Talk:Bungie/Archive 1

Outdated

Yeah, this article is kinda outdated. Could someone get citations and update the page? Darkrevenger 09:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Putting Bungie Mythos into own article?

Sorry, noob speaking, this article is being vandalised !!, check the History section, Apparantly someone (Nintendo, Sony Fanboy), changed the article, i think it should be locked ! Bold text "Bungie made Halo 1 (mediocre game with a retard story). Bungie made Halo 2 (stupid game with an even more retard story). Bunge is developing Halo 3 (promised to be good, but probably even worse with an even more retard story).

DIDIDI!!!!!!!"

Sorry don't have the time, otherwise I would've changed it! thank you^^

Just thinking aloud, really. There's lots of information that I could add, but would prolly be off topic for an article about Bungie itself. What say The Wiki? Scumbag 03:06, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I made some changes as far as where I'd like to see the article go.

Things I'd like to see mentioned: Weekend Warrior, Minotaur (First Online only rpg???), Oni, The Black Eye of Myth III...

Also I'd like to see credit for current 3rd party sites and developers Also link the games that have articles into their page. -B2A

I'd love to see a full 'Bungie mythos' page. I'll scrounge up some wiki ideas and see what I can come up with. Maybe make a stub, see where it goes, and if it winds up seeing a VfD, we can get an official word. Details as they emerge. (NOTE: This project would also save many other pages, Pimps at Sea for example, which remain non-noteworthy stubs on their own, but which would combine to make a great single page). Gspawn 19:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if anyone wants to help, Just do It (tm). The site needs both quantity and quality at the moment to keep it from seeing a quick deletion. Gspawn 20:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Minor correction: Minotaur wasn't designed to be played online, just over a local network. --DocumentN 02:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The bungie Mythos already existis and is called bungiepedia. Vexrog (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Loaded language

The paragraph beginning "Due to this, it's speculated by some..." really ought to be rewritten. It is nowhere near impartial and gets key facts wrong.

There was no "original source code for the Macintosh version." The build of Halo that Bungie debuted at the MacWorld Expo was a port of the Windows version. Halo's development began on Windows and stayed there until roughly two weeks before the MacWorld Expo in question because Apple's OpenGL was not up to snuff until then. Mac zealots don't like to hear this, but it's true: Halo was PC-only for the first year of its existence.

You can hear the sneer in the author's voice when he writes about "when it suited MS to 'allow' a Mac version...." Rather un-encyclopedic if you ask me. Apart from that, his implicit complaint doesn't make much sense. Why would Bungie NOT port the final Xbox version to Mac and PC?

Claiming Halo was "fairly easy" to port from Xbox to PC is a bold assertion indeed. Whoever said it was probably not involved in the porting process.

The line "The adverse effects of this entire episode was felt somewhat in the Bungie Studios however, when many of the key employees walked," apart from being poorly written, is basically fiction. A quick check of the credits between Halo and Halo 2 will show that many of the key employees did not flee en masse but in fact stuck around to work on the sequel. Only seven ex-Bungie people ended up at Wideload. I'm one of them, so I can hardly claim impartiality, but I can say with some authority that none of us left because we were upset about Mac Halo.

Certain people want to see Bungie get their comeuppance for the perceived transgression of being bought by Microsoft. I think it's possible to acknowledge that in the article without actually making that the viewpoint from which the article is written.

Nightstick 18:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

A Bungie employee? Here? *jaw slackens in awe*

~Helwer7

Reminder

This is Wikipedia, not a Classifieds section, advertisements for your personal group will be reverted as being advertising/vandalism, and if they are repeated, your username/IP will be referred to the appropriate admins for your transgressions. Just because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone doesn't mean you can put whatever you want here. GameJunkieJim 21:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

'Bungie numbers'

I know very little about Bungie, but after reading the article I *still* know very little about the Bungie numbers, which is a problem.

There's enough info about '7' in the mythos to be informative. The portion I commented out: "Apart from seven, there are some other digits that appear very frequently in Bungie's games: 3 and 10 (and the lesser known 4). (Note how 7 + 3 = 10, 10 - 3 = 7, and 7 - 3 = 4.) These four digits are collectively called "Bungie Numbers" by the fans." is completely without source, doesn't include any actual references to in-game usage, and read as a grade 1 math class.Dirtyharry2 04:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[EDIT] [Also to add with the notes about Bungie's fascination with the Number 7, the 7th of July 2007 was international Bungie Day. - Just an Interesting Note.]

~Carpse.

Bungie *Game* Studios?

When I look at Bungie's official site bungie.net, I don't find any source, that the name has been changed from "Bungie Studios" to "Bungie Game Studios". Also when I search "BGS" per Google I find overwhelming (*rolleyes*) 133 results... searching "Bungie Studios" says "about 351,000". So I don't think the name has ever been changed to "BGS". –jello ¿? 14:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• I was about to make a comment on this exact same thing. It's called Bungie Studios, not Bungie Game Studios. I'd edit it, but I'm not sure how to change the title. Interrupt_feed 22:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved it back to Bungie Studios. –jello ¿? 09:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Bungie Studios/Bungie.net merge

• I disagree with this proposed merge. The website is interesting enough by itself for technical reasons (see the technical case study) and as a hub for Halo players. I think merging it would create an unbalanced bungie studios articles. guiltyspark 10:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Its not that bad

I endorse and strongly support the merge of these articles, first it provides less page links and one place to find related items; SECOND, Bungie.Net itself is not that long so no problem of incorporating this into the Bungie Studios, see what it would look like: HERE

—-— .:Seth Nimbosa:. (talk • contribs) 12:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Having thought on this a bit longer, and seeing the proposal, changing to conditional suppport given that:
  • The 2 intros are combined (besides having redundant information, it's just confusing)
  • Bungie.net infobox should probably now be removed as it will be part of a smaller article, and the screenshot should then be moved into the relevant section on its own
  • It should be removed from the 'video games website' category

guiltyspark 16:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Bungie naming themes

i found something interesting whilst browsing another section of wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtana, to be precise) the point is, the legendary sword "Cortana" was said to be inscribed with "My name is Cortana, of the same steel and temper as Joyeuse and Durendal." now i recognize Durendal as an AI from marathon, Cortana as an AI from halo, and i think this is worth mentioning somewhere. so here it is.

Spoilers

There needs to be some type of spoiler tag before the section on Marathon/Halo connections; I barely avoided having end plot details from Halo 3 revealed to me while reading this. 161.115.50.8 16:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Be Bold. --LeyteWolfer 21:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Per the Spoiler tag guideline, we don't need warning tags on articles about non-fictional subjects. I've removed the tags. --Tony Sidaway 18:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I disagree with this, I also wound up seeing some Halo 3 spoilers in this article (which is very annoying) and here is a quote from the Spoiler tag guideline that I think is appropriate:

If explicit spoilers[1] are mentioned in non-fiction articles (e.g. articles on authors, actors, real-life locations in which fictional texts are set, or literary concepts like climax), consider whether that plot detail improves the encyclopedic quality of the article. It may be better to remove the example.

I really think these details should be removed and replaced with something far more vague. Not having played Halo 3 yet, I can't exactly be the one to do this...

--Altima 02:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Halo 3 spoiler content in this section

I'm not seeing any Marathon reference in this description of Halo 3's ending. Ignoring all the existing reasons Marathon and Halo can't be in continuity, the games still make it clear that Marathon's player character was on board Marathon when it was first launched, so he couldn't have arrived from Halo while it was in flight. Also, it's original research to say it was an intentional reference, and it's not really notable that a few people interpreted it as one. Removed. --DocumentN 02:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm pretty sure detailed information on Halo/Marathon connections should go in Halo (series) and Marathon Trilogy or in the game where the connection appears, but I don't really want to take the time to move/redistribute the whole section. --DocumentN 02:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Video game sales vs. movie ticket sales?

I could have sworn I've heard this argument somewhere before, but nevertheless, this irked me:

"On September 25, 2007 Halo 3 was released. The game brought in a record breaking $170 million in the first 24 hours after release. The sales surpassed all other games prior (Halo 2: $125 million) as well as the movie industries largest release to date (Spiderman 3: $151 million)."

While that may be factual, I think it is somewhat irrelevent and bias/misleading. To begin with, movie tickets don't cost $59.99 plus sales tax and on top of that are the $69.99 and $129.99 Collectors and Legendary edition of Halo 3, respectively.

Now I recall where I've heard this argument before. People have been arguing the sale of "record breaking" sales of tickets are farse because fifty years ago tickets to a film did not cost 9 dollars.

So I suppose I agree with them, and I also think that this record should be based on actual transactions, not how much they raked in.

Perhaps I'm arguing this in the wrong place though? If anyone has a better place to make this argument if it hasn't been done already, please redirect me. Thank you. Vicious203 15:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your points. It seems that what you are talking about can be divided into 2 points. 1)The comparison between 2 different markets, and 2)Inflation.

1) I pretty much agree that we cannot compare the movie and games industry. Thats why we don't have it in the article. The existence of this saying elsewhere on the internet does not relate to wikipedia, and thus, should not be discussed here.

2)Nevertheless, the point you are making is that stuff costs more these days. This is known as inflation. However, if people felt that the new prices for games were not worth it, they would be less willing to purchase the game. For example, a game called "Tha adventurerers of box-guy", would not sell for 59.99. If it were, no one would buy it anyway. Thus, it would be safe to say that since Halo3 made 170million, it is worth 170million.

The industry sadly does not adjust rankings for inflation. Naturally 100 million in 1990 SHOULD rank more than 170 million in 2007, but nevertheless, it sadly doesnt.

ĞavinŤing 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that may be true but it still doesn't make sense. How difficult would it be to count how many copies of something were bought? If Boeing made a 2 million dollar private jet and sold one in a month and Texas Instruments made a 200 dollar calculator and sold 10,000 in a month (and by some hypothetical freak situation 10,000 calculators cost the same to make as 1 jet) who would be more successful? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicious203 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

It seems that there's been a spate of recent vandalism, especially by the user 24.13.220.191, but also by various other users. It would be good if we can get semi-protection on this page, but I doubt that this falls under the requirements for semi-protection. Darkrevenger (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Post-Microsoft page title

They're apparently no longer Bungie Studios, which would mean that the page should be moved, but should the new title be "Bungie, LLC", "Bungie (game developer)", "Bungie (company)", just plain "Bungie" (with all other uses linked from Bungee), or something else?

Also, there's a vandal edit somewhere in this string of edits that hasn't been fixed yet - the one about "deans first game". Also, "Matthew Feetham" appears to be a vandal edit from further back, so there may be more. I don't want to fix any edits without also attaching warnings to the IPs used. --DocumentN (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

GAN on hold

• "closely guarded secret,[1] While a bonus" - comma or full stop -- capital or lowercase W?
• "Marathon Scrapbook company founder Alex Seropian" - refer to him using surname, you've said who he is
• "consisting of Jason Jones " - same again (and throughout article)
• A few of the game titles in the Marathon, Myth, and Oni section aren't wlinked, but could be
• "Seriopan and Jones had refused to immediately accept..." - the immediately isn't necessary
• [1] needs a better fair use rationale
• "Staff are able— and often— publicly criticize their own games and each other." - should that be "staff are able to"?
• On the navbox, Bungie Studios redirects to this article.

Leave me a note when done. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Passed. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Independent company Vs. Second party

I changed the words "second party developer" to "independent developer".

This was based on an interview I had with Marty OConnell last week and the split he laid out was more of an independent company than a second party deal. --8bitJake (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Marty and Bungie staff have said several times in podcasts, et al, that they are "independent". But by definition, they are still a second-party developer. Are they no longer directly owned by Microsoft? Yes, but they are still tied to them strongly. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Traditionally second party developers are 100% financed by the first party, the first party has “First right of refusal” to games and the first party controls the when and where of their games. Bungie now has neither of these true with Microsoft. The top of the food chain and Bungie stops at Bungie and does not go over to Microsoft. This is not the same with companies like real second party developers like Insomniac games and Naughty Dog. They have a good relationship with Microsoft but neither Bungie or Microsoft considers them to be a second party developer. I could email Marty ask him if you want?--8bitJake (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the press releases, they are still tied by IP and contract obligations to the Xbox. That isn't to say they can't develop new IP, but it would seem from the current situation they are second-party. By all means, though, email Marty. Actually, I'd love to have his email so I could improve his bio too. :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the relevant bit from the press release: "[Bungie will] become a privately held independent company, Bungie, LLC, in which Microsoft will hold a minority equity interest. As part of this transaction, Bungie and Microsoft have forged a deep and long-term development and publishing relationship focused on the continued success of the 'Halo' franchise. It is also the intent of both parties to expand their partnership to include new IP created and owned by Bungie." - in other words, it sounds like MS will publish whatever Bungie throws their way. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

