Bungie being bought back by Microsoft?

by sage2001 February 5th 2015, 11:51 pm

I hope so. Thoughts?

by **Kusa 'Aezotee** February 6th 2015, 5:05 am

Not going to happen. Destiny has a long ways to go still.

by **R93_Sniper** February 6th 2015, 5:45 am

Yeah I don't see it happening either

by Apsuli February 6th 2015, 9:25 am

I haven't read too much about it yet. Bungie is probably pretty damn important for Activision after the crazy profits from Destiny, but considering these are the people that bought Minecraft for 2.5B I have hope that they are dumb enough to pay even more to get Bungie back. I would really hope so.

Would with Bungie come rights to Destiny or would Destiny's development go to other teams in Activision and then we can officially start calling it Call of Destiny?

by Stevedoggen February 6th 2015, 10:58 am

Apsuli wrote:I have hope that they are dumb enough to pay even more to get Bungie back. I would really hope so.

But why?
What would it even achieve?
It's not like Bungie would take over the reigns of Halo again, they said they were done, and even if M$ forced them, nothing is worse than a forced game.
All the purchase would do is maybe make the tidbits of Destiny exclusive shite be for xbox instead of ps supposing that is a thing they can do. Whoop-dee-doo.
Certainly not worth a $2.5bn dump.

Seems like the whole thing is a BS story to me. It doesn't add up in my head.

by Apsuli February 6th 2015, 11:17 am

Personally I wouldn't mind if they got to work on other games than Halo. Destiny in hands of Activision turned into a complete DLC monster and overall very unpolished game. If in hands of Microsoft Bungie will be able to live up to their old reputation then I'm all for it. I think that what ever Bungie does they will be able to do it better at Microsoft. Not because Microsoft is good but because Activision is utter shit.

At least if Microsoft doesn't tie them up, throw them at dark room, lock it up ten times and have mafia take their families as hostages until make more Halo. Which is sadly pretty likely if this was to happen.

I don't really know how game industry works so the things I write might be completely off. All I know is that I don't want to have them to try to make shit smell less bad for next ten years. These things are matter of opinion but I think forced Halo game is still better than Destiny in its current form, and all I want is for Bungie to make good games.

by Neesy February 6th 2015, 2:16 pm

WHy would Microsoft acquire Bungie whilst the value of the company is at its peak following the financial success that is Destiny. If anything, they'd probably (if they ever decide to) make the move when the whole Bungie hype dies down. Out of 343, Bungie and Activision: only Activision have shown they can make a competent competitive shooter, especially with the resurgence of the CoD Comp scene due to BO2. Microsoft isn't beating a dead horse with Halo... Rather, the horse is asking to be put out of its misery.

by TheAandZ February 6th 2015, 6:18 pm

Neesy wrote:Microsoft isn't beating a dead horse with Halo... Rather, the horse is asking to be put out of its misery.

So negative...q.q

by Heatguts February 6th 2015, 7:54 pm

It's still at least kinda true. At some point we need to let these franchises go, and I thought Halo 3 was a good way to end it. Reach added some backstory and changed things up but 4 and now 5 are just leeching off their predecessors.

by Stevedoggen February 7th 2015, 6:46 am

The thing is, Bungie referred to Reach as 'their swansong' for halo.
I mean, canon conflictions aside, it had a good campaign.
It had a very customisable Firefight
It had rather decent multiplayer maps, all things considered.
It had a huge Forge world, and Forge had all the new tools we take for granted.
And a theatre that covered all modes and actually worked. Looking at you, 4.

Effectively, it had everything, and part of me wished the official games ended there. Fan games are one thing, but yeah. Just imho.

by Jaing February 7th 2015, 9:52 am

Reach's final cutscene reflects that.

by Neesy February 7th 2015, 4:56 pm

Stevedoggen wrote:The thing is, Bungie referred to Reach as 'their swansong' for halo.
I mean, canon conflictions aside, it had a good campaign.
It had a very customisable Firefight
It had rather decent multiplayer maps, all things considered.
It had a huge Forge world, and Forge had all the new tools we take for granted.
And a theatre that covered all modes and actually worked. Looking at you, 4.

Effectively, it had everything, and part of me wished the official games ended there. Fan games are one thing, but yeah. Just imho.

