CONFIRMED: Bungie leaving Microsoft

[QUOTE="duxup"]If the gameinformer article is at all accurate I don't see Bungie with some autonomy, but MS still having the right to publish their stuff as quite the sky is falling scenario that others see it.UpInFlames

It would just be such an embarassing scenario for Microsoft as they would be giving up their biggest gaming asset...willingly. It completely defeats the purpose of acquiring developers.

I don't quite see it that way. Assuming the gameinformer article is somewhat accurate I read it as Bungie gets some self determination but MS gets to publish their stuff. A bit of an odd state but I don't see that as particularly catastrophic. I guess we'll see if anything comes of all this talk.

I don't quite see it that way. Assuming the gameinformer article is somewhat accurate I read it as Bungie gets some self determination but MS gets to publish their stuff. A bit of an odd state but I don't see that as particularly catastrophic. I guess we'll see if anything comes of all this talk.duxup

I'm not saying that it's catastrophic, just nonsensical. Microsoft has absolutely nothing to gain from that kind of scenario, there's no upside, no benefit, nothing. I just keep coming back to a very simple question - why would they go through with it? What possible reason could there be? I just don't see any.

This does stink of a PR stunt if you ask me. Its not a week after halo 3 is released and bungie wants to go solo? doesnt anyone else find that just a tiny bit... well...odd? It would make sense if its a matter of bungie wants to move to pastures new but microsoft wont let them but its still a little early for that in my opinion.rety5

I agree that the timing of it has to mean something, no matter which side you want to view it from through the looking glass.

On one hand, it could just be Microsoft and Bungie having a laugh before announcing a bombshell in a week or so. You know, the old prep 'em for the worst and give 'em the best routine. This possibility makes sense because it doesn't benefit Bungie or Microsoft to announce this a week after their biggest game (that they've both got huge stakes in) came out, but it also doesn't make sense because it's potentially damaging. Then again, they've already sold like 4 million copies of the game, and maybe they thinkHalo is just so bullet-proof that it doesn't matter what gets said about the company itself.

Or, the rumor could be real, and they've both agreed to a split. They decided to let Halo 3 have its time in the sun before saying anything, but like everything Xbox, the news got leaked out early. That's a very real possibility, and the reluctance of not only Bungie and Microsoft, but common GAFposters like Frank 'O Connor and Luke Smith (bothwork at Bungie) to say anything about the situation at all backs this scenario up. It's not just that Microsoftand Bungie aren't saying anything, it's that nobody is. That's a very, very bad sign.

The timing also jibes with the end of business quarters from what I've heard, which also errs on the side of the rumor. However, the news came out on exactly October 1. It seems odd to me that a guy who would be hearing something from a reliable source inside one of the two companies would hear it on a Monday, during the work week. I'd be more inclined to believe the blog had it turned up on the weekend or late Monday night, when the leaker would most likely be away from work and would be less at risk of having his ass canned for spilling the beans.

[QUOTE="duxup"]I don't quite see it that way. Assuming the gameinformer article is somewhat accurate I read it as Bungie gets some self determination but MS gets to publish their stuff. A bit of an odd state but I don't see that as particularly catastrophic. I guess we'll see if anything comes of all this talk.UpInFlames

I'm not saying that it's catastrophic, just nonsensical. Microsoft has absolutely nothing to gain from that kind of scenario, there's no upside, no benefit, nothing. I just keep coming back to a very simple question - why would they go through with it? What possible reason could there be? I just don't see any.

Maybe MS believes Bungie is a one-trick pony. I do have a question, however, if MS will indeed own the publishing rights, then will they be able to control the platforms of which Bungie releases.

Just now- MS replied... it's a rumor!

I'll post the link later!

Just now- MS replied... it's a rumor!

I'll post the link later!

gamingqueen

Maybe MS believes Bungie is a one-trick pony. I do have a question, however, if MS will indeed own the publishing rights, then will they be able to control the platforms of which Bungie releases.

HiResDes

I think MS knows that Bungie is not a one-trick pony. They have a 16 year history at this point of putting out quality games, and slightly less than half of those were exclusive to Microsoft.

I still think that if the rumor is true at all, the most likely scenario is the possible attrition of the more creative guys at Bungie. I remember once when Bill Gates was musing about his company's success, he said that his company was a company of thousands, but if the top five people left, it would be a different company. That's a sign that they value high-level individual contributions in their business. They could easily be thinking that owning Bungie the corporation and their IP trademarks is not the asset it would be without the presence of the driving influences that have been with Bungie for so long. They need know-how in their business, people with experience making great games -- not just IP. In a choice between losing valuable human resources (things which they can never really own), and losing the company as a corporate asset but keeping them as a market asset through first-publishing rights, the latter choice could easily be the better one.

