Halo 3 online co-op in doubt?

By Tom Bramwell Published 19 July, 2007

Man allegedly says in magazine.

Bungie appears to be playing down expectations of online co-operative Halo 3. Much as they'd like to do it, Frank O'Connor has reportedly told Electronic Gaming Monthly that they won't sacrifice quality for a bullet-point on the box.

"We're not dumb. We know that people want it and we're trying to make it happen," O'Connor said in comments allegedly reproduced from the June issue of the US mag. "I think the biggest problem for us for online co-op is that we have a situation where you can be in a Warthog with five troops, almost a mile away from the other player.

"That's a significant challenge. And there's lots of design things you could do to prevent that from happening, but they would make it not feel like Halo any more. If we can make it happen in a way that works well, we will - and if it works badly, we won't."

Bear in mind that we've not seen EGM ourselves, but write-ups of the feature cite previous unsourced claims that Bungie could try to add it as downloadable content following the game's 26th September release.

Not that any of this will jeopardise the two-player LAN/split-screen co-operative, while O'Connor himself was at E3 last week stoking rumours of four-player co-op with "wouldn't that be cool?" style responses to questions on the subject during Halo 3 presentations.

It's all speculation for now though. Why not calm yourself down by reading our E3 Halo 3 preview, featuring details on the first level of the single-player campaign and more on the Saved Films feature?

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000. Follow him on Twitter.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (53) Latest comment 5 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Scimarad #1 5 years ago

    As long as it has split-screen co-op I couldn't care less. All my best times on Halo have been on split-screen co-op...

  • Pirotic #2 5 years ago

    what a crap excuse

  • Darren #3 5 years ago

    Same here.

    Makes me wonder why they brought the release date for Halo 3 forward from its traditional November slot to late September if they're having issues with the online co-op mode. Sounds like the game is far from finished to me. I presumed the reason for the early release date was due to the game being more-or-less completed ahead of schedule but apparently not. Online gameplay doesn't interest me anyway so I'm not bothered whether it's included or not, I'll be buying Halo 3 for its offline single player and split-screen co-op campaign.

  • Steroyd #4 5 years ago

    wow.

    wait a minute didn't the first halo have co-op buddy insta teleport to your location I vaguely remember that happening with me and my cousin.

    Or my minds playing tricks on me again.

  • [maven] #5 5 years ago

    The thing is, if it works in SystemLink, then it can only be a question of network latency or bandwidth. So why don't they come out and just say what the problem is? "We're not dumb"... right...

  • lambtron #6 5 years ago

    "what a crap excuse"

    Not really. If it was a completely linear corridor shooter like Resistance then yes, it would be a crap excuse but Halo is relatively open-ended.

    Still disappointing though.

  • Peew971 #7 5 years ago

    @Steroyd: Yes, Halo 1 had a system that teleported the 2nd player next to the 1st one if they were too far away from each other. I don't see why they couldn't at least do that for Halo 3 online co-op.
    Edited by Peew971 at 19/07/07 @ 09:31

  • lambtron #8 5 years ago

    "The thing is, if it works in SystemLink, then it can only be a question of network latency or bandwidth."

    Are we sure it does though? Halo1 and 2 had no coop over LAN or system link IIRC - feel free to shoot me down in flames if I am wrong ;).

  • Xerx3s #9 5 years ago

    "I think the biggest problem for us for online co-op is that we have a situation where you can be in a Warthog with five troops, almost a mile away from the other player."

    What a lame excuse. This has absolutely nothing to do with networking problems. If they have this problem with distance, they also have it in ss and sl. Sorry bungie, if it's not there, you failed.

    There is no excuse for a lack of online coop. Maybe you should recall all those employees that are already on holiday.

  • Xerx3s #10 5 years ago

    Are we sure it does though? Halo1 and 2 had no coop over LAN or system link IIRC - feel free to shoot me down in flames if I am wrong ;).

    You are shot down.

