The "Official" Save Halo 3 Thread.

[adam]

WE HAVE GOT TO SAVE THE HALO 3 SERVER FROM BEING SHUT DOWN, FOR IT HOLDS MEMORIES FOR ALL HALO FANS AND ALL THOUSE THAT ARE TO COME!!!!

 

Please post your thoughts and ways you think we can keep Halo 3 online long into the future.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Absolute Dog
To make this the Official pinned "Save Halo 3 Servers" thread.

[FIREN4]

I agree, If only we could save it. Have any ideas?

[adam]

As for an idea, if we can get some attention from 343 we might be able to convince them to keep it open, but we need alot of people for even a hope of this to work.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Absolute Dog
Grammar edit.

[Ash]

It does not matter who owns the servers.. It whether or not they require ti keep them up.. True if enough people play halo 3 then the servers will stay up, but more people play halo wars then halo 3 and halo wars has only a few thousand people max.. And microsoft/343i will likely take down the Halo 3 server between now and at the very latest, the Halo 4 release date..

 

It's not because more people play halo reach/CEA, it's because they don't want to waste employees on a server with 5,000 people, whereas they can be working on halo reach's server of 100,000 people or halo 4 dev.

 

Halo 3 was/is a great game but it's (6 years) out-dated..

 

Regards,

Ashlynn

Edited January 12, 2012 by Absolute Dog
Removed a quoted post, it does not diminish this post.

[Absolute Dog]

I am not technical expert by any means of the imagination, but it is my simple under standing that the H3 engine will be used for Halo 4 along with the Reach engine. I would think that would give life to, and the desire to maintain, the Halo server. I honestly do not know the difference, or what others may refer to as, the Halo 3 server and engine.

 

That said, I would hope that the Halo 3 game would always stay in play to allow any one, new or old to the series, to enjoy the game in it's closest semblance to the original Halo 2 match making. Halo 2 will most likely never return. It is, and always will be the original and true Halo match making experience, and will live on in the hearts of those who played it. Remaking the game as 343i did with HCEA will not bring it back. Halo 3 has a chance of surviving like the OP said, if we can just show the fans support.

[Twinreaper]

Just a heads up to everyone, I will try to get on later and post a "as detailed" explination as possible about the Halo 3 servers, its eminent EOL forthcoming, and why from a companies pov, it should either be extended or taken down Stay tuned folks.

[PH4NT0M]

Wait what do you mean by shutting down the servers.?... I'm definitely not a technical expert and i barely know the first thing about anything about it and yeah i suck

[Twinreaper]

Ok so I gather that everyone who still plays Halo 3 seems to be in a bit of a hussy over the rumors about h3 servers being taken down correct? Ok I am going to try to explain this as best i can using what knowledge I have of their server setup as my basis....here goes.

 

First thing is first. usually when gamers say "server", they envision in their heads, a small room with maybe a few PC's or racks with a couple of gizmos blinking lights. This could not be further form the truth in terms of layout and size of this setup. A standard small business alone, with networking services to clients, enploy a room roughly 30 feet x 40 feet, just to house the server equipment. Now in comparison, the amount of clients a standard small business is designed to target and deploy services to is marginally inferior to what Microsoft have to dish out on a daily basis just for it's Live services.

 

 

From this comparison, it has to be assumed that a service as large and varietied as Live, requires an amount in total, nearly triple to this type of setup. Live not only hosts standard core services, but also is a middle man for off-site servers from many different game titles. Alone, to relay a game, based on current multiplayer sizes, would require at least 15 to 20 individual serve rracks, with at least 5x250gig drives attached to each one. And that is just for setting up and relaying clients connections to the main off-site servers. This process alone for games like MW3, BF3, take a lot of processor time, memory and HDD space just to supply a relay connection.

 

besides the relay connection, we have what is called a "connection handlers". Connection handlers are like, little swimming pools, that are designed and policied to accept and hold an "x" amount of client connections. Now because there is no way to give every user an unlimited amount of resources devoted to them, the connection handlers also employ what is called a Limit Policy handler. This gives each client a set amount of resources that is devoted to each one. The reason it is required to know this, is that it gives you a good idea of how many servers are rquired to fully support a mass client community of 23,000,000 and that is by last years registered number.

