Top
520°

Studios That Microsoft Should Buy Next | From Bungie to Remedy Entertainment

Microsoft‘s recent spree of studio acquisitions indicates the company is planning wisely for its next generation of console hardware. Though Double Fine, Inxile, Obsidian, Playground Games, Compulsion Games, and Ninja Theory cater to a wide variety of genres, there’s room for more diversity among the Xbox Game Studios lineup. The following are a few developers that should be on the publisher’s shortlist moving forward.

Read Full Story >>
gamerevolution.com
The story is too old to be commented.
lxeasy1261d ago

I definitely agree with Moon Studios. There's no denying Bungie was at their best when they were with Microsoft. The who activision partnership clearly didn't turn out to well. MDHR is another natural fit for Xbox. Their collaboration on Cuphead was spectacular. Just like their collaboration with Moon studios pumping out Ori. Both are no doubt two of the best platforms this gen. I'm surprised they didn't acquire Remedy. Their partnership has been strong throughout the years.

TK-661261d ago

Moon Studios should be a must once their distribution deal ends. Ori is among the best games of this generation and Ori 2 looks amazing so they'd be fools to not pick them up.

xX-oldboy-Xx1261d ago

Halo was created without ms though, BUNGIE just took the money but had a get out clause. If it was all roses they would've renegotiated, but they chose to leave - why do you think that is?

DaDrunkenJester1261d ago (Edited 1261d ago )

@Old

You're right that Halo was being made before MS bought them, but the original game was going to be a 3rd person action adventure game. Now im not going to say it looked bad, but that Mac footage they showed in 98 looked bad.

Possibly MS helped them create the game that redefined FPS games and shot them to the stardom they know. And as far as why they left. Well, they wanted to move on and make Destiny and MS wanted more Halo.

TK-661261d ago (Edited 1261d ago )

@xX-oldboy-Xx

"why do you think that is?"

Money? I mean in the end Destiny's core mechanics were heavily based on Halo's so they didn't even make anything new. $500 million literally blown for a relatively 'meh' Halo clone. The level design wasn't even slightly close to the quality they'd achieved with Halo 3 so at this point it's safe to say Bungie is a shell of it's former self especially once we saw them kick Marty O'Donnell out.

It's extremely ironic watching Crowbcat's video comparing 343 dev's vidoc to Bungie's and seeing just how far Bungie have fallen in their design philosophy.

1260d ago
PepsivsCoke1260d ago

I’m pretty sure Bungie wants to stay away from being with a parent company. If I remember right they watched as Halo changed everything but instead of getting crazy rich they watched the developers of Gears get crazy rich and Bungie got “bonuses”. I imagine that must have really sucked!

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1260d ago
Ceaser98573611261d ago

Remedy looks like is titling towards Sony.. With Control being Marketing by Sony and Yoshida visiting them and Remedy visiting Naughty dog and insomniac... A good partnership between them seems possible..

Abnor_Mal1261d ago

Just saw this same thing being said on YouTube by some dude named MBG iirc.

With Remedy also visiting Insomniac, what does that mean, were Insomniac purchased since they've also been recently working with Sony and see great success with their last game and games in general for the platform. This is similar to when Sony were courting Hideo Kojima, will Remedy soon he making an exclusive and or be purchased by Sony.

From Software will not most likely be bought by Microsoft, for mainly the same reason(s) people gave against Sony purchasing them. That they are a multiplatform company with many of their games on other platforms and would seem pretty messed up to introduce those titles then tell people they will not get sequels to Seriko and Dark Souls. Also an acquisition may come with the condition of making more soulsborne games at a frequent pace. *(not my words but rather something said by someone in the comments for "Extending the Family: Possible Studios Sony Has Their Eyes On.") So I would think that same logic would apply to Microsoft same as Sony trying to buy them.

MDHR is a small company that could possibly grow with Microsoft, judging from the article Cuphead is their only game. IO Interactive I guess the same could be said of them like From Software, but they've not really seen success with the last two Hitman games, I believe the self published their last game after leaving Square Enix. A good get would be Creative Assembly as they cover many different genres.

Bungie and Remedy I dont know about, since Bungie bought back their independence from Microsoft, and Remedy deciding to go third party also. What would be the point to leave and then return, then again the same could be said about Insomniac. Although Remedy and Insomniac were never first party like Bungie.

Sevir1261d ago

If Shu is visiting Remedy, then it means that They've struck some sort of deal on a new IP... Likely to shore up for Next Gen Development. Given that Insomniac is second party, them visiting a insomniac likely means they're getting a feel for how Sony deals with second party studios and partners.

