Bungie representatives dispute the idea that Activision’s leaders were ‘prohibitive overlords’

Siri play Chariots of Fire.

The future of Destiny 2 under Bungie alone looks very different from the game under Bungie and Activision, especially with new features like cross-save and its upcoming free-to-play shift. But a recent interview with Eurogamer disputes that this is a result of the change in ownership. According to communications director David Dague and principle producer Scott Taylor, these changes are a result of a shift from Bungie itself, an effort to be more flexible and respond to the needs of the game:

I think we need to dispel the notion Activision was some prohibitive overlord that wasn’t letting us do awesome things. We launched this franchise with Activision, naturally and over the course of time we both decided we had different goals for what we wanted it to be, so we both went our separate ways. It was amicable, and here we are making this game on our own, doing what we think we need to do to make it awesome.

Bungie has also doubled down staff on the project, making up the extra work previously done by Activision-owned studios to keep producing content at the same pace and quality as players expect. The developer’s overarching goal is to expand both the world and the RPG elements of the game, as well as letting you play wherever you want at any time. So while the studio’s new independence might mean that they’re a bit less flush with resources, it’s clear that the developer’s goals are no less expansive.

Source: Eurogamer

No posts to display

newest oldest most liked
Subscribe to:

That statement reads like a confirmation to me.

Bruno Brito

“Bungie did good, master. Bungie did good. Is Bungie gonna be safe from master’s loving whip now? Bungie is a good kid!”


Yeah… I don’t think people were complaining about “Why aren’t you guys doing awesome stuff?”. It had everything to do with “who the heck thought up all of this monetization bullocks, and who changed everything to rely upon it?”. And it isn’t a surprise at all that the interviewer didn’t even so much as blink a thought towards the game’s abhorrent monetization at launch and even now, though it has softened somewhat.

And, if I had to hazard a guess, it was Activision pressing upon that. Besides, no studio in its rightful and sane mind is going to throw shade at a company they just left. Not to mention, throw shade at one of the Big Name publishers in gaming in the US–which would be a dangerous to do for any studio big or small, well-known or not. Not unless you want to voluntarily blacklist yourself from the industry, as well as ensure publishing your game becomes that much more costly and difficult.

Jeremy Barnes

I mean, the statement itself literally says they wanted different things and went their own ways. So I can’t see how Activision wasn’t preventing them from doing what they wanted..

Tee Parsley

Yeah, nobody really wants to have badmouthing the old bosses on their record when trying to get a new job or commission. But I know a ton of game developers, and what they say privately is often pretty scathing.