Support NeoGAF

[Gattsu25]

I thought CoD3 was the best WW2 game...

Opening mission to Bad Company 2 is awesome.

 

[Effect]

Well its true about a few things. However, I am currently searching for a case I read a while back in a security class and it stated a Network Admin over seeing someone browse their facebook account on a work machine. That admin logged onto the machine and viewed the messages on facebook. You know who got in trouble for it? the admin.

I find it hard to beleive that IW developers would use work laptops to say these things I mean if you are a tech guy and you work in IT you know better (or at least you should).

You'd think that but that's not always the case. My yahoo example would be similar to the Facebook example. That's a personal account. However what's said in the internal email system can be pulled by the company as it's theirs. Now they couldn't get someone for what they say on Facebook but could get them for accessing it as accessing it is using company equipment for personal use when it's not meant for that if they really wanted to force that issue.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Exactly. You don't see the Sony owned devs whining when they share assets and tech with each other. All this tells me is IW cared more about their own egos than giving players a better experience.

What does Treyarch developing games in their franchise have to do with giving players a better experience?

 

[Truespeed]

Funny I said when this whole thing broke out that in the end it was probably IW heads that were the assholes not Activision.

Writing was on the walls that West and friends were shady as fuck with dealings with EA.

And you came to this conclusion based on a court filing from Activision?

 

[MrMephistoX]

It's not as fun when someone other than Kotick appears to be the evil one.

Poor guys must be pretty upset that Black Ops has been fairly successful.

Wow if this is true I hate to say it but I am on Activision's side for once. Kotick's a dick but West and Zampella look like a couple of assholes.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

What does Treyarch developing games in their franchise have to do with giving players a better experience?

That that is the hand they've been dealt. It's the downside to working with a big publisher on an IP you don't own. They reaped the rewards of that relationship, but when the negative part came they allegedly acted like complete assholes. If they wanted to have some moral stand they should have left Activision/IW after CoD2 when it became clear what Activision's plans with the franchise were.

 

[D4Danger]

I think the most important question from all this is how good is John Riccitiello's BBQ? There's some big claims made in this document.

 

[NullPointer]

Wow if this is true I hate to say it but I am on Activision's side for once. Kotick's a dick but West and Zampella look like a couple of assholes.

And I guess that'd make Treyarch the pussies, covered in shit from the dicks and assholes fucking each other.

 

[Effect]

If IW did have an issue with Treyarch then I don't see why it's hard to understand why. While it was obviously Activision's call to put Treyarch on the CoD games, that doesn't mean that IW would necessarily like it. CoD was their creation yet in the end Treyarch got their code and essentially copy and pasted what they created and got credit for it. It's one thing for another publisher to rip you off but it's completely different when another developer within your own publisher is doing it. So it's no surprise when you read about how Vince and Jason have full control over their new IP at EA. Which means that EA can't go and start handing it off to other developers.

The second Activision purchased them CoD stopped by their theirs (IW) and became Activision's and they could do what they wanted. They had every right to simply shelve the franchise if wanted. IW had no say so. Everything they do is the property of Activision in the end. If they didn't like it they could have left.

What I'm surprised by is how much freedom IW seems to have had if this is all true. I would have thought Activision would be more controlling of things. If IW was able to actually sabotage Treyarch's work then that's to much freedom for any one studio under a publisher to have. I doubt Activision is going to allow that going forward with all this information coming out.

 

[Gattsu25]

And I guess that'd make Treyarch the pussies, covered in shit from the dicks and assholes fucking each other.

But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes

 

[conman]

Oh wow.

I wouldn't be so quick to judge. This document is just Activision's version of events. So of course this is going to make Activision look like the good guys.

There are a lot of possible reasons for why the IW heads turned down Activision's bonus. Based on what came out of the initial drama, I'd say that West and Zampella didn't like the terms Activision had attached to the bonuses. Activision may have given a less-than-fair offer to their employees, so rather than just accept the bonus payouts, they told Activision to f the hell off and come back with the bonuses that the whole team deserved.

But that's just speculation. Point is, these documents are clearly designed to make Activision look like immaculate angels. Not to say that the IW guys are the good guys either, but odds are much more likely that Activision screwed IW, not the other way around.

I mean, just think of the difference in power. Just because a 5-year-old talks back to his parents, that doesn't make it okay to kick the kid out of the house and change the locks and bar the windows.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

And I guess that'd make Treyarch the pussies, covered in shit from the dicks and assholes fucking each other.

They're a publisher-owned studio working on the projects assigned to them. I still can't fathom why people have issues with them doing just that, I can't think of any other publisher-owned dev studio that gets as much flak for just trying to do their jobs.

 

[user_nat]

They're a publisher-owned studio working on the projects assigned to them. I still can't fathom why people have issues with them doing just that, I can't think of any other publisher-owned dev studio that gets as much flak for just trying to do their jobs.

Rare?

 

[mugurumakensei]

There are a lot of possible reasons for why the IW heads turned down Activision's bonus. Based on what came out of the initial drama, I'd say that West and Zampella didn't like the terms Activision had attached to the bonuses.

Of course, West and Zampella were willing to accept the bonus if it went to West and Zampella only. That doesn't sound like they didn't like the bonuses. It just sounds like West and Zampella were trying to be greedy and to the detriment of IW employees.

 

[hamchan]

What does Treyarch developing games in their franchise have to do with giving players a better experience?

IW supposedly refused to share the MW2 engine with Treyarch for Black Ops. Just some really petty shit from IW towards Treyarch .

 

[SolidSnakex]

That that is the hand they've been dealt. It's the downside to working with a big publisher on an IP you don't own. They reaped the rewards of that relationship, but when the negative part came they allegedly acted like complete assholes. If they wanted to have some moral stand they should have left Activision/IW after CoD2 when it became clear what Activision's plans with the franchise were.

I'm sure that they wish they would've left after CoD2 as MW was the one that really pushed the series into the massively popular franchise that it is now. And they actually had to fight with Activision to even have it made the way that they wanted it. But that's in the past now and there's nothing that they can do about it. They've just made sure to secure their future by making a deal with EA where Respawn owns their new IP.

 

[Gattsu25]

Rare?

No no. We are talking about devs that actually do their jobs.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

Rare?

People don't really have as much venom towards Rare as Treyarch's getting...I think a lot of people are just plain indifferent on Rare more than anything. That and it's arguable whether Rare is actually doing anything.

 

[EatChildren]

Zampella and West have long been suspected of having a grudge against Treyarch, so I'm not surprised to see that popping up. Its still extremely childish. As others have stated, as soon as IW signed on to Activision the Call of Duty franchise became Kotick's property, not theres. It would have been in the contract. If Zampella and West thought that they'd be the only ones to ever work on the franchise despite not owning it, it's their own idiocy at fault, and hardly Treyarch's fault for being handed the franchise. What are Treyarch going to do, turn down work from their parent company?

I still hate Activision's business practice, but the whole situation seems to be built on nothing more than egomaniacs. Activsion's controlling and milking of a franchise they know is popular, and wreckless disregard for their employees, and Zampella and West's egos from creating such a phenominally successful series, as well as their ignorance of the contracts they had signed and what was expected from them.

End of the day, it doesn't really matter how badly Activision acted. If what Activision are claiming is true, and they have solid evidence to support their claims, Zampella and West are fucked, and should have known better.

Who the fuck uses work email to bitch about your boss? How stupid do you have to be?

 

[BobsRevenge]

I wouldn't be so quick to judge. This document is just Activision's version of events. So of course this is going to make Activision look like the good guys.

Actually, it might not even be Activision's actual version of the events. Its the most positive possible position to be at for their side as decided by lawyers who see it as legally viable.

 

[hamchan]

Basically everybody looks like dicks except for Treyarch.

Treyarch is just the small kid at school that gets bullied by all the big kids.

 

[Johningame]

In before SJGR.

Oh how I do love a good intrigue!

 

[conman]

Of course, West and Zampella were willing to accept the bonus if it went to West and Zampella only. That doesn't sound like they didn't like the bonuses. It just sounds like West and Zampella were trying to be greedy and to the detriment of IW employees.

Again, this is just one version of events.

