{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
10/1/2014 4:36:50 PM
1
Quite right. The game was not well received. This has influence on stocks. It's the same with all games and all publishers. It also irrelevant to Bungie's decision to partner with Activision.
The relevant part with the EA/Activsion comparision is that Activision is bigger and has more (succesful) experience in the game genres that Destiny is technically close to (shooters and massive online games). Still makes sense to go with them IMHO.
English
-
I'd say it is more accurate to say that Activision has more [b]recent[/b] successes. If you are talking about all time, EA pretty much has that one in the bag.
-
I'm not sure I follow, are you suggesting Bungie should have based their decision on performance of unrelated games published more than 10 years ago? Or some other time span other than now? Shouldn't the continued success of CoD marketting be incentive enough to demonstrate activsion has the financial backbone and the marketting tentacles to get the Bungie's Destiny message to a maximum of players?
-
Edited by Darth Quaint: 10/1/2014 5:16:49 PMI mostly agree with you in this discussion, Horse. While I can see the logic for Activision, I also know that Activision is the biggest because they apply the 'monkeys with typewriters writing Shakespeare' approach. They absorb every little IP going under cause they see the potential to squeeze a bit more money out of it. And I really don't know why people keep playing COD anymore, because its done to death.
