though, Halo 2 led the charge for Vista once, so a Halo 4 port’s not entirely unprecedented. The original Halo made the leap back in the day as well – and brought some pretty solid online multiplayer to boot. But I guess Microsoft has other plans this time around – especially given Windows 8′s focus on interoperability with tablets more than anything else. But hey, there’s still hope. Maybe we’ll luck out and get a port of Halo 4: King of the Hill Fueled by Mountain Dew – which is an actual thing – instead.

__________________

« | »

, , , .

148 Comments »

  1. Hazzard65 says:

    Who?

    Sorry I wasn’t pay attention, I was busy playing Planetside 2.

  2. Servizio says:

    But…I want to play Halo 4 on the PC. Why can’t you give me the things I want.

    • Torn says:

      I guess they’ve made the decision that paying a team an amount of money to port it, and then factoring a projected amount of sales on PC, doesn’t equal enough $$$ for the investment.

      That, or they are scared of cannibalising XBox sales.

      Shame really, shooters work really well with keyboard and mouse, and I think if they took the level creation / sharing thing from Halo Reach they’d find a lot of uptake on PC.

      • MattM says:

        A Halo 4 PC port would certainly be profitable. A PS3 version probably would be too. The Halo series is kept exclusive to grow the xbox business. I wonder why the PR people don’t want to say this though, it would be better than having to say such silly things .

        • darkChozo says:

          Pretty much, Halo is a system seller for the 360, and porting it anywhere else, at least without a delay, weakens its position as such. Plus, it’s not too unlikely that they’ll get double-dip sales if they release on PC later (I know I’m reasonably likely to rent the 360 version, and maybe buy it later through an inevitable whatever sale). PR folks aren’t going to say that, of course, because gamers tend to get pissy when you say they can’t play your game for business reasons (everyone likes timed exclusives, right?).

          • PearlChoco says:

            Why would they need another system seller this late in the console cycle? I mean everyone who ever wanted an X360 would have bought one by now, no?

            Still, its hypocritical beyond believe proclaiming they want to push win8 as a gaming platform while refusing to release their no 1 blockbuster game on it.

  3. sinister agent says:

    Halo was fun and had some clever new tricks and all, but the games never really peaked above that for me. Didn’t they say the third one would be the last? Although I suppose Tomb Raider has had about four last ever games now, the lying bastards. Seems a bit of a shame to keep bringing it back; the protagonist is just so utterly bland. He even outblands Gordon Freeman, on account of having a craply generic name.

    Anyway. My guess is that Microplops are well aware of the over the top hostility Halo gets from some PC quarters, and have decided it’s not worth the bother.

    • buzzmong says:

      Halo 1 was a good game. Shame it came out on the original Xbox though, as the stuff Bungie were showing off pre-MS buyout back in the day when it was a PC game was a lot more interesting (flamethrowers, player usable plasma swords, much bigger environments etc) some of which only made it back into the series in the (not as a good) later games.

      The PC port of Halo 1 wasn’t very good either.

      • Carbonated Dan says:

        it was a mac game before 360, I wasn’t aware Bungie were planning any native PC support before the buyout
        EDIT
        oh no, wikipedia says mac and windows

        • Hoaxfish says:

          If I remember correctly, Bungie started with Mac games, but by the time Halo was in development they did both Mac and PC releases.

          • SkittleDiddler says:

            They were doing PC games at least as far back as Myth. I’m pretty sure Halo wasn’t even a thought formation back then.

    • Hoaxfish says:

      Before MS, Bungie had a nice turn over of good and new IPs. I suspect that if it weren’t for MS pushing Halo as their XBox killer app, Bungie would’ve moved onto something new much sooner, and any “generic blandness” would’ve just been a blip on an otherwise well recieved game or two.

      I still think the series stands out amongst the “modern shooters” that dominate the FPS genre atm, and Bungie still shows some level of humour that other competing studios lack.

      • buzzmong says:

        You know, now Bungie own themselves again and are no longer heading up Halo, we may see some more interesting stuff from them again.

        Personally, I’m holding out for an Oni 2.

