Slashdot Mirror


Developer Bungie Splits With Publisher Activision, Will Keep World Shooter Series Destiny (kotaku.com)

Developer Bungie and publisher Activision are splitting up in an industry-shaking divorce that will see the shared world shooter series Destiny enter fully into Bungie's control. From a report: This development comes after years of tension between the two companies -- tension that has existed since before the first Destiny even shipped. Bungie, the studio that created and has led development on the franchise, told employees during a team meeting this afternoon, framing it as fantastic news for a studio that has long grown sick of dealing with its publisher. Employees cheered and popped champagne, according to one person who was there.

[...] One of the most significant tensions between Bungie and Activision had long been the annualized schedule, which mandated the release of a new Destiny game or expansion every fall. Now, separated from Activision, Bungie will no longer be constrained to that schedule. "We'll continue to deliver on the existing Destiny roadmap, and we're looking forward to releasing more seasonal experiences in the coming months," the company said, "as well as surprising our community with some exciting announcements about what lies beyond."

63 comments

  1. Next? by McFortner · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Can we get Blizzard split off next, please? Activision is too worried about new characters to fix the problems they have with the game as it is.

    --
    Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
    1. Re:Next? by McFortner · · Score: 1

      At least with Overwatch IMHO.

      --
      Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
    2. Re: Next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not gonna happen.

      Blizzard merged with Activision, Bungie only made a deal with them. There's a reason why it's called "Activision Blizzard" now. Separating them would be like cleaving two hands of interlocked fingers down the middle- it'd just make a big old bloody mess.

      Sorry to say, but Blizzard is long gone at this point. They no longer exist as you remember them, and there's no way that merger can ever be undone.

    3. Re: Next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At this point, I'd take the bloody stumps of Blizzard over the intertwined fuckery that is Activision Blizzard. Things can still get worse with A-B, but we're quickly approaching a day where that statement will be false.

    4. Re: Next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they the folks involved with the graphics for spike TVâ(TM)s ninja-type games? I heard it was quality work but I could not tell for sure what was what from watching

    5. Re:Next? by meglon · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that saying actually be: Beware of gifts bearing Sales Reps.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    6. Re:Next? by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      The sentence is grammatically ambiguous. It can mean the same either way.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    7. Re:Next? by meglon · · Score: 1

      Well, no. It's a play off the old saying "beware of Greeks bearing gifts;" beware of the Greeks giving the gift. Restated to other way (which i used as a play on the original), "beware of gifts bearing Greeks" means to beware of a gift that has Greeks inside... like the trojan horse, which is what the original saying was founded on. In that instance, they were both good advice. So while we have to beware of sales reps giving gifts, we also have to beware of gifts concealing sales reps.... although they don't usually sack the city (usually).

      Next we'll go into the differences between "retreating" and "advancing in a different direction."

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    8. Re:Next? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I would say that this is unlikely as Activision needs all of Blizzard's games. Without Blizzard, they only have Call of Duty as an active title. They have dead titles like Guitar Hero which they could ressurrect. Activision would likely fight against such a split.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    9. Re:Next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Battle.net does not deserve to exist; It has no Linux support (whereas Steam has both a native client and Proton), their user support forums are full of superstitions like, "disable your antivirus," and, "toggle ALL the things," which is a direct result of their silence on service downtimes and poor interface design/programming... In 2019, when Steam exists, what self-respecting developer would hitch their wagons to Battle.net? I'm sure most developers could do better taking the Mojang route and running their own launcher/downloader even.

      I got Destiny 2 for free during a promotion and have still been unable to play it, due to the anti-cheat solutions being so obtrusive that the game is unplayable, which is more of an Activision complaint... but that's after fighting for quite a while to get Battle.net to work on Linux, which apparently required a newer WINE version (I'm actually using Steam Proton to run it now, SC2 works...). Compare that to the native Steam experience, where I can hook up an HTC Vive and play VR games without installing a single driver, and Skyrim VR (a Windows-only DX11 game) runs pretty well with only a tweak to the launch options (everything works except spoken dialog, which would require installing a library). Not all games on Steam work this well, but plenty do, with cross-platform cloud saves and streaming to boot. I can even hook up to my home VPN and coax the in-house streaming to work across town to my phone, at least for games where the touchscreen isn't an obstacle.

      Other than exclusive games, what does Battle.net/Blizzard have that justifies its continued existence? In my view, nothing.

    10. Re: Next? by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Blizzard is largely autonomous of Activision, they don't have to deal with the BS Bungie did. Vivendi, Blizzard's owner, bought Activision. The name "Activision" was retained since it was far more recognizable than "Vivendi Games". It was not a merger of equals. Blizzard remained mostly hands off and left to run itself on its own schedule, hence the of the new company "Activision Blizzard".