I can't imagine they'd convince Remedy to go full first party with them, when Microsoft has been trying for the entirety of the 360 and Earlier part of the XBO generation. If an acquisition was to happen, I believe it would have happened with Microsoft.

Automatic791260d ago

@Ceaser

Remedy works on Crossfire X which is coming exclusive to Xbox. Control may be marketed by Sony but it is multiplatform.

Ceaser98573611260d ago

automatic
I never said Control is exclusive to PS4. Read again what I have written...
Also Crossfire X aint exclusive either.. Its launching first on Xbox in 2020 Remedy said it check their Twitter so it will release on the PS4 as well.. And Crossfire was free to play in Asia . Crossfire X will probably have Single player campaign which remedy is working on.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1260d ago
GrubsterBeater1261d ago

“Why destroy one studio...when we can destroy TWO studios?!!?”
- MIcrosoft

timotim1261d ago

Minecraft is thriving under Microsoft and has only gotten bigger.

GrubsterBeater1260d ago (Edited 1260d ago )

@timotim

That’s what is typically referred to as “anecdotal evidence”.

In other words, just because you have ONE example of evidence that goes against what I said, does not mean that what I said is no longer true.

Not only that, but Minecraft was already fully made (aside from obvious subsequent content updates, etc.) before Microsoft paid 2.5 billion for the studio (Mojang) along with the game. Minecraft was also too big to fail anyway at the time Microsoft came along, so that’s a really bad anecdote to try and refute what I said.

Add in the fact that the three cofounders of the studio left Mojang once Microsoft bought the studio, thus breaking up the studio, or as I claimed; “destroyed” the studio.

timotim1260d ago (Edited 1260d ago )

More than anything...its the LATEST evidence which is very important in this context. I would much rather hear/see evidence of their latest acquisitions (the others are still too early to even begin to judge), than to hear/see evidence of studios from yesteryear that was under different management at the time.

If the context is what will Microsoft do with these studios going forward under Phil Spencer, Satya Nadella, and Matt Booty, then don't give examples of studios from 20 years ago under Robbie Bach, Steve Ballmer, Terry Myerson and Don Matrick...that doesn't fit.

In terms of Minecraft, its a valid point because Microsoft didn't have to continue the franchise as a multiplatform franchise. When Microsoft purchased Mojang, Minecraft wasn't the world's biggest selling game IP of all time, that was done under Microsoft. Not only have they expanded on the number of platforms by bringing it to the Nintendo platforms for the first time, but they were also the ones that unified the game in cross-play allowing consoles, PC and mobile gamers to all play together. Then theirs Minecraft Education Edition which Microsoft had the vision for. They have allowed Mojang to continue to produce other games like Cobalt, and Minecraft Dungeons and Minecraft Earth is direct evidence that studios under this new Xbox leadership has freedom to try new things when if this was the past leaders of Xbox...they would have told them to get started right away on Minecraft 2...

ILostMyMind1260d ago

@timotim
"Minecraft" was thriving before Microsoft.

timotim1260d ago

@ILost

The point i am making is that yes, while was already thriving before, it has only gotten bigger since the Microsoft acquisition. The guy is implying that Microsoft only ruins studios, yet Microsoft has only expanded the reach of the IP as it continues to grow.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1260d ago
Jin_Sakai1261d ago

Lets just gobble up all the studios we can. That’s the answer to all our problems.

Jin_Sakai1261d ago (Edited 1261d ago )

“You got any other suggestions”

Yes, build more studios from the ground up and add to the studios they already have.

Also let developers like The Coalition continue the IP they were making before they were told to make Gears.

AngelicIceDiamond1261d ago

"Yes, build more studios from the ground up and add to the studios they already have." so that way developers can take longer to release AAA games at 3 years out. This isn't the 90's where major AAA studios were popping up left and right .We have no idea how long it took for MS build that studio, All we know is that company is still in staffing and concept phasing of development and MS doesn't have the time to build studios from scratch. Plus I really don't wanna hear you complain "how long its taking" yes you're a hypocrite like that because you're being a hypocrite right here.

xX-oldboy-Xx1261d ago

AngelicIceDiamond - Absolutely - invest in studios you already have, support and expand. Just proves how out of touch they are, throwing money at a problem you don't fully comprehend.

Instead of releasing 5 dud games a gen, let's release 15. Smart move that one.