        • HadToLogin says:

          Then don’t look for into about next Bungie project. All signs show they are still making Halo, but with new name and for Activision. And after that,. one of two will happen. It will fail and Bungie will make new CoDs until their deal with Activision dies, or they won’t fail and will create new “whatever it’s name” every two years, along with some other company that will take those year when Bungie won’t release their next-part…

          • Hoaxfish says:

            Isn’t their Activision contract something awful like “4 series games, every 2 years, with a major dlc every between year”… the only hold out is that they’re allowed to have 10% of their staff working on a Marathon project or something

    • mckertis says:

      ” Tomb Raider has had about four last ever games now”

      Literally never happened. Especially not with the last trilogy.

  4. yhalothar says:

    Yeeaaah, not exactly crying myself to sleep over this.

    • Screamer says:

      Ya, a very overrated series. Watched a few Halo 3 vids the other night on to see what the fuss was about, oh my soul the voice acting sounded like it was phoned in. :/

      • x1501 says:

        The only thing that attracted and impressed me about the Halo games is their solid implementation of full campaign co-op. Other than that, from a PC veteran’s perspective, all of them were barely above average, highly “consolized” shooters I would have absolutely zero interest in playing alone.

        • socrate says:

          The first one had interesting story although not that amazing it was still fun,the gameplay was…ok i guess…it was just one of the first shooter with a good control scheme on console and even this was copied on other older game that just didin’t put that control scheme as “default”,the AI was nice also and some gun and vehicle were actually quite interesting,but then the follow up game became more horrible filled with bad AI,horrible story,new gun that were actually like the last one but just with different damage and skin and no new interesting feature other then this.

          With Halo 4 its pretty much the same thing and worst,i never understood why console gamer put up with that kind of crappy quality and keep paying for these but i guess they are just either extremely stupid or they have way to much money on their hand.

          Their is also the fact that Halo 3 was supposed to be the last one and had a pretty crappy ending to it and then they keep milking them and they keep buying?….people definitely have too much money on their hand these days.

        • drewski says:

          Reach and ODST are both worth playing solo. I only made it through 2 and 3 thanks to co-op, though.

  5. The Tupper says:

    Is there any rationale to the use of the tautological ‘Master Chief’ moniker for this series’ player character? Other than to sound a bit like badly translated Japanese?

    • thepaleking says:

      I believe Master Chief is an actual military rank thing. I’m sure one of our Armchair Generals can confirm/deny.

      • Pindie says:

        This brings up a problem however: you’d expect him to be promoted somewhere across the three sequels, right?

        • tur1n says:

          I think not promoting him actually makes sense. Generals don’t do a lot of shooting.

        • Bluerps says:

          He probably slept with some Admiral’s daughter who is now blocking his career. Or he always declines promotions because he loves being a Master Chief so much.

        • El Mariachi says:

          Moving from the enlisted ranks to commisioned officer does happen through Officer Candidate School, but my understanding is that higher-ranking NCOs are so valuable due to their extensive experience that being “promoted” to Ensign would be a demotion in all but who salutes whom first. They’re far too old to have any chance at a commissioned career track. Plus there’s a hefty pay cut.

          BTW, it’s a Naval rank, not Marine.

        • Lanfranc says:

          Master chief petty officer is already the highest enlisted rank (or “rate”) in the Navy, so there isn’t really anywhere to be promoted to, except for appointments to special command positions like “Command MCPO” or “Fleet MCPO”.

        • dE says:

          In my mind, there’s this version of Halo where the Master Chief is a bit of a double edged sword. A homicidal maniac everyone’s afraid of. No one can come out of that shit and stay alive and undamaged. At the same time, he’s the chance humanity has in this war. He’s a symbol of war, the one legend to inspire hope in people, while command very well knows about the fragile nature of his brain – and thus can’t promote him.

          /edit: Do note, I have no bloody idea about the lore of Halo. All I know is that I hated the library. Copy Pasta don’t feel right.

          • crizzyeyes says:

            You’re not entirely far off. He’s mentally damaged as a part of his training, which involved being kidnapped, then cloned so his parents didn’t suspect anything, and basically trained to be a human robot for completing military objectives. With all of the sociopathic tendencies that comes with. I think the generic name lends to that, it’s also just a moniker that lends to his legend as being hyper-lethal even amongst the super-soldiers he trained with. Like being called “Sarge” as a Vietnam veteran now retired or something like that.

            Actually, 4 is the first game that touches on Chief’s stunted social growth and damaged psyche, but they don’t go much into it. Maybe it’s a topic for future games.

