backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 42 comment(s) - last by inperfectdarkn.. on Oct 8 at 3:29 PM

Maker of Halo feverishly scratches the seven-year itch after being with Microsoft since 2000

Earlier this week, reports from around the web stated that Bungie Studios, developers of top Xbox franchise Halo, would be splitting off from its owner Microsoft. Today, the news was officially confirmed as Microsoft issued a press release announcing a plan for Bungie Studios to embark on a path to become an independent company.

As expected, Microsoft confirmed its ownership of Halo intellectual property, ensuring multiple new chapters in the series, with or without Bungie’s involvement. Microsoft has already started farming out new Halo games to other developers. The appropriately themed real-time strategy game Halo Wars is currently in development by Ensemble Studios, the creators of the Age of Empires series and also a Microsoft-owned developer.

"Our collaboration with Bungie has resulted in 'Halo' becoming an enduring mainstream hit," said Shane Kim, corporate vice president of Microsoft Game Studios. "While we are supporting Bungie's desire to return to its independent roots, we will continue to invest in our 'Halo' entertainment property with Bungie and other partners, such as Peter Jackson, on a new interactive series set in the 'Halo' universe. We look forward to great success with Bungie as our long-term relationship continues to evolve through 'Halo'-related titles and new IP created by Bungie."

Microsoft will retain an unstated equity interest in Bungie, and will continue a publishing agreement between the developer and Microsoft Game Studios for Halo intellectual property as well as other future properties developed by Bungie – corroborating reports that Microsoft will hold the “first right of refusal” for an unknown number of titles.

"This exciting evolution of our relationship with Microsoft will enable us to expand both creatively and organizationally in our mission to create world-class games," said Harold Ryan, studio head for Bungie. "We will continue to develop with our primary focus on Microsoft platforms; we greatly value our mutually prosperous relationship with our publisher, Microsoft Game Studios; and we look forward to continuing that affiliation through 'Halo' and beyond."

The separation between Microsoft and Bungie came just a week after the release of Halo 3. The third chapter in the Halo series was met with incredible success, with first day sales over $170 million, thanks in part pre-orders in the seven-digit range, with first week sales amounting to more than $300 million.

Despite the market success and critical acclaim from Halo 3 and the two games that preceded it, Bungie was reportedly unhappy with its relationship as a Microsoft-owned developer. According to anonymous sources, Microsoft expected Bungie to continue working on further installments of the Halo series, while the developer may have wanted to explore other themes and genres. Prior to Halo, Bungie developed third-person action game Oni and real-time strategy game Myth. Sources also believe that Bungie was unhappy with its lack of control over the marketing of its games.

Bungie Studios was acquired by Microsoft on June 19, 2000 following the developer’s impressive Halo for PC and Mac demonstrations.

Throughout Bungie’s years as a Microsoft property, certain key personnel have left the studio to form new, independent game companies. New companies spawned from former Bungie staff include Wideload Games, Certain Affinity, Double Aught and Giant Bite.

The now-independent Bungie Studios will remain in its current location in Kirkland, Wash.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Good Deal
By yost007 on 10/5/2007 1:38:42 PM , Rating: 4
This is actually quite a surprise for me. I did not believe the rumours. But this is actually a smart decision. Microsoft stills owns a large part of the company.

Only now Bungie can create diffrant games for more systems. Its actually a win win situation. Bungie wins, Microsoft wins, but most impotantly the Gamers Win.




RE: Good Deal
By FITCamaro on 10/5/2007 1:52:45 PM , Rating: 1
Well I'm sure that Bungie wants more control over its activities and doesn't want to be regulated to only pumping out Halo titles. As with any big corporation, the bottom line is money and deadlines which don't work well with an industry like gaming since problems will always arise and you'll always underestimate how long it'll take. Gaming companies need a little more flexibility with schedules which corporate bean counters don't like.

I always think its good for studios to remain independent and only rely on larger companies to publish the game. This lets them keep more creative control while still having the funding to get the game done. Obviously the person with the money will always have some influence but this is why you make sure your contract is set in stone from the start. And why release dates should always be a year after you think you'll have it done, as with any large software project.

Only companies like EA who constantly recycle the same crap can put out titles on a definitive time table year after year.


RE: Good Deal
By colonelclaw on 10/5/2007 1:57:16 PM , Rating: 2
damn right gamers win :)
a company that makes games as good as they do deserve to have their games available on every conceivable platform from launch - all 3 consoles, pcs, macs, linux, handhelds etc etc

im not saying it will happen of course, only that now it can


RE: Good Deal
By d0gb0y on 10/5/2007 2:07:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
a company that makes games as good as they do deserve to have their games available on every conceivable platform from launch


I disagree. If focusing on making sure your game works best on every platform means removing features or optimizations that could happen if the developer was focused, then gamers loose.