I am not saying this rumor is true. But I do see situations where it could realistically happen. It is not an impossible scenario.

In a choice between losing valuable human resources (things which they can never really own), and losing the company as a corporate asset but keeping them as a market asset through first-publishing rights, the latter choice could easily be the better one.m0zart

People leave all the time, nothing will ever change that. Going to such great lenghts and putting so much at stake for something that is anything but a safe bet is a very poor move, and downright lousy business. Alex Seropian and some other key people left a long time ago, Bungie has been just fine without them.

[QUOTE="m0zart"]In a choice between losing valuable human resources (things which they can never really own), and losing the company as a corporate asset but keeping them as a market asset through first-publishing rights, the latter choice could easily be the better one.UpInFlames

People leave all the time, nothing will ever change that. Going to such great lenghts and putting so much at stake for something that is anything but a safe bet is a very poor move, and downright lousy business. Alex Seropian and some other key people left a long time ago, Bungie has been just fine without them.

Correct I am sure to some extent, but you are trivializing more than I think business reality can allow for. Companies like Bungie are talented because of the people that make them up. Yes people leave, sometimes key people, and attrition always happens over time, but what MS could be facing isa more fluid attrition level that would effectively be a brain drain for Bungie without appropriate knowledge transfer or experience building for the work environment and methods that made the company as productive as it was.

Just any company can't go off and make something like Halo great, and even those that could would have difficulty doing so with the speed that Bungie employees could. That's not just a reality for gaming developers, but a reality in the world of software development that many development houses took for granted in the last decade and are now paying a heavy price for. It has led to a reevaluation of how to deal with employees who aren't happy with changes in business direction, especially after acquisition by a larger firm. Without naming names, I've worked for more than one of these development houses where this is exactly how it played out after acquisions that were almost too numerous to name, with the only difference beingthe absence of budging from the corporate level as appearing in this particularrumor. In many cases, these corporations have burned bridges with talented people which can almost never be recovered, when they could have handled it much differently and benefited from it in the long run.

That doesn't mean that that is what is happening here -- it is just a theory based on my experienceover the last fifteen years in working for larger corporations that build their business on acquiring companies for their product lines and marketshare, only to find that they are wasting their money without the knowledge transfer to accompany it after a change in corporate atmosphere turns formerly satisified employees into disastisfied ones. This whole rumor is possibly complete baloney -- but it isn't an impossible scenario. There are business reasons,likely many more than just this one,why such a move could be justified by Microsoft.

Well I think we've found G4's "big news" at least!hair001

Hmm, somehow I doubt that, but could be.

[QUOTE="ymi_basic"][QUOTE="Uncle_Tbag"]There is already a portion of Bungie not owned by MS, and Bungie has its own independent shareholders,.Uncle_Tbag

Perhaps you should link yourself.

A company doesn't have to be publicly traded in order to have shareholders. Private companies can be joint ventures with multiple owners, something that is quite common. Before MS aquired Bungie, it was jointly owned primarily by 2 shareholders, Jones and Seropian.

My point was that if Bungie were to buy itself back, the money would not come from the employees. It would likely come from existing and new shareholders.

[QUOTE="Uncle_Tbag"]

[QUOTE="ymi_basic"][QUOTE="Uncle_Tbag"]There is already a portion of Bungie not owned by MS, and Bungie has its own independent shareholders,.ymi_basic

Perhaps you should link yourself.

A company doesn't have to be publicly traded in order to have shareholders. Private companies can be joint ventures with multiple owners, something that is quite common. Before MS aquired Bungie, it was jointly owned primarily by 2 shareholders, Jones and Seropian.

My point was that if Bungie were to buy itself back, the money would not come from the employees. It would likely come from existing and new shareholders.

If you're well aware of that why did you reply "but they are not publically traded?" Seems you weren't well aware.

If you read various news stories, there are references to Bungie shareholders. The exact details of the buyout were never made public, something you can read on bungie's faq regarding the buyout, but those references suggest that some percentage of ownership, regardless of how small, still resides with Bungie. Perhaps not, but if you want to see some proof of that, have fun looking at the myriad of resources regarding the subject.