          • drewski says:

            Basically.

            You certainly don’t want him anywhere near a strategy meeting.

    • strangeloup says:

      His full rank is Master Chief Petty Officer, which is indeed an actual thing — which I was under the impression of being a low rank, but stand corrected.

      It’s been a while since I’ve been much into the series, but I seem to remember there was enough of a degree of desperation to get soldiers for the SPARTAN-II project (genetic engineering for high-tech supersoldiers) that they’d take anyone who could hold a gun the right way around. However, with Master Chief Petty Officer actually being a pretty substantial rank, maybe I’m misremembering. In any case, John-117 is the last survivor of that project.

      I liked the lore more than the shooting people, really, though the former made the latter more interesting.

      (Edited for me being wrong and not checking things)

      • marach says:

        You’re completely misremembering, the spartan-II’s were conscripted age 6 and basically experimented on (hardcore indoctrination, experimental hormone therapies, experimental surgery, you name it they did it to them). He also started out as a corporal (age 14) he’s now officially ~46 physically he’s probably mid to late 20′s (due to cryo sleep)

      • buzzmong says:

        With regards to the lore, you’re slightly off: There’s two main sets of Spartans, the Spartan II’s and the Spartan III’s.

        Master Chief is a II, a smallish group (70?) who were essentially kidnapped as children and then survived exensive genetic modifications and therapies, cybernetic implants and well over a decade of full on hardcore spec ops training. The result was a very small number of very expensive but very effective proper super soldiers. There was never enough of them to have a big effect on the war as a whole.

        The III’s were a reboot of the project a number of years down the line when the genetic therapies had been refined and made much cheaper and safer (and also less effective). They took trained soldiers (volunteers), applied the therapies and gave them spec ops training. The III’s were not a patch on the II’s due to lacking all the other modifications and training, but were *far* more numerous thanks to being cheaper to “make” and while not being super soldiers were still massively better than the average soldier.

        It does occur to me that after typing all that out, you probably don’t care, nor should you really. Ho hum.

        • TormDK says:

          I care, so thank you for typing it out as I know nothing about the halo universe.

        • marach says:

          uhh no again the spartan-III’s are kids (12 years average) adult spartans start were the spartan-I’s and the new spartan-IV’s (which also includes all surviving II’s and III’s)

          • ZeroSeven says:

            Actually they started out around 6 years old like the Spartan-II program, only difference was that these kids weren’t kidnapped. They were all orphans of Covenant attacks, and giving the chance to get revenge on the covenant, and volunteered.

            They were trained in huge amounts, and basically sent on suicide missions. A few were specially gifted ones, were given Mjolnir armours like the Spartan-II’s(like those in HALO:Reach). But generally they all wore a special cloaking armour without the power-shield, called SPI-armour.

        • strangeloup says:

          Appreciate the correction! It’s nice to know there’s some folks on here that are into the lore — I found that to be a really strong element of the Marathon games too, and I was pleased that it carried over into Halo (with even some Marathon throwbacks in there — word is that the storyline of Halo 4 revolves around Cortana going rampant.)

          • drewski says:

            Halo stories have always struck me as being really dull, badly told, linear kill everything romps set in an deep, cohesive, thoughtful and interesting universe.

            The need to keep the shootybang up has stopped Bungie from really telling the Halo universe’s story properly in the games, I think.

    • MistyMike says:

      To me the name ‘master chief’ is part of the jingoistic ‘fuck yeah marines!!!’ theme that the Halo series is known to maintain. Placing a lot of references to current military is supposed to make it ‘relatable’ and impressive to American teenage boys. Same for the constant use of military slang (‘the bird will drop you of 5 clicks from the AOE etc.’). The strategy seems to be paying of for Microsoft, since this mediocre shooter series got to be so wildly popular.

      • ResonanceCascade says:

        Actually, it’s meant to be tongue-in-cheek, as is most of the jargon in the series. Unlike its detractors, Halo actually does have a sense of humor.

        • MistyMike says:

          The main campaing plays it dead straight. It’s all noble and righteous space marines against evil aliens. Any evidence for the humour? Save for the comic relief cannon-fodder enemies?

          • ResonanceCascade says:

            Really? Evidence for humor?

            Here, let me see if I can find a peer-reviewed study that can point out the exact amount of irony intended by the developers.

