Rumor: MS and Bungie splitting
- Thread starter RobertR1
- Start date
- Status
http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200710/N07.1002.1438.22348.htm
"Our source stated that Bungie is “tired of Making Halo, and didn’t want to do future Halo games.†For an unstated, but significant amount of money, Bungie shareholders bought the studio name back from Microsoft. Our source also revealed that even though Microsoft will retain the rights to Halo, Microsoft also has “the right of first refusal on future games.†This means that Microsoft has the first shot at publishing Bungie’s future titles. How this will come into play if Bungie decides they want future game X to appear on the PlayStation 3 and Wii alongside an Xbox 360 release will make things quite interesting."
Sounds like MS wants to milk the cash cow (quite understandable) but Bungie feels different.
"Our source stated that Bungie is “tired of Making Halo, and didn’t want to do future Halo games.†For an unstated, but significant amount of money, Bungie shareholders bought the studio name back from Microsoft. Our source also revealed that even though Microsoft will retain the rights to Halo, Microsoft also has “the right of first refusal on future games.†This means that Microsoft has the first shot at publishing Bungie’s future titles. How this will come into play if Bungie decides they want future game X to appear on the PlayStation 3 and Wii alongside an Xbox 360 release will make things quite interesting."
Sounds like MS wants to milk the cash cow (quite understandable) but Bungie feels different.
Eh? That makes no sense, as the only Bungie shareholder[strike]s[/strike] would be MS. That someone bought the Bungie name/studio/people from MS (and are now shareholders of a new Bungie corporate entity) is of course possible, but that wording is strange.Gameinformer said:
They must mean "former Bungie shareholders" who would now be MS shareholders unless MS paid for Bungie in mostly cash (I doubt it).
If MS has first shot at pub it normally means it up to the discretion of MS (if they become the pu) what platforms it shows up on, especially since pubs normally fund game dev and are given exclusive territorial rights.
I can't imaging bungie funding PS3 and Wii game dev on its own and then sitting on it as MS funds the 360 development and refuses to allow it to be published on the PS3 and Wii.
Indeed.
I think MS is now officially transitioning into a delivery company. They want nothing to do with developing content or dealing with hardware. Seems they may have struck a deal with Sony or Nintendo to do just that for the next generation.
I don't think we should get too hung up on the "shareholders" thing... the way it's phrased it just obviously doesn't make immediate sense, so better to wait for an article to come along that has a better grasp on how to present these things. Still though, overall another significant step towards confirmation there in that piece.
scooby_dooby
Legend
I wouldn't go that far.
It sounds as if MS had little choice in the matter, in the end the employees of Bungie held the cards. MS salvaged the situation as best they could by retaining first-refusal rights on all future projects.
They obviously wanted *something* to do with developing Halo 4 as that was the major bone of contention.
Huh? Please lets this be sarcasm and my meter is just off.
MS is a software company. Clearly the praise of their tools has been commented on many times so far this generation. If they can license their software to Sony and Nintendo's next consoles, keep themselves out of the console hardware market (anti competitive reasons) they could make a ton of money off software roylaties.
I don't think they would go in that direction though; it undermines their entire reason for entering the console space in the first place: the digital living room. Between the teetering effort on the Vista side and the 360's strong leg-up on the Live/marketplace side, it would seem questionable to abandon that.
I think if anything, it goes back to theories of previous years - MS games play on a reference system that can be licensed out to a number of manufacturers, and also emulated/replicated on the desktop. I don't see MS going software-only for Nintendo and Sony - in fact that's probably the least likely scenario of all that could be envisioned here.
In terms of this particular move, I truly just think it has to do with internal dissent at Bungie, and a compromise deal that's been reached.
I think if anything, it goes back to theories of previous years - MS games play on a reference system that can be licensed out to a number of manufacturers, and also emulated/replicated on the desktop. I don't see MS going software-only for Nintendo and Sony - in fact that's probably the least likely scenario of all that could be envisioned here.
In terms of this particular move, I truly just think it has to do with internal dissent at Bungie, and a compromise deal that's been reached.
I'm not sure it undermines it that much. If they can own the software development market for game development, and work their way into embedded software, that would be much closer to what they've done in the PC world than owning the entire hardware platform is.
However, I don't think they'll go that direction either, and I don't think XB360 fans should worry over such a move at all regardless.
Seriously.
Kojima has suggested the same boredom regarding MGS for how long? Yet, here comes mgs4.
Same for any other really popular franchise and their developer.
MS I'm sure doesn't like the idea of $1B losses for repairs and the $4B losses from hardware last gen. They've been burned by Rare and the Half billion they invested and have since been striking exclusive "series" deals instead of keeping or :gasp: acquiring more talent in-house. They have been building momentum this gen and at this point should be adding talent, not losing it.
Sony knows hardware (though they did get too greedy) and Nintendo has been doing well on the hardware front for ages. They both have great internal studios. They both have deficiences in online components and delivery mechanisms along with OS creation and dev tools. MS may have struck up a future contract to do what they do well and make a profit at the same time.
If MS intends to continue on as usual, their developer relations head should be fired. They are driving away the talent that has put them in the position they are in currently.
Wait, what? The 360 effort was begun to get away from the PC model, not to replicate it. What MS wants - or at least wanted when the whole XBox project began - is to own digital distribution channels, to be at the center of the living room. I personally don't see how with MS' stable of studios - which frankly aren't that numerous - they would even turn into any sort of force in the larger market at all were they to focus on Nintendo and Sony. It'd be even more marginal than Sega's efforts since the time they exited hardware.
Plus, if that situation were to be the case, what you'd expect would be studio acquisitions, not divestitures and closings (as with FASA).
I definitely do not see that as a viable path for theorization here.
Your thinking of the EA route.
I don't think MS wants anything to do with games going forward. They want to be the delivery man. That's it. They want nothing to do with the content or the hardware.
Chef can you define what you mean by "delivery man?"
- Status