Support NeoGAF

[NullPointer]

This is the next-gen Call of Duty.

Yep. I can see it now.

Bungie releases the initial game, but has trouble getting the second one up to expectations in the time allotted. Treyarch comes to their rescue and helps make some maps and DLC bits. By the third game Bungie is kicked to the curb and Treyarch keeps the series going on life support. Bungie sues, and the court case starts up just as we're waiting for e3 to tell us about next-next-gen.

Not MMO. IT's MMO like. Think M.A.G or something like that.

Or Diablo III.

 

[Jake Tower]

Personally I find it kind of surprising that the majority of GAF doesn't own all 3 consoles at this point.

I know most people who play games don't buy that many games a year but this is GAF.

Are there still a lot of people loyal to one console maker?

I only have Xbox 360 out of the current consoles.

It's not because I'm loyal. It's a money thing. I intend to own the other two at some point, I hope before the next gen starts.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I knew Bungie kept their IP rights, but god damn is it great to read it codified into the contract like this.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Should we expect EA's contract with Respawn to come out of this also?

 

[EvB]

The document refers to a licensor doing the expansion packs, does this mean a treyarch style inbetween game?

 

[yurinka]

The parties also currently contemplate the development and commercial release od Destiny Game #1 for the PS3 in the Fall of 2014, subject to the parties hereto conducting a joint technical feasibility analysis that reasonabily establishes to the parties' mutual satistaction that Destiny Game #1 is able to be developed for the PS3 at quality and feature parity to the Xbox 360 version of Destiny Game #1.
...
however, that in the event the parties hereto agree that a PS3 version of Destiny Game #1 is not feasible, any costs of the technical feasibility analysis in excess of $2M shallbe excluded from the overall Project Accounting.
The parties shall seek to conclude technical diligence on whether to devel Destiny Game #1 for the PS3 by no later than January 31, 2001, to ascentain the commercial desirability of the PS3 SKU, taking into consideration the then prevailing information regarding expected market conditions and console transitions.
The baseline framework for analyzing the SKU plan of the Products is attached hereto as Exhibit F. Licensor agrees that it shall not willfully take any actions (or make any omissions) in its development of the Xbox 360 version of Destiny Game #1 to hinder or undermine the ability to also develop Destiny Game #1 for the PS3, in no event shall Licensor be required to simultaneously ship Destiny Game #1 for the Xbox 360 and PS3 in the Fall of 2013.

So Destiny 1 it's a 1 year timed exclusive, and would be released on PS3 if it doesn't give them too much trouble.

 

[cuevas. PhD.]

I'm deffo not buying 360 games in 2015.

All those people getting $99 360s will.

 

[Domino Theory]

Um.

Wow.

 

[shinobi602]

That's my point though, a year from now that will likely not be the case. In any event even if MW3 isn't ultimately a downward trend, I think the popular consensus is that CoD fatigue is going to set in much sooner rather than later, so even if sales aren't down yet Activision would be smart to thinking that far out (2013/14) because it's going to happen at some point. Regardless of sales I honestly think MW3 was the tipping point; IW was a shell of it's former self and it shows, every single person I know who I would dead-on describe as a casual gamer who played the shit out of MW2/Blops for that full cycle dropped MW3 within a couple of months and hasn't picked it back up. In either case though Activision only having to spend the resources on one CoD team instead of two is probably a win for them regardless.

MW3 is the most played game on XBL right now. And I'll go out on a limb here and say PSN as well.

 

[Blizzard]

Personally I find it kind of surprising that the majority of GAF doesn't own all 3 consoles at this point.

I know most people who play games don't buy that many games a year but this is GAF.

Are there still a lot of people loyal to one console maker?

I play the vast majority of games on PC in Windows. Not because I'm loyal to Microsoft (in which case I would have a 360 as well), but because there are things I like about that situation, like Steam. That's at least one possible situation in which people might not want a 360 exclusive -- if I have the choice between a console version and a PC version, I prefer PC and I don't have a nice area to play console games where I live. (I also have a Wii and a DS/DSi but very rarely play them)

Other people can certainly have valid reasons for preferring otherwise, but I just wanted to give an example of why someone might not have all the consoles or want specific versions.

 

[Conor 419]

Good chance we'll see this at E3?

 

[Yo Gotti]

This will be epic. Can't wait until E3.

 

[ElRenoRaven]

Yep. I can see it now.

Bungie releases the initial game, but has trouble getting the second one up to expectations in the time allotted. Treyarch comes to their rescue and helps make some maps and DLC bits. By the third game Bungie is kicked to the curb and Treyarch keeps the series going on life support. Bungie sues, and the court case starts up just as we're waiting for e3 to tell us about next-next-gen.


Or Diablo III.

Read below quote

I knew Bungie kept their IP rights, but god damn is it great to read it codified into the contract like this.

Yes it is. Bungie has finally learned. THANK GOD ALMIGHTY!!!

 

[GarthVaderUK]

Smart move from MS getting the first one exclusive for however long, that strategy has worked well for them this gen.