            I guess everything the soldiers and aliens say during combat would be the first clue.

          • Deston says:

            Talking about Halo 4 which I’m playing through at the moment (yes yes, boo hiss, down with that sort of thing) there is one example that springs to mind.

            At one point you’re being lead through a facility by some silent AI / robots, and Master Chief says something along the lines of “They could be leading us into a trap…” and Cortana replies “You say that like there’s any other possibility!”

            Granted, you might not find it funny, but that’s a different argument. I do think that kind of interaction between Master Chief and Cortana across the series indicates that there is some awareness and tongue-in-cheek self-deprecation there.

            They’ve also incorporated parts of RvB and the humour around that into incidental audio and voice acting before, and some general piss-taking out of military grunts in the background. Plus yeah, there’s the whole stupid flailing grunt slapstick humour.

            I think ResonanceCascade has a valid point, at least when considering Halo as a series… I really can’t remember the first one well enough to comment there.

          • darkChozo says:

            Um, other points aside, that’s explicitly not true. A fairly major bit of the plot is that one of the “evil alien” races (the Elites) joins your side, and several of the smaller races are either bullied (Grunts), hired mercenaries (Jackels, though I think that’s is an extended universe thing), or are portrayed sympathetically (Engineers). Yes, there are evil aliens, but overall it’s a pretty balanced portrayal, and even the evil aliens have some variety (warrior race vs. scheming theocrats vs. all-devouring swarm).

            I’d say the military stuff isn’t tongue-in-cheek per se but comes from an attempt to do “realistic” sci-fi. More Stargate than Star Trek, essentially. I guess you could see it as jingoistic if you see anything military as bad, but that’s a pretty boring opinion (IMHO, of course).

        • x1501 says:

          Halo is humorous? Man, that’s some quality weed you have.

          • ResonanceCascade says:

            Or maybe, you know, I’ve actually played some of the games. The story is bad, the writing is bad, but it doesn’t take itself seriously at all.

            Coincidentally, weed is legal where I live as of about 12 hours ago. But I don’t smoke.

          • socrate says:

            Yeah i really don’t get that one either,you must live in a really really sad place to think that halo is hilarious.

            Oh and a game that as extensive lore that keep putting work in it to extend it more and more and make novel to explain the lore and all the stuff that is missing in its story to make more money out of it is greedy and based around taking itself extremely seriously,its like saying World of Warcraft don’t consider itself seriously…i mean its just a blind view on how game and movie work….if they wouldn’t put a fun world for you to play in that make no sense i doubt it would draw that big of a crowd in the first place.

            There is only one moment that i can remember of them making a funny moment and it was at the end of Halo 1 on legendary difficulty

          • ResonanceCascade says:

            Hilarious is waaaaaay too strong a word. It’s lighthearted. It knows that it’s just a ridiculous pastiche of pulp sci-fi and James Cameron movies.

            People are acting like Halo can only be enjoyed by grim dullards who clutch their copy of Glenn Beck literature in one hand and their gun collection in the other.

            I’m saying it’s a silly, well made shooter with really fun AI and sometimes great encounter design. That the series is also unevenly designed and poorly written almost just means that it’s an FPS. That is practically a genre hallmark, were it not for a tiny handful of exceptions.

      • dmoe says:

        Your passive-aggressive slant on the lead character’s rank and the audience is pretty funny though. The military theme has been around since Marathon and they carried it over for use in Halo. The series compared to the endless modern warfare shooter market actually has some solid writing and creative mythos behind it. Reach was really good but people need to stop expecting this series to come to the PC about as much about trying to stamp it down with their heel like it offers nothing to the market.

        I’d easily take a Halo over a COD or BF. Mainly that it actually strays away from the usual FPS cliche mechanics. A popular shooter in the console market that still offers a shooting-from-the-hip design? Crazy I know!

      • drewski says:

        There’s more personality in Cortana’s little finger subroutine than in an army of CoD clones.

        You want to rip jingoistic war shooters? You’re aiming at the wrong part of the genre entirely.

    • Brun says:

      As others have said, Master Chief is his military rank (short for Master Chief Petty Officer) and pretty much all of the NPCs refer to him as such. He is called by his real first name (John) only once in the entire series (can’t speak for Halo 4 as I have yet to play it) – at the very end of Halo 3 (when Cortana expresses honor at serving by his side).

  6. Hoaxfish says:

    Don’t worry, this is just another part of the bizarre marketting of Halo 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK0q6Dbeuvw

  7. Patches the Hyena says:

    I’d be sad if there weren’t plans for a PC version of GTA V.

  8. rb2610 says:

    Surely they’d have to release Halo 3, Halo 3: ODST and Halo: Reach first? or Halo 3 at the least…

    Although personally I think Halo: Combat Evolved on PC is still where it’s at. Hope it still exists but there used to be a Warthogs only server, i.e no weapons, which was brilliant. It was essentially a destruction derby in indestructable vehicles. (The only way to kill players was to flip their vehicle then run them over, best gamemode ever.

  9. Stevostin says:

    OTOH I have no plans for Halo 4 so I guess all is fine. Why would I play a brand new shiny Halo when I can complete STALKER 1 for the fourth time instead ? (if a console halo fan comes here, I want to make it clear that there is 0% of irony in my statement. )

  10. Pindie says:

    His name is not just bland, it’s generic. I bet his full name is John Doe.
    A slight shame still, Halo:CE was pretty fun on PC, despite being rough around the edges due to
    original deadline Bungie was forced to adjust to.

    Of course then the game went from lone marine versus the world classic to “save the gurrl” love plot nonsense I do not regret missing. It was also pitiful how player had to be reminded constantly b other characters how awesome he is when all that was special about Master Chief was his ability to tank damage. And tank damage he did.

    Anyway, Microsoft Windows headed for tablets and casual/social market? Well, they could not improve on Win7 since it’s already a good enough gaming platform. It’s not like the jump from 32 to 64 bit Windows and it’s not enough to justify buying Win8. So they decided to go with new devices and new game market. It’s kinda smart actually.

    Luckily Windows 7 is an opened platform and I expect developers to stick to it so it’s not like M gets to tell people “PC is now a social gaming platform, consoles are for core gamers”. They do not yet have the power.

  11. mrmalodor says:

    No surprise there. Microshit has been trying to get gamers to switch to the Xbux since it came out. That’s their official gaming platform and whatever they say about Windows is a lie — they don’t care about PC games anymore.

  12. RogB says:

    scenario: MS do eventually publish Halo4…..

    …. but it REQUIRES windows 8…

    it would be trolling on a grand scale.

  13. Ian says:

    Oh well never mind.

  14. DaftPunk says:

    Haha,did the guys from RPS really expect this game to come out on pc xD Either way we are not missing much x)

  15. BobbyFizz says:

    Wouldn’t have minded giving it a go, shame really that they make these odd decisions.

  16. wodin says:

    Halo? Thats the game that other bunch of so called gamers bang on about..oh the poor ignorant fools..

  17. S Jay says:

    Talk about non-news.

  18. hemmingjay says:

    It’s fine that it’s not coming. To be honest, everything in Halo is outdated and they are simply delivering another trilogy that the diehard fans demand. The problem is the animations are stiff, the graphics dated, the premise is hackneyed and the gameplay stunted. The PC merely serves as a magnifying glass with ports. Combine that with Microsoft’s hard position on potential piracy with their products and I think we can write-off pc games from them for a while.

  19. Solidstate89 says:

    The only good thing to come out of the latest Halo launch has been the “Forward Unto Dawn” video series on youtube.

    If you haven’t watched it yet, go do it. It’s seriously entertaining.

  20. Jamesworkshop says:

    Oh well wait 10 years and emulate it

  21. PC-GAMER-4LIFE says:

    No big surprise really as MS would be scared of piracy & making it Windows 8 only would limit sales a lot. But MS are throwing a lot of money away by not porting the few franchises they own to PC but if you have a console I guess you have to have some exclusives to push it.

    Its strange though as MS were touting Windows 8 as being 1:1 with Xbox 360 games via Xbox LIVE For Windows (no changes required to make the same game work on either platform apparently) so why not prove it with one of your own games…….

    • rb2610 says:

      Not that there’s really much point in making Halo 360 exclusive now, if there are people who wanted to play a Halo game that badly, they would have done so anytime in the last however many years that the previous games have been available on 360.

