Gaming News

ERG89

johnny_ultimate wrote:

Fascinating development. I'd be really interested in seeing Bungie's uncompromised vision of the series.

If they were surprised with having compromises working with Activision they must be morons.
It's like when the guys at the old Infinity Ward went from Activision to EA it's like they really couldn't help themselves.

johnny_ultimate

ERG89 wrote: »

If they were surprised with having compromises working with Activision they must be morons.
It's like when the guys at the old Infinity Ward went from Activision to EA it's like they really couldn't help themselves.

I’d be fairly confident they probably also needed significant funds from one of the biggest publishers on the planet to develop their rather outrageously expensive game

super_furry

I'm not even sure that Activision had much of a role in the direction Bungie has gone since Halo Reach. By all accounts they were very hands-off and Bungies missteps were all of their own making.

Robert ninja

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

Madness.

I genuinely cant understand that mentality when it comes to PC.
Fair enough on console, its a hassle that everything cant all be on the one system. but we're talking a different icon on the desktop ffs.

For me it's not wanting to fund the spread of DRM. Non-steam clients often have stricter DRM. I buy from DRM-free platforms whenever I can and the only reason I even tolerate steam anymore is because of the linux support and massive library.

super_furry

super_furry wrote: »

I'm not even sure that Activision had much of a role in the direction Bungie has gone since Halo Reach. By all accounts they were very hands-off and Bungies missteps were all of their own making.

Anything to support this claim out of interest?

My own thoughts, just a hunch but I think it gives clear insight into AAA publishers and their constant interference with modern game development to maximize profits around monetization regardless of it damaging the actual product quality or game devs actual vision.

Benzino

Fair play to Bungie for getting that freedom but you have to tip your hat to Activision too. They took a huge risk with Destiny (wasn't it something like 300 million?) on what was a somewhat risky game in what was basically a new genre. Destiny may never exist if it wasn't for them.

heebusjeebus

super_furry wrote: »

I'm not even sure that Activision had much of a role in the direction Bungie has gone since Halo Reach. By all accounts they were very hands-off and Bungies missteps were all of their own making.

Didn't Activision push Bungie to get Destiny 1 released ASAP with very little content?
I've a feeling if it was up to Bungie, they'd have let it cook in the oven a little longer.

ZiabR

Fred The Red wrote: »

Anything to support this claim out of interest?

My own thoughts, just a hunch but I think it gives clear insight into AAA publishers and their constant interference with modern game development to maximize profits around monetization regardless of it damaging the actual product quality or game devs actual vision.

This is 100% correct. I have been saying it for years. Every time I see a studio being bought by either Activision or EA I cant help but fear that the studio will suffer the same faith as so many others. EA and Activision are the two worst companies for rushing out unfinished games in order to make a quick buck. Time after time, the game and the studio suffer.

I still buy some of their games but I cant stand either one of these companies.

PhlegmyMoses

super_furry wrote: »

I'm not even sure that Activision had much of a role in the direction Bungie has gone since Halo Reach. By all accounts they were very hands-off and Bungies missteps were all of their own making.

The direction that the game has taken with regards to gameplay/story etc is 100% on Bungie.

But the way that they have handled the DLC aspect - base game hollow but fleshes out over time with content clearly stripped from the game - feels contrary to the Bungie we know and has all of the hallmarks of a parent company trying to extract as much money as possible.

I do not think that there is any coincidence between Activision calling Bungie out on their pre-Christmas earnings call for underperforming (read: good game, but how do we monetise it more) and then this decision, likely from both parties.

I also believe that the Bungie leadership group put up a hell of a fight against microtransactions. After a rocky start, the mtx have been scaled back dramatically, are only cosmetic items, and all barr about 1% of the items on sale are realistically gettable by just playing the game.

I think that most of the silly design decisions are 100% on Bungie, so expect that to continue (it is an excellent game though, warts and all) but the more insidious attempts to monetise was almost certainly Activision. I could be completely wrong but we will see in the future.

Vicxas

I think overall this is a good thing. Will give other Dev's the courage to see that you can get out under the thumb of huge publishers.

