Activision Says Valve and Epic Can't Make Destiny

direkiller

New member
Dec 4, 2008
1,656
0
0
Treblaine said:
direkiller said:
Treblaine said:
"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.
sc2 had a teen rateing
so yea they can get away with more then you think
Star Craft 2? Well that's a top-down RTS with mostly robots and insect like aliens being shot.
err no most of the units are humanoid(1/3 of them are human) and there deaths are quite grapic(Infested terrans shoot themselves)

compartivly Company of heroes has less graphic deaths but more swearing.(Has an M rating)

ERSB cares more about a kid's ears then there eyes


yes it is possible to make a T rated FPS
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
direkiller said:
Treblaine said:
direkiller said:
Treblaine said:
"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.
sc2 had a teen rateing
so yea they can get away with more then you think
Star Craft 2? Well that's a top-down RTS with mostly robots and insect like aliens being shot.
err no most of the units are humanoid(1/3 of them are human) and there deaths are quite grapic(Infested terrans shoot themselves)

compartivly Company of heroes has less graphic deaths but more swearing.(Has an M rating)

ERSB cares more about a kid's ears then there eyes


yes it is possible to make a T rated FPS
Maybe the perspective and mode of interaction makes all the difference. For example relatively high up looking as small models that aren't as detailed as models you'd find in an FPS. Also how your actions don't directly cause virtual harm but you give orders and another AI executes the harm.

It's certainly more visceral to shoot someone in the head at close range, your button press directly firing each shot, and looking down from helicopter high view watching others do it, even if under your orders.

I don't think RTS and a (possible) FPS can really be compared.
 

QUINTIX

New member
May 16, 2008
153
0
0
>online-centric action game series
>online-centric
Confirmed for less than 500k at launch
>Valve, Epic, Gearbox
Activision senior (senile?) leadership confirmed for having severe case of paranoid schizophrenia.
 

Narcogen

Rampant.
Jul 26, 2006
193
0
0
Monsterfurby said:
Narcogen said:
C'mon, guys, pay more attention. Read point 5.4. The party prohibiting ports of Destiny from being worked on by Epic, Gearbox or Valve is the Licensor. In other words, Bungie-- not Activision. A publisher shouldn't care who does a port. The developer, though, might, since working on Bungie's engine would give those competitors any proprietary tech Bungie has developed, as well as potential insight on the future direction of their properties.

Bungie gets to approve who does ports, but cannot withhold approval unreasonably. The agreement sets out that in advance, Bungie won't let those studios work on ports, and Activision is agreeing to that restriction.
Actually, it appears Activision is the licensor, Bungie the licensee - the contract explicitly grants Bungie ownership and rights to the IP, which basically originates with Activision. Furthermore, the ban is on "development of conversions and adaptations", not on distribution or marketing.
Nope, sorry. Page one:

This Software Publishing and Development Agreement (this "Agreement") is entered into effective as of April 16, 2010 (the "Effective Date") by and between Bungie, LLC ("Licensor" or "Bungie")"
It is set out right there. The Licensor is Bungie. The IP does NOT originate with Activision-- where did you get that idea? It originates with Bungie, and they are licensing the rights for publication and distribution to Activision. Activision only gets ownership rights in the event of failure to deliver the first game.
 

Zombozo

New member
May 24, 2012
1
0
0
The first thing I can think of for why they would do this is something like this: They genuinely think they can create this Destiny product and the Comet spin-off the contract entails, but Activision isn't too sure of Bungie's ability to create a new IP that'll survive for the eight games required for the contract (likely due to the hype it'll generate among console players). As such, Activision put in clauses in the contract that amount to, "If it isn't that good we can cancel the contract"; in response to this move, Bungie probably looked at the two most prominent engines in the gaming industry: the Source engine, and the Unreal engine. To prevent the potential future games that'll be part of the IP from being nothing more than cookie-cutter budget titles, they specifically said no one from Valve, Epic, and Gearbox can work on them: This prevents Source and the Unreal Engine from basically ever being used for the following reasons:

A. Valve can't provide any technical support to a third party developer using the Source engine (theoretically), as doing so would violate the contract
B1. Epic can't provide any technical support to a third party developer using the Unreal engine, as doing so would violate the contract
B2. Because Epic can't provide technical support, the next largest developer to have extensive knowledge of the Unreal engine is Gearbox.

Essentially, the developers can't use the engines produced by those companies. At least that's the reason I would suspect, I could be completely wrong.