Microsoft now admits Halo 5 will require Xbox Live Gold for online co-op after all

People who have been looking forward to playing Halo 5: Guardians on their Xbox One later this year just got some bad news. Contrary to a report from this week's Game Informer magazine preview on the game, Halo 5 will indeed require a paid subscription to Xbox Live Gold to access its online co-op modes.

As it turns out, it was not Game Informer who made that error, but 343 Industries studio head John Holmes who relayed the wrong information to the magazine. Now he has stated his mistake in a post on the Halo Waypoint website:

"I need take a moment to make an important correction on something we miscommunicated in the story. I misspoke during the interview when stating that online co-op campaign would be supported with an Xbox Live Silver account. Co-op campaign will require Xbox Live Gold to play. I want to extend my sincere apologies to our fans, and to Game Informer, for this error and any confusion it has caused."

Holmes added that all copies of Halo 5: Guardians will include a code for a 14-day free trial of Xbox Live Gold. The company will reveal more information about the game next week at E3 2015, including a new and top secret multiplayer mode.

Source: Microsoft

  • They should just make it free after all now, just to save face.
  • Ya! Agreed!
  • IIRC wasn't it told that the W10 Update for Xbox One would allow free online play? Or am I wrong?
  • Free online play for those playing through the Xbox app on PC not on the actual console
  • That's weird don't you think, if that's the case I'll just play all my games on my pc. :p
  • Only PC that are cross platform can get on live for free, streaming Xbox games on Xbox app will still required Xbox live membership to play online.
  • It didn't make sense that it was free. What kind of message would that send to other developers when the coop is behind the Gold wall in their games but not MSs?
  • Um no
  • Oh man, not cool. Is it fair, sure. Is it correct to do, sure. Is it something fans agree with, nope.
  • I don't see this as big of a deal as the lack of split-screen co-op.
  • Was that really confirmed?!
  • yeah, and even worse, multiplayer is limited to 2 player split screen. So long Halo, its been nice.
  • No split screen sucks... Why even have a second control... I'm ok with Live requirement though. Gonna be playing my moneys worth in team slayer.
  • Split sucks probably because you got a itty bitty tv? :P. Seriously though couch co-op is much better than playing co-op with some one with a piss poor connection. There are areas in London where they can't get even decent broadband speed.
  • Its ubsurd to me that 343 would be so willing to kill of a feature that has been a staple of Halo since its launch. If I cant play with my friends, I am not sure the game is worth getting.
  • There's these things called graphics. Now to make the game have these graphics, certain things have to go. Such as rendering two things rather then one requiring a crazy amount of cpu/gpu power and thus limiting the ability to have those graphics and gameplay features. You can still play with your friends using a thing called the internet and stop being so melodramatic..   Doesn't surprise me that they choose to have a solid game rather then reduce the quality just to implement something that really isn't as big a deal this generation seeing as people have to download massive updates and so generally have decent connections.
  • Its weird how "graphics" and "power" didnt stop them from pushing the 360 to the limit with Halo, and all of those had couch play, including Halo 4. If they have to limit the graphics in some way for the 4 player mode, so be it, in a small 4x4 box it would hardly be recognizable anyway.
  • If they have to render in 720p @ 60fps for couch play then whatever. It should be included.
  • When you are sitting in a room with three mates shooting the shit out of one another with pizza and beer in front of you not a single one of you gives a shit about the fact that the graphics aren't quite as good as when you play single player. You are having way to much fun instead.
  • All of my friends have a PS4 or are still stuck with 360 and PS3, but we liked to kick each others ass in Halo. And what you say is: No problem, just tell them to spend 400€ for the console, 70€ for the game and 60€ for gold and you can play all you want... That's some stupid thinking M8
  • Yea, I'd much rather play couch co-op on my 110" screen!
  • 110? ...Can I come over to play?
  • Should have been a 117" screen!
  • I think he means the lack of split screen sucks.
  • Riiiiight
  • Makes sense to me.
  • Build a gaming PC, and never "pay" to play multiplayer games ever again. Consoles are ridiculous.
  • How does Halo: TMCC run on your PC? It doesn't? Then I'll continue to have a PC, an Xbox One, and a Wii U.
  • There are more great games on PC than there EVER will be on consoles. Also, games look way better on PC's, and with all of the STEAM sales, it makes the PC a superior platform.   
  • Again, how does Halo run? WoW is basically the only PC exclusive I care to bother with. All that Early Access trash on Steam is a scam.
  • I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. One of my favorite games was early access. Kerbal Space program, also an exclusive. Ark Survival Evolved, currently early access, coming to consoles in 2016, Minecraft (the most successful game in recent years) was early access. I'm gonna have to agree with the above comment that there are waaaay more worth while games on PC than on consoles, and I say this as a multi-console owner. I enjoy gaming on all platforms.
  • I don't care about success. My comments are about the concept of charging people for a beta with no promise of quality or a firm completion date.
  • That's on the person spending the money to determine if it's viable or not. It's no different than if I were to go to investors for a start up company, risk vs reward. Doesn't mean it's a rip off as a whole. Sure some 'Developers' have no intention of paying off, but that's true in nearly everything, you have assholes everywhere. It doesn't make the whole practice a ripoff. It's a huge way for indie developers to actually their product out there, many of which do better jobs than AAA studios.
  • Exactly, it depends on the individual. Personally, I believe it is a bad business model because it puts almost all of the risk on the customer. I hate that
  • Gonna have to disagree with you. Halo MCC was beta when it was released. People where charged to test it while making them a promise of quality.
  • Actually halo online runs amazing on my pc
  • You should do a reading comprehension tes, pass it, then read and respond to my post a second time. That your PC runs a decade-old iteration of the game with one-quarter of the content of TMCC isn't exactly a feat to brag about.
  • Personally I think gaming pc's are the biggest waste of time and especially money in the history of computing. All it amounts to is the pursuit of ever more intense graphics at ridiculous cost for graphics cards and cpu upgrades every year with hardly a thought for gameplay. On a console its a one time cost and you can focus on what matters most, gameplay and story, none of this downloading drivers every month to get that extra 1FPS.
  • ^^This^^
  • Amen....
  • LOL, thats the dumbest thing I read in a while. You obviously never had a gaming PC, and no you don't need to update graphics every year or drivers every month, unless you are in the small minority of really hardcore PC gamers that have to have the best rig at all times. With consoles you are compromising from day one on performance and quality, whats the point of playing a game when it looks like crap, needs a subscription for multiplayer and you rarely get decent sales even on old games, whereas on a PC you get free multiplayer, and a lot lower game prices even for AAA titles just few months after release. To match the performance of XB1 or PS4 all you need is a mid-range PC that just slightly more expensive than a console and you are saving money on cheaper games and free multiplayer, so even if you buy a decent gaming PC it still costs you less in the long run.    
  • ^^This!
  • I used to have a PC with an AMD Radeon card and was on Rage3D forums following the monthly beta driver releases from AMD to fix bugs and improve performance. And what exactly is the compromise console users are enduring? Because the games arent at 15K resolution at 12000fps they look like crap? As I said, PC gamers seem to be mostly concerned with how a game looks, a console gamer puts in the disc or downloads a digital copy and PLAYS THE GAME, thats the primary focus.   Having to pay for Xbox live is a trivial cost with the free games for gold that comes with it, and even without at full cost its only $60 per year, really nothing. And there's nothing that says you cant get good prices for old games, just dont go to ripoff stores like gamestop. So apart from graphic fidelity which rarely makes up for a game with poor gameplay, PC's are really not as better for gaming as people would have us believe.
  • The cost of a "decent" GPU alone is going to cost the same as a console. Any GPU that is cheaper/weaker is not going to display the newest games that a console can at the same fidelity.
  • Consoles have used games, that's where the sweet deals are. No need to wait for some kind of digital sale and no need for DRM. Even disc-based PC games still have DRM. In fact, that's one of the biggest benefits of getting console games, no DRM, no license key, no server side activations. Unlimited use and exchanges of your games. And it doesn't matter how many games a PC has available. What makes all the difference here is the exclusives. And quite frankly, consoles have the bigger, better exclusives depending on your taste.
  • A friend of mine is a hardcore modder. He recently went from dual Titan Black SLI to dual 980ti (6gb) SLI - he can afford it though - the swine! I'm stuck with a single 780 (4gb)
  • This is so wrong. New games almost have no impact on your cpu. My friend has a 6 y/o i7 and gets 50% usage max.
    And graphics? Only when you always want to play at ultra settings (that consoles normally never reach), but my friend also has a 6 y/o graphics card and only upgrades for this year's games (like witcher).
    Then don't forget about games costing less, no need to pay for online gaming and mods! Don't get me wrong! I don't think consoles are shit. I own a xbox myself. But the argument of PCs costing that much more is completely wrong.
  • The i7 thing is true, but 6 years ago the most badass graphics cards were DX10, so Witcher 3 must run on medium as it doesn't support DX11.3 which is what the game uses. (Source: I owned a GTX290 and had to swallow the card when goddamn DX didn't allow me to play games in ultra.)
  • In fairness, if your spending insane amount of money every year on upgrades than you need to get your priorities straight. A monster rig built today would still be capable of playing games at demanding graphical settings the next year and the following, so on. These days a monster rig can have 1 to 4+ ultra high end cards.
  • I built my PC in 2013, other than replacing a hard drive that has lasted 3 builds, going back to like 2009, I haven't had to spend any money on it. I also don't plan on spending any more money on it until at least next year, and that's only becase I don't want to use it as a media server anymore.
  • LOL, not even close. I've upgraded my PC once over a 5-year span of owning it. You clearly have never built a PC, if that's what you think it's like in the desktop market. Stick to topics you know.
  • I used to do gaming rigs for years. $3K top of the line machine with a lifespan of five to six years. Graphics card replaced every other year just to play the latest games at a respectable quality. Last one was an Alienware gaming laptop that didn't make it two years because neither AMD or Dell ever updated the drivers for Windows 8. Prior to that latest laptop, those two year graphics cards each cost the same as an entire console.  My 360 lasted seven years and never needed nor desired to do anything to it.   
  • Who buys gaming laptops? Even using laptop and gaming in the same sentence is so wrong ...
    Seriously. I really do not see any use in gaming laptops other than being portable. They are extremely overpriced and wont last long.
  • I didn't know I was required to upgrade my PC every year. I must be doing it wrong with my 3 year old PC. It's weird, I can still run every game I throw at it.
  • ... And play with cheaters & hackers
  • Or, have all platforms and enjoy everything you want. Limiting yourself is rediculous.
  • If you have the money then sure go for it, but not everyone can affort to buy all systems. And even if I had the money, personally I would not waste it just to support the ridiculous exclusivity BS that Sony and Microsoft and perpetuating at the expensive of all gamers.  
  • Microsoft "admits"?  Seems like they corrected the misinformation published by Game Informer.  Whether a Gold Xbox subscription should be required is a different topic entirely. (Yet, I know those who feel they deserve everything for free will be angered.)   
  • Oops, Welfare Halo is just Halo after all.
  • Meh no biggie
  • It really bugs me when i see people complaining about paying for Xbox live account. If $60 a year (or even less if you find deals online) is too much for you to pay to play online games. Then you need to reevaluate you income and spending priorities. I can drop $60 in any given day without batting an eye and $60 a year isn't even a blip on my accounting radar. I can see where people could complain about spending $60 a game and then having to pay an additional fee for each game to play online but the cost of an xbox live account per a year is nothing when you look at the total expense of playing games now days. Posted via the Windows Central App for Android
  • Holy sh*t, you sound entitled!
  • I mean, I see where he's coming from. I spend $60 without trying. I dont see why people balk at the price considering the enjoyment it nets you
  • Not to mention that Xbox Live is only $39.99 if you shop around. In fact I've gotten it at that price from Microsoft directly for the past couple of years. $39.99/12 months is about $3.33 a month... It's very affordable for most people, even teens getting allowance if that's still a thing. (I mowed lawns in the neighborhood as a teenager to make extra bucks, but I got $5 a month as allowance when my dad could afford it. It would have taken me about 2 months to save up $60 back then but I'd have played for a year! Totally doable and worth it.
  • For real. And if you get IGN's deal newsletter or have a Costco membership, you can usually get a 12-month live code for $34.99. 
  • Maybe he sounds entitled but he does have a good point. I imagine like most grown people, he works hard to have that confidence in his budgeting. He could have phrased a bit more politely.
    Spending roughly $500 for a console (obviously depends on console package, accessories, and games you purchase) and people complain about an optional $60 annual fee? I mean it sucks but if that's stretching your funds, maybe you should look and an Xbox 360 or PC game on existing machines (if you have them). These are luxury items we're talking about after all, not essential products.
  • Who's to say that the people complaining are grown people with a job? They could easily be teenagers or young adults that have to budget their money and can only buy 1 or 2 games per year. Plus, who's to say that the people saying this don't have a 360? They could've just already bought a cheaper console.
  • Not to mention the free games they're giving away monthly. Lol. AND if you use BING on anything signed into your acct you get Credits. I use the credits every month or two to get a free month of Gold... I almost never pay for Gold anymore.
  • Sorry for the duche bagness on this, I was waiting for my food and tried to write it out really quick, but if you read it for what it is. You get the point i was trying to make.  $60 a year is nothing when you look at the grand scheme of what you will pay per a year for gaming. So if you can't aford to pay $60 dollars a year to play online games with your XBox, then you may have an issue. Just saying.
  • The people who complain are probably the same people who think 2$ is too much for an app.
  • But the same people that complain probably upgrade their iphone every time a new one comes out.
  • ...And then they also own an iPad and iWatch... 
  • I have a doubt and I hope someone clarify me... A friend can play on Xbox Live whiteout Gold, I mean he can play COD GHOST, Assassins Creed Black Flag, Master Chief Collection and others whiteout having Gold, even I can! Actually any profile on that console can play whiteout Gold. Is a thing of the Xbox One, or is a failure or in Xbox One you don't require a Gold account to play on Live? Which I don't think it is.... Someone know something?
  • One of the profiles on that console has gold. All others on that console get the gold benefits from that profile
  • That is one thing I like about the x1, on the ps4 you need separate subs. -.-.
  • Whiteout gold, lol
  • I wonder how he made the mistake. It didn't really make much sense to only have that small portion not require gold.
  • 343 are totally retarded
  • Are you five years old?
  • Why this stupid question ?
    First they say no need for gold. Few hours layer they changed their minds... Who's the child
  • Who has a silver account anyway?
  • Me, even though I don't even have a console yet Posted via the Windows Central App for Android
  • Buzz kill ms
  • Well duh. Where do you think they make their money
  • Everybody was about to an xbox
  • Oh well. Have to see if I still have gold by then anyway. More likely play on PS4 more often by then.
  • 9 years after the Zune and MS STILL sucks ass at PR
  • of course your comment makes sense. /s
  • Well looks like no Halo 5 for PC. They will probably announce Halo online for both PC and Xbox with no live subscription.
  • Doubt it'll be on xbox
  • So Microsoft made the announcement everyone was expecting them to. Nothing more to see here, move along everyone.
  • "Halo 5 will require Xbox Live Gold for online co-op after all" soooo, what is surprising about it? Gold has been required to play online for many years. so why would this be different? Everyone who thought silver was going to be supported was dreaming. of course it would be nice if Microsoft dropped gold requierement, maybe someday, but today, it won't happen. it's not even that expensive, and you usually get 1 month or 3 months when you buy your xbox. and getting a year gold is not expesnive either if you but it in special deals at $40. what is $40 if you get free games and get to play online? not much to me. People might complain. but online needs gold, so I knew it before this "correction".
  • Destiny tbh
  • He was probably thinking about the PC version. Halo 5 for PC confirmed!! Lol
  • LOL
  • Eh whatever, I always have Xbox live.
  • So, you have an Xbox One without Gold? Ho, boy, lol.
  • Plenty to do, mine elapsed and I haven't renewed it.
  • Christ the circlejerk and fanboyism is strong here.  I play on handhelds, mobile, PC, consoles, I play what's fun, with my friends.  Why is it so difficult for so many people to just agree that games are fun?  If you think your platform is superior, you are the problem.
  • Microsoft just ruined Halo 5
  • LOLwut?