I'm not overly worried right now for Bungie but self publishing a game is tough, just look at how hard CD Projekt Red had to work to get the Witcher out the door.

gimli2112

The relationship between Bungie and Activision has been toxic by all accounts. Destiny 2 was a disaster on many fronts but each blamed the other
Bungie are no saints here either but Activision are a truly horrible entity. Skill Up released a video a few days back where he said he hoped EA and Activision would go to the wall and Blizzard and Bungie could get out from under them.

Kiith

Wonder will we see Destiny 2 or 3 on Steam now, or will they keep the Blizzard launcher?

ZiabR

gimli2112 wrote: »

The relationship between Bungie and Activision has been toxic by all accounts. Destiny 2 was a disaster on many fronts but each blamed the other
Bungie are no saints here either but Activision are a truly horrible entity. Skill Up released a video a few days back where he said he hoped EA and Activision would go to the wall and Blizzard and Bungie could get out from under them.

Good points. For me Blizzard make amazing games. I was genuinely shocked when I heard that they were joining up with Activision. You have to remember they released WoW in 2004 and the Warcraft franchise has made Blizzard over 10 billion dollars! That is before you count Starcraft, Overwatch etc.

In my mind, they never needed to join with Activision and they are no doubt regretting it now.

TitianGerm

Kiith wrote: »

Wonder will we see Destiny 2 or 3 on Steam now, or will they keep the Blizzard launcher?

It'll stay where it is I'd say or maybe Epic will pick it up if they are forced to move.

Robert ninja

This employee left Blizzard because of racial abuse & discrimination.

https://twitter.com/Psychlolis/status/1082515598184271872

ZiabR

Robert ninja wrote: »

This employee left Blizzard because of racial abuse & discrimination.

https://twitter.com/Psychlolis/status/1082515598184271872

Not really sure what your point is here? We are talking about the companies as a whole. If we look at any large corporation in the world they will all have had an employee who has left due to what they deem as racial abuse & discrimination.

Benzino

ZiabR wrote: »

Not really sure what your point is here? We are talking about the companies as a whole. If we look at any large corporation in the world they will all have had an employee who has left due to what they deem as racial abuse & discrimination.

Probably because the thread is about gaming news.

Benzino

ZiabR wrote: »

In my mind, they never needed to join with Activision and they are no doubt regretting it now.

Curious as to why you think this.

Robert ninja

ZiabR wrote: »

Not really sure what your point is here?

It's news and Blizzard have been in the news for two other related topics recently.

SEGA has more plans for PC.
https://nichegamer.com/2019/01/10/sega-teases-more-exciting-news-for-future-pc-releases/
I really hope the rest of the Yakuza series and friends like Fist of the North Star & Judge Eyes get fully realised there and they drop the DRM.

Penn

Benzino wrote: »

Curious as to why you think this.

In fairness, the biggest complaints about Destiny tend to have stemmed from decisions it's reported Activision had a hand in. Most would agree that in terms of graphics, gameplay, design etc, the Destiny games are fantastic. But I don't think they ever lived up to their potential as the first game seemed very rushed out and pared down from what it should have been or what it was supposed to be (particularly when it came to story, characters, endgame etc). With subsequent releases of DLC the game did improve greatly.

Then when it came to Destiny 2, lootboxes/mtxs pushed harder than before (to the point of changing/regressing the cosmetic system in the game to push it more towards lootbox mechanics), more grinding elements introduced, story done better but still fairly watered down, still having to stick to regular DLC release schedules (purportedly on Activision's orders).

I think many love Destiny and for the most part, they're great games (think Destiny 1 was actually one of my top 3 games played on PS4 according to the PS story videos you could make over Xmas), but from the start I don't think Bungie were ever able to truly make the game what they wanted it to be, and it does seem like Activision were at least as much to blame for that as anyone, if not more so.

This news has actually somewhat piqued my interest in a Destiny 3 whereas had Activision remained as publisher, I would have felt it a case of twice bitten, thrice shy.

gizmo

It's all too easy to lay the blame for Destiny's problems on Activision but thanks to both the availability of the contract between Bungie and the publisher following the lawsuit between the latter and the former Infinity Ward heads and the rather excellent long form article from Jason Schreier which features numerous interviews with both current and former employees at Bungie, we have a pretty good view on what actually happened during development.

