Yossarian wrote:

The only truth is this: however good Destiny is, it is totally in spite of Activision's involvement beyond the cash they offered. I look forward to reading the story of how it all went down during development in the next 10 years or so.

Oh it will be fascinating reading I'm sure. I find the whole idea of Activision pretty much monopolising the console FPS genre with CoD and Destiny to be very interesting, and I'm surprised at people's refusal to believe that such a plan to stint on content on one game, for a time, to maximise on sales of their other baby, would exist. It makes too much sense to me, and I still firmly believe that if Destiny had released alongside another big AAA title, we would have seen one, if not both, DLC expansions on that disc ready to go.

This madness rests on Bungie/Activision being 100% sure, several months before release, that the most expensive videogame ever made, and a brand new franchise, would turn a profit regardless of how much content they included. That could clearly never have happened, which is why it's conspiracy cobblers of the highest order.

This isn't right. They don't need to be sure of turning a profit, just that they won't have to compete against stronger, more content-filled offerings from competitors. The point is that, as a monopoliser of the genre, they knew they wouldn't have another big AAA title to compete with and so can establish all sorts of shady business practices. And you know, the big marketing spend was probably enough to scare off potential other releases anyway. A few games were knocked back into this year, originally being earmarked for late 2014 and they also avoided Destiny and COD by doing so. 

I'm not sure I entirely agree with the notion that the FPS genre is a monopoly, would need to look at sales stats which I'm only going to bother with if someone posts them. It's not really that relevant though. They had a product with pedigree that they knew would sell well. They wanted to maximise the value of their content as much as possible through DLC, planned obsolesce, and whatever other triggers they could come up with to push people into paying more. That's your video game industry there. It's quite well-hidden of course. To the extent that people can even deny it's happening, unlike say a freemium iOS game where it's clear as day.

I've done extensive editing on this post.

monkey wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

The only truth is this: however good Destiny is, it is totally in spite of Activision's involvement beyond the cash they offered. I look forward to reading the story of how it all went down during development in the next 10 years or so.

Oh it will be fascinating reading I'm sure. I find the whole idea of Activision pretty much monopolising the console FPS genre with CoD and Destiny to be very interesting, and I'm surprised at people's refusal to believe that such a plan to stint on content on one game, for a time, to maximise on sales of their other baby, would exist. It makes too much sense to me, and I still firmly believe that if Destiny had released alongside another big AAA title, we would have seen one, if not both, DLC expansions on that disc ready to go.

This madness rests on Bungie/Activision being 100% sure, several months before release, that the most expensive videogame ever made, and a brand new franchise, would turn a profit regardless of how much content they included. That could clearly never have happened, which is why it's conspiracy cobblers of the highest order.

This isn't right. They don't need to be sure of turning a profit, just that they won't have to compete against stronger, more content-filled  offerings from competitors. The point is that, as a monopoliser of the genre, they knew they wouldn't have another big AAA title to compete with and so can establish all sorts of shady business practices.  

I'm not sure I entirely agree with the notion that the FPS genre is a monopoly, would need to look at sales stats which I'm only going to bother with if someone posts them. It's not really that relevant though. They had a product with pedigree that they knew would sell well. They wanted to maximise the value of their content as much as possible through DLC, planned obsolesce, and whatever other triggers they could come up with to push people into paying more. That's your video game industry there. It's quite well-hidden of course. To the extent that people can even deny it's happening, unlike say a freemium iOS game where it's clear as day.

If this is true, why didn't they plan it that way in the first place as opposed to suddenly having this epiphany shortly before the game went on sale and ripping large chunks out of it?

Yeah I don't think that happened. Seems like a sloppy and expensive way of managing that process. "Yeah let's take these maps out and these guns and this flying emu" (I haven't played Destiny much, I assume I'm on the right lines). "If we do that, then this bit doesn't make sense and this level will need to be redone so the player can get this trifle-firing sub machine gun which he needs for this boss that we're leaving in and we'll need to put something else in that map instead of the trifle gun to make it worth playing". It would be a clusterfuck or omnishambles (or perhaps even, a hot mess) of do-overs, getting voice artists back in, getting back the 20 level artists you sacked a couple of weeks ago etc 

Stuff like this is all planned. With Destiny, and its long development, maybe that happened later in the process than with some games, maybe that affected it.

There's a large amount of ground between "They carved up a full and complete game at the 11th hour to fleece you" and "The content of the game is perfect and structured in such a way as to only maximise the enjoyment of the player". Surely there's no one in either of the extreme camps. It's just a question of the extent to which they considered things and approached DLC and stuff. 