RE: Good Deal
By Locutus465 on 10/5/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good Deal
By ltcommanderdata on 10/5/2007 4:17:10 PM , Rating: 2
Well Bungie was actually originally a major Mac game developer and Microsoft's pride and joy Halo was actually launched at Macworld. Then Microsoft decided to buy Bungie and Halo and make it a XBox exclusive, before eventually releasing Halo 1 on PC and Mac.

http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/10/05/bungieinte...

A Bungie executive has already released word that they are open to developing on Mac again. The question is what type of contract do they still have with Microsoft and whether Microsoft will allow them to develop for Mac. A don't think money is really an issue since I'm pretty sure there was a quote from Asypr, a Mac porting studio, that Mac ports are usually profitable. Obviously given the small population, you're not making a huge profit, but it's not a zero benefit operation either. It's whether you want to do it or not. It's interesting that Microsoft's own Mac Business Unit is part of their Entertainment and Devices division and I wouldn't be surprised if Mac profits were partially used to offset XBox development costs.


RE: Good Deal
By Locutus465 on 10/5/2007 5:46:14 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously, why can't Mac and Linux users accept the truth of their platform? Both are far from ideal gaming platforms, which doesn't mean that either suck. They're both great platforms, but not for gaming.


RE: Good Deal
By afkrotch on 10/5/2007 7:04:48 PM , Rating: 2
Huh? The platform is the same as PCs, just the operating system is different. Even then, they can both be great gaming platforms. Problem is that they have a low user base, so most ppl don't bother coding for the operating systems.

Many have gone to simply dual booting their systems to play games.


RE: Good Deal
By Locutus465 on 10/5/2007 7:19:35 PM , Rating: 2
Mac OS is the implied meaning of "Platform" as this discussion was started due to comments about games being made available for Mac OS (and Linux). Also I'm commenting in response to a much crazier bunch than the OP who think bungi should be the first Game studio in history to snub Windows entirly and be Mac & Linux exlusive.

True, Mac hardware is very similar these days and you can dual boot. You've always been able to dual boot linux... So why should a game studio waste more time and money supporting Mac OS and Linux knowing not many people are going to buy for those platforms when games are already running on the same budget as your average major motion picture?

Yes, OpenGL gives you a much higher degree of portability than DirectX, but that only helps by a limited amount... You still have to contend with getting custom GPU code to function correctly across platforms (absolutly uniform drivers are mostly likely required), and even then you've only covered the graphics end of the equation...

Again, Mac and Linux are great, but supporting them in gaming is bad business.


RE: Good Deal
By ltcommanderdata on 10/5/2007 7:55:51 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure exactly what the framwork is, but I don't think porting a game over to Mac is really a costly thing for a game developer. It doesn't have to involve much work on their part at all. Dedicated porting companies like Aspyr and MacSoft do most of the porting work themselves so it's hardly a drain on company resources. I believe that porting companies also pay the original game developers a licensing fee for the game and in many cases it's the porting companies that go to game developers offering to port the game. It would seem to me a low risk option since the game developer gets a one time fee and probably a profit sharing arrangement while the porting company assumes most of the financial risk on it's success.

If OpenGL is used, I don't think platform specific optimization is such a huge difficulty or manpower drain either. I believe the Linux and Mac ports of the UT2/UT2.5 engines and related games like UT2003, UT2004, America's Army, etc. were all done mostly be one person, Ryan Gordon.

Overall, cost and workload isn't the limiter to porting a game to another platform if done through porting companies. I believe the big hinderance is that developers don't want to release their source code to third parties, even if the risk of it being compromised or leaked by porting companies is very low. In that case, game developers would have to do Mac and Linux versions in house, which then I acknowledge requires a financial investment and hiring of dedicated employees and is more difficult to justify. Still I think more companies to allow porting companies to port their games over. I haven't specifically looked, but I don't remember a case where a porting company compromised the game developer's intellectual property, and it's in their vested interest as a porting company not to do so. If not through a pure port, cross platform development through Cider like EA is doing is also an option.


RE: Good Deal
By leidegre on 10/6/2007 2:07:20 AM , Rating: 2
Depends,

e.g. if you value quality more than anything it's generally unwise to try and go multi-platform without some experience. Outsourcing is really not a viable option for games. Typically it's the need to get into new APIs and understanding the technical challenges for each platform which takes some time. Just look at the PS3 and XBOX360 they are vastly different in design. And you need to account for that if intend to do cross-platform. Not only will there be hardware related issues but you will also have to think a bit about how the OS itself expects certain things to go about. All these things add to a rather complicated equation which really doesn’t have a simple solution.