      It’s not like there are going to be masses of people at this stage thinking ‘Halo 4? What is this? I must go buy an Xbox 360 to find out’ when there’s already been at least 3 previous Halo games on the 360 alone…

    • KevinLew says:

      It’s disappointing but not surprising for Microsoft. If you look at how the Halo franchise is made, then you can tell it’s designed to promote the Xbox 360 and basically maximize Microsoft’s profits. The sad reality is that forcing gamers to use their console means guaranteed profit for them. PC games are less money for them because they aren’t selling you a console plus an intentionally-overpriced game.

      Halo has also always been about exploiting their fan base. My friend had a copy of Halo: Reach that I played and it was actually not bad. Then I found out that if you don’t pay for Microsoft’s Xbox Live Gold program, then the game stops leveling your character and you can’t get anything but the first five or six unlocks (out of several hundred).

      • drewski says:

        Reach never limits your character level regardless of Live status, and you can buy anything from the shop with the exception of a few exclusive Halo Waypoint items and some stuff that’s only unlockable from Live Matchmaking.

        I stopped playing when I hit Lt. Colonel, which is enough to unlock the vast majority of the personalisation store, and I didn’t spend a single second in Live multiplayer. It is pretty damn slow, though – you need to do a lot of the daily challenges to have any chance because the easy cR are online only.

        (I spent most of my credits on Cortana’s voice for my avatar. Yep.)

    • drewski says:

      I can’t imagine there’s all that many people out there who are open minded to the Halo games but don’t have access to an Xbox to play Halo 4 on.

      • jrodman says:

        Not sure how I fall here.

        No xbox360.

        No strong preconceptions of Halo.

        Did play 2 or 3 or something coop with someone at some point for a fwe hours, wasn’t a big fan as I’m not a huge fan of shooty shooty generally.

        So probably wouldn’t buy it for PC on sale, even if available for Win7.

  22. Squishpoke says:

    Oh, I didn’t know that Halo was having another sequel. I was too busy playing Natural Selection 2.

  23. malkav11 says:

    Given Microsoft’s track record over the last few years of paying people -not- to release for PC, why on earth would they want to do so themselves? Also, why on earth would we believe them that they want to support PC gaming?

  24. squirrel says:

    That’s odd. Who brings up such rumor in the 1st place?

    Halo wont stand a chance against COD. I dont think MS will bother to spend even a minimum cost on porting work.

  25. spacedyemeerkat says:

    I am utterly befuddled as to why any self-respecting PC gamer would be upset with this announcement.

    • Jenks says:

      Some of them are casual and only play on one platform, so they won’t have access to it.

    • Caiman says:

      Because “PC misses out on another generic sci-fi manshooter!” wasn’t the best headline?

    • crizzyeyes says:

      Because late 90s/2000-era shooter design is virtually non-existant as of today, save for the Halo franchise. There’s some lesser-known titles that make callbacks to Quake design, but nothing with the production value that MS is able to throw at the Halo franchise.

      Believe it or not, consoles have good video games sometimes. Even more amazing, some of those “mainstream” games are good.

    • Totally heterosexual says:

      “Liking a game series means that you have no self respect at all”

      OK

  26. Guiscard says:

    Since we never got Halo 3, I’m not surprised. I’m not surprised we never got Halo 3, given that Halo 2 – the Microsoft’s intended trailblazer for Games for Windows Live and PC gaming on Vista, not to mention that technology where you could play the game while it installed on your computer (yeah, remember that? That went well!) – was one of the all time worst ports of a console game ever released. When you can’t reassign half the keyboard to your own preferences, you know something’s wrong.

    At least Halo 1′s port was competently executed by Gearbox, even if they didn’t manage to extract all the consolitis out of it. And seeing as Halo 1 is the only worthwhile entry in the series, we’ve already got all we need.

  27. Jandau says:

    In case anyone hasn’t figured it out yet: Microsoft doesn’t want the PC as a primary gaming platform simply because they want everyone on the 360. It’s a platform that they fully control and which brings in more money, if for no other reason other than that they can charge for whatever they want (both to customers and the developers). The whole GFWL thing is such a half-assed job that they promise to “revive” once a year that it’s one of the running jokes of the gaming industry.

    As for Windows 8, they DO want it to be a gaming platform, just not in the way you might want it to be. They want to focus it on apps and iOS-style games. What they don’t want is to have it potentially draw people away from the 360. It all makes sense from a business perspective. It’s not nice, but it makes sense.

