[quote]Best I can tell the game should have been delayed due to things not being finished but Activision said no ship what currently works.[/quote] Looking over the contract(somebody in another thread linked to it earlier), Bungie can delay releases, but any unapproved delays result in a penalty to the payments Bungie gets from Activation and the penalties actually get stiffer the more money the game makes. So starting out ($0-$100MM), they get 20% royalties up through like 35%($400MM+ I think). Again, these are based on revenue generated. So an unapproved delay at benchmark A results in a 2% penalty while that same delay results in a 3.5% penalty at benchmark C. That can get pretty pricey when you look at how much 3.5% of $400MM is, or more.

Yep. So Bungie says game needs to wait. Activision says no. And penalties seem rather severe so makes sense. Bungie is gonna need a lot of money the way they run to maintain independence. One of their main focuses are keeping control of intellectual property. To continue in this way means they have to pay more themselves. Kinda looks like the Bungie Activision combo was a bad match. Maybe they should have picked a company that is more willing to wait to produce something great rather than go for straight output and deadlines. Would also explain the rush job feel of past dlc.

[quote]Kinda looks like the Bungie Activision combo was a bad match. [/quote] I would've said terrible, but yeah. You have to ask yourself though, 'what were their other options". Bungie is contractually obligated not to work on a single other project, in any way at all, until after Activision has made $X. They're not allowed to make another shooter for X years after the Destiny project is over. They're required to give Activision right of first refusal on any future projects within X years. I mean Activision practically owns Bungie for the next 10-15 years. I can't imagine they took that deal if there was another reputable company offering them something better.