    EDIT: I'm pretty sure it did.
    Edited by Xerx3s at 19/07/07 @ 09:46

  • lambtron #11 5 years ago

    Not according to this:

    http://www.rllmukforum.com/index.php?sho...

    "Crisp and tyler are right. For some reason, co-op mode requires both players to be using the same Xbox on split-screen. The same, alas, goes for Halo 2.

    You can still link two boxes together to play a head-to-head deathmatch, if it's any consolation."
    Edited by lambtron at 19/07/07 @ 09:36

  • Xerx3s #12 5 years ago

    Not really. If it was a completely linear corridor shooter like Resistance then yes, it would be a crap excuse but Halo is relatively open-ended.

    Or so they claim. What we have seen up till now suggest otherwise. I also doubt it will make very good gameplay. let's face it, corridors are usually a core gameplay mechanic in fps games to focus the attention.

  • Xerx3s #13 5 years ago

    I would suggest checking wiki.

  • octo #14 5 years ago

    FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK.

    Two player co-op over the web has been threatened twice before Bungie. If you couldn't do it, why wait until now to say so? Why not just come right out and say it instead of three hundred and sixty five mealy mouthed "updates" about nothing in particular? I will be extremely disappointed if online co-op is not in this game.

    Sorry for the rant, but it's how I feel. Plus, the coffee at work this morning tastes horrible.

  • Xerx3s #15 5 years ago

    I feel your pain brother! I feel your pain!

    Tbf, even though multiplayer in H2 was great, I would rather have online coop than online mp in H3. Coop > MP/SP.

  • neil_likes_bums #16 5 years ago

    Look at it this way. If they release a game with broken coop, people will bitch and moan about it, and ask why they released an unfinished game. If they take it out, people will bitch and moan about it, and ask why they released an unfinished game.

    They can either put the date back (this won't happen...), or release later via a fairly big patch, but hopefully when it's working. I hate Halo anyway, but I'd rather people were honest about these things rather than willingly releasing shoddy goods as is usually the case these days :|

  • bioreit #17 5 years ago

    I think the problem comes not from the 360 itself being able to process the information - as has been noted, if you can have it happen on ONE console entirely, why should two consoles have a problem?

    I reckon the issue lies in data transfer over the net - those peeps on 512k or 1 meg broadband would seriously limit the amount of data able to be transferred, I'm guessing.

    I mean, if it isn't just changes in positional data that need to cross the void (as happens with most online games), then you could be talking about serious amounts of information. Maybe that's what they're working on - reducing the amount of data exchanged and making each 360 take more load on.

    And you can bet that if WE thought of using the same Halo 1 co-op elasticity, Bungie have too. So there's probably a reason why they're not including it - like being able to go halfway across a level from your buddy. Maybe one of you has to go flip a switch while the other one is near the door or summat, I don't know.

    /rambling....

  • Uncle_Fishboy #18 5 years ago

    If there is no online co-op in Halo 3 I'm going to buy 10 copies of it, stack them up in the middle of the shop, then drop my trousers and curl out a fat one right on top of them. Then I'll wipe it off, take them home and play it anyway. I will give my 9 spare copies to ducks.
    Edited by Uncle_Fishboy at 19/07/07 @ 10:23

  • SBfistfun #19 5 years ago

    Poor

  • Steroyd #20 5 years ago

    well then that is a piss poor excuse if they already remedied that issue in the first one.

    And Halo is supposed to be king of multiplayer FPS? pfft your supposed to be making new boxes not just tick off what's already there.

  • Overlush #21 5 years ago

    If EA can do it in Army of Two, how come the 'mighty' Bungie are struggling?

  • sanctusmortis #22 5 years ago

    Overlush- because that only has 2 people on maps designed for it? Bear in mind Halo is geared towards a great solo experience...

  • CaptCastle #23 5 years ago

    No online co-op is a deal breaker for me.