If you want to do this right, you need experience and patience. And many premature multi-platform games end up lacking functionality and quality across platforms.


RE: Good Deal
By thebrown13 on 10/5/2007 2:08:56 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt it's about more systems, nobody in their right mind would develop on a 360 then MOVE to inferior systems.

This is more about new IP on the 360 and maybe PC.


RE: Good Deal
By FITCamaro on 10/5/2007 2:13:07 PM , Rating: 2
Well Bungie is now free to use OpenGL in any future games for the PC which would allow them to be played on a Mac.


RE: Good Deal
By TomZ on 10/5/2007 3:39:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Only now Bungie can create diffrant games for more systems.

I thought I read somewhere else that Bungie was constrained to only produce games for XBOX, i.e., Microsoft has the right of last refusal.


RE: Good Deal
By MoonSword on 10/7/2007 1:33:25 AM , Rating: 3
From a former DT article on this subject http://www.dailytech.com/Report+Bungie+Studios+Dep...
quote:
Microsoft will retain all rights to the Halo franchise, assuring that the Master Chief will never grace competitors’ systems, and will also hold “the right of first refusal on future games,” meaning that Halo 3 probably won’t be the last Xbox 360 exclusive title from Bungie Studios.


That would be right of first refusal, which I think means (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) that Bungie is obligated to offer anything new they cook up to Microsoft first, and only when Microsoft refuses publication of said new game may Bungie offer it to another party for publication. Which, in theory, means that Bungie may be able to produce games for another console. But I believe that is unlikely considering that Microsoft will probably accept publishing rights to anything good coming from the developer that ensured the Xbox's success.

Wikipedia has an explanation on the concept of right of first refusal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_first_refusa...


RE: Good Deal
By Cheapshot on 10/5/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good Deal
By mars777 on 10/8/07, Rating: 0
Thanks
By clovell on 10/5/2007 1:46:38 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the update, Marcus! From the press release, this sounds like a good thing for both companies.




RE: Thanks
By Marcus Yam on 10/5/2007 1:59:25 PM , Rating: 2
My pleasure.

At first, I didn't believe the rumors either, but further digging revealed that it certainly was more than just a silly rumor.

My best guess is that had Microsoft not let Bungie go do its own thing, most of the talent would have just upped and left to form their own studios which are not under any sort of Microsoft publishing contract. Microsoft really didn't have any other option.


RE: Thanks
By masher2 (blog) on 10/5/2007 2:00:56 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not disagreeing with the possibility...but press releases *always* make it sound like a good deal for everyone involved. :)


RE: Thanks
By clovell on 10/5/2007 2:04:49 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I've got that same aftertaste, too - time will tell.


RE: Thanks
By James Holden on 10/5/2007 2:45:11 PM , Rating: 2
Lol what I'd pay to be a fly on the wall of that conversation...


RE: Thanks
By leidegre on 10/6/2007 2:09:32 AM , Rating: 2
Cant help to think that this is the result of Bungie feeling to pressured and misrable over Halo 2. I bet the pressure on them finally made them think like Blizzard.

It's done when it's done, and not a second sooner, and if MS doesn't understands that, we go our own way. They certainly have the money to do it now.


RE: Thanks
By logaldinho on 10/7/2007 5:44:35 AM , Rating: 2
how do they have the money to do it now? they offered up a considerable amount to be able to buyback stock from MS from what i remember unless i read one of the theories wrong. not to mention that bungie's only proven track record is with HALO which they dont own anymore.

i dont think its even in the same hemisphere to compare bungie to blizzard. unless you mean they both make computer games. then yeah thats about as close as they are =\


RE: Thanks
By leidegre on 10/8/2007 8:03:26 AM , Rating: 2
"think like Blizzard", as I see it, they were misserable over Halo 2 and I feel as the reason for this would be pressure from thier publisher MS, and buy leaving MS they might be able to put more time and effort into making a great game, like Blizzard.


Halo wars
By Rotkiv on 10/5/2007 2:48:13 PM , Rating: 2
Will Halo Wars be a RTS game?




RE: Halo wars
By Dianoda on 10/5/2007 3:05:00 PM , Rating: 2
Halo Wars is an RTS game, being developed for the Xbox360. And if I've learn anything from history, there's a 99% chance that it will be ported to the PC 3 years after it's inital release, with a map editor and outdated graphics.


RE: Halo wars
By clovell on 10/5/2007 3:52:52 PM , Rating: 2
True, but at least graphics aren't as necessary for an RTS as they are for other genres.


RE: Halo wars
By imperator3733 on 10/5/2007 3:15:50 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, and unfortunantly for me right now it's only going to be on 360. I don't have a 360 (I play on my friend's) At least since it'll be designed from the ground up for a console, they won't be porting a PC designd interface for the game. From what I've heard, previous RTS's have never really worked on the console because they were designed for PCs.