    11. Re: Next? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      I don't think that will help. :-/ The classic meme:

      "Fun detected; Nerf incoming."

      has been true before they merged with Craptivision.

      When they insult PC fans at the 2018 BlizzCon who supported them for the past 20+ years with an idiotic "Don't you guys have phones?!" response you can tell they are severely out of touch with what fans want. /sarcasm Yeah, some shitty reskinned Chinese mobile ARPG clone with MTX is what PC gamers want! NOT.

      Ironically the thing is that this COULD have worked if they had announced: Yes, Diablo 4 is in the works. In the meantime here is a mobile Diablo game to hold you over until then.

      They jumped the shark when they shutdown bnetd 2 because "a program in RAM is an illegal copy". **Facepalm**

      Even the Diablo 2 producers says Blizzard is out of touch with gamers.
      https://screenrant.com/diablo-...

      Blizzard has long been dead. They are slowly burning through all the goodwill they bought over the years.

    12. Re: Next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, the Blizzard of old is long gone. Diablo Immortal is testament to that.

    13. Re:Next? by Kyr+Arvin · · Score: 1

      Bungie wasn't the cash cow that Blizzard is for Activision. Expect an extraordinarily high price if Blizzard was to split off.

    14. Re:Next? by Sumus+Semper+Una · · Score: 1

      Interesting bits of timing to note:

      Blizzard was a part of the Vivendi games group since 1998 according to their wikipedia page. According to that same page, Activision Blizzard was formed by the merger of Vivendi and Activision in July, 2008.

      Wrath of the Lich King (the last Blizzard game or expansion to have a majority of old-time fans agree was at least "good" by long-time Blizzard standards) came out in November, 2008.

      I have no other proof or evidence, but just from the timing of major events and quality of products I get the feeling there was a major change in decisions and (more likely) who made the decisions before and after that merger. I think the people who poured their souls into making the games we most remember and love are long gone, and there is no going back to the Blizzard we once loved with fervent passion.

    15. Re: Next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Activblizzion

  2. Finally free? by Pfhorrest · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I thought that when Bungie finally broke away from Microsoft, we might see a return to the old Bungie, from the days of Marathon and Myth.

    But then Destiny was... not that... and some people say that that's more Activision's fault than Bungie's.

    Maybe now that they're finally free and back to self-publishing like they always used to, before the dark times, before the acquisition, maybe now we'll finally see a return of the old Bungie?

    I'm not counting on it. The only person still around from the olden days is Jason. Even Robnar is gone now, and I can't even find where to.

    --
    -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    1. Re:Finally free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "and some people say that that's more Activision's fault than Bungie's." - Those people know what they're talking about. Look at the design elements, it's an activision platform throughout. Bungie was the "creative" side of it.
      That's been their core competency. Activision's "competency" if you can call it that is grinding a platform for DLC'ing the fuck out of their users, taking bribes from Nvidia and wasting hard drive space with bloated garbage code.

    2. Re:Finally free? by dostert · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I thought that when Bungie finally broke away from Microsoft, we might see a return to the old Bungie, from the days of Marathon and Myth.

      But then Destiny was... not that... and some people say that that's more Activision's fault than Bungie's.

      Maybe now that they're finally free and back to self-publishing like they always used to, before the dark times, before the acquisition, maybe now we'll finally see a return of the old Bungie?

      I'm not counting on it. The only person still around from the olden days is Jason. Even Robnar is gone now, and I can't even find where to.

      Marathon and Myth days were great. Things I remember most were the Letters to the Webmaster and the annual April Fools update to Pimps at Sea

    3. Re:Finally free? by Snufu · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The people who created Marathon, Myth, and Halo are long gone. Expect more of the same, just less often.

    4. Re:Finally free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They lost some key talent when they split off from Microsoft, and their first project had very poor direction. It eventually morphed into Destiny, which wound up being a disappointment to most of the fans.

      I expect the same thing will happen this time around.

      A company is only as good as its people. When the talent walks, the name of the company alone is not sufficient to produce high quality products.

    5. Re:Finally free? by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      Bungie won't have Activision to "incentivize" them with a bonus of $x million if they sell N items by a certain date. That was supposedly the motivation for selling so many pieces of the game as DLC (which counted toward the "N items"), in the first year. Supposedly.

      What Bungie does with this new-found freedom is anyone's guess.

