Activision Says Valve and Epic Can't Make Destiny

[Freechoice]

Huh, I immediately thought of Tenacious D and Tribute.


2:04

Embedding the timestamp doesn't seem to work.

 

[pyrojam321moo]

Activision specifically bars Valve Software, Epic Games, and Gearbox Software from developing any Destiny or Comet "conversions or adaptations." I have no idea why anyone at Activision would think to specify this.

Sounds to me like it refers back to the point that Bungie retains the rights if Activision backs out, and this prevents another publisher from swooping in to finish the project and take the credit.

So basically if Activision backs out, they want the franchise to die a horrible withering death rather than let the games see the light of day under another publisher's label.

So then why doesnt it ban EA, THQ, Ubisoft, Deep Silver, Capcom, Konami, Take-Two, Namco, Squeenix or Sega from stepping in?

Because who's going to accept a contract that gives you full rights to your game back, but no way to actually make it? Knowing lawyers, it probably started as a full black-out to open negotiations but slowly got chiseled away to the people Activision was most afraid of making a better product. But, honestly, as long as the company just gives Bungie the right amount on the checks? The game's gonna be awesome. I know I'll be buying it, whatever it is.

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

Maybe the clause about not working with valve has something to do with dota 2 and to stop the legal dispute like this in the future. Or Activision does not want it's employees to see what working at valve is like compare to Activision.

 

[gigastar]

Activision specifically bars Valve Software, Epic Games, and Gearbox Software from developing any Destiny or Comet "conversions or adaptations." I have no idea why anyone at Activision would think to specify this.

Sounds to me like it refers back to the point that Bungie retains the rights if Activision backs out, and this prevents another publisher from swooping in to finish the project and take the credit.

So basically if Activision backs out, they want the franchise to die a horrible withering death rather than let the games see the light of day under another publisher's label.

So then why doesnt it ban EA, THQ, Ubisoft, Deep Silver, Capcom, Konami, Take-Two, Namco, Squeenix or Sega from stepping in?

Because who's going to accept a contract that gives you full rights to your game back, but no way to actually make it? Knowing lawyers, it probably started as a full black-out to open negotiations but slowly got chiseled away to the people Activision was most afraid of making a better product. But, honestly, as long as the company just gives Bungie the right amount on the checks? The game's gonna be awesome. I know I'll be buying it, whatever it is.

Hold on now, its fine to have wishful thinking, but even if its Bungie its not safe to assume that a brand new project that probably isnt even out of concept yet will become a critical success.

Remember, Activision hasnt pulled the least of its legal scumbaggery yet.

 

[Z of the Na'vi]

Yes, because Activision has so much say in what Valve and Epic are allowed to make with their own resources.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

This contract is weird. Also, Bungie should have known better than to get into bed with those scumbags considering that they're expecting them to churn out a game/expansion a year.

 

[Baresark]

I'm kind of confuse about that last bit. Is it prohibitive of any of the conversions or adaptations ever? Or is that just in respect to as long as Bungie is contracted by Activision? Which if it's the former, that means Bungie doesn't reserve full IP rights. If it's the latter, I would just have to "duh" to them. Is that not the point of them contacting with Activision.

 

[Atmos Duality]

So then why doesnt it ban EA, THQ, Ubisoft, Deep Silver, Capcom, Konami, Take-Two, Namco, Squeenix or Sega from stepping in?

Because the companies they listed are highly competent at making shooters?

I have no idea...there's clearly something more going on behind the scenes than they're letting on if they're being THAT specific.

 

[Therumancer]

The part that got me is "must patch any critical bugs in the game within a month of release". I'd much prefer you know, "game must release without any critical bugs". I still remember the days before patching and how companies had to pretty much get it perfect the first time. Seems like a clause for the current lazy "we can always fix it later" generation of developers who want to release and move onto their next project ASAP. I can't help but wonder what would happen if there was an actual "no major bugs or you don't get paid" clause, but I kind of suspect it would mean a lot more serious playtesting and QA and better games, since I really don't think it's an impossible goal to hit given how many titles have been released in the past before patching that worked fine without "critical bugs".

That said my basic thought on the conversions is that they want to maintain as tight a control of the property as possible. If someone else does a conversion. paid or free, there are questions about the ownership of what's in that conversion, which in many cases will add things like new graphics, weapons, elements... etc... to a game. Even if someone doing a conversion doesn't push things legally, being perceived to rip off a mod or conversion can hurt a company's reputation, especially if they don't acknowlege it. There has been a LOT said about these kinds of things over the years, and I'd imagine Activision just doesn't want to open that can of worms.

Let's say someone decides to do a total conversion of the game, similar to what the guys at SCP have done. They add a new gameplay element with a monster that moves quickly and kills you if your too close if your not looking at it constantly (and while your looking at it, it's pretty much harmless), SCP pretty much did that. Now all of a sudden there are questions if the actual developer actually decides to use that without acknowlegement for an actual game, and make money off of what those guys did. This is no big deal when it's fan conversions (which they don't seem to be worried about), but if a company like Valve or Epic gets pissed about something from one of their conversions, right or wrong they could keep the property tied up for years. Having a leg to stand on legally isn't even the most important thing, I mean consider the article just put up here on The Escapist about Epic Vs. Silicon Knights, where SK pretty much got pwned not because of their case but because of an expert they relied on getting deep sixed right off the bat for what are to us some pretty vague reasons, and which might have had more to do with technicalities than the case. I don't presume to know anything there, but if you were Activision, would you want to fight Epic's lawyers? Sure Activision can hire their own bastards, but at that level it's a coin toss since they would both be acting with deep pockets.


Just my theories

Oh and on the easter eggs, all I have to say is "why bother to have them then?". An easter egg can't be awesome and spontaneous if it has to undergo corperate approval. The best easter eggs are the ones aren't planned ahead, and just things the coders decide to do for Lulz when it tickles their fancy at the moment.

 

[Drago-Morph]

or Gabe doesn't form the stomach.

Or the watch.

 

[Meight08]

This contract is weird. Also, Bungie should have known better than to get into bed with those scumbags considering that they're expecting them to churn out a game/expansion a year.

Every other year means one in 2013 one in 2015 one in 2017
Etc.
Which wont be that difficult once you got the engine and allot of assets everything becomes much easier.

 

[McMullen]

Activision specifically bars Valve Software, Epic Games, and Gearbox Software from developing any Destiny or Comet "conversions or adaptations." I have no idea why anyone at Activision would think to specify this.

Sounds to me like it refers back to the point that Bungie retains the rights if Activision backs out, and this prevents another publisher from swooping in to finish the project and take the credit.

So basically if Activision backs out, they want the franchise to die a horrible withering death rather than let the games see the light of day under another publisher's label.

So then why doesnt it ban EA, THQ, Ubisoft, Deep Silver, Capcom, Konami, Take-Two, Namco, Squeenix or Sega from stepping in?

Because who's going to accept a contract that gives you full rights to your game back, but no way to actually make it? Knowing lawyers, it probably started as a full black-out to open negotiations but slowly got chiseled away to the people Activision was most afraid of making a better product. But, honestly, as long as the company just gives Bungie the right amount on the checks? The game's gonna be awesome. I know I'll be buying it, whatever it is.

That makes sense.

You know, mandating that a studio produce yearly releases for 8 years seems to me a possible tactic for tying up that studio so it produces nothing that can compete with you, and increasing the likelihood that the products it's tied up with will be shit, thereby running the studio into the ground or making it cheaper to buy up.

But my business sense is not good. Would that actually work?

 

[Treblaine]

"Bungie must shoot for a "Teen" ESRB rating" "

NOT GOOD!

To get that rating there essentially can't be any lethal force fused against humans. Even depicted. Every Halo game got an M-rating to spite how it was mainly shooting inhuman aliens. I don't see how they can go for a T-rating unless they are making a non-lethal game (like Arkham City) or that the ESRB ratings be completely overhauled.

 

[grigjd3]

Valve, gearbox and Epic all have important FPS game engines that could quickly be used to implement a game if much of the visual and sound design was ready to go. This clause is an attempt by Activision to have something to hold over Bungie's head early in the process.

 

[Baldr]

I can't really go into details, but basically bars Bungie from creating Steam-exclusive DLC, you'll just have to wait for Epic's announcements to understand the other part.

 

[Sean951]

To whoever thinks games used to not need patches... Did you play back then? They had plenty of minor bugs, and some not so minor ones. You also had less coding to search through to find the bugs. Much, much less.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Beh, having to make a new game every two years. Even I know that's not a contract you want. Talk about no freedom and ultimate pressure.

Anyways, legal contracts are odd. I don't know what's up with these sections but I'm sure somebody somewhere thought they were really necessary, at least they did at some point.

 

[Treblaine]

This contract is weird. Also, Bungie should have known better than to get into bed with those scumbags considering that they're expecting them to churn out a game/expansion a year.

Every other year means one in 2013 one in 2015 one in 2017
Etc.
Which wont be that difficult once you got the engine and allot of assets everything becomes much easier.

Every other year is a long time if ANYTHING goes wrong.

Games are not like movies with a set script that you just film and then hack away in the editing room, they are more like paintings. They take a long time to slowly, carefully and delicately construct then one day to take a step back and realise it's totally fucking wrong. You have no choice but to redo almost the entire work, it's the same painting but it means what may have been almost done will now take 50% longer than you'd have said a year ago.

The thing is you CAN make a great game in 2 years, you just cannot CONSISTENTLY make a great game with only a 2 year interval. Something will go wrong, you will realise you are going in a disastrous direction and the only solution is to purge huge elements and start a fresh. Bioshock did this and the same is being done with its follow-up. Half Life 2 similarly was butchered and remade. Team Fortress 2 was rebooted in development several times.

What you can do is make a safe and compromised game every 2 years. Bungie did fairly well with a 3 year cycle for Halo, but 2 years is pushing it too much I think.

 

[DiamanteGeeza]

The part that got me is "must patch any critical bugs in the game within a month of release". I'd much prefer you know, "game must release without any critical bugs". I still remember the days before patching and how companies had to pretty much get it perfect the first time. Seems like a clause for the current lazy "we can always fix it later" generation of developers who want to release and move onto their next project ASAP.

Whilst I agree with your dislike of day 1 patches, I'd just like to correct your 'laziness' comment - developers aren't lazy.

We bust our asses to get titles done and submitted so they can ship on time. The problem with patching is that it's opened the door for extra pressure from publishers (and people within developers) to cram every feature in the entire universe into a game. Bearing in mind that the vast majority of games are poorly scheduled (accurate scheduling of a game is surprisingly difficult), nowadays this results in most games being nowhere near ready for ship when they actually submit - the first parties actually have a process that allows them to say "okay, well, we'll approve your game, even though it locks up at the beginning of level 3, as long as you promise to fix it for the day 1 TU" - that's how commonplace this is now.

What used to happen is that the absolute, final, drop dead, must-have-everything-in-the-game-by date was usually a day or so prior to first sub, but now this cut-off date has moved to the night before ship. And it sucks.

However, please don't think of us developers as lazy - it's rude, insulting, and incorrect.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

Activision specifically bars Valve Software, Epic Games, and Gearbox Software from developing any Destiny or Comet "conversions or adaptations." I have no idea why anyone at Activision would think to specify this.

Sounds to me like it refers back to the point that Bungie retains the rights if Activision backs out, and this prevents another publisher from swooping in to finish the project and take the credit.

Capcha: two cents worth

So basically if Activision backs out, they want the franchise to die a horrible withering death rather than let the games see the light of day under another publisher's label.

This was my take on it as well. Activision doesn't control the IP, but this is a way of controlling publishing and/or spin-offs.