As you can see from the article it was Bungie leadership who chose to reboot the story a year from launch, a decision which directly led to the incoherence of the storyline, the content (or lack thereof) that would make it into the final game and, most importantly in this context, the need for another extension to their development schedule, one which Activision agreed to despite their reputation for pushing games out the door unfinished.

What would have exacerbated the problems created by this rather large shift in design were the technical issues that the studio faced during development due to the state of their engine and toolset. Despite the change in direction for the core game, the contract between the two companies still stipulated the delivery of a number of post-release content packs on a defined schedule so not only had the team to create new content for both the core game and these expansions but existing content was being shifted between the two. With the tools in the state described, this would have massively hindered their workflow when they were already behind schedule.

Finally, putting aside the actual game and looking at staff issues around then. Following the reboot of the story, not only did Joe Staten, who was Story Director on the title and responsible for the original world, leave the company but those whom he hired during his tenure also did so after the game shipped. A more significant departure, however, was that of Marty O'Donnell, the rather well known composer who had been with Bungie since 2001. The circumstances of his termination were covered in this article which show both Activision and later Bungie themselves acting fairly abominably. Thankfully he went on to win the ensuing legal action against his former employers.

So yea, it's definitely more complicated than Activision just being the bad guys in this situation. The more you know, etc...


As for Bungie parting ways with Activison and their direction for the future, can we not forget that it was only in June last year that the company got a $100m investment from the Chinese company NetEase for work on a future non-Destiny title. Remember NetEase, the company making Diablo Immortal for Blizzard?

ZiabR wrote: »

Good points. For me Blizzard make amazing games. I was genuinely shocked when I heard that they were joining up with Activision. You have to remember they released WoW in 2004 and the Warcraft franchise has made Blizzard over 10 billion dollars! That is before you count Starcraft, Overwatch etc.

In my mind, they never needed to join with Activision and they are no doubt regretting it now.

They didn't join with Activision, they had been a wholly owned subsidiary of Vivendi since 1998 and it was this parent company who merged with Activision ten years later.

Penn

gizmo wrote: »

So yea, the more you know etc...

Thanks for that. Certainly shines a different light on things. While I didn't think Activision were solely to blame, I was perhaps seeing them as being a bigger part of the problem than they were and being unfair to them. I think they always seemed like the ones likely at fault because for the most part, the actual gameplay of Destiny was incredibly well done, and in terms of story it seemed like all the pieces were there, but just weren't put together (particularly as they had so much of the lore etc written, but it was just shoved into those Grimoire cards that you couldn't even read within the game).

gimli2112

Activision have many more crimes against humanity than Destiny. I can't forgive them for what COD has become. If you try and argue for them the irrational part of my brain engages.
At the end of the day they are a large corporate orginisation trying to maximise profits and growth . Ewwwww!

Benzino

Penn wrote: »

In fairness, the biggest complaints about Destiny tend to have stemmed from decisions it's reported Activision had a hand in. Most would agree that in terms of graphics, gameplay, design etc, the Destiny games are fantastic. But I don't think they ever lived up to their potential as the first game seemed very rushed out and pared down from what it should have been or what it was supposed to be (particularly when it came to story, characters, endgame etc). With subsequent releases of DLC the game did improve greatly.

Then when it came to Destiny 2, lootboxes/mtxs pushed harder than before (to the point of changing/regressing the cosmetic system in the game to push it more towards lootbox mechanics), more grinding elements introduced, story done better but still fairly watered down, still having to stick to regular DLC release schedules (purportedly on Activision's orders).

I think many love Destiny and for the most part, they're great games (think Destiny 1 was actually one of my top 3 games played on PS4 according to the PS story videos you could make over Xmas), but from the start I don't think Bungie were ever able to truly make the game what they wanted it to be, and it does seem like Activision were at least as much to blame for that as anyone, if not more so.

This news has actually somewhat piqued my interest in a Destiny 3 whereas had Activision remained as publisher, I would have felt it a case of twice bitten, thrice shy.

Well the original comment was referring to Blizzard, so I just curious to see why Blizzard would regret it as from my perspective, nothing seems to have changed with Blizzard in terms of their games or their quality output.