    6. Re:Finally free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More original, or at least, early days Bungie developers who built things like Halo opted to stay at Microsoft under 343 than left with the Bungie that split off.

      The Bungie that split off was basically a bunch of whiny wannabes, that's why after years of development all they managed to actually produce was something that was really nothing more than a Halo mod.

      Anyone who played Destiny and Halo will immediately see Destiny is a mod, not a game, the animations, the way many of the weapons work and so forth is identical to the point it's barely more than a re-skin with far less content. I never played Destiny 2 after Destiny one was such a con, but it's hardly surprising Activision were happy to let these guy go, because so were Microsoft, and for good reason - all the competent folks stayed at 343.

      It's important to remember when a company "gets independence" like this that the company it's getting independence from could trivially block that; they don't because they realise these companies are not really anything of a loss after all.

  3. Activision is garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good move. Pop those corks.

  4. Destiny 2 is garbage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good move by Activision.

    1. Re:Destiny 2 is garbage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Destiny isn't a great game, but activision doesn't have any great games - never did and never will.

    2. Re:Destiny 2 is garbage. by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      MechWarrior 2 was pretty good back in the day. They're mainly a publisher though, so they haven't actually developed all that many games themselves, but if you include those they had a lot of great games like Pitfall, Quake II, Tony Hawk Pro Skater 2, and Rome Total War where they acted as the publisher.

    3. Re:Destiny 2 is garbage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Development - MechWarrior 2 was originally planned for a release in October 1994, but a number of development problems, including an almost complete overturn of personnel in the development team, led to it being considerably delayed" - wiki

    4. Re:Destiny 2 is garbage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe not since 2000

    5. Re:Destiny 2 is garbage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm happy to buy a delayed game that is good. I will not buy an undone game delivered "on time"

    6. Re:Destiny 2 is garbage. by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Destiny isn't a great game,

      Good to know. I hadn't even heard of it.
      Back to RDR2 :)

    7. Re:Destiny 2 is garbage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well back then, you had to wait 2 years. Now there's a zillion shitty games a week. It's a different market. Now activision is late to and chasing the DLC bandwagon.

    8. Re:Destiny 2 is garbage. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      No one remembers if a good game was late,
      No one remembers if a bad game shipped on time.
      -- Gabe

    9. Re:Destiny 2 is garbage. by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      That actually makes me respect Activision a lot more than previously. There's a quote from Nintendo's Shigeru Miyamoto that sums it up nicely: "A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad."

    10. Re:Destiny 2 is garbage. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Yup, that's another great quote!

    11. Re:Destiny 2 is garbage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rest in peace Half Life 3

  5. Maybe Destiny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will become good?

  6. The third classic blunder by meglon · · Score: 1

    At least Bungie didn't make the third classic blunder, the first getting involved in a land war in Asia, the second being crossing a Sicilian in matters of death, both of which are only slightly more well known than: never get into bed with Sony Online Entertainment to publish your game. It's one thing to get Munson'd, it's another level entirely to get Sony'd. Admittedly though, Activision isn't all that much better....

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  7. So it sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bungle had The Last Word?
    I'll show myself out.

  8. Publisher? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

    What does a game publisher do? It's not like they have to put CDs in boxes and ship them to stores. Upload to steam and be done with it.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:Publisher? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marketing.

    2. Re:Publisher? by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      And, I think, fronting some of the development costs.

    3. Re:Publisher? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Depending on the size and state of the game dev studio a publisher may do one or more of the following:

      * Traditionally, Pay for all (or partial) development of the game
      * Traditionally, Marketing
      * Traditionally, Quality Assurance. Does the game dev have ALL the GPUs / phones / tablets released from the past 5+ years?
      * Traditionally, Localization
      * Helo define Alpha, Beta, and Gold states
      * Withhold milestone payments if deliverables haven't meet the goals
      * Contract out other developers to help (one dev team might do single player, another multiplayer)
      * Contract our Cinematics
      * Telemetry
      * Voice Recording
      * Distribution Logistics
      * Make and keep SKU Deals. They have experience dealing with Walmart, Costco, etc.
      * Change design based on regional culture & demographics
      * Interface with Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft's over getting dev consoles, making sure the game meets their technical requirements checklists, and dealing with their idiotic policies so your game can get released on their platform

      It all depends on how much experience, size, and money the game developer studio has.

    4. Re: Publisher? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many triple A console games are still purchased on disc rather than online but the money that goes into promotion is comparable to a Hollywood blockbuster movie. Million dollar trailers, billboards, etc.

    5. Re: Publisher? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Yet I've never got a game on the basis of such things. I see some reviews and decide whether to buy it based on price, reviews and whether I care (like I'm not working through some other game at the time). I question the value of such promotions in the current market with online distribution and rapid access to user reviews. I guess the game developer did too.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  9. Blizzard, well Vivendi, bought Activision by perpenso · · Score: 1

    Can we get Blizzard split off next, please? Activision is too worried about new characters to fix the problems they have with the game as it is.

    Blizzard, well Vivendi which owned Blizzard, bought Activision. Vivdendi was wise enough to have hands off Blizzard and wise enough to recognize "Activision" was a more well known brand than "Vivendi Games". So Vivendi's new company was named "Activision Blizzard". Blizzard is still largely autonomous of the Activision management that was retained and put in charge of the other Vivendi Games studios.

    Note how Blizzard is still on its decades old, it will ship when its ready schedule, and not tied to any sort of annual release schedule as Bungie was complaining of.

    1. Re:Blizzard, well Vivendi, bought Activision by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Blizzard still has to answer to the quarterly shareholders meetings.

      Blizzard has just been less vocal about it.

    2. Re:Blizzard, well Vivendi, bought Activision by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Blizzard still has to answer to the quarterly shareholders meetings. Blizzard has just been less vocal about it.

      Its a short answer: "We are highly profitable. Talk to you in three months. Bye." :-)

    3. Re:Blizzard, well Vivendi, bought Activision by lgw · · Score: 1

      Heroes of the Storm flopped. Overwatch did not meet expectations. D3 was a disaster, though they made some money back with the expansion, it was still a damaged brand that was abandoned.

      Blizzard lost its autonomy as a result of successive flops, which is why everyone old-school has now left.
       

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:Blizzard, well Vivendi, bought Activision by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Blizzard still has to answer to the quarterly shareholders meetings. Blizzard has just been less vocal about it.

      More seriously, shareholders are nothing new to Blizzard. They had them before when Vivendi owned, they had them before that when CUC owned.

      Blizzard's owners and their respective shareholders have always known Blizzard is "different". For God's sake they MISSED CHRISTMAS with Diablo 1 and it still went on to set industry sales records.

      Activision, Vivendi, and CUC shareholders get the same message. These are the revenues on our shipping games. We have additional unannounced games under development and their ship dates are unknown, if they ship at all and are not canceled. We ship games if and when they meet our standards, not according to a calendar date. For decades owners and shareholders have had no problem with this message..

    5. Re:Blizzard, well Vivendi, bought Activision by Kyr+Arvin · · Score: 1

      Heroes of the Storm did not flop -- it's still well-maintained, and it's the eSports thing that flopped. Overwatch league has brought in nearly a billion dollars for Activision. Not my thing, particularly, but that's not chump change. I don't care if it's not LoL level either, it can exist as a success or failure on its own. That's also after the base game made a billion dollars in sales, which isn't too bad given it was built from the ruins of Titan, which they spent $150m on before they canned it.

      D3's launch and initial year was an absolute disaster, though it turned into an excellent game with the expansion. YMMV with "damaged brand," but it was not abandoned, it's putting out a patch in a week that's the largest since the expansion. People who still play D3 are excited about it. If you play on the ladder, it's a frequently evolving game. I don't know if I'll do that much with it; my time with that game might be past.

    6. Re:Blizzard, well Vivendi, bought Activision by lgw · · Score: 1

      HOTS made far less money that expected. Overwatch made less money than expected. D3 made vastly less money than expected. Titan didn't even make it out the door. HOTS and D3 are parked in maintenance mode now.

      Most importantly: Blizzard didn't make the money that Fortnite made from the Battle Royale craze. Blizzard has not had a break-out success in years, and missed the giant break-out success every investor wishes they had.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  10. Remember when Activision was cool? by MrSavage · · Score: 1

    Pitfall Harry and Pepperidge Farms remembers.

  11. Mechwarrior wasn't Activision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I forget who the actual studio was, but the networking code for Mechwarrior 2(Mercs only?) was ANet, by Dan Kegel (also responsible for a variety of linux work, particularly tools for cross platform building!)

    Also Mechwarrior 1 was actually created by Dynamix, as was the original Mechwarrior 2 demo with the Puma and Marauder IIC. Activision shafted Dynamix on the continuing license and 'brought it in-house' to a more 'favorable' studio who used/developed the same engine as i76/82/Heavy Gear used to produce those games. The result of this was the Earthsiege/Starsiege series of videogames, the Cyberstorm series, and eventually Starsiege: Tribes, the FPS. All started thanks to a spat with FASA/Activision which left them producing a 'Mechwarrior 1'-like game without a license.