I mean, does anyone think that Activision dropped a brand new FPS from devs with a huge following in the FPS scene, spent a fortune on advertising it, spent a fortune on developing it and released it two months ahead of a refreshed version of its own tentpole FPS franchise without thinking about how one might affect sales of the other?

It seems far, far more likely to me that mass appeal was the reason for the cuts, not holding back content. Why cut trading or gambling? Why cut the role of factions out almost entirely, necessitating a rebrand of PvP from Faction Wars to Crucible? Why drop drop public chat (only to bring it back for free later on)

There's no shortage of reasons why a game may have been fucked around with.

stonechalice wrote:

Because of kids mate. kids are the biggest player base, hence the ESRB rating of 'teen' for Destiny. They want them to understand the game so they play it more. Cutting out gambling and trading simplifies the experience so everyone can play. Factions and stuff would be too confusing for our little ones, so get rid. It also decreases how much the game can be exploited.

When you think about it, Destiny is the game any dullard can play, just point and shoot. No need to think.

That's an odd argument considering the fact that one of the major criticisms levelled at Destiny is how poorly explained the various systems are and how much of a pain it is to get to a level where you can raid.

He was trolling with that.

Yossarian wrote:

stonechalice wrote:

Because of kids mate. kids are the biggest player base, hence the ESRB rating of 'teen' for Destiny. They want them to understand the game so they play it more. Cutting out gambling and trading simplifies the experience so everyone can play. Factions and stuff would be too confusing for our little ones, so get rid. It also decreases how much the game can be exploited. When you think about it, Destiny is the game any dullard can play, just point and shoot. No need to think.

That's an odd argument considering the fact that one of the major criticisms levelled at Destiny is how poorly explained the various systems are and how much of a pain it is to get to a level where you can raid.

It doesn't stop you from progressing in the game though. No matter what you do in Destiny, you'll get there in the end. Kids have all the time in the world to get there, so all the myriad upgrade materials mean little to them.

Eh? Didn't know I was disagreeing?

stonechalice wrote:

It doesn't stop you from progressing in the game though. No matter what you do in Destiny, you'll get there in the end.

What triple AAA release in the last ten years has been different to this? All modern games want you to progress, not just Destiny.

Yossarian wrote:

stonechalice wrote:

It doesn't stop you from progressing in the game though. No matter what you do in Destiny, you'll get there in the end.

What triple AAA release in the last ten years has been different to this? All modern games want you to progress, not just Destiny.

Um, Dark Souls for example?? It takes actual skill to get through that game. It's not a game that if you play long enough, you'll eventually get everything. It's not how long you play, it's how well you play. 

Like all the best games come on Yoss.

stonechalice wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

stonechalice wrote:

It doesn't stop you from progressing in the game though. No matter what you do in Destiny, you'll get there in the end.

What triple AAA release in the last ten years has been different to this? All modern games want you to progress, not just Destiny.

Um, Dark Souls for example?? It takes actual skill to get through that game. It's not a game that if you play long enough, you'll eventually get everything. It's not how long you play, it's how well you play.  Like all the best games come on Yoss.

Fair enough, I forgot Dark Souls (although I'm not sure if Demon's was really a triple-A, or a title aimed at a niche which found wider appeal, but that's by-the-by), but the fact is, that's a bit of an aberration, most modern AAA games, especially those from Western devs, allow you to progress no matter what.

stonechalice wrote:

Oh I see now. I think the complex stuff such as gambling and trading was cut due to the kids maybe getting swamped in depth they don't need or want, better to keep it simple. I also still believe that content was taken out due to the quiet release schedule and reformed as upcoming  DLC, and the rest of the planned DLC merely pushed back some more. Ten year plan, tons of content ready to go, and the ability to shuffle it about all they want - take bits out, add bits in to suit the current market. Sounds legit.

I don't really buy this quiet release schedule thing though. It still was up against Far Cry, Master Chief Collection, Borderlands and the heavily Microsoft backed Sunset Overdrive in terms of shooters, and was originally up against Battlefield which was only delayed at the end of July, not to mention CoD. Then there was the looming spectre of GTA Next Gen.

Plus stuff like Evil Within, Alien Isolation, Middle Earth, Assassins Creed Unity and Rogue, the FIFA juggernaut (and I guess Madden in the States) and various older titles that would have been bought by people only picking up the new consoles that Christmas.

I agree with everything else you said though, because that comes down to an execs idea of mass appeal.

Perhaps, but I presume that your book also says that Paul McCartney died before the recording of Abbey Road and was replaced by a lookalike.