Pointless theme mouse for those who like Halo. Whatever - series has more or less been console centric anyways.
eklipz330 :
i don't believe there is a bigger kick in the nuts to pc gamers than this....seriously, it's messed up. we haven't even seen a halo game since what, 2007? an entire 3 years after it was released on xbox? its been so damn long that theyre releasing a remake of the damn game. "OH, SORRY ABOUT THAT, BUT HERE'S A MOUSE WITH A STICKER ON IT!"
assholes
I don't know if you were actually following Halo since its initial reveal, back when it was a MAC game and made the cover of PC Gamer or some such, but if you actually listened to the PC community from about 2000 to now concerning the PC community, their general response to Halo and all things about it was "THIS GAME IS UTTER GARBAGE" and they proceeded to list off game after game, year after year, as to why they did not care about Halo in the slightest. The list includes every from Counterstrike to Return to Castle Wolfenstein to Tribes to Unreal and on and on and on... Simply put, my general experience with PC gamers - a group of which I am a part - is that if you ask them "are you interested in Halo?" they'll say "Nope - PC game X is better."
Now forward to 2014 and we've got a PC gamer throwing a hissy-fit because he didn't get Halo... After hearing over a decade of PC gamers talk about what garbage the series is, I'm surprised anyone cares.
My personal take on what I want MS to do with PC gaming? I don't care if they leave the charge - I want them to leave a nice open platform where PC game developers can do anything they want, from big projects like Spore to indie projects like Minecraft to creating services for PC game distribution like Steam. Go figure, *that* is precisely what MS has done - created the platform, made it so people could build whatever the heck they wanted on it, and basically focused on their console.
What I've always wondered is, why do so many of you who are down on MS for not being more proactive in PC gaming actually want them to be? Doesn't it strike you as problematic for the company that makes and controls the platform has a big economic interest in their games succeeding on that platform? You go back to early consoles and you'll see examples of Nintendo doing things like keeping superior cartridge technology for their own games while other companies were stuck with more limited storage and you can see the fruits of a clear conflict of interests in this case (Steam OS supporters, think about it). Why is it that you people really want the same company that controls the OS to have tangible economic benefits for their games succeeding ahead of other people making games on that platform? Personally, I want my OS maker as far away from making games on their OS as possible - otherwise, they're a skip and a jump from stacking the OS deck in their game's favour, which one could argue MS already has done with DirectX. Do you really want them to have more incentive to do it more?
No, in my eyes, an OS company that fosters an open environment for gaming but isn't heavily economically invested in their own games succeeding is an ideal status quo. That's what MS has done, for the most part, and PC gaming has thrived on their "do whatever the heck you want on our platform as long as you don't fiddle with its source code" environment.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram