As I was reporting our MTVNews.com story about the announcement of "Halo 3: Recon" yesterday, I sent a note to Xbox public relations to clarify a few things.
I asked if the game was disc-based or downloadable (I hadn't seen the box art yet) and heard back from a Microsoft spokesperson that the game is disc-based.
I asked how much it would cost and was told that would be announced later.
And I asked if 'Halo 3 Recon" consumers would be required to own a copy of "Halo 3"?
This is the response to that last question, from a Microsoft spokesperson: "No. 'Halo 3: Recon' is a standalone expansion of 'Halo 3' that can be enjoyed by everyone – even those who have not played or completed the original. However, there are several bonuses and surprises to be found in “Halo 3: Recon” for those who played and completed the original game."
There are two ways to interpret that. One: the mere practice of experiencing the adventure of "Halo 3" will make the events of "Recon" more meaningful to players of the new game. Two: "Recon" could detect whether you have a "Halo 3" game save and unlock bonus content because of it. It's happened for other sequels. The "Ratchet & Clank" games on the PS2 could detect that you'd played previous games in the series and arm you character with weapons you earned in those previous games.
I asked the Microsoft spokesperson which of those interpretations would be correct. Are they talking knowing-the-story-better bonuses or actual unlocked-content bonuses? They're not saying.
If you're a "Halo" fan, which way do you think it should go? Should "Halo 3" gamers get special unlocks in "Halo 3: Recon"?