Frequently Asked Forum Questions
Search the HBO News Archives Any All Exact		Search the Halo Updates DBs Halo Halo2		Bungie Webcam HBO XBL Gamertags *Ar's Simple HTML Guide Shishka's Guide for Newcomers The Lowdown on Download Accelerators Red Loser's Anti-Spamming Guide Egg FAQ | More Egg Stuff c0ld's Movie Starter Guide Shishka's HaloPC Pre-Release FAQ 3.1 AutoMagic 117 StripzMaker
Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts

Re: Well, so much for the respect part.
Posted By: Gromit <gromit59@mac.com>	Date: 7/2/02 1:55 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Well, so much for the respect part. (vector40) I am 100% positive financial concerns entered into the decision. However, Shishka wasn't nearly that vague. "Financially, Bungie was in serious, serious trouble" were his words, and this is a far cry from saying that money was an important consideration. How were they funded? Read the interview: Bungie was not simply running on the proceeds from software sales. They had supplemented their cashflow with a sizable investment from Take Two. It's all right there in the article. Also bear in mind that the purchase itself and the switch to X-Box almost certainly lengthened Halo's development cycle. Sure, he could have been lying, and if someone can produce equally convincing evidence that he was, I will gladly withdraw my argument (speculation and hypothesis are not convincing in my book). I don't begrudge anyone for doubting the word of a CEO, no matter how beloved the company is. However, on any other question, die-hard fans seem contented to take Bungie's word, even to browbeat others with it. Why is this matter any different? And even more important, is this the consensus among Bungie fans because it is has any basis in reality, or because it is comforting? Gromit : Heh... : Good question. However, an equally good question would be, how on earth did : Bungie plan on funding themselves through (at least) another year or two : of development, with all their usual expenses, solely one the proceeds : from... what? Myth? Old. Oni? Only partially sucessful. The Mac Action : Sack? Yeah, right. And they still have to PUBLISH Halo, even once it's : done — self-publish. Goody. : Possibly there wasn't any real, immediate financial crisis — i.e. they hold a : meeting, Alex thumps his fists down, and says, "Okay, guys. We have : 100 dollars and 12 cents left in our coffers. This will be depleted in two : days. What can we do?" However, I DO think that, in the end, fiscal : matters played a major roll in the decision. If only on a "Let's just : make sure we never have any worries about money so we can concentrate on : making kick-ass games, not having to rush them or degrade them to make : launch dates. The way to do this is to find the guy with the biggest : pockets and make him pay our bills" thing. : I suppose it's that the discussions, arguments, and all that have been done : and over for a long time. Back when the merger was announced, there was : all kinds of huzzah — you know that. But, I mean, we can only argue for so : long. So after a while, one "explanation" was decided upon as : being the generally accepted one, and peace was declared. So now what : you're mostly going to hear is people using that explanation, bypassing : all the arguing and evidence — if nothing else than to save time, because : it's been done. : Yeah, well, I had some spare time.

Message Index

Of Acquisitions and Gaming	Shishka	6/26/02 7:33 p.m.
well said...to world domination! ::clink!:: thanks *NM*	Roger Wilco	6/26/02 7:55 p.m.
Re: Of Acquisitions and Gaming	Jack Black	6/26/02 8:29 p.m.
Thank you, Bungie! *NM*	NthDegree256	6/27/02 12:28 a.m.
:) Rock on.	vector40	6/27/02 12:40 a.m.
A life without Halo! (weeping in the background)	Spartan III	6/27/02 1:50 a.m.
Yay Bungie! *waves flag*	Tarrsk	6/27/02 3:09 a.m.
Hear hear! *NM*	Theocracity	6/27/02 10:02 a.m.
Re: Of Acquisitions and Gaming	Aida-kun	6/27/02 5:34 p.m.
On what do you base this claim?	Gromit	6/28/02 8:25 p.m.
i respectfully disagree.	karstux	6/30/02 12:50 p.m.
Re: i respectfully disagree.	*Ar-Isildur of *WP*	6/30/02 2:20 p.m.
Re: i respectfully disagree.	karstux	6/30/02 3:43 p.m.
Re: i respectfully disagree.	Louis Wu	6/30/02 3:53 p.m.
Re: i respectfully disagree.	vector40	6/30/02 11:01 p.m.
Re: i respectfully disagree.	Shishka	7/1/02 12:06 a.m.
Gratitude and respect?	Gromit	7/1/02 12:58 a.m.
Re: Gratitude and respect?	Shishka	7/1/02 1:14 a.m.
Re: Gratitude and respect?	karstux	7/1/02 12:31 p.m.
Re: Gratitude and respect?	Shishka	7/1/02 6:02 p.m.
Well, so much for the respect part.	Gromit	7/1/02 2:20 p.m.
Re: Well, so much for the respect part.	vector40	7/1/02 5:39 p.m.
Thanks for the backup, Vec.	Shishka	7/1/02 5:51 p.m.
Re: Thanks for the backup, Vec.	Gromit	7/1/02 9:21 p.m.
::forces Gromit to smell rocks:: *NM*	Andrew Nagy	7/5/02 12:50 p.m.
I'm not familiar with that idiom...	Gromit	7/6/02 7:41 p.m.
Re: Well, so much for the respect part.	Gromit	7/1/02 8:06 p.m.
Re: Well, so much for the respect part.	vector40	7/1/02 8:55 p.m.
This thread is too confusing. :( *NM*	*Ar-Isildur of *WP*	7/1/02 9:30 p.m.
Re: Well, so much for the respect part.	Gromit	7/1/02 9:46 p.m.
Re: Well, so much for the respect part.	NthDegree256	7/1/02 10:04 p.m.
Re: Well, so much for the respect part.	vector40	7/1/02 10:59 p.m.
Re: Well, so much for the respect part.	Gromit	7/1/02 11:51 p.m.
Re: Well, so much for the respect part.	vector40	7/2/02 12:30 a.m.
Re: Well, so much for the respect part.	Gromit	7/2/02 1:55 p.m.
Re: Well, so much for the respect part.	vector40	7/2/02 4:39 p.m.
Re: Well, so much for the respect part.	Shishka	7/3/02 7:01 p.m.
A Quick Comment	Matt	7/3/02 9:56 p.m.
I'm going to come to your house... and BLAM.	vector40	7/3/02 10:40 p.m.
Re: I'm going to come to your house... and BLAM.	Uriel	7/4/02 9:21 a.m.
Where's the mystery?	Miguel Chavez	7/4/02 9:49 a.m.
Re: I'm going to come to your house... and BLAM.	Gromit	7/4/02 1:11 p.m.
Hehe, okay, okay.	Shishka	7/4/02 12:07 a.m.
Thanks for addressing this. *NM*	Gromit	7/4/02 1:13 p.m.
Ten?	Andrew Nagy	7/5/02 1:33 p.m.