Activision Says Valve and Epic Can't Make Destiny

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
Also, if anyone at Bungie buys a bag of Skittles, 2/3rds of the Red, Orange, Yellow and Green flavors must be divided with Activision, but not Purple cause no one likes that one.
 

1337mokro

New member
Dec 24, 2008
1,503
0
0
What I find slightly more worrying is that Activision is now Ingraining it's 1 game a year for any franchise it owns or wishes to start.

It just seems like a really really really bad sign that whatever Destiny might be it's basically going to be COD with a new coat of paint.
 

Coldster

New member
Oct 29, 2010
541
0
0
A "Teen" rating?
That kinda sucks, considering you can do so much more with the "Mature" rating. It's a shame that Bungie has to work under all these stupid restrictions, but that's Activision for ya. I'm just hoping Bungie will be able to make a good game out of all this.
 

Freechoice

New member
Dec 6, 2010
1,019
0
0
Huh, I immediately thought of Tenacious D and Tribute.


2:04

Embedding the timestamp doesn't seem to work.
 

pyrojam321moo

New member
Mar 28, 2009
29
0
0
gigastar said:
Johnson McGee said:
John Funk said:
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

Random Semi-Frequent Poster
Jul 15, 2008
2,755
0
0
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

Insert one-liner here.
Sep 13, 2010
4,419
0
0
pyrojam321moo said:
gigastar said:
Johnson McGee said:
John Funk said:
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

Born with one kidney.
Apr 27, 2009
5,034
0
0
Yes, because Activision has so much say in what Valve and Epic are allowed to make with their own resources.
 

Aiddon_v1legacy

New member
Nov 19, 2009
3,672
0
0
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

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
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

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
gigastar said:
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

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
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.
 

Meight08

*Insert Funny Title*
Feb 16, 2011
817
0
0
Aiddon said:
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

New member
Mar 9, 2010
1,334
0
0
pyrojam321moo said:
gigastar said:
Johnson McGee said:
John Funk said:
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

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
"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

New member
Mar 4, 2011
541
0
0
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

The Noble
Jan 6, 2010
1,739
0
0
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.