In the Crossover of the Century, Destiny 2 Is Getting Fortnite Skins

Ironically every time I hear about a live service, I die inside

@get2sammyb would explain why im alive XD

Fanservice, it's the way of the future!

If it’s sold for bright dust I’ll probably snag em, but for silver it’s a pass.

Can’t wait for that Bungie livestream though!

All about the money 💰

Crossover of the century? 🤔

Pretty sure Dragon Ball x Fortnite says otherwise

Wake me up when Spider-Man and Darth Vader appear on Multiversus.

It's sad to think of all the effort Bungie put in to creating the look of Destiny before it released, and this is where it's going.

@SinfulDestroyer It's the future of the entire industry once the majority stop paying for full price games and just go mainly subscription based. It ain't just Sony kid.

Never played Destiny 2, so I have no idea what characters are in that game.

I heard they were adding a Doom Slayer skin too?

I’m still hoping they add a Cyclops skin (X-Men) and maybe Deadpool (movie style).

Oh and Hulk, Miles Morales, Spider-Gwen, Vision, Beetlejuice, Ahsoka, Isaac Clarke (Dead Space), Jack Sparrow, Terminator (Schwarzenegger), Michael Myers, Freddy Krueger (Englund), Ghostface, Jake/Neytiri (Avatar), Pennywise, Stranger Things, The Bride (Kill Bill), Zorro, Neo (The Matrix). Maybe some classic Disney or Pixar characters. Off the top of my head 😁

The best crossover is the one by EPMD.

@Dudeman1 This would be like saying that Netflix is the end to movies, once everybody stops going to the cinema.

Subscription services are actually a protection against live service games. With every company looking for ways to monetise games after release, sub services allow that without the game destroying model of live service games. They'd allow a game to just exist in it's original form but still be monestised.

I'd even go further and say subscription services could improve live service games. As it sets a spend limit to how much can be clawed from the consumers of that content. Making it pointless to fill games with endless and daily busy work to unlock pointless cosmestics. Instead, devs can focus on actual rewarding and fun content (that keeps customers subscribed) and customers can just enjoy the content instead of making it work. It would work out to be a better experience for everyone (except the greedy company executives).

@Richnj The reality is that if you have a game that would have cost $60 at retail and now you're putting it on your $15 a month service you have to make that money up somehow. So the best way to do that is to make the game live service and have constant updates monetizing them somehow. Even Phil Spencer has said that the goal now is to make money from the back end of a game rather than the initial upfront cost and the only way to do that is to continue making content that the consumer has to pay for. I don't see how a subscription service can make that any better or limit a consumers spending. Either way the point is to keep you playing and spending money.

And no the theater industry is not the best comparison, the music industry is and we've already seen what Spotify has done to it. The entire music industry revenue was cut in half because no one buys music anymore.

@Dudeman1 "I don't see how a subscription service can make that any better or limit a consumers spending"

Because a live service game doesn't require a sub service to make money. If you are making a live service game, locking it behind a $60 or $15pcm paywall is dumb. Any game that wants to succeed with a live service model (that isn't GTA) would do better by being F2P, and completely bypassing the need to be on a sub service.

We aren't looking at the same market here.

"The reality is that if you have a game that would have cost $60 at retail and now you're putting it on your $15 a month service you have to make that money up somehow"

That would be by having 100 million subscribers who might try your game instead of a max of 10 million that would pay an upfront cost that may or may not include heavily discounted prices. You are lowering the risk for people to try your game, and you could potnetially have a much larger audience and an audience who pays more long term.

Days Gone was played by like 9 million players, but it was a "failure" because it couldn't get those numbers at launch, with launch day prices. If this game had been on a sub scription service, it would have been considered a success.

"The entire music industry revenue was cut in half because no one buys music anymore."

But is music still being made?

@Richnj There's a major difference between premium live service games and f2p games. Games like GT7 come with a massive amount of content and technically if you play the game you can have access to literally everything without paying an extra cent. If that went fully f2p the game design would have to change drastically by adding f2p nonsense like boosters, launching with less content, gatekeeping content for paying users, etc. Like I said there's a major difference between a game like that and the f2p cash grab grindfests that pop up on PC every day.

What gaming service has 100 million subscribers? Netflix is the only streaming service that actually makes money and it took them getting 200 million subscribers to do it. GP and PS Plus will never see those numbers because gaming isn't as casual as watching movies and most casual gamers buy a handful of games each year and won't subscribe to a service for games they won't even play. Microsoft is giving away GP practically for free and they are already stagnating at 30 million users with the console and PC userbase combined. This successful gaming service you're talking about doesn't even exist. GP loses Xbox money each year and will continue to do so unless they get Netflix subscriber numbers which will never happen. There's a reason why they don't publicly report profit, because there is none.

