So a couple days ago I wrote a bit on how Bungie got the rug pulled out from under them at E3.

As near as the Intertubes can piece it together, a few days before E3, Microsoft let Bungie know they wouldn't be included in the press conference. Bungie then enacted contingency plans for their own announcement, which is what precipitated the countdown on Bungie.net.

On Tuesday Microsoft told Bungie they wouldn't be allowed to do that, either, and since Microsoft is Bungie's publisher for Halo games, and Microsoft owns the Halo intellectual property, and the announcement concerned Halo, Bungie had to do what Microsoft says, prompting Bungie president Harold Ryan's apology to the fans, which can also be interpreted as a nice polite way of flipping the bird to the publisher.

By The Way: Halo 4

But wait... the announcement concerned Halo? Well, of course. Because as soon as people started asking why Bungie's announcement was nixed, Don Mattrick came up with the answer: because Microsoft's presence at this year's E3 didn't require Bungie or Halo, and the announcement deserved its own event-- by the way Bungie is working on a new Halo game, thanks very much for asking.

That cat isn't just out of the bag. That cat has booked an all expenses paid trip to Tahiti and is already in the security line at the airport.

And now what should have been a usual little Bungie product announcement turned into a clever little web-based game of some type (exactly what we'll probably never know) has turned into a full-scale executive pissing match less than a year since Bungie went independent.

It was always hard to imagine why Microsoft would allow that, and even harder to believe that, having allowed it, they'd be universally happy about it. Somewhere at Microsoft there had to be someone who bore a grudge over this, someone who thought Bungie had gotten too big for its britches, someone who thought they ought to be made to pay, even in some small way, for having the audacity to build massive shareholder value and then stroll out the front door with it, spouting platitudes about independence and creative freedom.

The Don

Ladies and gentlemen, I present that person: Don Mattrick.

Not convinced? Take a look at the LA Times blog/story where Mattrick explains the cancellation of the announcement, and see now neatly the author is led into asserting two wholly incompatible ideas in a single paragraph: the first being Mattrick's message, and the second being cold, hard fact. Here we are:

Bungie, which was acquired by Microsoft in 2000, split from the software giant last year but agreed to give Microsoft first dibs on publishing its games.

For Microsoft, the decision was a blow but not a critical hit. Although the Halo games have contributed over a billion dollars in sales for the Redmond, Wash., giant, the company is less reliant on the franchise than it once was. The first Halo game cemented Xbox as the console of choice for many serious gamers at a time when Microsoft was just entering the market and struggling to earn respect. Halo 3, released in September, singlehandedly pulled Microsoft's console division into the black for the fiscal year ending in June, giving the division its first profit since entering the market in 2001.

Let's parse that, shall we? So first, Bungie's departure is not a "critical hit" for Microsoft, and Microsoft is "less reliant" on the franchise than it was in the past. That's Mattrick's message, quite obviously, despite the lack of quotation marks or any indication of who is speaking. Certainly there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back this up.

In fact, the factual background that immediately follows directly contradicts that statement: That Halo 3 "singlehandedly" gave the console division its first profits in seven years.

How in the heck is delivering the first profit in seven years "less dependent"? How in the heck is it not a "critical blow"? What would be a critical blow, then, a nuclear strike?

Don't Win By Too Much

It's also been suggested that Microsoft left the announcement out because Bungie's project isn't shipping this year. That doesn't wash, as more than one project included in the show and the press conference isn't shipping this year. Some are shipping next year, and some don't even have ship dates.

Another speculation is that sine Microsoft expected it was going to "win" this year's E3 even without heavy hitters like Halo or the upcoming GTA DLC, that it could afford to hold them back.

Of what value is that? Hold it back for when-- next year's E3? Is Microsoft suddenly trying to be sportsmanlike, not running up the score against Sony and Nintendo by holding back their star players because they don't need them to win? That makes no sense at all. You play the best cards in your hand the best way you know how.

If Bungie's announcement was more appropriate for a separate event, wouldn't Bungie want to have such an event? If Bungie's announcement was more appropriate for a separate event, couldn't that have been decided earlier than this past Tuesday? If Bungie's announcement was more appropriate for a separate event, couldn't that have been decided earlier than a week ago when the press conference lineup was apparently decided?

The goose that laid the golden egg walked out the door, leaving its previous owner to mind the egg. This is a spat over visitation rights-- not a reasoned approach to managing a major trade show.