Jin_Sakai1261d ago (Edited 1261d ago )

”so that way developers can take longer to release AAA games at 3 years out. This isn't the 90's where major AAA studios were popping up left and right”

They’ve had years to build new studios and focus on building quality exclusives. Purchasing studios isn’t the only option. Now they’re focused on quantity and Gamepass fillers.

sinspirit1261d ago (Edited 1261d ago )

@AngelicIceDiamond

Their buying of studios is because they have been lacking the commitment to create their own for a decade now. They've driven studios into the ground and eventually disbanded them and projects that didn't work out under their supervision. They have had years and years to build studios. Sure, buying established studios right now is smart in a business perspective. But, bad for the consumer. We are the consumers. So, I'm not going to babble on about business strategies. This site isn't for business. It's for passionate gamers. There is nothing positive from a consumer perspective about Microsoft's poor quality assurance, poor developer relations, and consumer care that makes these acquisitions exciting. For instance, Sony has a terrific relationship with Insomniac. We can get behind them acquiring them. But, even with Sony out of the picture, why would I care if MS bought them?

It's all to make up for their long standing shortcomings as a last ditch effort and going by their track record we can only have a slump where many of these studios won't deliver for their fans under their new ownership. Being optimistic and blind to support MS when their pattern is largely negative based on many many years is what prevented them from making action sooner. I'm not going to be excited about anything they buy until results are finally given and they fix their history.

I don't see why so many in support of acquiring these studios haven't complained about a lack thereof for the past decade.

Dragonscale1261d ago (Edited 1261d ago )

Maybe with all there deep pockets they could actually you know, try creating some of their own. Whether they buy a studio or create a new one a new game will still take just as long to make.

Bathyj1261d ago

How about build a studio, and nurture some creativity? Wholesale buying is not going to help Microsoft's problem. Their whole philosophy is wrong. They bought Rare and turned them into trash. They bought The Coalition just to continue their franchise game. That's why they'll never have studios that refine themselves like Guerrilla did with Horizon or reinvigorate a stale franchise like Good of War. . Ms are just doing it wrong

gangsta_red1261d ago

@angelicdiamond

It's hilarious the amount of misunderstanding from these replies.

The complaint for so long was MS needs more first party studios.

Now the complaint (i.e. goal posts) has been switched to MS needs to *build* first party studios from the ground up.

No other company has done this to the extent some of you are requiring MS too.

MS had already built 343, The Coalition, The Initiative from the ground up, given them resources and expanded their teams, but that's not good enough. Every studio has to be built from the ground up now.

Then the complaint will be switched to another non sensical argument of, "MS should have done it a long time ago". Basically they're going to complain no matter what MS does.

rainslacker1260d ago

Rapid expansion can be bad for all these studios if ms doesn't have a clear goal, or the management doesn't know how to achieve said goal if it is in place.

I think ms has a clear goal...at least internally. But they haven't really shown that they are capable of handling these studios in a way that will achieve that goal.

They may prove that they fine as time goes on, but they havent done much this gen to give the benefit of the doubt

gangsta_red1260d ago

@Rainslacker
"But they haven't really shown that they are capable of handling these studios in a way that will achieve that goal."

What examples have they shown to come to this conclusion that MS can't handle these studios? What goal is it that they're trying to achieve that would be bad because of rapid expansion?

Especially when these studios now how have a good margin of income to get more help to develop games when once before they had one foot out the door.

sinspirit1259d ago

@gangsta_red

The difference is Microsoft hasn't had notable first party studio games on par with Sony or Nintendo for about a decade. They needed these studios a very very long time ago. They should have addressed the problems as it became an issue. Not drag it on for 10 years giving us bread crumbs and insulting words of wisdom. They waited this long and now they decide to just buy their way back in with studios they have little to no relationship with aside from licensing fees. No other corporation has made this big last ditch effort of buying big impact studios in such short time frames.

It's absolutely insulting to gamers that you and others parade around here like this supporting 100% business decision oriented decisions by a corporation with zero passion for an industry that is fueled by passionate consumers. All their missteps, ridiculous claims and advertisement campaigns costing more than game development and quality assurance, and telling us what we want instead of giving us what we want. That's Microsoft's motto through and through. Telling us what we want. Disgusting how much propaganda, twisting, and ignorance there is by fanboys on here. I know you see the pattern differ from the competition but you're just fueled by the desire to salvage a sunken ship like a shareholder.

gangsta_red1259d ago

@sinspirit

"The difference is Microsoft hasn't had notable first party studio games on par with Sony or Nintendo for about a decade."

