My thoughts are: Because Reach's multiplayer was not constantly updated, it was not as well received as it should have been. And though I enjoyed it, I thought the campaign for Reach was the weakest in the series. I can understand people's disappointment with campaign even if I don't think it was the reason people moved on. Halo 3 multiplayer was very different from launch compared to right now. Unless my memory betrays me, I believe there were many large patches that tweaked weapons melee, grenades, shields, etc. Think of how long Halo 3's multiplayer lasted and the long term following it had. Compare that to Reach... I think people were expecting that same thing and were let down. I think a major player was the lack of patches from the start, so a large portion of complainers and disappointed people left. That combined with Halo 4 being released only two years later made Reach have a shorter life span than other Halo games. Unfortunately, I think many people will dismiss Reach as "not Halo" or "just a misstep" which is something I wholeheartedly disagree with. I would like to point out that I'm not cursing anyone here. This was a transfer of a major franchise from one studio to another. All things considered, I think the job was executed well... if a little rough around the edges. Bungie was finished with Halo and wanted to start work on their next game. And I was pleasantly surprised with the care that 343 put into the shift. Combat Evolved Anniversary was lovely and I really enjoyed the updates and maps they made for Reach near the end. I also really enjoy Halo 4 but I guess its up to you to decide whether it was a step forward or backward. So I do agree that Destiny is a large reason for Reach's lack of title updates. They had their attention elsewhere after they shipped the game. Do I think that was a mistake more so on Bungie's part? I am certainly leaning that direction. But if Destiny delivers I think it will be a game much more important than Halo.