Destiny’s beta was good enough to convince Activision to leave the full game alone for launch.

http://www.vg247.com/2014/08/06/destiny-no-major-gameplay-changes-before-launch/

Why is that Activision's call and not Bungie's? Or is that just reading into the wording too much?

Small alterations are being made, but, Activision publishing boss Eric Hirshberg said in a financial call, “I would describe this as tweaks and not major changes, as we saw the fundamentals of the game to be very strong.

Sounds good to me. It would be pointless to commit time to a beta if you didn't already expect some issues and everything, and I suppose Destiny had few that would call for major changes to the game.

Or is that just reading into the wording too much?

Hard to tell.

It could just be that the references are to the overall partnership creating the game, not just Activision.

I would say this is more a misinterpretation by vg247 than anything else. Activision to me is just stating that the Beta went over well and Bungie is not making any major changes. The article actually never says Activision has any control over decisions, they seem to me to be just passing on information to investors.

I could be wrong, but I think it's too ambiguous to say for sure either way.

Destiny’s beta was good enough to convince Activision to leave the full game alone for launch.

http://www.vg247.com/2014/08/06/destiny-no-major-gameplay-changes-before-launch/

Why is that Activision's call and not Bungie's? Or is that just reading into the wording too much?

I think the question should be, If they were to change anything what would that be? I understand what you are saying, yet I think there isn't enough context to read in to the statement reliably.

- No text -

Why is that Activision's call and not Bungie's?

Five hundred million dollars

- No text -

Why is that Activision's call and not Bungie's?

Five hundred million dollars

The latter.

Destiny’s beta was good enough to convince Activision to leave the full game alone for launch.

Reads like awkward wording on the part of the journalist. I suspect they're using the publisher and developer interchangeably as the two actors who might decide to make changes. It's not really that only Activision has a say in that.

Destiny’s beta was good enough to convince Activision to leave the full game alone for launch.

http://www.vg247.com/2014/08/06/destiny-no-major-gameplay-changes-before-launch/

Why is that Activision's call and not Bungie's? Or is that just reading into the wording too much?

URK: The latter.

Indeed - this was said in the context of a financial call for investors etc.

That audience isn't really interested in detail like "oh we are changing the balance of the Interceptor" or "we have decided to tweak the nuances of voice chat". They essentially want assurance that the beta was successful in that this thing does not need to be delayed and isn't going to do a Battlefield 4 at launch.

Unfortunately, I imagine there are people on GAF and reddit taking this out of context and interpreting this as "Bungie is not making any changes at all, even though I want xyz added/tweaked/buffed/nerfed etc". There will always be those people.

Jason Sussman: So currently there are no micro-transactions, everything is in-game.

http://gamingbolt.com/destiny-interview-we-wanted-to-make-something-that-was-actually-a-game-set-for-all-moods

Does currently mean it's a possibility in the future? Or am I reading too much into the wording of this one too?

This is fun.

That interview is terrible - the guys questions are all over the place. Plus the writing/QA is rubbish throughout.

It's hard for me to trust much in articles like this; how do we know that the interview has been transcribed with much accuracy or in the right context?