Bungie’s “Destiny” uncovered [Update]
posted on 05.21.12 at 08:07 PM EDT by (@salromano)
Four games. First game exclusive to Xbox.

Details on Activision and Bungie’s ten-year publishing deal announced in April 2010 have surfaced via an Activision and EA lawsuit regarding the Call of Duty franchise. 

The document, obtained by the L.A Times, outlines the entirety of the deal, including release dates, platforms, and payments.

Bungie would develop four “sci-fantasy, action shooter games,” code-named “Destiny,” which would be released every other year beginning in fall 2013. Four downloadable expansion packs, code-named “Comet,” are to be put out every other year beginning in fall 2014. The games would be rated T for Teen / PEGI 16.

The first “Destiny” game would be exclusive to Xbox consoles, including Xbox 360 and its successor, which the document refers to as “Xbox 720,” while games two through four would be made available for “PlayStation 4″ and PC, as well. If feasible, a PlayStation 3 version of the first game would be released in fall 2014.

Bungie would net $2.5 million a year in bonuses between 2010 and 2013 if it meets quality and budget milestones. If the first “Destiny” receives a 90 or higher on review score aggregator GameRankings.com, Bungie would receive another $2.5 million. The developer would receive 20% to 35% of the game’s “operating income.” It would have a $50 million budget to spend developing the game, and maintain ownership of the intellectual property.

The document also reveals a new Marathon game to be in development. It mentions Bungie’s right to devote up to 5 percent of its staff to developing an action-shooter prototype called “Marathon” while still under contract with the publisher.

Update (10:18 p.m.): Bungie has commented on the leak.

“Well, that just happened…” it titled its latest news post.

“So, yeah. While we’re not ready to show you what we’ve been working on, we can reconfirm that we are hard at work on our new universe. We can’t wait for you to see it.

“See you starside in 2013.”

  • FearMonkey

    Microsoft’s gonna be mad that their big E3 announcement was ruined. :p

  • rockman29

    Go third party, make next game exclusive….

    Sighs. I like Bungie… that’s just mean.

    In any case, I am enjoying the name dropping of Playstation 4 more and more :)

    • http://gearsjourney.blogspot.com Acidicsam

      @rockman29:

      Timed Exclusive.

      It grants all the benefits of full exclusivity, while still allowing everybody to enjoy the game(and, of course, giving more time to focus on the next platform)

      • rockman29

        @Acidicsam: Ah I see, thanks, that’s good to know :)

  • Malcolm Reynolds

    If the first “Destiny” is indeed exclusive to MS consoles than it is obviously my destiny to skip this series in its entirety.

  • KingKelloggTheWaffleHaggler

    Seriously,wtf bungie?

    I mean I love you guys,but your making it hard..

  • NCloud

    Wait wait…if the first one is 360 exclusive why make the 2nd and 3rd for other consoles??? make them all exclusive or not.

    • FearMonkey

      @NCloud: because it worked for Mass Effect.

      • http://xcite79.1up.com Keegs79

        @FearMonkey: It only happened with Mass Effect because EA bought Bioware, otherwise it would not have happened.

  • Zero

    I love Bungie, and I’m excited to see more from these projects, but I have some issues with this.

    First, I think it’s bull crap that all of this information was leaked like this… boo!!!

    Next, timed exclusives… please die! No, seriously, stop this shit! Timed exclusives make me want to vomit.

    And last but not least…

    Bungie would net $2.5 million a year in bonuses between 2010 and 2013 if it meets quality and budget milestones. If the first “Destiny” receives a 90 or higher on review score aggregator GameRankings.com, Bungie would receive another $2.5 million.

    I’m going to rant a bit about this, the gaming media does not criticize this bullshit enough, not as much as they should.

    This is the type of crap that is hurting video games these days, the idea that if this game by chance only gets an 89 from GameRankings.com, the dev team will lose all of that money is absurd and disgusting.

    1. I’m sorry, but who the fark decided GameRankings.com is the end all site on the web when it comes to game reviews? Seriously! I mean, that’s like… your like… opinion man! For a website to hold that much power is ridiculous!

    (I’m fully aware that the site collects reviews from multiple publications and adds them up or whatever. People have pointed out the flaws with the site on multiple occasions, especially when it comes to how they add these scores or whatever you want to call them up. Also, some of the reviews they accept as legit are highly questionable.)

    (Ok we have a 90 from this site, and a B+ from here, and a recommended thumb up from this site, that = a 77. Wait, what?)

    2. It puts reviewers in a bad position. The publications and websites, etc. whom are viewed as respectable and “important” by the staff at GameRankings.com, suddenly have the ability to quite possibly control the fate of people working on a game. No, really, think about it. That bonus $2.5 million might be the difference in someone on the team getting fired or let go. And that is just one tiny example.

    We have people discuss the problems with games these days, the media, the developers, publishers. One of the big problems is how much darn money it costs to make games. And how little of that money finds its way back to the people who work hard on these games.

    It’s a very big problem, one that threatens to end gaming as we know it now, free to play and social gaming is not a joke! The concepts and ways people earn money from those projects are legit. And it seems to be working out a hell of a lot better for those employees and studios than it does for the studios working on AAA gaming.

    All of these studios who are trying to make AAA titles for the consoles are (often) getting shut down, or find themselves in serious financial trouble. (Kingdoms of Amalur Dev’s for example.)

    They had a pretty successful game, and the reviews were mostly positive. The problem is, what was once rather successful no longer is. Production costs are absurd, and then if the game doesn’t sell over a million copies or more (At the very least), they can’t afford to pay the employees and shit hits the fan.

    This is a serious problem in my eyes, and is more or less ignored by most. It shouldn’t be though, I find it highly questionable.

    Every time I read about this crap, and how a studios lost a substantial bonus because it didn’t get an 85 or some crap, I want to vomit.

    If you stop and think, if only our game would have gotten that 85 or 90 on GameRankings.com! Does that not sound just absurd? Sorry Bob, but we have to let you go, the game dropped to an 89 at the last minute and we lost the bonuses.

    (Hmmm, you had a 90, but then GR.com decided to add the review from that well known blog, ihateallgamesfuku.net. They gave us a 2 or something because the main character didn’t have big enough tits, and that dropped us below 90.)

    /rant off