Halo Maker's Next Game Coming to 'All Platforms'
Exactly when that new intellectual property will premiere, and what platforms will be available at that time, remains unknown. The deal between the two companies spans ten years, with Activision getting "exclusive, worldwide rights to publish and distribute all future Bungie games based on the new intellectual property" while Bungie "remains an independent company and will continue to own their intellectual property."
Best-known for its work on Xbox-exclusive Halo series, Bungie--which was bought by Microsoft in 2000 and then regained its independence in 2007--has also produced such titles as Marathon, Myth and Oni on platforms including PC, Mac and PlayStation 2.
-
I can't believe Bungie would sign with Activision. Am I the only one who thinks Activision needs some restructuring before they even think of releasing another game? I mean they could at least have staff that actually play games and have a knowledge of what a publisher does. They are just businessmen milking us for everything we're worth.
-
-
-
Most good and ethical businesses are guided by people with domain knowledge, to ensure that the company is grounded in ethics, and does actually make a product or provide a service that customers want.
If you want free-for-all capitalism, take a look at Lehman Brothers, Bernie Madoff, Enron, WorldCom, Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs. Pure unbridled capitalism is not sustainable, and does not truly serve society. If the only reason a company exists is "to make money for our shareholders", then it is truly corrupt.-
-
-
People are corrupt by default. Archville is right but his example isn't. Tjhe story of Lehman Brothers, Bernie Madoff, Enron, WorldCom, Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs shows how easily people can become corrupt. Activision isn't about corruption, it's about being profitable (you can read "being greedy", it's up to you).
-
-
-
-
-
-
Oh, don't tell me that. I know the difference between a loyal customer (Valve model) and a milked customer (Activision model). What I find funny is the fact that some people still get angry about big corporations and think that they should've been restructured while being profitable. It isn't charity, if you're making money you're succesful and effective. For now.
-
That's what upsets and confuses so many people about Activision's business practices, though. The call for restructuring seems to be based on the fact that the board of directors appears to be perfectly willing to let Kotick sabotage Activision's long term earnings in exchange for some quick cash now. They've destroyed Guitar Hero and Tony Hawk due to oversaturation of the market, and seem likely to do the same to Call of Duty. Given their reluctance to spend any money developing or promoting new IP, and using the sequel/expansion model instead, they're setting themselves up to only have Blizzard to fall back on. While this is good for making short-term cash, it's a horrible long term strategy.
-
-
-