I doubt this is true, but it isplausible. Since being bought by Microsoft in 2000 Bungie has only worked on Halo and I bet years with working on only one series has made them sick of it. There's been a rumor floating around IMG that now that Halo 3 is done, Bungie wants to do Marathon 4, but make it Mac only (as most if not all of the Marathon fans are Mac users. Makes sense right?). Microsoft didn't like the idea of anything non-windows having an exclusive game so they probably said no (assuming the rumors are true). Now they are probably trying to make a deal with MS to let them go and becompletelyindependent in exchange for the rights to Halo. I'm really hoping the rumors are true and I hope Bungie returns to the Mac, but I'm assuming they won't just to be safe.NSDuo

That's an interesting theory, and it works because it ties in perfectly with Halo 3's secret ending. Hmmmmm.

[QUOTE="NSDuo"]I doubt this is true, but it isplausible. Since being bought by Microsoft in 2000 Bungie has only worked on Halo and I bet years with working on only one series has made them sick of it. There's been a rumor floating around IMG that now that Halo 3 is done, Bungie wants to do Marathon 4, but make it Mac only (as most if not all of the Marathon fans are Mac users. Makes sense right?). Microsoft didn't like the idea of anything non-windows having an exclusive game so they probably said no (assuming the rumors are true). Now they are probably trying to make a deal with MS to let them go and becompletelyindependent in exchange for the rights to Halo. I'm really hoping the rumors are true and I hope Bungie returns to the Mac, but I'm assuming they won't just to be safe.Shame-usBlackley

That's an interesting theory, and it works because it ties in perfectly with Halo 3's secret ending. Hmmmmm.

[QUOTE="ymi_basic"][QUOTE="Uncle_Tbag"]

[QUOTE="ymi_basic"][QUOTE="Uncle_Tbag"]There is already a portion of Bungie not owned by MS, and Bungie has its own independent shareholders,.Uncle_Tbag

Perhaps you should link yourself.

A company doesn't have to be publicly traded in order to have shareholders. Private companies can be joint ventures with multiple owners, something that is quite common. Before MS aquired Bungie, it was jointly owned primarily by 2 shareholders, Jones and Seropian.

My point was that if Bungie were to buy itself back, the money would not come from the employees. It would likely come from existing and new shareholders.

If you're well aware of that why did you reply "but they are not publically traded?" Seems you weren't well aware.

If you read various news stories, there are references to Bungie shareholders. The exact details of the buyout were never made public, something you can read on bungie's faq regarding the buyout, but those references suggest that some percentage of ownership, regardless of how small, still resides with Bungie. Perhaps not, but if you want to see some proof of that, have fun looking at the myriad of resources regarding the subject.

Here's a thought, why is this thread still open? MarcusAntonius

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]Here's a thought, why is this thread still open? Skylock00

Yay! I mean, meh. What does it really mean?

Yay! I mean, meh. What does it really mean?

LordAndrew

What else *could* it really mean?

I couldn't find these in the thread so far, so I am posting them here. (That and some of us are configured to see last post first).

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/10/05/its-official-bungie-branches-off-from-microsoft/#comments

http://kotaku.com/gaming/breaking/bungie-split-confirmed-307565.php

Who has the crow? :P

I hope this turns out positive. I don't want Bungie to come and regret this decision in the future. Sometimes independence is just a much of a burden to bear as having someone to report up to.

Wow. I was so sure this rumor was false that I didn't even bother to post before it was confirmed. Bungie and MS breaking apart after Bungie releases three of the biggest games in modern history doesn't make much sense. From the outside looking in, I don't see where either side was doing anything wrong.

I don't think there are any short term implications of Bungie's move, but there seems to be a pattern of decay in MS's first and second party arrangements (would MS sit on its hands if EA decided to acquire Bioware?). Perhaps MS believes that with its current high level of third party support it doesn't need such arrangements.

Who has the crow? :P

I hope this turns out positive. I don't want Bungie to come and regret this decision in the future. Sometimes independence is just a much of a burden to bear as having someone to report up to.

Ghost_Face

I really doubt this will hurt Bungie. How does being tied at the hip really benefit any developer? Look at all the hand-wringing Square and Kojima are doing right now -- that could very well have been Bungie, or any developer. It just doesn't make sense, this marrying yourself to one company, especially given that said companies nowdays seem to make really boneheaded moves. I think this is going to be the lesson of the generation for most publishers and developers when it ends in half a decade or so. Now,the last few pages I've been hammering Microsofton, I still totally stand by. When you've spent the money and already made an acquisition, you keep said company damn happy. This is what is most troubling about the news -- thatpeople working under the MS umbrella are not happy, and that's NEVER a good thing. Time will tell.