 

So assuming the population of Live users has increased even a tiny bit, it is feesable to calculate that at any given moment, there are at least hundreds of thousands connected at one time, just to play one game. Reach alone had hundreds of thousands just fro it's launch, and thats not including gamers that were playing other titles. A single server at todays specs, can host about or just under 10,000 simultanious connections with resource requirements above simple internet surfing. So with an estimated user base of 300,000 players just for Reach, Microsoft had to setup and dedicate around 30 server units, just to supply enough client connection resources for the influx of gamers. who knows what their total number was in actuality. Also keep in mind, that each server is also running an instance of the Live servcie, and the specific game it supports.

 

So now that I have given you a better idea of what the size of the equipment and usage is, lets move on to halo 3 in particular. Halo 3 was gigantic, only a fool would deny it. Halo 2 was purely unreal, and following that success, it is can be fairly agreed, that Microsoft would have almost doubled the amount of resources to fully support Halo 3. Now in the beginning, Halo 3 had roughly about 4.2 million gamers. Out of those, it can be said by activity and love people showed the game, that it is likely Live had at any one moment, roughly 250,000 to 3000,000 players playing or waiting in lobbies. Thats a whole lot of resources to hand out and a whole of servers to have running.

 

By my personal estimate, it would have likely been a number around 38 to 50 individual servers powering the Halo 3 network alone. Now breaking that down inot component and size, each server rack in a standard server room hold about 4 to 5 racks, each one with a core terminal. The terminal is used to check status of the server and do upgrades on the software. Each rack is constructed to be about 3 feet in length and about at max seven foot tall. Times that number by the amount of servers it more than likely used, and you end up with a space at about 30 to 35 feet wide, by at least 10 foot tall. measure that out, and see for yourself how big it really is. Then think to yourself....this is just to support one game?!?

 

Now of coarse the actual size of servers varies, and the size requirements. but one thing that doesn't vary is the set limit of resources available to hand out to supply the game in full support. All these servers require both a team to fix, repair and maintain. On top of that, each one requires a large amount of cooling, and energy to power them. Cooling alone is not cheap, as I did HVAC for years. let me tell you...the price for servicing server cooled systems is extremely expensive.

 

So here we are 6 years later, and Halo 3 still gets a pretty descent amount of players. Six years folks. In tech terms of advancement thats like a hundred years. I hate to say it, but a time will come soon, that the equipment used for Halo 3 will lose support and fall behind the times to the point to which repairing and keeping them up no longer makes fiscal or resource sense. No company wants to hold onto 6 to 10 year equipment and pay the outragous price of upkeep if the product it supports no longer makes them money. In terms of financial gain, Halo 3 makes no more than pennies on the dollar for Microsoft right now. The amount of revenue it actually generates, in terms of new copies, new subscriptions just for it, etc..... is probably not even a fraction of what it costs them currently for the server and game upkeep.

 

Judging from a company perspective, the sole reason why it is still supported is because besides Halo Reach, ther eis no other Halo game fully supported bu Live. Once halo 4 is ready to debut, Microsoft will be forced to make a choice. Either temporarily take down the Live servers for Halo 3 and consolidate them, and continue to lose money keeping them up, or take them down, upgrade them, and invest them all into a new game title. From a company perspective the choice is easy....take them down and kick halo 3 to the curb. I know this may anger a lot of gamers, but you cannot be so selfish as to just think about yourself. Would you really want the company who makes these games, lose money and eventually have less resources to develop more games?

 

When Halo 3 does get taken down, it will not be because MS is a bunch of dicks, but because financially it is time to move on, and so it must be for the gamers. But fear not. When halo 3 does go away, you can be sure that not far behind would be a port of it to PC. Logistically, it is the only way microsoft could ensure gamers would still be able to play Halo 3, but not have to lose money or waste resources to do so.

[Fire]

Wow, this is just like Microsoft, hate to say it but it is true. I don't have a pretty post like Twin or AD but guys... think about this.

 

If they take Halo 3 offline, people will complain about it being taken offline.

If they don't take Halo 3 offline, people will complain about lag on the Reach servers.

 

Also a couple of comments

Adam- *megabrohoof*

Ashlynn- it has been 5 years right? 2007 i believe...

[yah bono here]

so.... twin reaper.... if i understand right, even if the servers are shut down does this mean that i can still play coop campaign over live?

[Twinreaper]

No. Taking down the servers, kills the ability for the game to first connect to the server, then passing and tunneling the connection of your friend to you. Think of Live co-op as official company supported tunneling that effectivly mimics sytem link, but differently.

