Support NeoGAF

[Gordon0Freeman]

This is the first I have looked into Black Tusk studios. Do we know anything about the people that work there and the quality of work we should expect from them?

Lead designer of Crysis 2 is working on it and is joined by many members of EA. I'm guessing, just like with 343, that there's a wide range of talent on the team. Expect a "Gears of Halo."

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2012/11/29/microsoft-opens-new-video-game-studio-in-vancouver/

And does 343 have multiple teams?

No clue.

 

[jbug617]

Lead designer of Crysis 2 is working on it and is joined by many members of EA. I'm guessing, just like with 343, that there's a wide range of talent on the team. Expect a "Gears of Halo."

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2012/11/29/microsoft-opens-new-video-game-studio-in-vancouver/

I seen rumors of Black Tusk game being similar to Dead Space but a FPS.

 

[DopeyFish]

Right, they had first refusal...and they....refused.

Activision is the publisher. They hired PS3 developers.

End of story.

They have first refusal, yes. But bungie was trying to get a 4 title guarantee... So they want a big contract. Considering majority of those projects aren't in development yet, Microsoft could have them by the throat.

That's why the likeliness of an exclusivity window emerged.

And hiring PS3 developers would be helpful as they have experience with Sony tools, just sayin. Even though again, if plans go through they do plan on releasing on ps3, eventually. And ps4.... For destiny 2

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

They have first refusal, yes. But bungie was trying to get a 4 title guarantee... So they want a big contract. Considering majority of those projects aren't in development yet, Microsoft could have them by the throat.

That's why the likeliness of an exclusivity window emerged.

And hiring PS3 developers would be helpful as they have experience with Sony tools, just sayin.

No, it doesn't work like that.

I'm positive that when Activision signed their contract, Microsoft wasn't involved at all for this series.

It's possible they could be involved for a different series, but Bungie's only committed to Destiny.

 

[Xamdou]

No, it doesn't work like that.

I'm positive that when Activision signed their contract, Microsoft wasn't involved at all for this series.

It's possible they could be involved for a different series, but Bungie's only committed to Destiny.

You got a link to the Bungie/Activision contract?

 

[Gordon0Freeman]

Destiny is multiplat. Maybe "Marathon" is exclusive for Xbox...

 

[XtremeXpider]

To the dashboard, yes. But list what's been added to in game/guide experience outside of

Party chat
More notification types
Windows live messenger
and launching from a list of apps
...

I am drawing blanks

When talking about limited for OS we are strictly referring to persistent processes which are running at all times the system is on regardless of what application or game is running

- Party chat
- Avatars
- Kinect software (present always in Kinect games)
- SmartGlass
- Recent
- Cloud
- Messenger

 

[Proxy]

You got a link to the Bungie/Activision contract?

Here you go :

http://documents.latimes.com/bungie-activision-contract/

 

[DopeyFish]

No, it doesn't work like that.

I'm positive that when Activision signed their contract, Microsoft wasn't involved at all for this series.

It's possible they could be involved for a different series, but Bungie's only committed to Destiny.

Oh it doesn't work like that eh? So Microsoft can't leverage the current running contract with bungie (which we don't have full details of) to get exclusivity while in the end benefitting bungie with long term stability? This is what we call a win-win... Small pain for big gain.

Bungie employees didn't wake up one day and magically say "we are splitting from Microsoft". They had to fight for it and they punched out a contract. For 1 game at a time... First refusal is easy. For multiple games, there has to be give. It's the balance of business.

Though please explain no destiny 1 for ps4 in activision contract...

- Party chat
- Avatars
- Kinect software (present always in Kinect games)
- SmartGlass
- Recent
- Cloud
- Messenger

That's not a lot, considering.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Oh it doesn't work like that eh? So Microsoft can't leverage the current running contract with bungie (which we don't have full details of) to get exclusivity while in the end benefitting bungie with long term stability? This is what we call a win-win... Small pain for big gain.

Bungie employees didn't wake up one day and magically say "we are splitting from Microsoft". They had to fight for it and they punched out a contract. For 1 game at a time... First refusal is easy. For multiple games, there has to be give. It's the balance of business.

Though please explain no destiny 1 for ps4 in activision contract...

This is activision's contract for 4 games w/ Destiny...

Do you honestly think Microsoft can go through and refuse all of them?

Microsoft already refused the series....Activision wouldn't sign if Microsoft could block them.

 

[sangreal]

it says in the contract that Microsoft lost its control when Halo: Reach grossed $250M

it also makes it pretty obvious that Destiny 1 will be timed exclusive

 

[sangreal]

Unless I'm reading the contract wrong, I don't see a mention of 720 for Destiny 1 either.

the first sentence of 2.1(b)

 

[DopeyFish]

This is activision's contract for 4 games w/ Destiny...

Do you honestly think Microsoft can go through and refuse all of them?

Microsoft already refused the series....Activision wouldn't sign if Microsoft could block them.

2.1b first paragraph.

Since its a series, there's likely a give and take. They refuse on a game by game basis. Bungie sits down with MS and nails out something that's amicable to both parties. Takes to activision... Says "this is what we CAN do" activision sees $$$ considering these guys made halo, hugely profitable on a singular platform. Activision would have probably wanted to put everything on every platform in existence... But it's not in their control

 

[jbug617]

edit: beaten

Maybe we will get answers at GDC.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

the first sentence of 2.1(b)

Just saw that.

But then it goes on to say that the scope of the funding is only for the release of the 360 version, with no mention of the 720 port.

I think this whole contract has everything to do with funding and capabilities, i.e., covering Bungie's ass, than it does with any sort of Microsoft timed-exclusivity deal.

If it's easy enough to port, I think they will. It's in activision's best interest.

And if rumors that the PS4 and Durango have identical CPUs and similar GPU architecture, then porting it will be of no consequence whatsoever.

 

[onQ123]

Question for Proelite:


When you seen the Xbox 3 Devkit specs that made you say that the Xbox 3 is going to be a beast , was the Move Engine part of the Devkit? & where was the Kinect 2 code being processed on?



because I'm thinking that maybe the GPGPU was as powerful as it was because it was needed to emulate the 1.2TFLOP GPU with the Move Engine & the extra computing power was needed for running the early Kinect 2 code.


or is there something that you know about the final hardware that you're not telling us?

 

[sangreal]

Just saw that.

But then it goes on to say that the scope of the funding is only for the release of the 360 version, with no mention of the 720 port.

I think this whole contract has everything to do with funding and capabilities, i.e., covering Bungie's ass, than it does with any sort of Microsoft timed-exclusivity deal.

If it's easy enough to port, I think they will. It's in activision's best interest.

And if rumors that the PS4 and Durango have identical CPUs and similar GPU architecture, then porting it will be of no consequence whatsoever.

it says they will consider porting so I'm sure they will, but it says 2014 versus 2013. it also says they can't be forced into a simultaneous release. I guess they could do it voluntarily. We'll see, I suppose

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

it says in the contract that Microsoft lost its control when Halo: Reach grossed $250M

Lost control, as in -- they no longer have any first refusal rights? Bungie is completely free to sign with whomever they choose?

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

it says they will consider porting so I'm sure they will, but it says 2014 versus 2013. it also says they can't be forced into a simultaneous release. I guess they could do it voluntarily. We'll see, I suppose

Yeah, like I said, the phrasing of it (to me) suggests that for the contract Bungie was given a certain amount of funding, and have to meet certain milestones.

Bungie's a large studio, but they're still bound to the limitations of funding via their publisher. The contract just established a baseline minimum requirement so that they don't breach their contract and possibly have future funding withdrawn. Better from their perspective to be conservative with those milestones.

Like I said, if it's easy enough to port, they will. This is simply a CYA.

 

[sangreal]

Lost control, as in -- they no longer have any first refusal rights? Bungie is completely free to sign with whomever they choose?

Sorry I meant $295M but that is the impression I got:

At such time as Halo: Reach achieves in excess of Two Hundred Ninety Five Million Dollars ($295,000,000) in net revenues after commercial release ("Earnout"), no third party shall have any consent or veto rights over any issuances or transfers of Licensor equity or any Licensor corporate transactions, including a Change of Control.

Yeah, like I said, the phrasing of it (to me) suggests that for the contract Bungie was given a certain amount of funding, and have to meet certain milestones.

Bungie's a large studio, but they're still bound to the limitations of funding via their publisher. The contract just established a baseline minimum requirement so that they don't breach their contract and possibly have future funding withdrawn. Better from their perspective to be conservative with those milestones.

Like I said, if it's easy enough to port, they will. This is simply a CYA.

probably - part of the problem is we don't have any of the attachments with the real details. I suspect they started development on xbox before signing the contract so the whole thing is just to make sure they aren't forced to rush out a port if time is not permitting. I think that's what you're getting at too

 

[Proxy]

Doesn't look like there is any actual timed exclusivity agreement. Bungie agrees to develop on the PS3 if the result of the "joint technical feasibility analysis" are positive. My guess if they can get it out at the same time as the 360 version they will. I guess we'll find out soon enough either way.

 

[RoboPlato]

I feel like the next gen version of Destiny will be Durango exclusive. Activision might be willing to go with that if they can still release 360/PS3 versions to take advantage of the install bases and get a big exclusivity check from Microsoft. I've been expecting MGS5 will be the same situation for Orbis.

 

[Xamdou]

the first sentence of 2.1(b)

That section mentions the Xbox 360, Xbox 720 and PS3 as the Destiny #1 platforms and does not mention the PS4.

 

[sangreal]

That section mentions the Xbox 360, Xbox 720 and PS3 as the Destiny #1 platforms and does not mention the PS4.

the question was about 720

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

I feel like the next gen version of Destiny will be Durango exclusive. Activision might be willing to go with that if they can still release 360/PS3 versions to take advantage of the install bases and get a big exclusivity check from Microsoft. I've been expecting MGS5 will be the same situation for Orbis.

Again, it doesn't make much sense to keep Destiny 720 exclusive from Activision's point of view if it's easy enough to port.

Meaning, if Bungie is too bogged down and are too financially constrained, a PS4 port won't happen at first.

But given the similarities in system design, you really have to wonder if this would be any real problem at all. Next-gen games will be MUCH easier on third parties from a porting perspective.

 

[Gorillaz]

Didn't the agreement of exclusity end tho? Since MS was allowed to invest in it and choose not too?

I see it being PS3(They added PSN log in on there site iirc)
360
Durango

 

[jbug617]

Doesn't look like there is any actual timed exclusivity agreement. Bungie agrees to develop on the PS3 if the result of the "joint technical feasibility analysis" are positive. My guess if they can get it out at the same time as the 360 version they will. I guess we'll find out soon enough either way.

yeah but that doesn't mean it not next gen exclusive. It could be PS3, 360 and Durango only.

 

[CrunchinJelly]

Didn't the agreement of exclusity end tho? Since MS was allowed to invest in it and choose not too?

I see it being PS3(They added PSN log in on there site iirc)
360
Durango

This is what I think it'll probably end up being.

 

[DopeyFish]

Doesn't look like there is any actual timed exclusivity agreement. Bungie agrees to develop on the PS3 if the result of the "joint technical feasibility analysis" are positive. My guess if they can get it out at the same time as the 360 version they will. I guess we'll find out soon enough either way.

Not for current gen, no. Next gen, however.

And from what I can see, $295 million for reach was a stipulation for bungie to become free of MS as an owner (basically earnings share towards bungie was going towards their value in shares at MS?) since they probably didn't have enough money on hand to buy themselves right out.

 

[Karak]

I seen rumors of Black Tusk game being similar to Dead Space but a FPS.

And one thing it is pretty unquestionable that they have some high level talent. We will see if they can fit something into that genre and keep it more horror than full tilt FPS. It will be interesting to also see if they stretch their legs or call it safe on their first game. Of all the new studios Black Tusk actually interests me the most. Simply because, in the long run, we know more about them than the others.

Also there are the PGR people and what they may do.

 

[XtremeXpider]

That's not a lot, considering.

For a 32MB OS it is.

 

[pharmboy044]

Again, it doesn't make much sense to keep Destiny 720 exclusive from Activision's point of view if it's easy enough to port.

Meaning, if Bungie is too bogged down and are too financially constrained, a PS4 port won't happen at first.

But given the similarities in system design, you really have to wonder if this would be any real problem at all. Next-gen games will be MUCH easier on third parties from a porting perspective.

It makes perfect sense to make it Durango exclusive because Activision will get bank from Microsoft for the exclusivity and still be able to publish the PS3 version to take advantage of the huge PS3 install base.
It's a win-win situation for them.

Edit: It would be hilarious if the PS4 had BC and you could play Destinity on it.

 

[LukasTaves]

My prediction for E3:

Exclusives:
Alan Wake 2
LionHead MMO
Black Tusk Shooter Teaser
Ryse
New Epic Game
Forza 5/PGR
New AAA Rare Game
343 Teaser ???

Timed Exclusives
Destiny

Third Party First Peak:
Next Gen COD
Next Gen Madden
At least 4x more next gen games.

Good enough for me.

Also would no surprise me if Microsoft gets something exclusive from Dead Rising 3.

Wait, what? There's a Dead Rising 3?

 

[InPlosion]

Regarding the Black Tusk studio rumors, don't you guys think the xbox has got enough shooters already? Wouldn't be better to differentiate the exclusive first party games offer a bit, on microsoft's part?

 

[CrunchinJelly]

Regarding the Black Tusk studio rumors, don't you guys think the xbox has got enough shooters already? Wouldn't be better to differentiate the exclusive first party games offering a bit, on microsoft's part?