    Cyberstorm was the closest major publisher game to a Battletech board game, although Klaus Brauer(sp?)'s Mechwar 1.2 was the most comprehensive computer game I played. MekWar has since taken that crown, but many years later and in java. Mechwar was written in the early 90s on DOS and had a full mechwarrior design tool based off 2nd edition rules, plus a mech designer, plus a module to play out scenarios. Sadly it had neither scripting nor AI support, so it required 2 players if you wanted to play out scenarios against an opponent. I had quite a bit of fun with it over the years however. Sadly its sequel 2.0 was never completed and while source code was released, it was not in a state that ever resulted in completion.

    1. Re:Mechwarrior wasn't Activision... by Kyr+Arvin · · Score: 1

      Aaaaah, Dynamix. Too bad they couldn't stick with Sierra.

  12. Blizzard 46% of Activision Blizzard's revenue by perpenso · · Score: 1

    Heroes of the Storm flopped. Overwatch did not meet expectations. D3 was a disaster, though they made some money back with the expansion, it was still a damaged brand that was abandoned. Blizzard lost its autonomy as a result of successive flops, which is why everyone old-school has now left.

    Nope. According to the Q32018 financial report Blizzard had $1.5B in revenue for the first nine months of 2018. The rest of Activision combined had $1.8B in revenue. Blizzard alone is responsible for 46% of Activision Blizzard's revenue. Blizzard still has amazing employee retention and many 10 and 20 year veterans to this day.

    1. Re:Blizzard 46% of Activision Blizzard's revenue by lgw · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter in the least. They did not go as well as they were expected to do. That's all that matters.

      If you don't follow the industry, this is a common tactic for tearing down any studio that isn't a corporate puppet: just set the bar high enough that they fail, then corporatize them. But to be fair, in this case Blizzard has stumbled a few times, WoW is fading, and there's nothing they've done recently to show they can grow.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Blizzard 46% of Activision Blizzard's revenue by perpenso · · Score: 1

      And yet your hypothesis remains untrue. Blizzard has not been corporatized, its still produces a high level of revenue, it still has a high degree of autonomy. Owners and investors are still in a mindset of don't f*ck with the most successful part of the company. As they were when Vivendi owned, as they were when CUC owned before that. Corporate ownership and stockholders is nothing new to Blizzard. Failed projects are nothing new to Blizzard. There were various games that were internally canceled. There were multiple reboots of games that were eventually published.

      If Activision Blizzard misses expectations then wall street pays less for their stock. They do *not* call for changes at the unit bringing in 46% of revenue. Such suggestions are nonsense.

    3. Re:Blizzard 46% of Activision Blizzard's revenue by lgw · · Score: 1

      That makes no sense at all. If things aren't working, you change the big parts, not the small parts. And it doesn't matter how big they are, it matters how fast they grow. Activision has started outsourcing dev on Blizzard-branded products to chase growth.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:Blizzard 46% of Activision Blizzard's revenue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blizzard is being cancered by the money people as we speak. Marketing, budgeting, Stock analysis, monetization experts. All the while the creatives are told "don't worry just find a way to make more money faster" but the impetus never goes away, until all the real value is squeezed out until All thats left is a corpse of a company. While its not over for them yet the cancer is spreading and the prognosis looks bad.

    5. Re:Blizzard 46% of Activision Blizzard's revenue by perpenso · · Score: 1

      That makes no sense at all. If things aren't working, you change the big parts, not the small parts. And it doesn't matter how big they are, it matters how fast they grow. Activision has started outsourcing dev on Blizzard-branded products to chase growth.

      You do not change the big part that is working, that is outproducing all the other parts.

      Blizzard is seeking growth but not by abandoning its ways. It no longer has 3 main internal dev teams (RTS, Diablo, WoW), it has additional teams working on unannounced products. Plus some smaller teams on smaller products. Yet all of these are working on Blizzard's timeframes per Blizzard's values. They'll ship when their done, they'll get reworked or canceled if off track, they will not ship whatever they got when some calendar date arrives.

  13. Re:Mechwarrior wasn't Activision... Good knowledg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah I was going to write about half of that but thank you for making it superfluous. Activision is just a mill, they don't actually "make" anything - they only make it bloated and DLC'able.

  14. Bungie is dead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bungie died a long time ago when they sold out to Microsoft. Unfortunately all that Microsoft touches usually turns to shit and Bungie was not spared.

    After playing Destiny 2, buying first DLC and hearing about Destiny 1, I am pretty sure I will never buy a single product from Bungie ever again. Bungie made some epic games back in the day. But unfortunately all good things must come to an end.