{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
7/27/2015 8:09:12 PM
1
Yep. So Bungie says game needs to wait. Activision says no. And penalties seem rather severe so makes sense. Bungie is gonna need a lot of money the way they run to maintain independence. One of their main focuses are keeping control of intellectual property. To continue in this way means they have to pay more themselves. Kinda looks like the Bungie Activision combo was a bad match. Maybe they should have picked a company that is more willing to wait to produce something great rather than go for straight output and deadlines. Would also explain the rush job feel of past dlc.
English
-
[quote]Kinda looks like the Bungie Activision combo was a bad match. [/quote] I would've said terrible, but yeah. You have to ask yourself though, 'what were their other options". Bungie is contractually obligated not to work on a single other project, in any way at all, until after Activision has made $X. They're not allowed to make another shooter for X years after the Destiny project is over. They're required to give Activision right of first refusal on any future projects within X years. I mean Activision practically owns Bungie for the next 10-15 years. I can't imagine they took that deal if there was another reputable company offering them something better.
-
Probably weren't many if any other options not wanting intellectual property rights. Most other big names had plenty of other titles. So wouldn't be offering supper good deals. Activision would have been facing CoD starting to flounder a bit so would have been looking. MS might have also black listed them. Which may explain the CoD first on Xbox deal no longer being in effect. Just wish Bungie could have gotten a company that'd say you do what you do, just remember to pay us after. That probably would have made Destiny live up to the hype.
