Wait, this wasn't super obvious? Genuine question - people didn't really think 'vaulted' meant they could just 'take it out' right? It's always been clear the DCV exists to allow the game to grow and change and improve without having to redo more and more and more? www.forbes.com/sites/paulta... - ThreadSky

ramiismail.com • 2 days ago

Wait, this wasn't super obvious? Genuine question - people didn't really think 'vaulted' meant they could just 'take it out' right? It's always been clear the DCV exists to allow the game to grow and change and improve without having to redo more and more and more?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2025/02/27/destiny-2-reveals-its-content-shredder-as-a-result-of-recent-lawsuit/

Comments

indycisive.bsky.social•2 days ago

I mean, I expected it the moment I heard of the content vault in the first place. Frankly, I'm just shocked I was pretty much dead on with it.

naylorben.bsky.social•2 days ago

It's not something I'd really thought about and don't really know how it works, but I'd assumed old dev builds exist that were accessible internally in some form, even if it wasn't just something they could easily swamp into the current game...

naylorben.bsky.social•2 days ago

I was also slightly confused because they at least have old cutscenes (They uploaded them to youtube.) So surely they must have old footage of their own.

kabanaw.bsky.social•2 days ago

Yeah I don't get the idea that the content was "shredded" and can never return, they would just need to dedicate dev hours to re-integrating the red war, and they ain't doing that just for a pretty frivolous lawsuit. And they also can't just run "vanilla_d2.exe", destiny needs like 17 servers

bruisr.bsky.social•2 days ago

I kinda wish they had spun they had spun it all off as a separate standalone game, kinda like D1. That way it could still exist for us to play the story, but wouldn't need to be updated along with the rest of the content.

maya-weiss.bsky.social•2 days ago

I remember ArenaNet was doing the same thing, but it didn't worked too well for them, which become apparent after.. 2-3 years of content releases, if memory serves me well. Different games though.

nabeelprime.bsky.social•2 days ago

They said that things can return and the verbiage of a "vault" is akin to storage, not ... annihilation. That's how I took it

kayefable.bsky.social•2 days ago

Aye, even at time of I know they mentioned they were vaulting a chunk of them due to engine constraints and the need to continually update and support older, less-played content. (I still think about the queue times for Black Armory just over a year after release, and that was a fun one!)

ghostrydr1172.bsky.social•2 days ago

Tbh I had the faintest of hopes that eventually - if only for the sake of game preservation purposes and a MUCH better onboarding experience- the "vaulted" content could've been brought back. I should've known better. Silly me. Silly, silly me. 🙄

lupuzezt.bsky.social•2 days ago

I think that is how Warframe introduced the term years prior, so I can see why people believed it would.

wafer.baby•2 days ago

Every time someone shares a Tassi article, a Ghost dies.

positronplays.bsky.social•2 days ago

I think the language and general outside-dev understanding ended up a bad mix on this. Even the official help pages talk about stuff returning in the future, but I don't think most outside dev know that's not just akin to taking something out of the freezer 😅

bamricochet.bsky.social•2 days ago

If they couldn’t afford the technical debt of keeping all that content in the game at once, they should’ve slowed down. They talk so much about expectations and then keep trying to surpass them without maintaining the game’s health… but I guess under the current budget cuts, they don’t have a choice

anzekay.bsky.social•2 days ago

Definitely always figured stuff was in there for good by default, but I can understand how using “vault” might make some folks think things can be withdrawn from it

s1erra107.bsky.social•2 days ago

The only real argument I could ever make for Destiny 3 is to prevent something like this from happening again

jinoru.bsky.social•2 days ago

They fulfilled that goal I guess but personally I think they could have architected and planned things for future proofing.