[DaveAtStateFarm]

We earned Recon,through pain and suffering...Endure made me crap my self.....TWICE!!!! When I finally completed it...i crapped myself again. I got Recon, with a bucket of blood and tears. And a wildly under-powered magnum..

[RANMAN10]

Honestly guys, I am one of the biggest Halo fans ever, but once Halo 4 goes online, having Halo 3 MPM up would just take away space for the Halo 4 MPM space. You can't keep it up forever.

[Ash]

Fire.. Yes your right.. Haha and AD thought you meant you knew me 5 years ago..

[Ash]

Ok so I gather that everyone who still plays Halo 3 seems to be in a bit of a hussy over the rumors about h3 servers being taken down correct? Ok I am going to try to explain this as best i can using what knowledge I have of their server setup as my basis....here goes.

 

First thing is first. usually when gamers say "server", they envision in their heads, a small room with maybe a few PC's or racks with a couple of gizmos blinking lights. This could not be further form the truth in terms of layout and size of this setup. A standard small business alone, with networking services to clients, enploy a room roughly 30 feet x 40 feet, just to house the server equipment. Now in comparison, the amount of clients a standard small business is designed to target and deploy services to is marginally inferior to what Microsoft have to dish out on a daily basis just for it's Live services.

 

 

From this comparison, it has to be assumed that a service as large and varietied as Live, requires an amount in total, nearly triple to this type of setup. Live not only hosts standard core services, but also is a middle man for off-site servers from many different game titles. Alone, to relay a game, based on current multiplayer sizes, would require at least 15 to 20 individual serve rracks, with at least 5x250gig drives attached to each one. And that is just for setting up and relaying clients connections to the main off-site servers. This process alone for games like MW3, BF3, take a lot of processor time, memory and HDD space just to supply a relay connection.

 

besides the relay connection, we have what is called a "connection handlers". Connection handlers are like, little swimming pools, that are designed and policied to accept and hold an "x" amount of client connections. Now because there is no way to give every user an unlimited amount of resources devoted to them, the connection handlers also employ what is called a Limit Policy handler. This gives each client a set amount of resources that is devoted to each one. The reason it is required to know this, is that it gives you a good idea of how many servers are rquired to fully support a mass client community of 23,000,000 and that is by last years registered number.

 

So assuming the population of Live users has increased even a tiny bit, it is feesable to calculate that at any given moment, there are at least hundreds of thousands connected at one time, just to play one game. Reach alone had hundreds of thousands just fro it's launch, and thats not including gamers that were playing other titles. A single server at todays specs, can host about or just under 10,000 simultanious connections with resource requirements above simple internet surfing. So with an estimated user base of 300,000 players just for Reach, Microsoft had to setup and dedicate around 30 server units, just to supply enough client connection resources for the influx of gamers. who knows what their total number was in actuality. Also keep in mind, that each server is also running an instance of the Live servcie, and the specific game it supports.

 

So now that I have given you a better idea of what the size of the equipment and usage is, lets move on to halo 3 in particular. Halo 3 was gigantic, only a fool would deny it. Halo 2 was purely unreal, and following that success, it is can be fairly agreed, that Microsoft would have almost doubled the amount of resources to fully support Halo 3. Now in the beginning, Halo 3 had roughly about 4.2 million gamers. Out of those, it can be said by activity and love people showed the game, that it is likely Live had at any one moment, roughly 250,000 to 3000,000 players playing or waiting in lobbies. Thats a whole lot of resources to hand out and a whole of servers to have running.

 

By my personal estimate, it would have likely been a number around 38 to 50 individual servers powering the Halo 3 network alone. Now breaking that down inot component and size, each server rack in a standard server room hold about 4 to 5 racks, each one with a core terminal. The terminal is used to check status of the server and do upgrades on the software. Each rack is constructed to be about 3 feet in length and about at max seven foot tall. Times that number by the amount of servers it more than likely used, and you end up with a space at about 30 to 35 feet wide, by at least 10 foot tall. measure that out, and see for yourself how big it really is. Then think to yourself....this is just to support one game?!?

 

Now of coarse the actual size of servers varies, and the size requirements. but one thing that doesn't vary is the set limit of resources available to hand out to supply the game in full support. All these servers require both a team to fix, repair and maintain. On top of that, each one requires a large amount of cooling, and energy to power them. Cooling alone is not cheap, as I did HVAC for years. let me tell you...the price for servicing server cooled systems is extremely expensive.