That's not really a difference and has nothing to do with MS trying to get more first party studios which was the main complaint from gamers for so long.

"They needed these studios a very very long time ago. They should have addressed the problems as it became an issue."

And they did now, do you suggest that since they didn't do so a long time ago that they never fix the problem now? How is that even logical? Maybe the reason they didn't address the issue was because of the old management that didn't do exactly that, but now under this new leadership they are doing exactly what they were criticized for.

Saying that they should have did this long ago is not only obvious but not even an argument to stand on.

"No other corporation has made this big last ditch effort of buying big impact studios in such short time frames."

Which is completely false, EA, Activision, Sony and every other major publisher and developer have all made huge acquisitions with companies that had little to no affiliation with them. The issue people are having is that now MS is doing it, now there seems to be some sort of rules to buying studios to produce games for their system.

It's actually insulting to gamers to see fanboys who were complaining about MS having no first party studios and needing to have studios on par with Sony, just to turn around and complain that MS is buying too many studios to bulk up their first party line up. It's also amazing to see the goal posts shift so blatantly.

"Telling us what we want. Disgusting how much propaganda, twisting, and ignorance there is by fanboys on here. I know you see the pattern differ from the competition but you're just fueled by the desire to salvage a sunken ship like a shareholder."

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about with this statement. This is basically "I hate Xbox" in the form of hyperbolic vomit. It's ironic that you talk about twisting, propaganda and ignorance when it's exactly what you did with your whole reply to me that made no points and only proved exactly what fanboys do on this site to keep the argument against Xbox/MS going.

Now that MS is addressing their first party issue the argument has now changed to "buying too many studios to fix their problem".

Hilarious.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 1259d ago
Sonyslave31261d ago

lol you people confuse me, first ms don't have enough exclusive now you don't wont them to fix the problem.

lxeasy1261d ago

@sonyslave3 I don't understand it either. Its hypocrisy. Sad how many gamers want Xbox to fail. smh

xX-oldboy-Xx1261d ago

Quality over quantity, can you seriously say ms has great exclusives? Genuine question, remember this is their 3rd gen going to be 4th - ms studios has been making games for decades.

You lot are as dim as ms, a good fit for each other it seems.

Dragonscale1261d ago

Its how they fix the problem is the problem.

Obscure_Observer1261d ago

@Sonyslave3

"lol you people confuse me, first ms don't have enough exclusive now you don't wont them to fix the problem."

Lol. I know right. Phil Spencer said years back that it would take time to put Xbox on the right track again. It would be a three fase. First, fix the Network/Services/UI. Second, fix the Hardware. Third and final, fix the Studios/Games problems.

Now that Network and Hardware are out of the way, Microsoft will put all of their focus on games and game studios.

Xbox under Phil Spencer as of now, has more first party studios than Sony, and there´s even more coming!

All i hear fanboys saying now is "stop with all those acquisitons!" Lol!

Knushwood Butt1261d ago

Did they focus on Crackdown 3?

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1261d ago
1261d ago Replies(1)
lxeasy1261d ago

@jin_Sakai thank goodness you're not in charge of Xbox or any gaming company... you would burn it to the ground with your ideas.

xX-oldboy-Xx1261d ago

That's how it's done, grow studios from the ground up - of course you can buy a few here and there. But to think buying 20 studios will give 20 good games is ridiculous. I think ms has some the worst 1st parties going, oversell and under deliver.

Spurg1261d ago (Edited 1261d ago )

If having no games is their problem then they are well in there right is to acquire games similar to how sony acquired most all their studios.

Most of Sony's AAA Studios were acquired:
-Media Molecule was acquired
-Guerilla games were acquired
-Bend Studios was Acquired
-Naughty Dog was acquired
-Sucker Punch was acquired
-Bigbig Studios(Closed) was acquired
-Evolution Studios(Closed) was acquired
-Guerrilla Cambridge(Closed) was acquired
-Zipper Interactive(Closed) was acquired

Sony built up these studios:
-Studio Japan(Co-developer and occasional makes games)
-SIE London Studio(Sing star, Eye toy, and Blood and truth)
-SIE San Mateo studio(Co-developer)
-SIE San Diego Studio(MLB the show and some indie games)
-SIE Santa Monica Studio(AAA studio, developed God of war)
-Polyphony Digital(AAA Studio, developed Grand Turismo)
-PixelOpus(Indie developer)
-Manchester Studio(VR games)
-ForwardWorks(Indie games)
-989 Studios(closed)(AAA studio developed Syphon Filter and NFL)
-Incognito Entertainment(Closed)(AAA studio developed Warhawk)
-Sony Online Entertainment Inc.(Closed)(AAA studio developed DC universe online and Ever quest online)

If notice Santa Monica Studio and Polyphony Digital are the only AAA games Sony has built up that still functioning

xX-oldboy-Xx1261d ago

Nice one mate, you've done well - just a thought though was that done over 1yr? Or 25yrs? Big difference.