This bit is interesting:

Activision shall have the right to terminate this Agreement without penalty upon written notice to Licensor in any of the following instances: after the launch of Destiny Game #1 if retail sales of Destiny Game #1 on a sell-through basis have not reached at feast five million (5,000,000) units (across all SKUs, regardless of the method of distribution) during the first six (6) months following commercial release; at any time after the launch of Comet #2 (across all SKUs) for any reason in Activision's sole discretion; in the event Licensor's "l-lalo: Reach" game (currently under development and to be published by l\/licrosolt) ("Halo: Reach") does not commercially release in 2010, unless Microsoft unilaterally determines to not release Halo: Reach for other than i_icensor's failure to deliver per Licensor's contractual obligations; in the event Halo: Reach fails to score a game rating of at least eighty (80) according to gamerankings.com or metacritic.com as measured one (1) month after release; or if retail sales of Halo: Reach on a sell-in basis have not reached at least six miilion (6,000,000) units during the first six (6) months following commercial release.

5 million sales in 6 months or the deal could be off.

 

[volturnus]

It seems one of their responsibilities is to make it a T-rated game:
(they are allowed to fail though, without changing anything regarding their bonuses, payment, etc)

 

[bigtroyjon]

lol, if the first game doesn't sell through 5 million in 6 months Activision can cancel the whole contract. I don't know why but I think I would find that hilarious if it ended up happening. This big massive deal gets cut down before it can really begin.

And there is no reason to think Microsoft has anything to do with the exclusivity, contract reads like Bungie didn't want to have to worry about a PS3 version affecting the development of the 360 version and with the PS4 on the horizon they are better off focusing on that instead of dealing with the PS3 for a single game.

It doesn't even say that the 360 version has to be exclusive, if they can get the PS3 version done in time I'm sure they will release it day and date. It's more about covering Bungie if they can't make it happen.

 

[faceless007]

How did the LA Times beat every games news journalist to this story? I think that's almost as big of a story as the the main course.

Ben Fritz is an actual VG journalist and has done a lot of stories about Activision. It wouldn't surprise me if he has sources in the company.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

I'm amazed that a studio of Bungie's calibre has to be on such a restrictive contract to develop the game they want to.

Bungie keeps the IP. Developers have to give up a lot to keep it but it is better for them in the long run. Look at Insomniac and all the games they have made over the last almost 20 years and not a single game is theirs. Owning IP is very, very important.

 

[shinobi602]

It seems one of their responsibilities is to make it a T-rated game:
(they are allowed to fail though, without changing anything regarding their bonuses, payment, etc)

Lol, how lame.

 

[EdibleExplosives]

Hmm, not sure how I feel about a game every 2 years with the expansion packs in between. It sounds way too hectic.

 

[Woorloog]

This will be epic. Can't wait until E3.

IIRC Bungie won't be at E3 this year, so unlikely it will be revealed there.
Bungie Day would be a better bet though.

 

[NullPointer]

Read below quote

Yes it is. Bungie has finally learned. THANK GOD ALMIGHTY!!!

 

[Mama Robotnik]

I never thought I'd see something like this with my own eyes:

With the words HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL meticulously present on every page.

Bungie has to respond to this, surely?

 

[Tunavi]

Calling it now, "Marathon 4" will release on December 21, 2014, 20 years after the original game

 

[Piano]

To develop the same franchise, every year for that long, would destroy my morale and creativity. If it were me - and I'm not a developer of course - I could only foresee my predetermined output in the franchise I am shackled to getting increasingly stagnant and derivative.

Hopefully, Bungie are better at coping with this regimented, intense, exhausting schedule than I would be,

Yeah, this sounds terrible. As I said before, seems like a total waste of a talented studio.

 

[wrowa]

Does seem pretty odd from a company that split from Microsoft and stuck a signed Declaration of Independence about how they wanted to be "free from any fiscal, creative, or political constraints from on high," as they put it.

I guess Destiny is what they want to do, but seem crazy to be locked in for so long.

I really get the impression that they misjudged what it means nowadays to be not only an independent developer, but an independent developer that wants to release what is considered as AAA games.

AAA games cost a lot of money to be developed and in order to be successful they also need a huge amount of marketing dollars behind it. I don't think that any publisher is willing to invest so much money to establish a new IP, if they aren't guaranteed that the IP will get multiple sequels if successful. Otherwise it's hard to make a profit.

 

[element]

This contract makes me chuckle. Wasnt the main reason they wanted out of the MS umbrella was to not have to do more Halo (aka sci-fi shooters)?

No. They wanted control over the IP. Microsoft had directions for where they wanted to take Halo, and Bungie didn't like that. Bungie wanted to pretty much OWN what they are working on. Every decision would come from them, not an outside force. Which is what they have with this contract.

It has little to do with the setting or even 'Halo'. It is all about control.

 

[Cartman86]

Ben Fritz is an actual VG journalist and has done a lot of stories about Activision. It wouldn't surprise me if he has sources in the company.

I'm pretty sure he reported on the Project Icebreaker story an hour or so before Klepek did on Giantbomb a couple days ago.

 

[Loudninja]

Man ho can a leak be this bad

 

[OldJadedGamer]

With the words HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL meticulously present on every page.

Bungie has to respond to this, surely?

Holy fuck. I feel really bad for Bungie right now. This is a HUGE leak.

Bungie can't complain about getting burned when they get into bed with the devil.

 

[Kai Dracon]

Random mass guessing: the "Destiny" game series is not 4 wholly separate sequels, but a major client update every 2 years which will expand game with a major new chapter in the meta fiction and a massive amount of new content.

Guild Wars style, where you're not paying a monthly fee to play.

Instead, extra monetization will occur by selling mid-cycle expansions to the story of the previous major Destiny intallment so that there's new Destiny content every year. And there will be a 'premium' subscription service like COD Elite focused on whatever competitive angle the series has, to offer the most complete experience to the hardcore players. But everyone else will be able to just buy the retail release and its yearly expansion for the upfront price, and play free.

It just seems like the only way to really keep the whole MMO motif. The same player progress/character across multiple games, and you only buy the next installment if you want to play in new areas and see fresh story missions or something.

 

[snoopeasystreet]

2013 means it probably won't release the same year as a mainline halo (assuming 343 are on a 2 year development cycle).

 

[OverHeat]

Good luck Bungie, see you starside...

 

[MrDaravon]

MW3 is the most played game on XBL right now. And I'll go out on a limb here and say PSN as well.

I feel like you're completely missing my point though. You know what #2 is? Black Ops. Modern Warfare 2 is #7 and outperforming games like Gears of War 3. They're cannibalizing their own playerbase YOY. They can't do this forever, at some point something will give, and given that fucking Modern Warfare 1 is still making the Top 20 it's probably going to be sales of the new one, not people leaving the old ones.

 

[Elginer]

How the fuck did Microsoft pull that off?

 

[wrowa]

Bungie has to respond to this, surely?

Ironically, they probably aren't allowed to :lol

 

[snoopeasystreet]

I feel like you're completely missing my point though. You know what #2 is? Black Ops. Modern Warfare 2 is #7 and outperforming games like Gears of War 3. They're cannibalizing their own playerbase YOY.

60 dollars a year > being top of the Xbox leader boards for more than 12 months.

 

[UnlovedJew]

Seriously sucks that Bungie are tied to such a contract. I remember being so dismayed at the original announcement and this rubs salt in the wound. Sounds like a cool idea and like what we've all been expecting.

 

[CarbonatedFalcon]

I guess we'll be seeing stuff at E3 if one is supposed to release in 2013 already.

Should be exciting!

 

[f0rk]

All those people getting $99 360s will.

Those guys will buy like 2 games in the first month they own the system and that's it.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

I'm kind of glad this is something I'm not interested in. Too much stuff to spend money on these days.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

How did the LA Times beat every games news journalist to this story? I think that's almost as big of a story as the the main course.

Because the gaming news industry doesn't want to piss off their friends at Activision or Bungie. You can't bite the hand that feeds.

 

[Nirolak]

Smart move from MS getting the first one exclusive for however long, that strategy has worked well for them this gen.

This bit is interesting:


5 million sales in 6 months or the deal could be off.

Great find.

I've made it into an image here so it gets more attention.

 

[Y2Kev]

Seriously sucks that Bungie are tied to such a contract. I remember being so dismayed at the original announcement and this rubs salt in the wound. Sounds like a cool idea and like what we've all been expecting.

Why does it suck? This is probably what they wanted.

Also I'm surprised how quickly they want to drop ps3 but keep 360. Ps3 version of destiny 1 is never coming.

 

[CrunchinJelly]

Oh, my. Dunno why they would sign up to such an extensive 10 year deal like this considering the Halo complaints.

I guess Activision have their next-gen CoD cashcow ready and waiting.

 

[Conor 419]

Great find.

I don't think Reach pulled this off, did it?

 

[GrizzNKev]

Random mass guessing: the "Destiny" game series is not 4 wholly separate sequels, but a major client update every 2 years which will expand game with a major new chapter in the meta fiction and a massive amount of new content.

Guild Wars style, where you're not paying a monthly fee to play.

Instead, extra monetization will occur by selling mid-cycle expansions to the story of the previous major Destiny intallment so that there's new Destiny content every year. And there will be a 'premium' subscription service like COD Elite focused on whatever competitive angle the series has, to offer the most complete experience to the hardcore players. But everyone else will be able to just buy the retail release and its yearly expansion for the upfront price, and play free.

It just seems like the only way to really keep the whole MMO motif. The same player progress/character across multiple games, and you only buy the next installment if you want to play in new areas and see fresh story missions or something.

This is the most accurate prediction so far, and I agree with it completely.

 

[elcapitan]

Sails deflated. What a leak. Talk about laying it all out there. This is pretty fascinating. Anything of this scale ever been leaked before? It's like a silent megaton.

 

[Clear]

Oh dear. Bungie are so screwed.

 

[Tunavi]

This is why Bungie released Marathon for IOS and their motto has been See you Starside as of late (catch-phrase of the Humans in Marathon series).

so happy right now