 

So here we are 6 years later, and Halo 3 still gets a pretty descent amount of players. Six years folks. In tech terms of advancement thats like a hundred years. I hate to say it, but a time will come soon, that the equipment used for Halo 3 will lose support and fall behind the times to the point to which repairing and keeping them up no longer makes fiscal or resource sense. No company wants to hold onto 6 to 10 year equipment and pay the outragous price of upkeep if the product it supports no longer makes them money. In terms of financial gain, Halo 3 makes no more than pennies on the dollar for Microsoft right now. The amount of revenue it actually generates, in terms of new copies, new subscriptions just for it, etc..... is probably not even a fraction of what it costs them currently for the server and game upkeep.

 

Judging from a company perspective, the sole reason why it is still supported is because besides Halo Reach, ther eis no other Halo game fully supported bu Live. Once halo 4 is ready to debut, Microsoft will be forced to make a choice. Either temporarily take down the Live servers for Halo 3 and consolidate them, and continue to lose money keeping them up, or take them down, upgrade them, and invest them all into a new game title. From a company perspective the choice is easy....take them down and kick halo 3 to the curb. I know this may anger a lot of gamers, but you cannot be so selfish as to just think about yourself. Would you really want the company who makes these games, lose money and eventually have less resources to develop more games?

 

When Halo 3 does get taken down, it will not be because MS is a bunch of dicks, but because financially it is time to move on, and so it must be for the gamers. But fear not. When halo 3 does go away, you can be sure that not far behind would be a port of it to PC. Logistically, it is the only way microsoft could ensure gamers would still be able to play Halo 3, but not have to lose money or waste resources to do so.

 

Wow, i'm never going to doubt your intelligence again... Ever...

[Twinreaper]

Lol, thanks for that Ashlynn. I won't be around much at all in the coming weeks so consider this a reading vacation for those I cause headaches towards with my lengthy posts. Enjoy the break guys!

[The Director]

Lol, thanks for that Ashlynn. I won't be around much at all in the coming weeks so consider this a reading vacation for those I cause headaches towards with my lengthy posts. Enjoy the break guys!

Towards YOUR lengthy posts, maybe, but they still have to deal with MINE > : D

 

As far as the OT, I think it should stay up for a while, and then maybe be moved to private servers for a PC edition. If Halo 4, 5, and 6 are any good, I won't miss it that much when it DOES get taken down. After a while it's just time to move on. It would be NICE to have Halo 3 multiplayer around forever, but it's not realistic and it will get lame after a while, because people will be moving on to newer games. The lobbies will not have as many players as they do now, and it will become increasingly harder to find games.

[DaveAtStateFarm]

Halo 3...Shall stay...

[The Director]

Halo 3...Shall stay...

For now, yes, but everything has to die eventually, including video games.

[DaveAtStateFarm]

Nice,Halo 3 still should stay up...not until Halo 3 1/2 comes around..

[The Director]

Nice,Halo 3 still should stay up...not until Halo 3 1/2 comes around..

Halo 3 1/2? What are you talking about?

[M4sT3r Ch13f S117]

If Halo 3 is gone i wont play another Halo game again.I have to Go because I'm playing the best Halo game EVER. HALO 3

[Azaxx]

Ok so I gather that everyone who still plays Halo 3 seems to be in a bit of a hussy over the rumors about h3 servers being taken down correct? Ok I am going to try to explain this as best i can using what knowledge I have of their server setup as my basis....here goes.

 

First thing is first. usually when gamers say "server", they envision in their heads, a small room with maybe a few PC's or racks with a couple of gizmos blinking lights. This could not be further form the truth in terms of layout and size of this setup. A standard small business alone, with networking services to clients, enploy a room roughly 30 feet x 40 feet, just to house the server equipment. Now in comparison, the amount of clients a standard small business is designed to target and deploy services to is marginally inferior to what Microsoft have to dish out on a daily basis just for it's Live services.

 

 

From this comparison, it has to be assumed that a service as large and varietied as Live, requires an amount in total, nearly triple to this type of setup. Live not only hosts standard core services, but also is a middle man for off-site servers from many different game titles. Alone, to relay a game, based on current multiplayer sizes, would require at least 15 to 20 individual serve rracks, with at least 5x250gig drives attached to each one. And that is just for setting up and relaying clients connections to the main off-site servers. This process alone for games like MW3, BF3, take a lot of processor time, memory and HDD space just to supply a relay connection.