    Mentioning Halo 2 as one of the games leading the charge for Vista is actually hilarious – The game didn’t really require Vista, the limitation was artificially imposed and could be circumvented easily by a mod/patch easily available online, making the game fully functional in Windows XP.

    And as for Halo 4, I would have liked seeing it on the PC, as well as Halo 3 and Reach (ODST can go fuck itself). They seem like fun games and I enjoyed the first two Halo games quite a bit. I understand why I won’t be seeing them and I can just add them to the list of game series like Gears of War and Fable, which did put out games on the PC, but skipped a title or gave up. Shame, really…

    • strangeloup says:

      You’re almost entirely right, but I’m fairly sure there’s never been an instalment of Gears on the PC — and every instalment of Fable has been released, with the exception of The Journey, and nobody even wants that on the 360.

      /pedantic mode disengage

      • Jandau says:

        Sorry to go extra-pedantic on you, but the first Gears of War came out on the PC (I should know, I own it) and Fable 2 did not, in fact, come out on the PC. Yes, Fable 1 & 3 did, but 2 never did, which is kinda silly. Anyway, now you can completely agree with my post since I did not in fact make a mistake… :)

        • x1501 says:

          Not only first Gears of War did come out on the PC, but it was clearly superior to its console counterpart in every single regard. Aside from the obvious graphical and K&M advantages, the PC version had new multiplayer maps and 5 additional campaign chapters, including one with a Brumak boss fight. The entire act was so seamlessly integrated, I was utterly amazed to see it absent in the Xbox 360 version of the game.

  28. TheApologist says:

    I’m neither surprised nor especially upset. That said, if MS decided to release Halo’s 1-4 in a neat package, I’d buy it.

    It never made sense to me why MS thought it was better not to sell me their game.

  29. Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

    I like the sound of a hill fueled by Mountain Dew. It must be awfully green.

  30. pupsikaso says:

    Nathan: WHY do we care? Is a console game not being ported to PC newsworthy? More importantly, is it really worthy of a discussion? Did you know that Console game so and so didn’t get a PC port? Are we going to discuss that, too?

    • Sparkasaurusmex says:

      When you put words in that box at the bottom of the screen, you are discussing. So it was worthy of a comment from you, no?

      Let’s not say another word on the issue. That’s right, not another word. No more words already. Let’s not type anymore, ok? This is an issue best left ignored, no more writing words now. Okay no more words.

  31. derbefrier says:

    Halo’s campaigns have always been fun and I will probably pick this up on xbox at some point. Getting a buddy and co-oping the campaign on the highest difficulty has always been a source of great enjoyment for me. But i prefer arcade shooters to the more realistic ones. Something I got from playing tons of quake and Unreal back in the day. They arent going to break the mold or anything with this game but its still a solid FPS. Its a shame we wont see this on PC but its not like anyone was expecting that anyways.

  32. FreshwaterAU says:

    I got to borrow a Xbox 360 one summer and loved some halo 3. I’d love it if they’d port it and as the article points out its sort of weird they dont since, isnt windows 8 now like Xbox for windows? why not try to expand that brand with flagship currently xbox isolated titles? Halo, Gears of War, etc.

  33. Rawrian says:

    What’s Halo?

  34. Azih says:

    The Windows 8 comments on RPS articles are just plain snarky FUD at this point. It’s plainly obvious that MS are trying to get WinRT to compete with iOS for tablet games.

    For desktop games Windows 8 is exactly the same as the glorious Windows 7. It’s *identical*. The hate is ridiculous.

    • spacedyemeerkat says:

      I had to look up FUD. But I totally agree with you.

      If MS closes down Windows on a future edition, and it affects me, I’ll move. Until then, I am perfectly happy.

    • crizzyeyes says:

      That’s just it, though. The fact that it’s more-or-less the same with a new interface added on makes it a pretty horrible “new” operating system. I hate 7 too, for being so similar, and for being essentially a gigantic bugfix/performance patch for Vista. I don’t want them to radically change the operating system every time they release a new one, but in the case of Vista/7 they should have released 7 first or even neither at all and been done with it. Here’s a question, though: Does 8 offer any real performance improvements? This is coming from real ignorance, but as far as I know, it doesn’t.

      • Azih says:

        Yup windows 8 uses less resources than Windows 7 (less RAM, fewer processes in the background, less CPU) and boots up faster. It’s just a better O/S than Windows 7

  35. pilouuuu says:

    I’m totally not surprised. I was not expecting it to begin with. Or looking forward it. I don’t care about Halo franchise anymore.