It was everything but competitively viable.

by RockMetal&Time February 8th 2015, 2:00 am

really off topic but: Even though the Halo 5 beta had flaws in many ways I actually enjoyed it and had more fun with it then Halo 3 or 2 or 1 combined I know it sounds biased and crazy but gawdamn it was fun and it's good to know 343 actually listened to us for the first time in history
https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/community/blog-posts/how-fans-helped-shape-the-multiplayer-of-halo-5-guardians

by Apsuli February 8th 2015, 12:10 pm

Neesy wrote:
Stevedoggen wrote:The thing is, Bungie referred to Reach as 'their swansong' for halo.
I mean, canon conflictions aside, it had a good campaign.
It had a very customisable Firefight
It had rather decent multiplayer maps, all things considered.
It had a huge Forge world, and Forge had all the new tools we take for granted.
And a theatre that covered all modes and actually worked. Looking at you, 4.

Effectively, it had everything, and part of me wished the official games ended there. Fan games are one thing, but yeah. Just imho.

It was everything but competitively viable.

Does every game have to be competitively viable for you to acknowledge them as good games?

by **R93_Sniper** February 8th 2015, 6:14 pm

Reach was competitively viable imo. I don't know what Nessy's talking about

by SilentGamer64 February 9th 2015, 6:44 pm

I heard somewhere that Reach was only accepted competitively after it was patched with a zero bloom option or something. Not sure why that would make it competitive though. After all, if you're spawning with a laser accurate gun, you might as well just give everyone snipers off spawn.

by **Kusa 'Aezotee** February 10th 2015, 1:32 am

Bloom was overkill in vanilla Reach, so the MLG gametypes had it completely removed with the title update stuff.
Which conveniently removed the need to pace your shots, and made the gun even easier to use. So pro.

by **Mootjuh** February 10th 2015, 2:52 am

Too bad it was in previous Halo games except nobody noticed.

by **Kusa 'Aezotee** February 10th 2015, 3:27 am

Very true. It was just more dramatic for the precision weapons of Reach, and was actually shown on-screen.

by SilentGamer64 February 10th 2015, 12:17 pm

That's why I always liked the Battle Rifle better. It had bullet spread, but at least the player could control it based on how close/far they were from a target. With the DMR's bloom, it isn't always your fault you're missing, the game is making you miss randomly.

by xNFx Monsta February 11th 2015, 6:30 pm

I found that reach was very fun with the zero bloom addition to the game, however I also think that it was a bit over kill with the precision weapons as well. Like before patch it was all about hitting those shots after the 3 bullet spam in the beginning then after the patch it was all about trying to learn new strafing techniques in order to dodge that laser accurate bullet stream.

by Neesy February 12th 2015, 4:04 pm

Kusa 'Aezotee wrote:Bloom was overkill in vanilla Reach, so the MLG gametypes had it completely removed with the title update stuff.
Which conveniently removed the need to pace your shots, and made the gun even easier to use. So pro.

With experience playing Reach on comp LAN at events I can tell you the mixture of sprint and bloom made the game way too slow for it to be competitively viable in the long-run. R93 can say whatever he wants but I doubt he has any actual Competitive experience at a major level.

by **R93_Sniper** February 12th 2015, 4:10 pm

Halo 3 played slower than reach. By your standards, halo 3 must have been the most unviable game for competition

by Neesy February 12th 2015, 4:59 pm

R93_Sniper wrote:Halo 3 played slower than reach. By your standards, halo 3 must have been the most unviable game for competition

Reach's maps weren't made for no-sprint / no bloom (I guess) unlike Halo 3's. In comp variants, H3 played faster than reach... by far. Only time reach went fast was when you were spawn trapping with a sniper lmao.

by Sponsored content

Bungie being bought back by Microsoft?

Bungie being bought back by Microsoft?

Re: Bungie being bought back by Microsoft?

Re: Bungie being bought back by Microsoft?

Re: Bungie being bought back by Microsoft?

Re: Bungie being bought back by Microsoft?

Re: Bungie being bought back by Microsoft?

Re: Bungie being bought back by Microsoft?

Re: Bungie being bought back by Microsoft?

Re: Bungie being bought back by Microsoft?

Re: Bungie being bought back by Microsoft?

Re: Bungie being bought back by Microsoft?

Re: Bungie being bought back by Microsoft?

Re: Bungie being bought back by Microsoft?

Re: Bungie being bought back by Microsoft?

Re: Bungie being bought back by Microsoft?

Re: Bungie being bought back by Microsoft?

Re: Bungie being bought back by Microsoft?

Re: Bungie being bought back by Microsoft?

Re: Bungie being bought back by Microsoft?

Re: Bungie being bought back by Microsoft?

Re: Bungie being bought back by Microsoft?

Re: Bungie being bought back by Microsoft?

Re: Bungie being bought back by Microsoft?

Re: Bungie being bought back by Microsoft?

Re: Bungie being bought back by Microsoft?