  • Steroyd #24 5 years ago

    Overlush- because that only has 2 people on maps designed for it? Bear in mind Halo is geared towards a great solo experience...

    but it has offline co-op no?

    Offline 4 player co-op, i think.
    Edited by Steroyd at 19/07/07 @ 11:30

  • afghan_jones #25 5 years ago

    booooo.

    the co-op on gears and crackdown was way fun, plus in crackdown you could go off miles away from each other no probs.

  • pinhead #26 5 years ago

    This is poor! I thought HAZE is going to support this feature so why can't Bungie and Halso 3? I don't give a toss about online multiplayer because I generally get fed up with a lot of the gimps that occupy it, but online co-op is essential so that I can play through with my geographically disparate friends. Get it done Bungie!

  • Negotiator #27 5 years ago

    What is the big deal with online co-op? system link is where its at and thats been confirmed, everybody stop your I hate Halo crap. Bungie are having problems with online co-op because of the size of the levels, and the distance you and the other player can be from each other at any one time. Think of it this way, to trigger a cut scene both players would have to be there, understand morons.

  • Ace_McCloud #28 5 years ago

    "...the biggest problem for us for online co-op is that we have a situation where you can be... almost a mile away from the other player."

    Sweet.

  • IAmBatman #29 5 years ago

    In Crackdown you can be on opposite sides of the city.

  • oceanmotion #30 5 years ago

    A decent post on the Bungie.net forums.

    A few things: On Insane, the AI is no smarter than on Casual, they just do oodles more damage (or you have less health). The typical battle in Gears is around 10 Locust units vs. your 4 COG units. The AI routines go something like this. Stand. Shoot a few bursts. Either run up or take cover. If taking cover, pop out every 6 seconds. If running up, use melee. That's not what I would call smart AI. There are also no unscripted vehicle sequences in Gears, which is another bandwidth hog. Level design also has an impact on latency. The bigger the map/level, the harder it is to keep track of everything.

    On Crackdown: There are points in the game that the two cooperative players may be a mile and a half apart, as is described in the Halo 3 article. However, there is zero AI moving between Player 1 and Player 2. If you'll notice that the cars disappear after they get about 200 feet away from you? That's why Crackdown is able to do what it does. So the AI in area 1 where Player 1 is, which is often extremely simple (read: stand and shoot) is the only thing that has to be transmitted, and vice-versa with Area 2 in Player 2. The rest of the city is empty until Player 1 or Player 2 reaches another area, and then the area that they were in, assuming that the other player is not there, is now empty.

    In Halo 3, you have stretches of battle that can go on for miles, and AI in the distance (read: over the Ark). All of the data in between players is being sent, because it has much stronger impact on gameplay. So you can have Player 1 at zero feet from battle start, and Player 2 at a mile from battle start, each fighting a group of 25 Covenant, with probably 10 vehicles each (Numbers coming from Frank's description of a typical battle, with 20 vehicles and 50 enemy combatants, not even mentioning allied AI), and each player can have a Warthog with 5 marines each with their own complex AI routine. All of this data has to be sent because the battle is being played out, even if the other player cannot see it, in realtime. This is more than any game has tried to do on a console, and to be fair, they said that they ARE WORKING ON IT. They haven't given up, and they have also said that if its not in the retail game, it may be available as downloadable content, free content, I would imagine.

    As Frank said over at NeoGAF, nobody should be getting their panties in a bunch over a feature that may or may not be in the final game. He also said that complaining posts whos' authors did not know the whole story were fail with peanuts in the middle. Don't worry about it. Paraphrased from the article: Bungie isn't dumb. They know that people want coop. They're working on it. Chill.

  • Negotiator #31 5 years ago

    Yeah, what he said.

  • bioreit #32 5 years ago

    @WooHoo!!!

    Good (re-)post.

    I think the most important thing stated is this, which every single critic seems to have ignored:

    "to be fair, they said that they ARE WORKING ON IT. They haven't given up"

    Methinks it's a case of people reading what they want to hear...