    I just can wish Microsoft that Windows 8 fails horribly and Linux or something takes over and they learn the lesson that PC gamers are not a force to begin with. That’s just wishful thinking obviously. But seriously, their OS will be baaaaad.

  36. db1331 says:

    What a shame?

  37. Text_Fish says:

    If I’m completely and utterly entirely honest, I thought Halo 4 got released about three years ago and was supposed to be the last installment in the series.

    I will never have any time for the franchise that broke Ensemble.

  38. crizzyeyes says:

    Say what you want, every time a Halo game comes out it’s almost a breath of fresh air compared to most of the shooters that come out inbetween. It’s a series that originated in 2001 and still clings to the fundamental design of the Quake 3/Unreal Tournament/Counter-Strike era of shooters — power weapons on the field, smaller-team objective-based game modes, well-oriented for FFA — and for that, I will continue to play it, because that’s where my heart is when it comes to shooters.

    I was worried when they started implementing a lot of Call of Duty-style features, like loadouts and ordnance, which worried me. I feared that all weapons were available in loadouts, and ordnance would lead to bigger, more ridiculous killstreak bonuses. But luckily, they have little to no impact on that fundamental core, since loadouts only allow you to choose from a few basic weapons to start with, and ordnance only applies in the matchmade Slayer playlists, and doesn’t lead to anything stupid.

    So good work Microsoft, you lost a PC sale. Keep doin’ what you’re doin’ with your horribly forced segregation of user bases. Meanwhile I’ll keep playing my roommates copy on his Xbox at no cost to myself.

    • Brun says:

      This is an important point that most people aren’t contemplating. Say what you want about Halo being a console franchise but it is head and shoulders above Call of Duty in terms of both design and entertainment value. Its game design is in the same family as that of Half Life 2 (FPS with large, quasi-linear environments), falling somewhere between MoH (linear corridor shooter) and Crysis (large, freeform environments). That alone sets it apart from most of the pack of current console games.

      • fooga44 says:

        To be heads and shoulders above garbage isn’t really an achievement. Older PC shooters are pretty much better then the entire halo franchise. That means FPS games have stagnated, all halo does is keep the PC shooter design flame alive a little bit in console land.

    • rockman29 says:

      I agree. I love Halo for not being other games. It is still Halo. Though Halo 4 has moved the closest of all games in ‘being like COD,’ all the other games I at least know feel uniquely Halo (because I’ve at least played those ones).

      I really like CGR’s review of Halo: Reach. So much nice gameplay in that review of just being Halo… screwing around and jumping all over the place and shooting aliens and throwing grenades into piles of enemies… it looks damn fun, and it’s a shame Microsoft is not bringing it to PC where it can shine even more.

  39. mickygor says:

    I didn’t realise this game was being released yesterday. Walked past Game on my way home from the pub at about 10 past 12, made my usual (tongue-in-cheek) status about peasants queuing for their latest hit. My status was flooded with “OMG HALO U NOOB” comments. Woe is me :(

  40. NothingFunny says:

    Halo2 was sooo bad on PC it was not worth even pirating. Halo3 looked worse than games 5 years older. So who cares really.

  41. rockman29 says:

    I want Halo 3 and Halo: Reach on PC. Don’t mind not having the others. At least Reach, thought I’d prefer 3 and Reach.

  42. frymaster says:

    It’s true MS are pushing games in the win8 store right now, but that’s probably WHY they don’t want halo4 on the PC, since it won’t be a metro UI game.

  43. Azek says:

    Tis alright. I’ll probably Redbox the game, blast through SP and once and for all server myself from Microsoft’s console offerings.

  44. drewski says:

    My PC couldn’t run it anyway, whereas my Xbox can, so that’s OK.

    Shame really, MS could have pushed their game focus back to multiplatform here.

  45. cunningmunki says:

    You mean I can’t play another Half-Life rip-off with a tunnel visioned 60 degree field-of-view, adolescent story, child-friendly controls and auto-aim? *sobs*

  46. Hmm-Hmm. says:

    I’m still huffed about Microsoft acquiring Bungie, even though it’s been that way for years now. They basically ruined one of my favourite studios, probably forever.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>