{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
9/5/2015 4:11:49 PM
5
If Activision puts up all the money to pay for development then they rightfully and contractually have a say in how the thing turns out. It sounds like the composer possibly overreacted because it didn't go exactly the way he wanted. He is a fine artist and I don't hold it against him, but a job is a job. Sometimes you have to suck it up and compromise. Destiny could have been different, certainly would have been different without Activision's involvement, but what we got is amazing nonetheless.
English
-
That's not how publishing works. Publishers that take creative control almost 100% of the time end up with a worse product. It's like the CEOs and shareholders of a company trying to tell the construction workers building their new facility to swing their hammer in a different way. Too much administration and micromanagement is bad for everyone
-
[quote]That's not how publishing works. Publishers that take creative control almost 100% of the time end up with a worse product. It's like the CEOs and shareholders of a company trying to tell the construction workers building their new facility to swing their hammer in a different way. Too much administration and micromanagement is bad for everyone[/quote] So much this
-
This^^^ +1
-
I respect your viewpoint but I know it can go either way. Sometimes the artist is wrong and the company's oversight can correct legitimate problems. I tend to believe that more often than not that you are right and their meddling makes the product worse, but not always.
-
In this case, and point of this thread, Activision's "meddling" did make the product worse.