Unless they couldn't have, then I'll hold my peace.

jamesbtarn.bsky.social•2 days ago

Another reason to hate 'live service' games.

langueur.bsky.social•2 days ago

This is a Destiny thing though, there are live services that don't delete major content that the community enjoys. Like PoE, Warframe, FFXIV.

cyonara.bsky.social•2 days ago

I'd assume the shock and confusion probably comes from the way certain locations and quests have been 'brought back'? But it's weird to imagine anyone thinking these things can be 'unvaulted' on a whim and on demand... I feel like it's always been pretty transparently communicated how it works

nick.mudry.me•2 days ago

I think there's a big challenge here from the fact there is a proper noun branded term "Destiny Content Vault" which leaves *lots* open to interpretation for people who generally do not understand the software development process, especially one running as a live service.

classicalmasque.bsky.social•2 days ago

As an avid video game enjoyer who knows a bit about development but not a lot, I think the issue is the language used. The word “vault” implies a space you can both put things into and take things out of; for people like me it wasn’t immediately clear the vaulted content was completely lost.

markmuller.net•2 days ago

It's not lost.. it just takes effort to take it out - something they probably don't want to expend for a dumb lawsuit.

justdanikat.bsky.social•2 days ago

I don't know about Destiny but I do know a lot of people assume all studios keep all previous versions of their games and making an equivalent of WoW Classic is just a matter of picking the right version to upload.

aegixdrakan.bsky.social•2 days ago

From a development standpoint, I get it...

But it's still the biggest reason I'm never playing D2.

As wonky and unbalanced as it sometimes gets, I prefer Warframe's "There's 12 years of stuff to do" approach.

paulgoodman.bsky.social•2 days ago

I think the belief was that past material be archived on an hard drive somewhere, though.

woodhouse.on.computer•2 days ago

Right. They think it’s like the Disney Vault

sarsion.net•2 days ago

i’ve been explaining this for years and people don’t get it. kinda good this is out as an official source to back it up i guess.

heatherconover.bsky.social•1 day ago

I'm not terribly surprised. Every live service game I've ever worked on did not put effort into archiving old builds, forking old branches, etc. It's so much data to keep around.

brosephene.bsky.social•2 days ago

I don't think the headline is doing -- or is meant to do -- anyone any favors in terms actually learning & understanding 🙃

(surprise surprise)

bookgolem.bsky.social•2 days ago

The headline reads as though they're simply deleting all the files for old data, which feels pretty disingenuous given that that's not the case:

"the data exists, but the current framework of the game means even Bungie can’t play it"

I guess it's not that different in the end, but it bugged me.

bookgolem.bsky.social•2 days ago

It's about what I'd expect, mind - going back to years-old code, it's almost always easier to rewrite it from scratch than to get it up to standard with the current state of the application.

Presumably they could re-use some assets if they wanted to reintroduce content, but it's not plug-and-play!

atoafriend.bsky.social•2 days ago

the technical reason we were given at the time was that the game was undergoing major updates to its scripting engine; all content had to be manually rescripted to be compatible, and lacking sufficient time and manpower, they decided to remove content (1/)

atoafriend.bsky.social•2 days ago

so it's always been clear to me that stuff in the "content vault" is unplayable unless bungie kept internal builds of old versions of the scripting engine, and anytime this content gets "brought back" to the game, it has to be completely rescripted (2/)

atoafriend.bsky.social•2 days ago

i do sympathize with the decision, but i also think removing red war specifically was a huge mistake, b/c the new player experience is so weak right now its really sad; they would've had to rescript it anyways, so they might as well have revamped at least parts of it (3/3)

newmooninteract.com•2 days ago

Not to me. I assumed they had a pipeline to bring back older content even if there was some work involved.

escapingtotheoneplacethathasntbeencorruptedbycapitalism.space•2 days ago

of course a huge swath of people weren't going to understand that. that's the only real reason to choose that verbiage in the first place.

nfreak.tv•2 days ago

Did people actually believe it was anything else...?

Like, yeah the "DCV" is another big part of why I quit the game entirely, but it's always been obvious that it was nothing but a customer-friendly way of saying "we're taking this content out bc of infrastructure/budget constraints

nfreak.tv•2 days ago

I hate the concept of it and it's absurd to me that they haven't put more effort into bringing content back instead of always focusing on new new new, but that's live service ig

But on an entirely technical level, it's really obvious why this was done and what it actually meant.

nfreak.tv•2 days ago

Overall it's definitely a huge side-effect of taking a 2017 game that had a set life expectancy and planned sequel and turning into a live service game meant to last a decade a more. I don't even want to imagine what that codebase and infrastructure look like 💀

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply