there are too many claims and sources flying around of late to start addressing them all (in due time), but this one is annoyingly false. There was no "leadership blacklist." Sure, some ppl and partners understandably don't like negative/critical sentiment or coverage - particularly with things like review copies/early access which are inherently intended to drive (good) awareness. Xperia's video actually directly led to some specific AI improvements at the finish line. Who knows who might have or have not been included "next time", there was no next time even on deck. It's all just speculative and baseless. "the thing we don't like ended up in the game" doesn't correlate to "the developers only listened to yes-men in the community." Overall project and stakeholder vision and intent, real world constraints (time/resources), and/or conflicting preferences shared by different groups are all reasons why things end up the way they do that any of us may not like in the end result. In my experience in some of these groups, feedback was measured and mature, and there were countless debates, but certainly not just glazing for the sake of glazing. Personal opinions vary as much as those across this passionate community. T Additionally, something like a council group is but one vector of insights that goes along with traditional user research (administered hands-on tests and focus surveys), inputs like support tickets, playtesting, partners, and even anecdotal community feedback - positive and negative (videos, posts, etc.). I'm grateful for everyone who has shared feedback in a respectful, constructive manner wherever and however it occurred. It's a gift and Halo is fortunate to have such a passionate longstanding community. I look forward to seeing how community and player insights shape the future of Halo.