Kotick: Activision Was Bungie's Only Choice

[Lt. Vinciti]

I need shock paddles maybe we can kickstart Tabula Rasa...


perhaps an MMOFPS for consoles and such...or we see a bridge between console and pc action (OH A FAR AWAY DREAM SO FAR AWAY IN THE STARS.......!)

 

[Steppin Razor]

Where would we be without you and your comments you magnificent bastard?

Speaking at the Bank of America Merrill Lynch's Media, Communications & Entertainment Conference in California, Kotick said that Bungie had realized that it and everyone else in the industry, was "deficient" at providing the services necessary to create "great, competitive products," leaving the studio with no choice other than Activision.

Truly the master of talking up one thing while putting shit on everything else. It's especially funny how he even managed to put shit on Bungie, while talking up Bungie joining them.

 

[Dendio]

Now that Blizzard and Bungie are on the same team things could get pretty interesting

 

[LandoCristo]

I don't have an Xbox, so I don't play Halo except at friends' house (going over today to play Reach), and I have to say that I'm disappointed in the fact that Bungie signed up with Activision. Activision hasn't exactly captured my love or attention lately, and I'm getting tired of all the good games being squished by Activision's crap. Chalk this one up to bad luck, but I'm going to miss Bungie. *Salutes*

And yes, Blizzard is also part of Activision, but Blizzard makes good games, and charges reasonably for them. Activision just charges all that they can for everything they get their hands on.

 

[lumenadducere]

Eh, it's just more blatant PR talk from someone who should really just focus on the paperwork and meetings involved in running his company instead of opening his mouth to anyone outside of his co-workers or family.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

...

Holy shit I'm torn here.

On one hand, bungie is the definition of one trick pony. After they kinda gave up trying to be the only house making mac exclusive titles, all of their games were built entirely around simplifying pre-existing genres. Which meant a couple boring, if slightly interesting RTS games, a boring, buggy third person beat-em-up, and halo, an extremely simplified shooter. But because halo was an xbox game, and thus was simplified in a manner specifically designed to obscure the crippling limitations of console controls (thus, making a console fps that wasn't utterly terrible) they became a household name to anyone trapped in the walled garden that is LIVE.

On the other hand... activision was probably the only company willing to take bungie. Its only choice because, despite halo's ridiculous success, bungie doesn't make very good games. Since microsoft owns halo, they'd have to develop completely new franchises. Since its not like bungie is going to pull a unique, interesting, innovative game out of their ass...

Personally, I give bungie three years before its developing kinest/move/wii shovelware.

 

[DazBurger]

Translation:

LOL WE BOUGHT BUNGIE BEFORE EA COULD LOLOLOLOLOL.

-snip

Bought? More like hired. Its "only" a 10 year contract and Bungie owns any new IP it creates.

That kind of deal is unheard of before, so my guess is that Acti really had to fight to get em

...

Holy shit I'm torn here.

On one hand, bungie is the definition of one trick pony. After they kinda gave up trying to be the only house making mac exclusive titles, all of their games were built entirely around simplifying pre-existing genres. Which meant a couple boring, if slightly interesting RTS games, a boring, buggy third person beat-em-up, and halo, an extremely simplified shooter. But because halo was an xbox game, and thus was simplified in a manner specifically designed to obscure the crippling limitations of console controls (thus, making a console fps that wasn't utterly terrible) they became a household name to anyone trapped in the walled garden that is LIVE.

On the other hand... activision was probably the only company willing to take bungie. Its only choice because, despite halo's ridiculous success, bungie doesn't make very good games. Since microsoft owns halo, they'd have to develop completely new franchises. Since its not like bungie is going to pull a unique, interesting, innovative game out of their ass...

Personally, I give bungie three years before its developing kinest/move/wii shovelware.

I really gotta ask... Whats simplified about Halo?

 

[SelectivelyEvil13]

No, I think it's more the other way around: Activision has to compete with Bungie's Halo and risks sales for their precious Call of Rambo Nukem' Duty reiterations, but now they have Bungie on their side. They probably want Bungie's project to be the next "Halo" but multiplatform so Kotick can finish his Amazonian Money-Wife.

Bungie team up with Blizzard and actually make Starcraft Ghost...hmm...

Yeah, I could live with that.

Some type of Starcraft/Shooter game has a lot of potential. In all likelihood it would take place from the Terran point of view, but I wonder if from there a possible game series could branch out to have games from the Protoss and even Zerg perspectives. Not an all-in-one mess like Alien Vs. Predator, though.

I just would hope it would not be another MMO game as that would just mean a new source of steady monthly-fees for Activision. Then Kotick might end up an Amazonian Money-Wife polygamist.

 

[Vrach]

7 * Take over World. Shoot enemies into sun with giant slingshot.

Just one thing I could think of looking at that, Bungie talking to Kotick:
Kotick: And what if I refuse to give you guys the control of Activision?
Bungie: You'll be fired
Kotick: Fine!
Bungie: ..out of a cannon - into the Sun.

 

[MegaManOfNumbers]

Funny how everyone is being nice to Bungie when Kotick badmouths them. hypocrite much?

 

[Cynical skeptic]

I really gotta ask... Whats simplified about Halo?

... auto-aim, regenerating health, cover based combat, limited weapon inventory, etc? All of these were implemented to reduce the amount the player had to rely upon console controls to function. Compared to any fps made before it, halo is, at absolute best, a simplification.

Theres simply no way around it.

 

[DazBurger]

I really gotta ask... Whats simplified about Halo?

... auto-aim, regenerating health, cover based combat, limited weapon inventory, etc? All of these were implemented to reduce the amount the player had to rely upon console controls to function. Compared to any fps made before it, halo is, at absolute best, a simplification.

Theres simply no way around it.

I wont exactly call the weapon-limitations simple, as it makes the game more tactical.
And compared to games before it, it had an excellent AI and not many (if any?) other FPS's had vehicles which worked as well as in Halo.

And cover based combat isn't simple at all as it require the player to scan the terrain and pick a suitable spot and watch for flanking.

And Halo did not have regenerating health. This was first implemented in Halo 2.


Take for example Half Life. Bad AI, no drivable vehicles and combat revolved around clicking on something until it died.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

I wont exactly call the weapon-limitations simple, as it makes the game more tactical.
And compared to games before it, it had an excellent AI and not many (if any?) other FPS's had vehicles which worked as well as in Halo.

And cover based combat isn't simple at all as it require the player to scan the terrain and pick a suitable spot and watch for flanking.

And Halo did not have regenerating health. This was first implemented in Halo 2.

Okay, the only reason weapons were limited was because after binding move, look, shoot, use, reload, and grenade, there were only two buttons left for weapons, and people didn't like scrolling through. That isn't "tactical," thats "use whatever the enemy is using or you're going to run out of ammo." They could've cut out the middle man and assigned weapons rather than giving you the illusion of choice, and only the completely retarded would've noticed the difference.

It doesn't matter what you call health (shields, life, energy, hit points, vitality, endurance, blood, [what the fuck ever!]) the name is irrelevant, its still health. One health bar regenerated, another didn't. The reason shields and health were merged in every halo after the first is because most people simply didn't allow themselves to take any damage beyond "shield." Thus, that second layer was utterly pointless. Halo:CE is the reason regenerating health is popular, whether you like it or not.

Cover based combat (with regenerating health) is a series of isolated actions separated by audible clunks. Look around, wait, move, wait, shoot, wait, goto 10. This isn't being a dick and oversimplifying just to make the game look bad, halo is such an oversimplified game that actually doing two things at once (moving and aiming) is considered advanced gameplay technique.

 

[Narcogen]

I'm actually all for Bungie working for Activision you know why..?

Here's Bungies plan for their studio:
7 Steps to World Domination.

1 * Start independent gaming software company.
2 * Dominate Mac platform: Launch assault on Windows platform.
3 * Announce killer gaming title.
4 * Acquire strangely addictive Chinese food company.
5 * Recover Ling Ling's head.
6 * Stage bloody coup of new parent company.
7 * Take over World. Shoot enemies into sun with giant slingshot.

They started out fine with one, jumped to number three, then got bold and went straight for number 6!!!!

Here's hoping that the can follow through with their plan
If they should succeed, I would be all for them running the world.

*edit* Their coming for you Kotick, just you wait!

EA is safe. They are not Bungie's parent company. They are now independent. The EA deal is a pure publishing deal. Bungie stays independent, and Bungie owns the IP.

Also, they certainly did not skip #5. And #4 I think doesn't need the word "company"-- they were after just the food itself.

Mmmm.... strangely addictive Chinese food....

 

[Exort]

I like that Kotick doesn't even have to say anything negative and people still jump all over his shit. How dare he run a successful company.

While the man whom owns the company is a greedy bastard whom uses the Gaming Industry as his own little personal money pedestal pile, and has the ego the size of Jupiter to match.

We don't do this for no reasons, mate.

I just wish everyone would realize that he's no different from most CEOs out there. He just likes to talk.

Watch more news you will understand, he doesn't "just" talk. He sue people he is suppose to pay, buy down developer then fire all of them to get the IP right. Sure you can say many CEO would like to do it but they didn't.