This. Exactly. We have no way of knowing who wanted what, who negotiated what, and what caused the end result we got.
I will say that it could look a little bad for Activision if the first Destiny game Bungie releases without Activision is done without all the pay tactics involved. But to your point, we'll never know who was truly making those decisions in the past.
Its actually quite easy to believe that Activision wanted Bungie to release the base games with little content in an effort to sell as many DLC expansions as possible, as well as adding MT's. That is most definitely something the publishers would have some control over. Maybe not entirely, but it's very possible it's part of the deal. That doesn't mean that Bungie didn't agree to it though. All I'm saying is that publishers can definitely push for those things when sig...
I don't think there is anything behind the scenes. The deal with Activision was always a temporary one with an end date. Activision didn't buy Bungie or Destiny. So once the deal ended they took their toy and left so they could publish on their own.
Bungie has never really published their own games before, they've always been a part of a bigger company. In the past it was Microsoft. I don't know about their previous Marathon games before Microsoft.
...
Uhhhhhh, no they didn't.
Its said to be like Force Unleashed "without the Mountain Dew qualities". Which means it's most likely a 3rd person action game.
But no, EA has not confirmed it's an FPS. If they have then please provide a link because I can't find it.
I'm not sure how it's a spiritual successor of Force Unleashed. They've already said it's not going to have ridiculous, over the top Force Powers, like pulling a Star Destroyer out of the sky.
That's really all the Force Unleashed games did. So how is this a successor of that? Wouldn't that just make this a 3rd person action game?
The plural of Jedi is Jedi.
But.....Destiny and Division play very differently from each other. I mean, one is an FPS and one is a cover based shooter.
"Screw EA. I'll give them money when they bring back Dead Space."
You just mentioned a ton of valid reasons about why not to trust EA and then blew up your whole argument by saying you would pay for a new Dead Space. What makes you think a new Dead Space wouldn't release with all these same problems? Lol
I read the article and I think I'm missing something.
So this guy pretended to be female. Joined an Overwatch league. Blizzard reached out and told the team she/he wasn't what she/he appeared to be, so they "violated her/his privacy to get to the bottom of it? Am I getting that right?
So it sounds to me like they had a reason and it had nothing to do with the person's gender. I mean, the thought they were recruiting a female, right?
Stop....
I do agree that there is a lot of entitlement going around these days.
This certainly is not one of those times.
Totally agree. Isolation was too good and deserves better.
I do find it really odd that everyone seems to be ignoring that they also announced an Aliens MMO shooter that is not a mobile game at the same time they announced this. I dont remember seeing any articles mentioning it on N4G. That has real potential. I can already imagine creating your own Conial Marine and joining squads (clans). It could be really cool if they don't screw it up.
To be fair, the game itself doesn't even really need much improvement. The game itself is fantastic.
All it really needs is a better release plan.
1. For the initial release they need to launch with as much content that was in The Taken King release for D1, and Forsaken for D2. As it's been D1 and 2 both launched with bare minimum content.
2. The expansions need to be meaningful, not $20 for 3 story missions, a new Strike, and ...
Bungie isn't going to stop doing Destiny lol.
Despite what people think about it on this site, Destiny has millions of players. When you log in,even today, there are tons of people still playing.
It's far too popular to quit.
I would like to see them switch between Destiny and a new IP between releases though.
I don't think so. They still need to sell another 70 million consoles or so with only a fee more years left while everyone knows PSt is coming in the next year or two.
I don't see it basically doubling their sales they already have over a 5 year period where popularity and demand was already at its highest.
@ Nitrowolf
Thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't aware that's what happened for U4 to be cosmetic only.
That probably would have gotten his point across much better if he had mentioned any of that in his original comment instead of getting smart with people who were wondering what he meant.
"Guessing itll just be like U4, where its just gonna be for cosmetics like in U4"
Show me where this comment says any of the things you just explained. It doesn't. All this says is that you think it will be like U4 and be cosmetic only. It doesn't say anything about WHY you think that, or that fan backlash caused U4 to be cosmetic only. Does it? I mean it's only one poorly written sentence so I'm pretty sure you didn't mention any of that stuf...
No one's butt is getting hurt over a micro penis
I don't know why your getting downvoted. TLoU1 MP did have MT's that were not just cosmetic. They sold guns and weapons.
MT's aren't Destiny's problem. Those are all cosmetics that can easily be earned through gameplay. Again, no big deal.
What people have complained the most about since Destiny 1 is the accusation that the game launches with bare minimum content, then players are forced to pay an extra $20 every few months or get locked behind a pay wall. It makes it look like content is being held back rather than launching with it so that they charge for it later.
...