David. Have read or listen to the MP3 of the interview. [2]. I talked to Marty last week and he laid it out. They are not a second party developer anymore. They have some ties over Halo but they are free to develop what they want, with who they want and market it like they want. A second party developer can't do that. --8bitJake (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at the Wiki entry for Second Party Developer : "In the video game industry, a second-party developer is a developer who, while being a separate entity from any console manufacturer, is tied to a specific one usually through contract or partial ownership and makes games specifically for that console manufacturer." --8bitJake (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Going by that definition, then, Bungie IS, in fact, a 2nd party developer. MS still maintains a minority interest in the company, and the wording of the announcement indicates that MS does, in fact, have first dibs to publish whatever new IPs Bungie creates if Bungie looks to have an outside company publish it other than self-publishing it themselves. In fact, this deal sounds a lot like the one Rare had with Nintendo, in which if the game developed was a Nintendo held IP then Nintendo would oversee the project, have a certain creative control, and maintain ownership of the IP. If Rare produced their own IP, they could either own it even if Nintendo published it, or they could even publish it themselves (quite a few Rare games were "Published by Rare" on N64, and those are the ones Rare still owned when MS bought them).

BTW, Naughty Dog isn't a 2nd party developer. They are fully 1st party, as they are wholly owned by Sony, and being wholly owned is the defining quality of a 1st party game studio. As for "Marty" saying that Bungie isn't "a second party developer anymore"...they were NEVER a 2nd party dev studio when they were with MS. MS owned Bungie. They were wholly owned. Thus, they were a 1st party MS studio at that point. Now, with the recent restructuring, they are 2nd party. MS owns a stake in the company, seems to have first dibs on publishing those that Bungie doesn't want to themselves, and undoubtedly will help finance Bungie's future games in the interest of retaining exclusivity with the studio. If Bungie works on new IPs, they themselves would maintain creative control and ownership despite whatever financing MS gives them. If Bungie works on MS owned IPs (like Halo), MS would maintain all rights and could exert a certain amount of creative control. Again, much like Rare's relationship with Nintendo. They're 2nd party. No disrespect, but Marty O'Donnell doesn't exactly seem to understand what defines a 1st and 2nd party relationship if he thinks Bungie was an MS 2nd party before the "split". Again, they were wholly owned at that time; they were an MS 1st party. Now they are an MS 2nd party. They are only independent as far as ownership of future IPs, which does not make them all that different from Rare when they were with Nintendo.Therealspiffyone (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, another BTW, Insomniac IS a 2nd party dev studio, as they have an exclusive contract with Sony. That said, Sony cannot dictate to Insomniac what they should do. Insomniac also claims to be an "independent" studio...but they are not. And neither is Bungie. They are both part owned by MS, and have something that, just by reading the announcement, seems to be an exclusive agreement with MS. They are 2nd party. A 2nd party team can, in fact, develop what they want, with whom they want, and market it as they wish. Rare did it quite often, as have Insomniac, Silicon Knights when it was with Nintendo, and Sega's own studios when Sega spun them off into "independent" companies.

Here's the big question: Can Bungie go to an outside publisher BEFORE going to MS? Can Bungie develop games for Wii or PS3? If Bungie cannot do ANY of those things due to the wording of the contract, then they are 2nd party, despite Marty's statement's otherwise. Again, he seems to think that Bungie was a 2nd party when MS owned them outright, and that is simply not the case at all, so I think we all have to take his statements of Bungie being "independent" with plenty of grains of salt.Therealspiffyone (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait...now I just read your interview, 8bitjoystick...and it was actually YOU who used the term "2nd party" erroneously. Bungie is NOW a 2nd party. They were a 1st party when MS owned them outright. That's the way the term has ALWAYS been used. Retro was once a 2nd party. Nintendo bought them outright, and they came to have 1st party status. 1st party devs are wholly owned. 2nd party devs are partly owned and/or have an exclusive contract with the publishing company. Bungie used to be the former, and now falls squarely into the latter. It's being changed in the article to reflect that.Therealspiffyone (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Harold Ryan in Key People

This is really frustrating. A LONG time ago, I tried to put Harold Ryan under key people because I have expertise in the subject. Every time I tried it got reverted. Now that you guys see for yourself that he IS a key person, it's okay to put it in there. I just needed to get that out. And I accept any apologies due to how much this page gets vandalized. Thanks for reverting their idiocy. 75.67.239.158 (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)