It hasn't even been announced yet...

 

[DopeyFish]

For a 32MB OS it is.

I'm saying they wanted to add a LOT more than just that, though. And didn't realize the mistake they made until later (as they were first out the door)

So they're like "fuck it we aren't having that happen again!" And increased the footprint by 100x

 

[RoboPlato]

Regarding the Black Tusk studio rumors, don't you guys think the xbox has got enough shooters already? Wouldn't be better to differentiate the exclusive first party games offering a bit, on microsoft's part?

If they can't get another exclusivity contract with Epic or they don't want to do Gears anymore MS would probably want to secure another exclusive TPS.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

It makes perfect sense to make it Durango exclusive because Activision will get bank from Microsoft for the exclusivity and still be able to publish the PS3 version to take advantage of the huge PS3 install base.
It's a win-win situation for them.

Yeah, just like Microsoft was able to buy Call of Duty exclusivity...yeah, no they can't just do that.

They're trying to establish a huge series, signing an exclusivity contract with Microsoft may yield some short term $$$, but it would impact their business long-term.

Not a good business move, certainly not one Microsoft would be willing to drop major cash on...best they could do is maybe sign an exclusive DLC deal like they do with CoD.

 

[nib95]

I don't know, my money's still on Destiny being 720 exclusive, or at the least timed exclusive. Guess we'll see.

 

[Mrbob]

Have no idea what is going to happen with Destiny, but isn't that contract outdated? No use in referencing it anymore.

If I had to guess, Destiny will be released this way:

Xbox 360
PS3
Durango Timed Exclusive

But that isn't much an exclusive, anyway. Most people who want the game will buy it on 360 first and PS3 second since that is where the install base is. Durango Destiny is more of a bone thrown to MS to keep them happy.

 

[Karak]

I don't know, my money's still on Destiny being 720 exclusive, or at the least times exclusive. Guess we'll see.

A timed exclusive would make very good sense compared to a full exclusive, if this wasn't already decided. It would be less costly in the long run and would have a higher chance of both parties being open to it than a full exclusive. Again, if that contract isn't already binding and in some way changes that situation.

 

[CrunchinJelly]

Yeah, just like Microsoft was able to buy Call of Duty exclusivity...yeah, no they can't just do that.

They're trying to establish a huge series, signing an exclusivity contract with Microsoft may yield some short term $$$, but it would impact their business long-term.

Not a good business move, certainly not one Microsoft would be willing to drop major cash on...best they could do is maybe sign an exclusive DLC deal like they do with CoD.

You sound like you've got a lot of fingers crossed.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Have no idea what is going to happen with Destiny, but isn't that contract outdated? No use in referencing it anymore.

If I had to guess, Destiny will be released this way:

Xbox 360
PS3
Durango Timed Exclusive

But that isn't much an exclusive, anyway. Most people who want the game will buy it on 360 first and PS3 second since that is where the install base is. Durango Destiny is more of a bone thrown to MS to keep them happy.

Why does Activision or Bungie have to throw Microsoft a bone?

You sound like you've got a lot of fingers crossed.

I do! I want Destiny to be on as many platforms as possible.

I also think it's pretty logical given the contract terms. But we'll see.

 

[Mrbob]

Why does Activision or Bungie have to throw Microsoft a bone?

In reality they don't. The smart move would to be to release it on all 4 consoles on day one. Bungie and MS did have a long history though and maybe this is one last favor to them.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

In reality they don't. The smart move would to be to release it on all 4 consoles on day one. Bungie and MS did have a long history though.

A long one that ended poorly and caused them to split up. I don't think Bungie is playing any favors here.

 

[nib95]

In reality they don't. The smart move would to be to release it on all 4 consoles on day one. Bungie and MS did have a long history though and maybe this is one last favor to them.

Do they even have the development and man power to do that? Sounds ambitious.

 

[DopeyFish]

Why does Activision or Bungie have to throw Microsoft a bone?

Because Microsoft was the one that had to say no to publishing 4 games?

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Because Microsoft was the one that had to say no to publishing 4 games?

According to the contract they didn't have to once Reach managed to exceed a revenue threshold.

 

[XtremeXpider]

I'm saying they wanted to add a LOT more than just that, though. And didn't realize the mistake they made until later (as they were first out the door)

So they're like "fuck it we aren't having that happen again!" And increased the footprint by 100x

I don't think so, but well, we need to wait for more info.

 

[Pooya]

A long one that ended poorly and caused them to split up. I don't think Bungie is playing any favors here.

Microsoft still holds interest in the company if you read their statement above. they very well can negotiate things like that.