Ceaser98573611261d ago

If you notice Sony Acquired those Studios when they weren't famous like they are now....

According to rumors Sony is almost ready to acquire 2-3 studios and will announce them later this year...

Abnor_Mal1261d ago

Honest question, were 989 Studios closed, or were they just rebrands as Bend Studios. I thought Bend were the makers of the Syphon Filter games.

Also Sony Online Entertainment Inc. Wasn't a Playstation studio iinm. They were more under Sony and not playstation.

You're right Sony has bought many studios, but as someone else said that was done over time (decades), and not one year.

nommers1261d ago (Edited 1261d ago )

Acquiring studios is one thing. Using them well is entirely another. Based on MS’s business practices of late, they haven’t been doing that.

They had RARE in their pocket for almost 20 years and nothing came of it.

gangsta_red1261d ago (Edited 1261d ago )

@replies

So it's okay for Sony to do it because it was years ago.

But it's not okay for MS to do it because it's now?

🤔🤔🤔

Maybe MS should build a time machine instead, go back 25 years and aquire those studios? Then the problem of when it's okay to purchase studios would be solved.

rainslacker1260d ago (Edited 1260d ago )

SOE was sold off, and not actually part of SCE(now SIE) different division within Sony entirely.

Rest is true from what I can see, but I wouldn't say that sonys expansion was as rapid as MS is doing now. MS has the potential to build and grow those studios they're buying or creating new, just like Sony did with those you list. That can take time, and they have as much time as they need I guess, but for discussions sake, it's more a matter of if MS deserves the faith that some put in them to do things with those studios that quell the criticism.

I guess the biggest difference between Sony getting all those studios, and ms, beyond MS happening in a relatively short period of time, is that Sony was never know to have long stretches of mediocre game releases or people not happy with their output. There is a difference in the quality of games today compared to the years Sony was building all that, and it takes more to build.a big quality game, which actually means MS has to work harder to get to the point where all their studios are the same caliber.

ShadowWolf7121260d ago (Edited 1260d ago )

@Abnor

Bend did make Syphon Filter, 989 was meant as a publishing arm of SCE.
"Syphon Filter is a third-person shooter action video game series developed by SCE Bend Studio (formerly Eidetic) and published by Sony Computer Entertainment (previously 989 Studios), that has appeared on the PlayStation, PlayStation 2 and PlayStation Portable game systems."

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1260d ago
King_Noctis1261d ago

Build studio from the ground up? How is it any different from acquiring a studio? Both methods take away devs from other studios, don’t they? Just look at The Initiatives for example. They keep acquiring devs from other companies left and right.

gangsta_red1261d ago

There is no difference. But for some reason MS has to build studios from ground up. Not Sony, not Nintendo, not EA, not Activision, only MS must build their studios from the ground up.

This way they can also complain for the next five six years of MS has no games, because now we have to wait for these ground up built studios to actually produce something.

NeoGamer2321261d ago

Acquisition is the quickest way to get what they want. You look at the studios they picked and acquired.

They are solid studios that are known for building quality games. Building from the ground up is a long effort. They needed quality studios quickly and that's what they have.

And at the same time they are building from the ground up with The Initiative. And Microsoft essentially built Playground Games. They have never made another game other then for Microsoft. The Coalition was also built from the ground up.

So really their strategy is double-pronged.

Ausbo1261d ago

You can’t just pop up AAA studios everywhere. That’s not how it works. There’s not enough talent to go around to build those studios.

The reason Microsoft built the initiative in Santa Monica is because of the pool of people they can poach there.

Look at Sony’s studios. Sucker punch? Purchased. Naughty dog? Purchased. Guerilla? Purchased. Media molecule? Purchased. Bend? Purchased.

ShadowWolf7121260d ago

Eh, not quite the same scenarios, outside Playground and the SoD devs.

Sony purchased tiny studios, many of whom were actually coming off of flops, or had just lost their flagship IPs, many of whom had a near-exclusive history with them. Bend was Eidetic at the time and had just made Bubsy 3D. Naughty Dog had to lose Crash Bandicoot but was desperate to both keep their relationship with SCE and get out from under Universal's thumb. Guerrilla had made a whopping two games at the time: Killzone and the rarely spoken-of "Shellshock: Nam '67" which... flopped horribly AND was a PR disaster. Sucker Punch had already signed a long term exclusive deal with Sony that lasted 11 years before they were finally formally acquired, during inFAMOUS 2 development (a la Playground Games). Media Molecule was a tiny studio whose sole game was the PS-exclusive LittleBigPlanet when they were acquired.

It's a bit different than running out there and constantly grabbing up devs with long-standing pedigrees even as they had deals with other studios and publishers.

SocialDanny1231261d ago

It's only Sony fans wanting Xbox to fail because they know that Sony can't compete in an acquisition war.

1261d ago
rainslacker1260d ago

Sony doesn't really need to get into an acquisition war. They have a lot of studios or production teams.

There isnt anyone saying that Sony needs more games, or that their output is bad....except a few select xbox fan boys

Obscure_Observer1260d ago

@rainslacker

"Sony doesn't really need to get into an acquisition war. They have a lot of studios or production teams."

Yes, they do! I got a personal question for you regarding this particular topic:

Bend just delivered Days Gone. Naughty Dog is busy with TLOU 2. Media Molecule is busy with Dreams. Sucker Punch is busy with Ghost of Tsushima. Santa Monica must be in early works on a sequel for God of War. Guerrilla must be in the middle of development of their next game.

That goes without saying:

Ready at Dawn - goes independent/multiplatform
Insomniac - goes independent/multiplatform
Supermassive - goes independent/multiplatform
Quantic Dreams - goes independent/multiplatform
From Software - goes independent/multiplatform
Evolution - Shut Down
Guerrilla Cambridge - Shut Down

The question is clear:

Do you honestly belive/expect Sony to deliver exclusive games on the same level or higher as they did with the PS4 without getting into an acquisition war?

I´m curious to know your answer.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 1259d ago
Araragifeels 1261d ago

Bungie may not let themselves be owned by Microsoft again. There a reason why Bungie split with Xbox in the first place. But then again anything can happen.

Spurg1261d ago

Yeah and that reason is that they made a deal for making Halo for ten years and that contract ended, so they made a deal with another publisher for Destiny.
The spread of misinformation is quite unreal.

xX-oldboy-Xx1261d ago

Why would they be so eager to make an unknown deal with another publisher if the current arrangement is rewarding?

Magic_Spatula1261d ago

Pretty sure Bungie is enjoying their independence as a studio and not having to answer to a publisher and making mechanics for said publisher to monetize the hell out of a game.

Prince-Ali1261d ago

It's not misinformation.. you're applying NO possible context to the situation... PLUS Bungie have gone on record to state they were done with Halo a while back but MS wouldn't let the developer work on anything else and Bungie made 2 more games before breaking away to work on something new and birth their new IP.. Something MS were NOT interested in.

No Way1260d ago

Ali .. well, if the deal says make Halo for 10 years, why would MS allow them to make anything else and break the contract?

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1260d ago
NeoGamer2321261d ago

I think Bungie would be a bad purchase. The Bungie of Microsoft was an amazing studio. The Bungie that is now independent is not as good as it was when making Halo games.

I get that they wanted to do their own thing. But lets be honest... The mechanics and gameplay of Destiny is pretty much their halo engine adapted to a new IP. When I play Destiny, I feel Halo without a real engaging story. Cool gameplay but lacks an engaging story.

Ausbo1261d ago

The reason destiny feels like an empty shell is because a large chunk of that old bungie now work at 343

sinspirit1259d ago

@Ausbo

Extremely wrong. Only 4 Bungie employees work at 343i last I checked. They are all regular employees with no leadership position. Just task completionists. Aside from one that works a leadership role in PR and media rather than development related material. Well, I hope he didn't push the MC VS Locke campaign.

neutralgamer19921261d ago

Chinese company just invested 100 million in bungie and I doubt after leaving Activision they are looking to be under any publisher

I think they will stay independent for time being

Magic_Spatula1261d ago

They are. They said that they'll self publish all future titles, and I think it was NetEase who invested in a new IP from Bungie.

Saranya1261d ago

Bungies left from Microsoft because Don Mattrick forced them to made Halo only but, now this is Microsoft new era.