That said, the press release (put out on Bungie.net) sounds like they really aren't planning on doing much without Microsoft, so unless part of the deal was that they kept the wording all flowery, what exactly was the point?

As for Halo, what is MS going to do with that? I think that is the most important part of the story, I'm sorry but Halo is bigger than Bungie in terms of importance.

dvader654

And a Volkswagon engine could be put in a Ferrari and no one would notice until it was time to race. Bungie made Halo. Without Bungie, there is no Halo. Sure, there might be a game released that says Halo on the box, but it will be no more authentically Halo than the fake Ray Bans or sawdust-laced Marlboros you get in Mexico.

Its such a weird announcement, we are free, but we will still be making 360 games while partnered with MS. Good for them, I assume they can now make whatever games they want, good luck to them.

As for Halo, what is MS going to do with that? I think that is the most important part of the story, I'm sorry but Halo is bigger than Bungie in terms of importance.

dvader654

Bungie will still be the only developer for Halo. It will just be developed on Bungie's schedule instead of Microsoft's.

This seems a bit like the relationship between Square-Enix and Sony. SE is free to do what they wish, but develop predominately for Sony.

Now we get to see what the newer, bigger, badder, Bungie can produce.

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"][QUOTE="dvader654"]

As for Halo, what is MS going to do with that? I think that is the most important part of the story, I'm sorry but Halo is bigger than Bungie in terms of importance.

dvader654

And a Volkswagon engine could be put in a Ferrari and no one would notice until it was time to race. Bungie made Halo. Without Bungie, there is no Halo. Sure, there might be a game released that says Halo on the box, but it will be no more authentically Halo than the fake Ray Bans or sawdust-laced Marlboros you get in Mexico.

Do you really think anyone cares who made Halo. When Halo 4 rolls around and Bungie is not on the cover people no one will care. Will the quality of the game go down, who knows that could be an issue, but the Halo brand is far bigger and more important than Bungie. I am talking about this from a business standpoint, which is what this whole issue is about.

[QUOTE="dvader654"][QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"][QUOTE="dvader654"]

As for Halo, what is MS going to do with that? I think that is the most important part of the story, I'm sorry but Halo is bigger than Bungie in terms of importance.

rragnaar

And a Volkswagon engine could be put in a Ferrari and no one would notice until it was time to race. Bungie made Halo. Without Bungie, there is no Halo. Sure, there might be a game released that says Halo on the box, but it will be no more authentically Halo than the fake Ray Bans or sawdust-laced Marlboros you get in Mexico.

Do you really think anyone cares who made Halo. When Halo 4 rolls around and Bungie is not on the cover people no one will care. Will the quality of the game go down, who knows that could be an issue, but the Halo brand is far bigger and more important than Bungie. I am talking about this from a business standpoint, which is what this whole issue is about.

I think the Halo crowd is a little more informed though.rragnaar

Do you really think anyone cares who made Halo. When Halo 4 rolls around and Bungie is not on the cover people no one will care. Will the quality of the game go down, who knows that could be an issue, but the Halo brand is far bigger and more important than Bungie. I am talking about this from a business standpoint, which is what this whole issue is about.

dvader654

Goldeneye and Goldeneye: Rogue Agent.

EDIT: Or hell, Devil May Cry and Devil May Cry 2.(Granted, the base for DMC is a much more hardcore, small base, but still)

All I'm saying is that history shows through sales numbers that switching dev teams on an established IP almost always results in a dropoff for the series.

You haven't been reading these forums much, have you. :wink:
Seriously, you don't get those kind of first-week sales from the "hardcore" crowd. Halo is the definition of a casual gamers game. As long as Master Chief's BMX helmet head is on the cover a Halo game will sell millions with or without Bungie's name on it.Dire_Weasel

That's where you're wrong. There's no way you make this kind of money in one week without a substantial amount of That's where you're wrong. There's no way you make this kind of money in one week without a substantial amount of casual players..Marty81

no one said bungie wont be making the next halo game. this is exactly the outcome that i was proposing was a possibility earlier, and people were jumping on me for it. the way i see it nothing has changed as far as halo, except maybe the fact that the series will be BETTER because bungie wont be forced into being a halo factory, which would inevitably lead to people here and there leaving to do their own thing.

this is a win win and probably the best outcome that could have happened for both parties.