The other thing you're not thinking about is that game coming to the service is one of a couple hundred. That $60 initial cost is all from that one game where as the $15 a month is also paying for dozens/hundreds of other games on the list so the return is practically nothing unless they have other means of monetizing it, hence live service makes much more sense.

You realize games have to make money right? Not everyone can tank one division because they're a trillion dollar conglomerate. Music is still being made yes but artists make no money from it unless they go on tour or do business ventures like selling products. The music is just there to promote and get people in the seats. Gaming doesn't have that luxury. It's interesting how so many gamers try to refute this when we even have ex Xbox executives pointing out how subscription services could be very bad for the industry. If you have something that used to cost $60 initially and now you're giving it away for $15 a month which actually turns out to be FAR less than that for one specific game you have to make that money up somehow. This is objective fact otherwise you lose money.

Sorry that's so long, probably the longest thing i've ever written on a game site lol. But it's a lot to go over.

Stopped playing Destiny 2 a couple years ago, but I find it funny that some of the better looking armor designs in D2 are coming from a Fortnite crossover.

D2 armor in general had taken a huge decline e in quality right from launch day though.

“Days Gone was played by like 9 million players, but it was a "failure" because it couldn't get those numbers at launch, with launch day prices.”

I blame the gaming sites for that. They played a few hours of the game, decided they didn’t like it and then gave it a middling review score (without even posting a disclaimer that they didn’t bother to finish it). A lot of gamers will skip a game at launch if it doesn’t get an 8/10 or more. And Days Gone was, at the very least, worth an 8/10. I’d give it 9/10 personally.

@GagaOooLaLa Well this is also why I hate professional gaming reviews and am a big advocate for trials for every game.

Players deserve to try out games they are going to buy, and games deserve a chance to be played by everyone.

@Dudeman1 There's a lot to cover so I'm just going to focus on one thing "GT7".

Did GT7 not sell well? Because if it sold well, and wasn't on a subscription service, and you "don't need to spend a penny" why does it have extra microtransaction monetisation at all?

@Dudeman1

Not only is Microsoft giving away GP for practically pennies and often, just how much money are they giving to publishers/developers to even consider being on GamePass?

I'm not sure what kind of profits Microsoft is making on GamePass, or like you said, if any at all. Right now they're doing everything they can to build that install base to hopefully reach those Netflix subscriber numbers.

I understand the idea of a Netflix of gaming is great to a lot of people, but I prefer to own my games. 😄 As if anybody actually does these days. 😑

Plus, I would feel pressured to rush through games on a subscription service because a lot of the games are on short time limits before being removed, even shorter for the big name games.

Cool.word up son

🤢why oh why, what absolute garbage

nothing is wrong with live service games , people stuck in their old ways cry more than the generation that they also complain about .

Me and the family have loved Fortnite refreshing things a tad with the DBZ crossover, adding a different mechanic or two and giving us a break from Disney. And Destiny 2 has been a great FPS where COD has fallen a little in our household.

So yeah, looking forward to this livestream and seeing what’s next.

As for live service. Meh, I hate the concept, but then most of my content is live service. Streaming TV and film, then monthly Cable TV in the UK is live service technically.

I mean, stop paying your cable bill and you stop getting channels and broadband. So it’s no different to us in this home.

So yes, overall quite pleased with the hours of fun for basically peanuts a year. Both Destiny and Fortnite cost less than our Tv package a year. Yet I use them more. Can’t argue with that personally.

Is this time right?

"As alluded to above, we expect all to be revealed during Bungie’s anticipated Lightfall livestream on 23rd August, 2022 at 9PM PT."

Edit: No, not right, 9AM PT.😝

Seems weird they would do it at midnight on the East coast when some people are asleep.

I've only played Fornite this year but a crossover like this seems weird, doesn't make me think of Fortnite in the least. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Just looks likes Destiny to me. It looks like Destiny so much that if I saw those costume skins in Fortnite I would just think it was a Destiny crossover. I've never even played a Destiny game but I know the look.

@get2sammyb It's not 9PM PT, it's 9 AM PT.

Destiny Showcase start time: 9am pacific time, 12pm eastern time, 5pm BST and 6pm CEST

Recommend edit
"When: August 23 at 9 AM PT
Preshow starts at 8 AM PT "
From Bungie Website.