I do agree with gizmo, I think people are too quick to blame Activision for Destiny's issues without knowing the full story. I'm sure both parties are equally to blame but let's not forget making games is hard and Destiny was still a great game.

Benzino

gimli2112 wrote: »

Activision have many more crimes against humanity than Destiny. I can't forgive them for what COD has become. If you try and argue for them the irrational part of my brain engages.
At the end of the day they are a large corporate orginisation trying to maximise profits and growth . Ewwwww!

I used to love CoD, from the original ones to modern warfare. I can't play them now, I think the SP is awful rubbish and in MP 99% of the time I'm dead before I even see anybody.

But I kinda think that is down to the market changing and me getting older to be honest. The games have never been more successful, so perhaps I'm out of touch?

ZiabR

gizmo wrote: »

They didn't join with Activision, they had been a wholly owned subsidiary of Vivendi since 1998 and it was this parent company who merged with Activision ten years later.

While I agree, I don't for a second believe that Activation has not impacted some of the decisions made by Blizzard.

Mitch Connor

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

I do not think that there is any coincidence between Activision calling Bungie out on their pre-Christmas earnings call for underperforming (read: good game, but how do we monetise it more) and then this decision, likely from both parties.
.

The Forsaken lead was also very quick to hit twitter after that call to say Bungie were proud of Forsaken, and were happy with the performance.

Looking back now, and the assumption this decoupling has been on the cards for a while, you'd have to think this was them butting heads over the same coversation/PR.

SolvableKnave

Article on Bloomberg about the divorce. It was all about the cashmoney on Acti's side.

gizmo

ZiabR wrote: »

While I agree, I don't for a second believe that Activation has not impacted some of the decisions made by Blizzard.

Of course they'll have impacted some of the decisions made by Blizzard, they're funding their company.

Mitch Connor wrote: »

The Forsaken lead was also very quick to hit twitter after that call to say Bungie were proud of Forsaken, and were happy with the performance.

Looking back now, and the assumption this decoupling has been on the cards for a while, you'd have to think this was them butting heads over the same coversation/PR.

That's not exactly what happened but, imo, is a decent indication of the underlying problem between the two. This is what Luke Smith said. As you can see, he makes no comment on how the released preformed, just that they were proud of the quality.

https://twitter.com/thislukesmith/status/1061317979881656320?s=21

During the investor call prior to this comment, the COO of Activision said this...

“While Forsaken is a high-quality expansion with strong engagement and new modes of play, it did not achieve our commercial expectations,” said COO Coddy Johnson. “There’s still work to do to fully reengage the core Destiny fan base.

“We have not yet seen the full core reengage in Destiny, which has led to the underperformance against our expectations to date. Some players we think are still in wait-and-see mode. So when you’re in, you’re deeply engaged. If you’re not, we’re hoping now is the time to work and to bring players back in and to win them back.”

“We’re working to accelerate the pace of live operations innovation and improve the speed with which we release new content to keep our players engaged and to provide new opportunities for monetization,” added company CFO Spencer Neumann.

Activision also seem happy with the quality but from their end, aren't happy with the sales up until that point.

The last part of the statement is when things start getting hairy. Increasing LiveOps innovation costs money, improving the speed at which content is released is going to hurt Bungie and providing new opportunities for monetization, while gross given the history of the release of Destiny 2 and it's DLC plan, is also a sign they most definitely weren't happy with the revenue from the core releases themselves.

So, putting that together with the fanbase reception to Forsaken, you have a developer who is happy with the content it's created that appeals to the core audience and a publisher unhappy with its commercial response who believes the way forward is to spend more money, push the developer harder and potentially re-introduce systems responsible for the initial negative reception to the release.

In light of this and given the fact that the contract between the pair stated Bungie would earn 20-35% of the operating income for Destiny and they would keep the IP regardless of whether the relationship with Activision dissolved. I'm not massively surprised that the Activision have walked and Bungie are quite happy to see them go.

gimli2112

EA and Activision don't seem to understand you can monetise a game successfully by giving people what they want and not simply charging for everything they want. COD started charging for red dot sights last week and a corner of the internet exploded.