Microsoft still contains a minority stake in Bungie, just like how Nintendo's relationship with Rare used to be. That is probably what this will turn out to be. Bungie will most likely continue to make games for Microsoft's consoles exclusively, they can make whatever they want and they own the IP's. This really isn't that big of a deal. You probably won't see Bungie make games for PS3 or Wii because even though Bungie is free to make what they want, MS still owns a stake in the company and will still have some say in the company.-OmegaKnight-

Sony owns stock in Square/Enix, yet next year The Last Remnant is coming for both PS3 and 360. Sure, the meat and potatoes of proper Final Fantasy games are still on Sony's console exclusively, but even that's up for grabs depending on how well the PS3 does over the next few months or so.

Microsoft still contains a minority stake in Bungie, just like how Nintendo's relationship with Rare used to be. That is probably what this will turn out to be. Bungie will most likely continue to make games for Microsoft's consoles exclusively, they can make whatever they want and they own the IP's. This really isn't that big of a deal. You probably won't see Bungie make games for PS3 or Wii because even though Bungie is free to make what they want, MS still owns a stake in the company and will still have some say in the company.-OmegaKnight-

i think bungie will make games for whoever they want to. besides, like i said earlier i still cannot fathom why people think anything bungie does will turn to gold. halo is gold, that much is evident, but that does not mean that bungie making games on other systems as well as the 360 would be some disaster.

also from that joystiq article:

All they're saying is that they "will continue to develop with [their] primary focus on Microsoft's platforms." With Microsoft holding a minority equity interest in the company, that's not surprising.

so no, ms does not own a majority anymore.

[QUOTE="-OmegaKnight-"]Microsoft still contains a minority stake in Bungie, just like how Nintendo's relationship with Rare used to be. That is probably what this will turn out to be. Bungie will most likely continue to make games for Microsoft's consoles exclusively, they can make whatever they want and they own the IP's. This really isn't that big of a deal. You probably won't see Bungie make games for PS3 or Wii because even though Bungie is free to make what they want, MS still owns a stake in the company and will still have some say in the company.Shame-usBlackley

Sony owns stock in Square/Enix, yet next year The Last Remnant is coming for both PS3 and 360. Sure, the meat and potatoes of proper Final Fantasy games are still on Sony's console exclusively, but even that's up for grabs depending on how well the PS3 does over the next few months or so.

Actually...The Rare thing is right.

Here you go (Take frombungie website)

They are still making 360 games and it seems like MGS is publishing. The only difference now is...Bungie has 100% control over it. Nothing has changed is what it says...They just own everything now on it. So it is like Rare it seems. Not a bad idea too. It means now they get complete creative freedom and dont have to worry about stock holders pressing.

Well to be honest, It seems more and more likely MS will be jumping out of the game industry after this gen. They no longer seem aggressive towards it, seeming to part ways with many developers and stuff. Just seems more like... yay...
Shinoto

That is possible, although it is very unlikely especially given the success the 360 has had in Europe & America, and given just how poorly Vista has done in comparison to their expectations. I do see where you're coming from, some very important ties have been severed, and that billion dollar loss had to catch Mr. Gates's attention. However, they have always said that they were in this for the long run, and it is very likely that the next xbox would be a highly profitable endeavor. I don't see them just packing up everything and quitting, after having given Sony a run for their money, which I have to think was one of their goals. I do definitely agree that either Sony or MS needs to just pack up and leave, as I do not see enough room for the two companies to coexist and make profits in the future.

As long as Bungie doesn't make system sellers for the other consoles, it really isn't that big of a deal, but still it has to pretty bad especially when I'd Halo 3 was really the sole reason that MS may not be in the red by the end of the year. However, since they still have a stake in the company, then they could definitely benefit in terms of sheer profit if Bungie doed indeed go on to make multiplatform games.HiResDes

That is possible, although it is very unlikely especially given the success the 360 has had in Europe & America, and given just how poorly Vista has done in comparison to their expectations. I do see where you coming from, some very important ties have been severed, and that billion dollar loss had to catch Mr. Gates's attention. However, they have always said that they were in this for the long run, and it is very likely that the next xbox would be a highly profitable endeavor. I don't see them just packing up everything and quitting, after having given Sony a run for their money, which I have to think was one of their goals. I do definitely agree that either Sony or MS needs to just pack up and leave, as I do not see enough room for the two companies to coexist and make profits in the future.

HiResDes

Well, not to take anything away from what Microsoft has done this generation (which has been a lot), but it was less them giving Sony a run for their money and more Sony taking a hatchet and hacking off three of their four limbs in a bizarre act of self-dismemberment.

Had Sony launched at the same price, at the same time, this generation would've already been on lockdown.