I'll say any praise and credentials should only be given to the laboror.
Not to the person/bussiness buying it.

Our notions are on a path of least resistance. Why praise kings with building the pyrimids when others actually suffered to make it so.

I was going to bring up Rare, too. Rare was hot shit when it was was Nintendo and cold shit on a stick when it was with M$. A few people (including me) felt like Rare was on a bit of a decline anyway when Nintendo sold them. A few people (not including me) felt that Bungie was on a bit of a decline when 343 was handed the reigns. I'm sure the parent company has a bit of input in what kind of quality they expect but it's hard to say to what extent.

As for the OP, I'm willing to give M$ a little more credit for Halo if I'm allowed to give them credit for Rare (who actually doesn't suck--they just aren't setting the world on fire anymore).

I think you're missing my point.  I'm saying you can't just cherry-pick and expect the results to hold up.

What is his evidence that Microsoft deserves more of the credit for Halo and Bungie deserves less?  That Bungie hasn't done as well with Destiny as with Halo.  As far as I can tell, that's all he brings, which is completely circumstantial.  He doesn't tell us why or how Microsoft deserves more of the credit.

The whole premise is as artificial as hell, of course, as many developers have had less success with different franchises while never switching publishers.  That's the nature of the industry.  However, if your aim is to take credit away from the developer and give it to the publisher then you'd better be prepared to provide some details.

Surprised by some of the responses considering the credit Sony gets here not only for games developed by their studios like Naughty Dog, but also for outside purchased games like Journey.

Didn't some key people leave Bungie when they split from MS? I think this explains part of why Destiny is so underwhelming. The other part can simply be explained by saying Activision. It's clear as fuck that chunks of this game were removed and reworked and reconfigured in order to maximize DLC and to slowly trickle out content. Which is a shame because the game would be a lot better if it weren't so repetitive and short on content that you have to run through over and over and over.

I don't.  I look to studio first... ALWAYS.

And let's not forget the Myth series by Bungie. While the masses were jumping on the Warcraft (NOT "World of") craze, Bungie had, what I would consider, a superior RTS over Warcraft. Again, had nothing to do with Microsoft. Microsoft saw something in Bungie that they wanted and went for it. You can give Microsoft credit for the act of investing in Bungie, by I mainly give Bungie the credit for their efforts.

No .... Bungie deserve the credit. Beside many Bungie employees jump ship and went to 343.

Are you serious?! Please pray tell. Inquiring minds definitely want to know the answer here about Sony not managing their studios. I think they all (all big 3) do a great job managing their studios.

It is thanks to MS that Bungie continued on their path and made Halo so succesful but no credit should be taken away from Bungie themselves. I do think Activision basically ordered a Halo MMO, which is why the game feels so damn uninspired. The best thing for Bungie would have been to stay in MS but leave Halo for 343i. They could have created some amazing things there.

What's Halo again???

I think M$ deserves all of the credit. If they hadn't decided to make this THE game to won on the XBox brand and the THE game to own for FPS in general, it would have been a one and done...