May 22nd, 2012
Posted in 
Details on Bungie’s next game have been revealed through documents from an Activision court case. The game is code named “Destiny”, and is a new science-fantasy, action shooter franchise. The documents have also revealed the new IP will have four full games with the first set to release Fall, 2013.
The full schedule of Destiny games looks like this: The first game will be released Fall, 2013 on the Xbox 360 as well as “the next successor console platform released by Microsoft,” which the contract actually refers to as Xbox 720, IGN reports. Sequels will then follow in 2015, 2017, and 2019. Bungie will also release four DLC expansions code named “Comet” in 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020. Comet expansions will “be compatible with the Xbox 360, Xbox 720 and the Sony PlayStation 4.” A PC release is mentioned as well.
The contract mentions Sony’s system by stating the first Destiny title will be released on the PlayStation 3 in the fall of 2014 after a “joint technical feasibility analysis” that will determine whether the game “is able to be developed for the PS3 at quality and feature parity to the Xbox 360 version.”
The contract also states that the technical feasibility of a PS3 version of the game should be made “no later than January 31, 2011,” with the business feasibility decision coming “no later than March 31, 2011.” We wonder what happened.
Bungie community manager, DeeJ, has posted the following statement titled “Well, that just happened…” on the company’s official site in response to the recent reports:
“So, yeah. While we’re not ready to show you what we’ve been working on, we can reconfirm that we are hard at work on our new universe. We can’t wait for you to see it.
See you starside in 2013.”
Wow, that’s a lot of information to take in. I’ve never seen a gaming contract look so far ahead into the future with some many details worked out. As is the case with everything this time of year expect more info at E3…hopefully. See you starside in 2013? Yeah, we’re excited, how about you?
Source: L.A. Times [via IGN]
Tags: 
“I’ve never seen a gaming contract look so far ahead into the future with some many details worked out.”
Blizzard’s leaked schedule also has a lot of detail and goes into the future…
I guess so is every other gaming company’s internal schedules. These are big companies with a lot of money involved, ofcourse they don’t act like indie developers: “oh let’s see what happens tomorrow and let’s hope for the best!”…
will determine whether the game “is able to be developed for the PS3 at quality and feature parity to the Xbox 360 version.”
This is a joke, right? I wonder how much M$ paid to have Activision stating crap like that.
The contract mentions Sony’s system by stating the first Destiny title will be released on the PlayStation 3 in the fall of 2014 after a “joint technical feasibility analysis” that will determine whether the game “is able to be developed for the PS3 at quality and feature parity to the Xbox 360 version.”
LMAO…ps-cripple indeed. Can’t stop laughing at what I just read because it’s too true. The ps-cripple only does linear, corridor and/or cinematic type movies. True expansive and big playing space games give it trouble.
T
Yes that is why we only have the best looking open world game called infamous 2 and infamous festival of blood which also has anti aliasing unlike the super linear gears of war which u xbugs call the best looking game on the 360.
Funny how you clowns call out the PS3 for only being able to produce corridor style games.
Why does the 360 fail to match the graphics quality of these “corridors” you find on the PS3 if it’s such an easy thing to do? Gears of War 3? No AA? rofl
Not to mention the PS3 owns the 360 in “true expansive and big playing space” games such as Saints Row the Third and Prototype 2.
Bungie simply wouldn’t be able to handle the beast.
They’ve failed to ever make a single game in HD on the 360. LOL
@Cernaml
You’re not getting it. It’s not just about playing space. It’s about features and what else the game offers. Notice how Kz3 couldn’t even offer online co-op in campaign. But Guerilla said no problem we’ll give you co-op OFFLINE. But guess what?
Even in offline co-op the game suffers from frame rate problems (read the gamespot review if you don’t believe me) And that’s just offline. Another example…. why do you think uc3 looks like crap in MP? Again more things going on….more stuff to process.
Heck the MP graphics of Gears of War 3 is actually on par with the SP graphics of uc3. That says a lot.
BOTTOM LINE: The more things that the ps3 has to do and process the more it suffers. What some of you are not getting is that it’s not just about graphics. But how stress-intensive the whole package of a game strains the platform it’s playing on.
Of course uc3 looks great. Heck it better. It’s a linear cinematic flash in the pan quest. You think these linear and cinematic qualities stress the ps3? Of course not so guess what the devs can focus all of their resources on making the game look great.
Graphics alone do not represent the power of a console. What else is the game offering technically and feature-wise?
You mentioned Gears of war 3. Again just focusing on looks. I bet if you go pound for pound including looks and features and modes that Gears 3 beats it but you probably already know this.
Also let me see a game on the ps3 that rivals a game like Halo 3 that
basically throws everything including the kitchen sink like 4-player on line co-op, forge etc…
LOL the ps3 would choke on attempting to do something like forge in a game like Halo 3.
Oh and lol at zero frames per second in the ps-cripple version of skyrim. That was some historic shit right there.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Did BUYING1999 make a new account?
Oh yeah I’ve played Killzone 3 in split screen co op. Didn’t really notice much frame rate problems. Of course you’d believe something you read on the internet if it’s anti PS3 though. lol
And no, if Gears 3 SP can’t match Uncharted 3 then no way in hell does multiplayer. lol
Speaking of these so-called features that these 360 games have over the PS3…
Hell, I don’t know what resolution Twisted Metal runs at but if it’s 720p then even that’s a much more impressive technical accomplishment over Halo especially when playing split screen online in Nuke mode. 
What? Split screen? Game types such as horde mode? Pretty sure there have been many PS3 exclusive franchises that have implemented split screen ONLINE competitive multiplayer. Then you have 3D. Then there’s the fact that most of these PS3 exclusives actually run at an HD resolution unlike your precious Halo.
There’ s a big difference between content and modes and what the hardware can push at one time. That’s like saying “our game is 5 gigs more than your game!” What’s the point if there’s so little ram? lol
Forge? LOL Because the 360 is the only console that has pushed “Play, Create, Share.” Oh wait.. it doesn’t at all. Talking about features… how many 360 games even let you create your own levels and share them with people around the world compared to the PS3? lol
Saying that better graphics means that the hardware isn’t being pushed is quite a dumb thing to say. If that was the case then every game wouldn’t have any problem rendering at 1080p (or even 720p..) or running at 60FPS (or at least 30FPS without screen tear lol). Face it, the 360 simply can’t do what the PS3 can in the likes of the beautifully rendered Uncharted or the epic scale of God of War. Gears 3 is a good attempt but with the lack of AA and a frame rate that can’t even be v synced, it’s not quite up to par. Oh, and let’s not forget the epic failure that is a gimped DVD format which is really starting to show its age with MANY releases recently (including many linear games LOL).
I still remember how many 360 fanboys claimed that Mass Effect 2 was the best looking console game that the PS3 simply would never be able to handle. LOL! When you people constantly clutch at 3rd party multiplatform games to prove the 360′s superiority in hardware and graphics… it makes me think… Do your exclusive game franchises and Microsoft’s 1st party studios really fail that hard? LOL
Let me put in this way, TRAXXX. I am a Final Fantasy fan, even fanboy if you like. What SE did to FF XIII and FF XIII-2 to fit them in the shitbox is simply a crime against humanity.
wow you guys really don’t get what he means at all, seriously you all are nitpicking the tiny details of his post instead of recognizing the main point: xbox is better at multi-tasking but isn’t as good at graphics while the PS3 is good with graphics but not so good at multi-tasking (heck even look at the download experience on PS3 as further evidence, if you download a whole game you have to sit there and wait for it to get done while an xbox can download in the background while you’re plowing through dragons in skyrim. (and the download speeds don’t suffer from me playing either.)
That is NOT a multitasking issue (CPU) it’s a RAM issue (256MB on PS3 for processing). I did download plenty of games while playing others. Some games instead disable it. The 256MB RAM is the only “limitation” of the PS3. Sony took a courageous approach on putting the faster XDR DRAM on the PS3, too bad that many developers don’t know how/want to exploit its full potential and that often more slower RAM is better than less faster RAM.
That has been probably the one big mistake of Sony. If they put 384MB for system processing all these debates would be over. Also the X360, like the PS2, has a small fast buffer accessible by the GPU that allows extra fast graphics computing if properly programmed. That may give an edge to the X360 in some games.
Still SE made a terrific job with FF XIII on the PS3, producing a game of high technical quality that simply could not and won’t ever fit in the X360 for the obvious reason we all know: the lack of Blu Ray drive. So much that to adhere to M$ bleeding policies (games on X360 must be identical to the ones in other versions) SE had to change the game and make it totally linear and allow some free roaming only after Chapter 11/Disc 3, otherwise it would have been a DVD swapping nightmare.
Even worse happened to FF XIII-2. Since it could not be linear at all (free time travelling forbids it, doesn’t it?) SE drastically reduced the number of pre-rendered cut scenes FF games are so popular for to fit it in a DVD only. That’s what the retard-box with its ugly disk-less 4GB or less models is doing to the video game industry. And still FF XIII-2 in the crap-box plays terrible compared to the PS3 version. It is also worth to mention that both games do not have any install data on PS3, streaming directly from the BR drive.
The equation is simple: Given the correct amount of resources (i.e. developer skills and time) any game made for X360 can be ported to the PS3 with good result, the opposite sometime is not even possible! So to claim that such an huge piece of shit is superior in any way to the PS3 is simply a fantasy.
@Michelasso
I agree that technologically the PS3 is superior, the problem is just that, it’s too different. unless a developer has been working with it since the beginning they can’t correctly utilize it. (the big one currently that has gotten very solid console parity is Rockstar, max payne 3 was pretty good one both systems) so while the technology is mostly superior, from an actual utilizing perspective most developers (the people paying them) find the xbox 360 to be a better console since it doesn’t require specialized programmers to work with. (and since a lot of the games are mainly for US release were the xbox has market majority for hardcore games rather than international release it just makes more sense financially to work on xbox)
@cernaml
My goodness man you STILL don’t get it. For real right now I’m trying to be serious with you right now. Take off the fanboy cap for a second. Can you do that?
My main point about most ps3 exclusives is that they are linear, cinematic or a damn corridor. So there is little stress on the system. So of course with that little stress the devs can focus their resources on the visuals… Hellooooo Uc3……Hellooooo….. God of War 3 that is so camera restricted and linear you might as well be playing in a shoe box.
You poke fun at Halo and thins like resolution. But the problem with your argument is that the ps3 has NO GAME…I REPEAT NO GAME that rivals the features, visuals, wide open playing battles, 4-player online co-op, forge, etc..
Come back to me when the ps3 has an FPS game on that scale WITH ALL OF THOSE FEATURES AND HAVE THE GAME TO LOOK GOOD. When the ps3 finally releases a game like this AND is able to do 720p then AND ONLY THEN WILL I GIVE THE ps3 PROPS. Until then….NOPE.
So the fact that you keep bringing up the sub hd is argument is weak because the ps3 doesn’t have a game like that.
Yeak kz3 is 720p but if you sit there and tell me that it matches the scale and features of Halo 3 then I will forever laugh at you.
BOTTOM LINE: You can’t sit there and poke fun at Halo 3 being sub-hd when the ps3 can’t even match a game like that pound for pound in terms of scale and features.
So yeah kz3 is 720p. But look what Sony/Guerrilla has to sacrifice to get 720p. It’s a linear corrider on rails shooter. Again little stress on the system so of course they can get to 720p. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?
This is why ps3 exclusives to me are really not impressive at all. Fun? Sure. Technically impressive? Nope.
Also you talk about Play. Share. Create. LOL. Are you talking about Little Big Planet? Lol read my original post.
I said the ps3 would choke if it tried to do stuff like the forge IN A GAME LIKE HALO 3….MEANING A COMPLEX FPS GAME. NOT SOME SIMPLE 2D GAME. What’s wrong with you man. You’re kind of owning yourself right now and only further proving my point about the ps3.
@traxxx
Im sorry but I have to say this, your bottom line is in the middle of your post! XD
@TRAXXX
>Creating sock puppets to up-vote your own comments.
lol @ Bigburrito. I have a 360 as well. And downloads WILL stall depending on what you decide to play.
Same thing for the PS3. Some games disable background downloading, others don’t.
I have both platforms, don’t try to argue with me on this.
Oh Traxxx, Traxxx, Traxxx… The more you post the more obvious it becomes that you are restricted to one platform.
I played Halo. Halo Reach to be exact. Currently the “most technically advanced” Halo released apparently. It’s not impressive AT ALL. The visuals, like I stated before, are sub HD (please, don’t pretend like that isn’t a major flaw), the AA method is ATROCIOUS, the battles and environments didn’t seem all that big to me at all (Alan Wake impressed me more…). My point? It was a major disappointment. It was the first Halo game I bought to see what the hype was all about. Didn’t see it. Visuals aren’t impressive and gameplay is outdated (you need to equip running LOL and no iron sights? seriously? What is this Bodycount?).
You talk big about 360 games being so good at throwing more things at you. Again, I don’t see it. Your best looking game, Gears 3, is just as linear but still doesn’t look as good (lacks AA), doesn’t run as good (sup screen tearing), and the animations are nowhere near as smooth as the best PS3 exclusive games out there (and there are plenty!).
The open world sandbox game Infamous looks better than your open world sandbox game Crackdown. Our flagship racing series is technically far more ambitious than its exclusive rival on the 360.
There have already been a few open world multiplatform games that run better on the PS3 (hell, even RAGE had a better frame rate on the PS3). Good God… you sound like the PS3 is absolutely incapable of running any of these games at all and is limited to small corridor linear experiences such as Metro 2033 only… oh wait. LOL
Keep on throwing Halo around like it’s all you got. The Xbox needed saving from that last gen and it needs saving from it this gen. lol
Oh, and lol @ your LittleBigPlanet comment. You honestly think that’s the only game that supports UGC?
Hell, Infamous 2 supports it! You know… an OPENWORLD SANDBOX game?
@Traxx Starhawk says hi. That destroys any title 360 in graphics, and *SHOCKER!!!* it’s sandbox. Oh, and wouldn’t you know it, it’s actually HD and has AA, as well as motion blur, and global frame rates as high as 60 FPS. It uses the GoW3 frame rate system.
@dialgamarine
You fool…
Starhawk is sub-hd at 1152×640. Unless of course to you 1152×640 is true HD LOL. Gotta love ps3 fanboys. They love to lie.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-starhawk
@cernaml
Well in my opinion you chose the wrong halo game because to be quite honest halo 3 is a better game than reach IMO.
Also you ps3 fanboys love to lie. Rage is a better game on the 360. Read DF and LOT. Again…whats wrong with you. Do you feel good to lie. Help me understand.
Neither Infamous nor Crackdown is in the same league as Skyrim and we all know how that turned out on the ps3 with zero frames per second lol. Oh and then we have this game called Red Dead Redemption that owns infamous as well and we know how that turned out on the ps3 with its lovely foliage and blurry picture.
Red Dead Redemption OWNS Infamous.
Skyrim OWNS Infamous.
Both games that are true open world technical wonders that run superior on the 360 compared to the ps3 that had its usual brain farts trying to run these games.
Gears of War 3 pound for pound offers much more features and by the way has a lot more enemies and characters on screen than uc3 so please. And I already told you that Gears 3 MP looks better than Uc3 MP so please stop bringing up Gears 3. It’s not helping your argument lol
@dialgamarine
Again…why lie? You ps3 fanboys man I tell ya you love to lie. Starhawk is sub-hd at 1152×640. Is real HD 1152×640? LOL.
Also 60FPS? LOL.
This is from digital foundry:
” the frame-rate naturally settles at a steady 40FPS when there is little to challenge the engine” LOL
“In really chaotic scenes, where there are dozens of players on-screen, along with plenty of alpha effects, performance can drop down to the mid-twenties resulting in a noticeable loss in controller response and visible judder. It is possible to adjust to a certain degree to this, but the quality of the experience does suffer even if the visual spectacle is quite superb.”
More…
“Performance online largely mirrors that of the single-player campaign, albeit with a tangible difference. The drops in frame-rate are slightly more severe when the engine is put under heavy load – especially where the large space battles are concerned – and this translates into a noticeably more uneven gameplay experience. Scenes on the ground also tend to stabilise at 30FPS, rather than at 40FPS in quieter moments, although the engine is frequently capable of rendering out scenes at higher frame-rates in areas where the draw distance is smaller, or if there are only a handful of players on-screen.”
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-starhawk
LOL…nuff said.
Thanks for reinforcing my point that the ps3 will always have a boat load of trade-offs when it tries to do too much in a game’s overall package.
LOL I’ve never heard of the 360 having controller response issues meanwhile it’s not uncommon with the ps3.
@Traxx
Please stop. You make 360 gamers look stupid with that crap. The PS3 can do more than corrider games. Look at infamous and starhawk.
@DialgaMarine
Look, I prefer my PS3 as well and starhawk is definetly a good looking game but I wouldn’t say it destroys the xbob graphics. Also DF already pointed out that it runs in sub-HD and it doesnt run at 60fps which is fine coz it still looks good but not 360 destroying good.
Lying? rofl
I said it has a better FRAME RATE. Which it DOES. I didn’t say it was better on the PS3 overall. The 360 version does kinda fall apart when it’s not installed though. lol
RDR? Skyrim? Whoop dee doo. I got RDR on the 360 and although it’s one hell of a fine looking game, it’s all nothing but open desert with a few horses here and there. Skyrim I’ve yet to play, can’t comment on that. But from all the releases I’ve seen, Bethesda clearly aren’t very competent developers for any platform.
Funny how you ignore Saint Row 3 and Prototype 2 though. But here, let me throw another one at you. Just Cause 2. A true open world experience which is basically a match between platforms (well not really, they each have their own strengths). Seriously do you people just forget about these games entirely when it doesn’t support your pro 360 arguments? lol
One more thing, just gonna throw this out there again: Gears 3 screen tearing and no AA. trolololol
Yes, PS3′s exclusive titles are super awesome and have graphics that outmatch the 360. I love Uncharted games, Gran Turismo 5.
Multi platform games are simply statistically better on the 360. Once in a while PS3 does them better, and has great exclusives.
Yes, PS3 is “able” to create better image quality. Sometimes does. But on multi platforms suffers terrible framerate loss.
I understand those who love better framerates and choose 360 over PS3. If you like “AA”, which only sometimes appears in PS3 games, then its totally fine to get a PS3.
Also some people love greater selection of downloadable games on the 360. PS3 just offers too little, even though its basic online is free, the best features are in the non-free Plus Service.
Example: Mass Effect 3. Lags impossibly on the PS3. Bayonetta also lags very much.
Example 2: Bulletstorm runs better on PS3
I realize there are more examples for either side, I cannot remember them all.
Some of us do not like Japanese games and JRPGs in particular, so there are fewer incentives to get PS3 for those. Others love JRPGs and Japanese games in general, so should get a PS3.
But this constant debating about which is better is pointless since true gamers save some money and buy both systems and enjoy the best of both worlds. Plus Wii and portable devices.
Owning all platforms is nice. Having a job allows me to have all those options including the PC.
However, the Wii can just crawl to a corner and stay there. lol
The good thing is Bungie seems to be serious about platform parity though. I mean, they have literally zero experience at developing games for the PlayStation 3, right? I think Bungie probably doen’t want to just release a gimped port, so it’s only normal that they want to run this analysis to see if they are capable of producing the same result on the PS3. I think it’s a serious commitment on their part for trying to achieve platform parity while still aiming to stretch their capability to its limit (either that or I’m just being overly optimistic.) Beside, releasing a bad port for the PS3 would only create negative impact on their reputation, and since they aren’t first party developers anymore, they definitely wouldn’t want that.
Like I care. This game is being published by Activison. As far as I can tell it’ll be another crappy game taking the CoD route and will be marketed the same way as CoD is. Congratulations 360 owners, Activision is now the face of the 360! Hope you guys enjoy that.
Bungie are one of the most incompetent studios out there. They have never made a good game and everything that have ever made has been held back on a technical level by the shitbox. Maybe now that they are working on PS3 they might be able to actually make a game that actually runs in HD and will actually be playable
wow all the comments seem to miss the entire point of the agreement. Bungie started ny releasing games for mac, then moved over to the xbox and has since NEVER worked on any other platform (even the PC versions of the halo games were done by a different dev) so Bungie just deciding “we’re going to make a multi-plat for 360, PC, and PS3″ would be insane because they have no experience with the architecture (a simple analogy: you go to the store by taking the freeway because it doesn’t have as much traffic but there are a few more stop signs while another person might decide to take the highway because there aren’t as many stops but the traffic is worse. essentially you get a similar end result, getting to the store, but the process to get there is completely different.) that’s why this deal makes sense, they try and learn the architecture, see what they themselves can do with the hardware, and if they can do what they want to do with it for the new game, and then decide whether or not to go all in and release it a year later. from a design standpoint and a monetary stand point it makes a lot of sense.
all ima say is if u dont think the ps3 can handle something play STARHAWK its battlefield and starcraft mixed together 32 players split screen massive maps all 32 players can use vehicles at once and everythings destructible and rebuildable
starhawk ftw
I trust Bungie will deliever on the goods. Remember this is their first game they will make for PS3 so its expected that they may be unfamiliar with the hardware. Hope we’ll hear something from them at E3.
Plus this is an old contract that the PS3 delay might not even be happening anymore.