 

besides the relay connection, we have what is called a "connection handlers". Connection handlers are like, little swimming pools, that are designed and policied to accept and hold an "x" amount of client connections. Now because there is no way to give every user an unlimited amount of resources devoted to them, the connection handlers also employ what is called a Limit Policy handler. This gives each client a set amount of resources that is devoted to each one. The reason it is required to know this, is that it gives you a good idea of how many servers are rquired to fully support a mass client community of 23,000,000 and that is by last years registered number.

 

So assuming the population of Live users has increased even a tiny bit, it is feesable to calculate that at any given moment, there are at least hundreds of thousands connected at one time, just to play one game. Reach alone had hundreds of thousands just fro it's launch, and thats not including gamers that were playing other titles. A single server at todays specs, can host about or just under 10,000 simultanious connections with resource requirements above simple internet surfing. So with an estimated user base of 300,000 players just for Reach, Microsoft had to setup and dedicate around 30 server units, just to supply enough client connection resources for the influx of gamers. who knows what their total number was in actuality. Also keep in mind, that each server is also running an instance of the Live servcie, and the specific game it supports.

 

So now that I have given you a better idea of what the size of the equipment and usage is, lets move on to halo 3 in particular. Halo 3 was gigantic, only a fool would deny it. Halo 2 was purely unreal, and following that success, it is can be fairly agreed, that Microsoft would have almost doubled the amount of resources to fully support Halo 3. Now in the beginning, Halo 3 had roughly about 4.2 million gamers. Out of those, it can be said by activity and love people showed the game, that it is likely Live had at any one moment, roughly 250,000 to 3000,000 players playing or waiting in lobbies. Thats a whole lot of resources to hand out and a whole of servers to have running.

 

By my personal estimate, it would have likely been a number around 38 to 50 individual servers powering the Halo 3 network alone. Now breaking that down inot component and size, each server rack in a standard server room hold about 4 to 5 racks, each one with a core terminal. The terminal is used to check status of the server and do upgrades on the software. Each rack is constructed to be about 3 feet in length and about at max seven foot tall. Times that number by the amount of servers it more than likely used, and you end up with a space at about 30 to 35 feet wide, by at least 10 foot tall. measure that out, and see for yourself how big it really is. Then think to yourself....this is just to support one game?!?

 

Now of coarse the actual size of servers varies, and the size requirements. but one thing that doesn't vary is the set limit of resources available to hand out to supply the game in full support. All these servers require both a team to fix, repair and maintain. On top of that, each one requires a large amount of cooling, and energy to power them. Cooling alone is not cheap, as I did HVAC for years. let me tell you...the price for servicing server cooled systems is extremely expensive.

 

So here we are 6 years later, and Halo 3 still gets a pretty descent amount of players. Six years folks. In tech terms of advancement thats like a hundred years. I hate to say it, but a time will come soon, that the equipment used for Halo 3 will lose support and fall behind the times to the point to which repairing and keeping them up no longer makes fiscal or resource sense. No company wants to hold onto 6 to 10 year equipment and pay the outragous price of upkeep if the product it supports no longer makes them money. In terms of financial gain, Halo 3 makes no more than pennies on the dollar for Microsoft right now. The amount of revenue it actually generates, in terms of new copies, new subscriptions just for it, etc..... is probably not even a fraction of what it costs them currently for the server and game upkeep.

 

Judging from a company perspective, the sole reason why it is still supported is because besides Halo Reach, ther eis no other Halo game fully supported bu Live. Once halo 4 is ready to debut, Microsoft will be forced to make a choice. Either temporarily take down the Live servers for Halo 3 and consolidate them, and continue to lose money keeping them up, or take them down, upgrade them, and invest them all into a new game title. From a company perspective the choice is easy....take them down and kick halo 3 to the curb. I know this may anger a lot of gamers, but you cannot be so selfish as to just think about yourself. Would you really want the company who makes these games, lose money and eventually have less resources to develop more games?

 

When Halo 3 does get taken down, it will not be because MS is a bunch of dicks, but because financially it is time to move on, and so it must be for the gamers. But fear not. When halo 3 does go away, you can be sure that not far behind would be a port of it to PC. Logistically, it is the only way microsoft could ensure gamers would still be able to play Halo 3, but not have to lose money or waste resources to do so.

 

 

OMG WALL OF TEXT

 

and yes keep my halo 3 alive 343, i dont care what you think, i love that game

 

[StuntedJet]

I enjoyed Halo 3 and would like to see the servers stay up but unfortunately I don't think that they will stay up.

[Anarchy]

Halo 3 should stay, in my opoinion it has the best campaign.