Oh well, another reason to try and get a 360!!!


RE: Halo wars
By clovell on 10/5/2007 3:51:14 PM , Rating: 2
Yes. For the record, Halo Wars has a sort of shady past. You see, a mod team called Slipstream Productions was making a Halo RTS using the SAGE engine (Command & Conquer Generals: Zero Hour) called Halogen. The game had spent a couple years in open development. it had been in private beta for a couple of months when Microsoft issued a cease & desist order to Slipstream Productions for IP infringement.

Now, what MS did was legal, but there was a cool Halo RTS that would have been free and would have been on the PC platform, and MS shut it down for a 360 exclusive. The timing of the move was also particularly convenient, considering Halogen effectively had done a good bit of market research for Microsoft by the time they were told to stop development.


Not a 100% sure but...
By Bioniccrackmonk on 10/5/2007 3:18:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Microsoft will hold the “first right of refusal” for an unknown number of titles.


I am thinking this means they have a right to claim a game as 360 exclusive but I could be wrong, can anyone elaborate on this more?




RE: Not a 100% sure but...
By rtrski on 10/5/2007 4:21:08 PM , Rating: 2
I thought it just meant they had first rights to be the distributor or publishing company for the development. Not to force it as an Xbox only development.


RE: Not a 100% sure but...
By michaelheath on 10/5/2007 5:37:10 PM , Rating: 2
First right of refusal means that Bungie must offer Microsoft the option to use or publish certain intellectual properties first before offering them to a third party. As an example, Bungie has to get Microsoft's approval if they wanted to have Sony and Nintendo publish the Halo series for Playstation 3 or the Wii.

What other intellectual properties MS has first dibs on is what I'm interested in...


Link please
By glennpratt on 10/5/2007 3:20:40 PM , Rating: 2
Can we get a link to the picture for this article!

Thanks.




RE: Link please
By Marcus Yam on 10/5/2007 6:04:26 PM , Rating: 2
I don't have a link anymore... in fact, I only had this picture because it was on an old laptop. I figured that it would be perfect for the article, so I had to dig though some old hardware.

Anyone have any idea who the original artist is?


RE: Link please
By leidegre on 10/7/2007 2:58:29 AM , Rating: 2
Can you make it available at a higher resolution? Because, it's really awesome!


Halo 3 a disappointment
By Fnoob on 10/5/2007 4:25:22 PM , Rating: 3
Despite the $300M in the first week being far from disappointing for them, I found it to be quite a let down. The campaign was far too short with underwhelming graphics compared to Gears. I suppose I simply expected too much.

I am betting that this move by Bungie will allow them to capitalize on their redeux of Marathon ;) which I don't believe MS has any ownership of (and will likely be HUGE).




RE: Halo 3 a disappointment
By Rampage on 10/5/2007 4:51:05 PM , Rating: 2
Marathon was an ok game.
It wasn't as good as Halo. Granted it came before Halo, but still.. it was simply the best exclusive available on the Mac.
Ported to the PC, Marathon wasn't that special due to far more competition. I played and beat a Marathon game on PC back in the day.

It has virtually no brand recognition now though, you'd be as well off creating a Marathon game as you would a BIOSHOCK game.

A good game won't benefit from the Marathon name, just as Bioshock didn't need it.

Doom will sell for many years, Wolfenstein will, Farcry will, HalfLife will, but Marathon isn't in the same league as those franchises for recognition. Nor will something simply titled "Marathon" be highly anticipated like one of those would.


Free, but at a price...
By rtrski on 10/5/2007 4:23:36 PM , Rating: 2
...the only thing that worries me about this is the way they kind of tied in the "Halo" backstory and universe to their Marathon storyline. If Microsoft retains ownership of all Halo franchise IP, does this prevent the now-free Bungie in some way from ever returning to the Marathon world? e.g. have they in effect sold their own prior art by being clever and paying homage to their roots?




RE: Free, but at a price...
By logaldinho on 10/7/2007 5:57:29 AM , Rating: 2
since there is nothing official in the halo bible about marathon i think that the majority of conspiracy theorists with "tinfoil hats [have] some new gristle to chew on as they catalogued their toenail clippings."


I HATE
By augiem on 10/5/2007 8:59:42 PM , Rating: 2
BIG CORPORATION THINKING

"...our 'Halo' entertainment property..."

enough said.

PUKE.




this reminds me of...
By inperfectdarkness on 10/8/2007 3:29:41 PM , Rating: 2
anyone else reminded of RARE parting ways with NINTENDO?

the only thing that sucked for me was it meant that i was never going to get to play perfect dark on my nintendo.




"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments












botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki