Talk:Bungie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBungie has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 30, 2008Good article nomineeListed

New Bungie game series?[edit]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20529785?ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

where does this go on the bungie page, it is quite confusing as there is no 'games' section only history (Fdsdh1 (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Needs updating[edit]

Under the "halo and buyout" section it says: Halo's success led to Bungie creating two sequels. Halo 2 was released on November 9, 2004, making more than $125 million on release day and setting a record in the entertainment industry.[20] Halo 3, the final installment in the Halo trilogy, was released on September 25, 2007 and surpassed Halo 2's records, making $170 million in its first twenty-four hours of release[21] and becoming the most pre-ordered game in history.

No mention of reach? I would have done it myself but the page is protected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.62.42 (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image[edit]

Since this will just continue unproductively: there is no reason to replace a raster and definitely low-resolution image with a homemade, derivative SVG which may or may not meet WP:NFCC policy. 'Nuff said. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had posted here on the talk page that you might present your argument, Connor, rather than reverting me... --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does comply with WP:NFCC. You should know your stuff by now. Connormah (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC criterion 3b: "Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace." Can you tell me how you are justified in using a much higher quality SVG that can be scaled to whatever resolution is wished, when we already have raster PNGs of sufficient resolution and quality? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know there was no consensus over the dispute. There are many non-free vector images on Wikipedia. --Connormah (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really answering my question, but since nobody at ANI actually cared enough to keep the discussion going, are you willing to actually participate in an RfC? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I will, if it is absolutely necessary. Can we just settle it here? How about I render a PNG of my vector? Will that be okay? Connormah (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A raster copy of the image would be perfectly acceptable, that's what I've been gunning for the entire time. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll render one, but, I still think our behavior through this whole dispute has been unacceptable. I may start a RfC on your conduct. Connormah (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Bungie Leaving?[edit]

Somewhere when I was at my business at Microsoft, I heard a wild rumor that Bungie was leaving...I posted this here to confirm this. Can anyone have available sources to agree/disagree with this? If so, please tell me. Thank you very much.--Rollersox (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bungie is leaving... what? Bungie has already broken with Microsoft, and they have said that Halo: Reach will be their last Halo game. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)
There is an error on the current article, Bungie is no longer part of Microsoft. By tagging Microsoft as parent - i think it is incorrect. Chirag (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It has dates "(2000-2007)" so it's clear that that is past, not present. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PNG VS SVG[edit]

I have nominated the PNG for deletion and replaced it with the vector, as with the other million of articles that contain SVG logos. If you have objections or prefer the earlier logo, raise your concerns in the Ffd. Please refrain from reverting and cause a 3RR violation... again. This ain't logo land and we need to decide now which we are going to keep. Perhaps listing one of the images in Ffd might help bring this issue to a solution. ZooFari 04:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David once again reverts the edit. Normally, I would revert one more time before I get into 3RR trouble, but since I respect everyone's opinion, including David's, then I didn't bother. David seems to lack that type of respect. ZooFari 14:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I don't respect shills. Connor or David should have nominated the file instead of getting a proxy. Take it to the FfD. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, Ffd is just about getting an image deleted. Here we are trying to decide whether or not to use the png or svg, so shunting us off to the Ffd is a bad choice. There are three people here that would like to use the SVG, but your overruling and 3RRs don't allow the SVG to touch this article. Now that I mentioned Ffd, you now decide to push us over there. Now tell me, why didn't you nominate the SVG for deletion since this became such an issue all of a sudden? ZooFari 14:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't become an issue all of a sudden. I object to editors who know jack about a subject and who have contributed jack to a subject deciding on the styling of that page. Would you like it if I started changing the infobox image of Caribbean hermit crab from File:Caribbean hermit crab.JPG to File:Coenobita clypeatus.jpg over everyone else? I'm sorry I don't have a legion of other editors to support my version—this is a comparatively low-traffic article and most of the original authors are no longer actively editing—but it's the principle of the thing. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So this is about you keeping your work among the others? Even so David, that's not the proper way of dealing with this sort of thing. You've been here long enough to know that. I wouldn't mind the crab image changed but if I really objected, I would go to the talk page and talk about it in a civil way. You did none of that and started an edit war. If the community wants the SVG, just let it go regardless of the policies. ZooFari 15:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's "my" work? The image isn't my upload; Connor is the one pushing his traced SVGs onto article pages. My point is the community has not decided they "want" the SVG. I've only seen two or three scattered discussions on WP:IUP or similar about nonfree SVGs, but there's never been a significant discussion that involved a good portion of the community besides the usual suspects. I find Levy's assertion at the moment entirely unfounded. If the community had, then someone should have amended NFCC. Also: edit warring is a two-way street. Damning me for reverting to the accepted version before Connor showed up is bull, considering that he did not go to the talk page to discuss (WP:BRD). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your example about my crab image makes it look like you have a problem with us replacing an image you made significant contributions to. What is it, the edit you made to it? And FYI, no one decided to use the PNG either but you. You simply revert on us almost ten times (something you assert it isn't 3RR) and then you start being uncivil. I'm not saying you're doing the wrong thing, it's just that you as an admin could do better, instead of creating such argument. And you just admitted yourself: There has never been a significant discussion or guideline about SVG logos, so I remain puzzled on your continous argument. ZooFari 20:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it have to be such a big deal? It is representing the same as the PNG, just in SVG format. As mentioned numerous times, SVGs do not violate WP:NFCC as of now, and there is no reason why it should not be used, other than to satisfy your personal opinion on the non-free SVG issue. You have continued with uncivilty towards myself, and have reverted every single replacement with the SVG. Connormah (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Bungie Trademarks Marathon[edit]

shouldnt it be mentioned that Bungie has now trademarked the Marathon IP, leading many to speculate a reboot of the series? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.22.112.4 (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bungie vs. Bungie LLC[edit]

Im pretty sure Marty said that Bungie was just bungie now and not Bungie LLC in his podcast a while back, can someone confirm this? ⊕Assasin Joe talk 14:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs updating[edit]

halo reach and halo odst already came out. could somebody update it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.106.217 (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there is already a page for Halo: Reach but no mention of it in this article. This article is out of date.
Clokey2k (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bungie Aerospace?[edit]

Bungie's new project they are working on is speculated to be Bungie Aerospace, as this website shows here, but with no content yet as of post: http://bungieaerospace.com/ The general consensus around the gaming community and gaming sites is that Aerospace is a game engine that Bungie plans to license in the same way Epic licenses Unreal Engine. This is not proven obviously but that is what the buzz is.--JMFJMF (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's yet to be any reliable sources with hard evidence on the project, so until something gets announced we leave it out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 11:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bungie, Inc.![edit]

"That's right, Bungie, LLC is now known as Bungie, Inc., a corporation owned and operated by its employees. The nuts, dear friends, are now running this here nuthouse." -- http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&cid=30267

Fix!

PHNX22 (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Jakeysuave, 25 April 2011[edit]

Under the "Bungie.net" section, the screenshot taken of Bungie.net needs to be updated. The initial website has been significantly updated since that date and time. I can leave that picture there, but also add in a new one and write some more on Bungie.net

Thank you, Jake

Jakeysuave (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to upload one. CTJF83 11:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page Needs Updated As of 6/29/2011.[edit]

This page needs updated because it still talks about Halo Reach as if in the future and it states that Halo Reach will not be the last Halo game for Bungie. As of August 1, 2011 Bungie is no longer part of Halo in any way, shape, or form. Also Halo 4 is being made by Microsoft 343 studios not Bungie.Hadn69 (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Louie Neumeyer (see www.bungie.net)[reply]

Bungie Foundation[edit]

Should their chairty foundation be listed?

Or even their 20th annivereasry activites? They did indirectly cause amazon to crash, and i'd assume that's notable. Jabberwock xeno (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's an IP within this context ?[edit]

twice the article mentions the fact that bungie is working on (a) new "IP(s)": "The company is known for its informal and dedicated workplace culture, and is currently working on multiple projects and an unknown new IP." and "On April 29, 2010, Bungie announced that it was entering into a 10-year publishing agreement with publisher Activision Blizzard to bring a few new IPs to multiple platforms, and steamroll out the sequels."

i have no idea what "IP" means within this context, nor does the article seem to provide any explanation or link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.116.26.209 (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP meaning intellectual property LOL-117 (talk) 05:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"IPs" generally means several different pieces of intellectual property. In this context, it usually means new copyrighted works. --Izno (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bungie.net[edit]

You guys (I'm looking at you, Davey) were actively monitoring and editing this article months after a major website update without changing the Bungie.net section. Nearly all of the information in the section was completely outdated.

I'm not interested in a edit war but is there a reason for the removing of my content? If the section originally contained info on the "news" section of the site, or the mentioning of the "Bungie Weekly Updates", both very outdated pieces of material, what did it matter if I replaced them with the sites current "news" section and the sites current version of weekly updates, "Mail Sacks"?

If you guys never go onto the site and know nothing about what you are editing then, as hard as it may be to see content that is not yours, leave it up to somebody who actively participates in the community. Instead of replacing content with one single sentence because you aren't familiar with it and you didn't write it keep it there for the benefit of the doubt since you know nothing of the site. Also, any justification of the reversion? You should check up on the help section in regards of reverting bro. Was that vandalism to you? Also, no abbreviations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.154.69 (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bungie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Bungie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buyout details[edit]

Article incorrectly states that the Myth II recall debacle happened around the same time as the Microsoft purchase. In fact it happened two years earlier during Myth II's release, and did not affect only Asian versions of the game but all Windows uninstallers under the wrong circumstances. The cost of the recall led in large part to Bungie selling a ~20% share of themselves to Take Two, which is subsequently the reason why Take Two got Myth and Oni when Microsoft bought the rest of Bungie. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the timeframe got garbled with later additions, so I've cut the temporal line to make it a bit clearer. The Take Two sale isn't specifically mentioned, although it probably should be considering the aftermath is discussed. Will have to look for a link elsewhere. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the Oni community's wiki has a fairly extensive treatment of the Take Two and MS deals (I know because I wrote it!). Feel free to borrow any sources or text from it if you want to add to this Wikipedia article. --Iritscen (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bungie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20 3 of coins did not work[edit]

hey guy so I play destiny and I am light level 335 since today but I used 20 3 of coins and I got nothing I would like you guys to help me I play on PS3 my account name is Poppabear3769 please send message back or something please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:7E07:6300:D85A:25DE:6:DB58 (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List platforms that Bungie games were ported to?[edit]

Earlier this month, one editor removed from the "Developed games" section any platforms that Bungie games were ported to by other studios, in this edit. Someone just added back the ported platforms for the original Halo, but not for the other games that were ported to platforms by third parties. I reverted the edit simply because I thought we should be consistent. What is the consensus on this? Do we want to list all the platforms that each game runs on, or just the platforms that Bungie developed the game for? I don't see a prior discussion on this in the talk page archives. --Iritscen (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Operating under the assumption that no replies to the above signifies agreement, I've removed and touched up the platforms listed in the "Games developed" section again. Lots of third-party port platforms were getting added. --Iritscen (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen your message since I've only attached to the page a couple weeks ago. We usually handle ports by also listing them in developer's infoboxes as all the sweat and tears they put into those projets alto presists in ports, since another company only put effort on top of it and did not replace the old game. This is contrary to derivative games (e.g. Game Boy titles developed alongside console games by another company), which we do not include. Lordtobi (✉) 08:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I can restore the ported platforms then. I thought it would be confusing for the reader since there are a lot of additional platforms that Bungie games have been ported to. 1994's Marathon is the most extreme example, having been open-sourced and "freewared" by Bungie around 2000, and then fan-ported to iOS, Windows, Linux, and macOS 10. Should we not mark the ports in some way as having been done later by third parties? I looked around a bit and could not find a similar situation on another developer's page to use as a reference. --Iritscen (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should only list official ports released by the rightsholder (Bungie in this case?) and contracted publishers. I.e., those listed on the Wikipedia article for the game that were strsight ports. Lordtobi (✉) 10:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I guess you would include ports that were done years later? The official port of Marathon 2 to Xbox 360 by Freeverse Software in 2007? The ports of Halo 1-4 to Xbox One in the Master Chief Collection in 2014? I'll go ahead and add those in too. --Iritscen (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As long as they are not backwards-compatible platforms or emulations, yeah. Though consider putting collections into their own slots. Lordtobi (✉) 12:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the only collection I'm aware of is the Master Chief one, and the problem with listing it separately is that Bungie didn't have any part in making it. It was done by 343 Industries in league with a bunch of subcontractor studios. --Iritscen (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Owner[edit]

Hi @Lordtobi:, sorry the bother, there is a problem going on here with the "owner" thing. During this edit change on BioWare, you told that "Owner" parameter is for investeors who bought minor stakes in the company. So I tought that since Bungie sold a minority stake of the company to Chinese company NetEase for over $100 million, I could put NetEase under "Owner" parameter. Is that right? I mean NetEase bought minor stakes in the company. User David Fuchs doesn't agree with me as he said "that's not how corporate ownership works, otherwise every infobox could have major shareholders listed". Lone Internaut (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Lone Internaut: If you have a source for this, of course! Since this is a private company, the owner field should be used for exactly that. Even better would be if you can provide the percentage NetEase now own in Bungie, otherwise say "(minority stake)". It is only somewhat tighter for public companies since everyone can just go to the nearest stock market and snag a few shares for themselves, there we insert owners of long-term strategic investors (e.g. Tencent in Ubisoft). Lordtobi (✉) 16:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source is number 53, cited in the page text, section "Independent company" - On June 2018, Bungie sold a minority stake of the company to Chinese company NetEase for over $100 million.[53]
Unfortunately percentage is not said, so I will put "(minority stake)". Thank you, very much! Lone Internaut (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of sources regarding Gnop's branding[edit]

I was recently reverted with the claim of "original research" for adding that Gnop referred to itself as a Bungie game in its own About Box, with a screenshot of said game as a source. What more reliable source than a screenshot from the game itself can be supplied about what the game itself says about itself? I have Gnop myself, off the Marathon Trilogy Box Set CD. It's freeware, so I can share that with the other editors here if they want to get an old Mac emulator running and take a look themselves, but I don't see how that's going to be any more reliable than me looking at it myself. (I did not in fact take that screenshot myself, because I thought that would be less reliable than one already hosted elsewhere). I also provided a citation to an actual print publication (the Marathon Scrapbook, published by Bungie themselves in 1997) for the claim that Bungie themselves called it their first game, in materials much closer to the event than the present ones that disavow it. I doubt anyone here is going to go out and find a copy of the Scrapbook, so I can handily provide a photo from my copy. You can also find scans of the Scrapbook elsewhere on the internet, or buy a copy off of eBay if you really want, if you're so paranoid that you think I'd doctor a photo or screenshot. This is not original research, this is verifiable historical fact -- you can look at the product itself to confirm what it says about itself, if you care to actually put in the effort -- and I don't understand the weird crusade to erase that from history in the contemporary Bungie fandom. I'm restoring the addition. --Pfhorrest (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight—your source for the fact that Gnop shipped as a Bungie game is ex post facto release from the Marathon Trilogy? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the explanation, but it still fails to address that re-releases could have been changed post-release. As David Fuchs points out correctly, you are justifying your changes being correcting by pointing to your own copy of a re-release. The source provided in the article is not reliable, and the image can have been shopped, even if it does not have to be. Not reliable- shouldn't use. Before re-insertion, per WP:BRD, it should be discussed first. Lordtobi (✉) 17:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to have stumbled over a reliable source that states this and added it to the article. Removed the unreliable source. Lordtobi (✉) 17:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. While you were doing that I also realized that the Gnop section of the article was out of place, apparently having been inserted between the previous and next sections when the previously separate Gnop article was merged here (which section already had the information I was adding, anyway), which broke the narrative flow of the article (made Marathon be called the next project after Gnop). So I've merged that Gnop section into the previous section, and kept your changes along the way. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft and Sony[edit]

Since bungie was part of Microsoft from 2000-2007 it should be listed as parent from that time and independent from 2007-2022 and then it should have Sony interactive as parent 2022-Present. I have no idea why this keeps going back and forth in the edits. I Am Hunted (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bungie deal hasn't been finalized yet so I'm not sure having Sony as the parent company makes any sense. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We could put that the sale is pending. I’ve also seen that the page has been edited to include Microsoft game studios being the parent with a edit also saying that bungie shouldn’t be classified as it’s parent. Should we add in a footnote about bungie being independent from 2007-2022 then? I Am Hunted (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, because, the template guidelines clearly state to include "The name(s) of the current and former parent companies and the time-span(s) in which they owned the subject. Do not add "independent" as the parent company to designate times without a parent company". Until the acquisition with Sony is completeted, only Microsoft should be included in the field no one else. TheDeviantPro (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

claim re: rocket jumping[edit]

The article claims Marathon "introduced the rocket jumping mechanic to gamers". The secret exit for E3M6 in Doom(1993) already *required* rocket jumping. So the game mechanic was both known and established enough the year before to be part of level design.

Can the claim be modified to "popularised" or something similar? IMHO the current wording doesn't reflect the facts. Jwilkes (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it entirely. I didn't see Marathon described in the article at all to support the claim. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2023[edit]

Add Bungie Amsterdam into the Subsidiaries category on the infobox, Sources: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/bungie-opening-amsterdam-publishing-office https://investinholland.com/news/bungie-announces-first-international-office-in-amsterdam/ DeMarq0 (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: There is no subsidiaries parameter in the infobox. Lightoil (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Racism[edit]

In 2023 Bungie used a racist term against Latin American people on their Twitter/X account. See https://afkgaming.com/gaming/bungie-faces-backlash-over-latinx-post-on-twitter --Conspiration 23:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bungie&oldid=1209802233"