    +1, in any case.

  • bioreit #33 5 years ago

    @Steroyd

    How have they "already remedied that issue in the first one"?

    The first Halo had the elasticity between co-op players - Halo 3 obviously does not, based on the fact that you could be "almost a mile away from the other player".

    Therefore, they didn't remedy it in the first one, did they? :-)

  • Lutz #34 5 years ago

    Aye, a good post...

    Still, can't we have Halo 1 co-op over live now? ;)

    Seriously, I'd buy that.

  • penhalion #35 5 years ago

    Do you know what's really sad. Even Diablo 1 managed to let you play co-op where the other player was miles ahead of you in the dungeon. Sounds to me like they are using zones so that activity in one zone is supposed to stop when you enter another zone. Co-op would mean that you had multiple active zones if the players got split up. Not sure why they can't simply have the games play independently in that situation and only consolidate when the players are in the same zone.

  • Paulanator #36 5 years ago

    I'm no expert when it comes to all this tech talk but it's disappointing when you consider that games like Haze, Gears, Kane and Lynch, Army of Two, Crackdown and Vegas all offer pretty comprehensive (online) co-op options.

    It seems to me like Bungie have put it to the back of their to do list and are only now realising how challenging it will be to implement. I'm sure they could find a way to make it work though.

    I was really quite looking forward to finally being able to take a Halo online for some co-op action.

  • kangarootoo #37 5 years ago

    Nuts. That was going to be the key feature for me :(

    All those on here complaining that it "should be easy if X can do it" and is a "crap excuse" don't know what they are on about.

    That two games have avatars running around on screen can be about the only thing they technically have in common.

    All they have said is that there are technical challenges that mean they may not be able to provide a quality experience. Seems fair enough. Given that most of those writing here can't code, and NONE of us have access to their source code, I don't think any of us can really comment on whether the "excuse" is valid or not.

    Yes I would be hugely disappointed if online co-op was dropped, but I accept life is like that sometimes and realise that my disappointment does automatically transform into someone else's incompetance.

    Bungie are clearly a pretty skilled outfit, and every game dev team has to focus its resources as it sees fit.

  • Paulanator #38 5 years ago

    "but I accept life is like that sometimes"


    This is a videogame we're talking about. No need to get suicidal.

  • morriss #39 5 years ago

    You could've linked to my blog instead!! :(

    ;)

  • kangarootoo #40 5 years ago

    @Paulanator

    Umm, thats kind of my point...

  • MasterGrief #41 5 years ago

    Just get Haze instead

    4 player online co-op and they don't make excuses either

  • morriss #42 5 years ago

    Haze might not have wide-open explorable spaces though.

    But then again, you don't really do you? :)

  • Negotiator #43 5 years ago

    Haze don't make me laugh, that game ain't fit to tie Halo 3's shoe laces.

  • RazorObsession #44 5 years ago

    if people knew the slightest thing about networking and bandwidths and all that bollocks, they would understand the enormity of what bungie is trying to achieve.

    even when bungie said they were working on it, i had serious doubts, and wouldn't have played it online anyway. co op should be with friends, in the room anyway.

    not only does the host xbox have to send every single constantly roving co ordinate of dozens of AI team mates, from one xbox back to the other, as well as the hundreds of roving enemies in between this mile apart radius between players, as well as any vehicles that may be driving around, as well as any players that happen to be logged in to the co op, it also needs to send all the coords of all the bullets and grenades and pretty much any projectiles being flung around the battlefield too, as well as co ordinates of bodies and debris that are being flung around with every explosion that takes place, but the xbox has to do this repeatedly every single second.

    the bigger the scope of the game, with more details, the less chance of a decent online co op, if any at all.

    which hopefully means that single player and split screen should rock balls.

    hopefully they will include system link co op, as the bandwidth problems are gone, and with any luck, despite knowing that the impact on quality may deter some non believers, they will just let you play online co op with all of its obvious and glaring flaws.

  • Machiavellian #45 5 years ago

    Maybe you should play Haze first before mentioning how good or not good the 4 player co-op is.

    Co-op is no he panacea for a FPS game and just because a game has it ticked on it's list doesn't mean it will be a good experience.

    Reading Woohoo post, it appears that Bungie doesn't want to warp the players together and limit the experience each can have. I am sure at the end of the day if they cannot get the co-op working the way they want then Bungie probably will just supply the gimped version and be done with it.

    The thing is, no one really knows how Halo3 campaign plays. Short video and one brief demo isn't enough to get the full scope of how the game will play out. Until Halo actually ships, we will not be able to determine how complex the action is and why co-op is so difficult for them
    Edited by Machiavellian at 19/07/07 @ 13:47

  • The-Bodybuilder #46 5 years ago

    I'm guessing bungie have a contingency plan, where maybe the co-op players can't be far from each other.
    But it sounds like they don't want this, and want a proper free-flowing co-op, which sounds difficult.

    IMO, this post by Paulanator describes the mind of people these days...

    "I'm no expert when it comes to all this tech talk"

    But yet goes on to describe how dissapointing it is compared to other games.
    That's like me saying, "I don't understand much about pharmacology, but it's dissapointing how people can't come up with a cure for AIDS when there are cures for other diseases coming out".

  • penhalion #47 5 years ago

    My nephew and I have played through every halo game together in co-op. Now that I have moved away from his location we have played Rainbow and Gears together and were looking forward to doing the last halo as a remote co-op.

    I don't think anyone will be too impressed if this isn't possible.

  • GitSomE_UK #48 5 years ago

    /joins rabble

    Booo to Bungie err you are the suxx

    This isn't teh nExT G3n

    What do we want... CO OP
    Where do we want it... ONLINE
    When do we want it... NOW!

    /walks in circles with placard
    Edited by GitSomE_UK at 19/07/07 @ 15:45

  • Benno #49 5 years ago

    its pathetic if one of, if not the most highly anticipated next gen title doesn't have online co-op

    pathetic...

  • Paulanator #50 5 years ago

    @The Bodybuilder

    Just because I don't fully understand the complexities that Bungie face doesn't mean that I can't be disappointed.

    Like many other people, I expect a game like Halo 3 to offer certain things. It doesn't look very good when the most anticipated game on the 360 can't offer something as common as online co-op play.

    All this tech talk won't mean much to me when I've bought my copy of H3 and expect to be able to take it online for some co-op play. Something I've been able to do with a lot of games released before Halo 3.

  • Antwandemarco #51 5 years ago

    It's an essential i think. I love the ol' halo and i'll buy it regardless but i was very much looking forward to playing this through full screen with a buddy. The other two i invariably ended up finishing with a mate split screen. Wanted to avoid that for the first play through this time.

  • Machiavellian #52 5 years ago

    You are missing the Point Paulanator. You explained that you did not understand the technical aspect of the issue but then listed games that have Online Co-op without fully understanding why.

    In other words you should have kept your comments to the fact that you were disappointed instead of comparing Halo3 with other games that are very limited in their environments.

    Yes you are disappointed, we all are but not fully understanding what you are talking about open the window for someone to shut you down.

    I am sure Bungie can do the Online co-op, the problem is that they probably cannot do it the way they want. In cases like this the developer gets a little to close to the game and doesn't fully understand that they can miss their mark of excellence and give the people what they want and still come out looking good.

    I believe that Halo2 taught them a lot of lessons and they do not want to give users a subpar feature only to be lambasted for their effort and bring down the quality of the game.
    Edited by Machiavellian at 20/07/07 @ 04:05

  • matrim83 #53 5 years ago

    Hmmm having thought about it. I would rather have no online co op and the whole 2p free roaming thing rather than the elasticity and online co op.

    I like the idea of screaming to my co op buddy "Where the fuck are you?".

    But then again online co op wasnt really needed for me.