{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
9/6/2015 1:28:42 AM
1
Yeah that guy had no right to be pissed off that they didn't use his music in the trailer after he just got done making 10 -blam!-ing years worth of it. Dumb -blam!-ing desticle.
English
-
A trailer. A [i]single[/i] trailer. You're gonna get pissed off about one single trailer out of years of more trailers to come, and 10 years of in-game music/audio that you also made? Do you not understand that Activision has rights to produce the bulk advertising of Destiny, not Bungie? Learn some perspective jackass.
-
Yes. Because activision did not keep their word. Now go suck on more Bungie D, desticle!
-
What word? It's in their contract to do marketing and advertising you idiot. They were never required to use his music.
-
Oh they do? Look like you didn't read the article. [quote]Ryan, the CEO of Bungie, and management shared his concern and filed a “veto” letter with Activision, which overruled the objection. [/quote]
-
Okay, you obviously don't comprehend the meaning of that.
-
Oh do tell us what "overruling an objection" means! I can't wait to see what shit you get from Google!
-
They tried to veto but because of the contract, which Bungie signed and agreed to, Activision has majority rule over advertising. Their board disagreed wit changing the music so they overruled the veto. Why could they do that? Because they put up 9/10th of the money for marketing and were the ones doing the advertising at E3. I'll wait for you to google that one yourself. And please explain how any of that is going back on a promise? What promise was made to Marty?
-
So is that why later trailers don't use activisions music but Marty's? Funny how overruling objections with veto letters work. Lol I think you need to go back to google again, bro.
-
You've gone full retard, not me.
-
Took you 4 hours to think of that shit? Go back to google kiddo.
-
Edited by GrundleBeans: 9/6/2015 7:18:31 AMActually no. I was busy out having drinks with friends, not sitting around on the internet at home like you.
-
Sure you were! That's why you immediately came back to this post!
-
Edited by GrundleBeans: 9/6/2015 7:29:13 AMImmediately? Yeah, sure. Because being gone for 4 hours means I was immediately interested in what you have to say. Lol you don't know shit boy. Go back to being a sour angry person for no good reason where others might actually listen to you.
