{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/16/2013 3:59:12 AM
4
Liked the comment on the first link;
"[i]it's good thing bungie is independent and only have to listen to activision time frames while they pay the bills[/i]"
Guessing (like many) that deluded sole has not read [url=http://documents.latimes.com/bungie-activision-contract/]the contract[/url], in particular the reference on page 2;
"[i]in the event of a deadlock, Activision shall have the tie-breaking vote[/i]".
How will that work for the "[i]independent bungie[/i]" ... let vote on charging for subscriptions for new world expansions;
- bungie vote against (yeah, as if),
- activision vote for (of course)
- tie break vote to activision.
3 to 1 vote, activision wins (and wind EVERY TIME).
As for that subscription model (ie pay for the base game, then pay again for ongoing world expansion), refer;
"[i]business model for the Products is a blend of retail packaged goods sales, digital download, [b]subscriptions[/b], downloadable content, value-added services and micro~trarrsactions[/i]".
Funny ... the original subscription model included an initial lower buy in ... ie pay less for the initial game ... but that phrase has disappeared in recent conversations?
English
-
Edited by Unisaur 64: 2/16/2013 7:39:09 PMYour model assumes that the only voting parties are Bungie and Activision, which seems to be pointless. Why have a voting process if it's just two parties ? If it was just Bungie and Activision, the sentence [i]"in the event of a deadlock, Activision shall have the tie-breaking vote"[/i] seems pointless to me, as they could simply say that Activision have complete control in all scenarios, and Bungie's vote is irrelevant.
-
[quote]Your model assumes that the only voting parties are Bungie and Activision, which seems to be pointless. Why have a voting process if it's just two parties ?[/quote] Assume nothing, contract states the parties as "Bungie" (LLC represented by Harold Ryan) and "Activision Publishing" (represented by Thomas Tippl). Pointless ... yeah, any sane person would say that. But the farce that [i]bungie is free[/i] must be maintained. The truth is they have a say as long as they agree with activision. They have the right to hold private bungie-only meetings AS LONG AS ACTIVISION can attend ... including board meetings (no mention or exclusions related to said meeting about Destiny, any meeting). Suspect that bungie never expected the contract to become public, much of their self promoted independence is made hollow by its existence. Even kinda sad that they feel the need to create such a false impression.
-
They've come out with CoD after CoD, a property they have full 100% control over and haven't added a subscription fee onto it. Xbox live already takes one, adding one for an individual game would be suicide. There's pessimism then full blown hating on Activision. Acting like a subscription fee would be anything other than a massive surprise away from previous trends is just hating.
-
FPS games dont lend themselves to subscription models ... DLC yes, subscription and MT no. MMOG have always been the home of subscriptions, and many use the MT as a way of getting those extra special weapon perks .... and guess which brand Destiny is being placed in. Read further through the contract (link on post above) and you can see the full plan on how the subscription payment model and MT have been built in ... why go to all that effort to put it into a contract, and with specific references to that game (ie more than generic clauses)? Peter Tamte was against it, but he is no longer a VP @ bungie. And given the power of veto Activision has, it wouldn't matter anyway. And with a somewhat blind group of followers bungie has, activision has a perfect opportunity.