Here's how that might be positively spun from the other side: West and Zampella--growing frustrated with Activision's increased reluctance to payout contractually owed bonuses--say, "Fine, Activision, don't give the team the bonuses you owe them. How about you just pay that money out to us since you have more contractually binding obligations to the two of us than to the rest of the studio? Then, without telling you about it, we'll pass that money on to them when you're looking the other way."

Again, just speculation. But I have a very hard time believing that these two guys would seriously seek to keep those bonuses to themselves. Information like that always gets out. Not just that, but clearly these guys inspired loyalty in their employees since so many of them left a comfy job at Activision to join a risky position in a totally untested, untried, unformed studio. It just doesn't make logical sense.

The only people that can pull off a stunt like that (where you stuff your pockets with your employees' bonuses) are folks at the very top. Guys who were in West and Zampella's position wouldn't be able to hide that info from the rest of IW. I feel pretty safe in assuming that this document is a twisted version of actual events.

Actually, it might not even be Activision's actual version of the events. Its the most positive possible position to be at for their side as decided by lawyers who see it as legally viable.

What the difference? Activision or Activision's lawyers. Same same.

 

[fernoca]

Most of the stuff was well known for years (forums, blogs, etc.; "bless the internets"), good to see that there's seem to be evidence of it.

No no. We are talking about devs that actually do their jobs.

That and it's arguable whether Rare is actually doing anything.

Rare in under 3 years: Released Banjo-Kazooie Nuts and Bolts, Viva Piñata 2, created the avatars which Microsoft implemented on the NXE, worked and released on Kinect Sports. On top of the other games they are currently working.

 

[FunnyBunny]

Again, this is just one version of events.

Here's how that might be positively spun from the other side: West and Zampella--growing frustrated with Activision's increased reluctance to payout contractually owed bonuses--say, "Fine, Activision, don't give the team the bonuses you owe them. How about you just pay that money out to us since you have more contractually binding obligations to the two of us than to the rest of the studio? Then, without telling you about it, we'll pass that money on to them when you're looking the other way."

Again, just speculation. But I have a very hard time believing that these two guys would seriously seek to keep those bonuses to themselves. Information like that always gets out. Not just that, but clearly these guys inspired loyalty in their employees since so many of them left a comfy job at Activision to join a risky position in a totally untested, untried, unformed studio. It just doesn't make logical sense.

The only people that can pull off a stunt like that are folks at the very top. Guys who were in West and Zampella's position wouldn't be able to hide that info from the rest of IW. I feel pretty safe in assuming that this document is a twisted version of actual events.

What the difference? Activision or Activision's lawyers. Same same.

Why would they run interference with with bonuses like that?

Don't pay them...pay us, and we'll pay them. It adds a needless extra step and makes little sense to me.

Either way, both sides have lots of 'splaining to do. I'm fascinated to see how this will play out in court if it makes it that far.

 

[AAK]

sigh, Corporate culture.

 

[Tylahedras]

I can't believe everyone is buying into this. Yes the IW guys are aggressive pricks who like to "win." To that end they will "crush" their competitors. Are you going to seriously tell me that Activision didn't encourage that kind of competition between studios? Please.

A couple text messages showing these guys are competitive doesn't prove anything. And the other stuff that Activision said they didn't back up. The industry is a big mixer, just because you have drinks at a bar with your competitors or discuss business opportunities with them doesn't make you a traitor. I guess no one else in history has ever considered changing jobs while still working with a company?

Internal sabotage is the thing that would be illegal, and that's hardly proven by a couple texts about trying to do better then another studio with a trailer.

If anything seeing the response people have had in this thread proves one thing to me, Activision has some damn fine lawyers and I would not want to be up against them. Didn't someone once joke that Activision's legal department makes money? I believe it.

 

[WickedLaharl]

if that shit is true i hope activision crushes west and zampella.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

can't say they come off as looking all that classy. but we don't know the full-story.

I mean, the W@W video thing is cut and dry douchism, but the bonus materials might be a tad more layered than those documents indicate.

 

[conman]

Why would they run interference with with bonuses like that?

Don't pay them...pay us, and we'll pay them. It adds a needless extra step and makes little sense to me.

Either way, both sides have lots of 'splaining to do. I'm fascinated to see how this will play out in court if it makes it that far.

As I said, there are a bunch of possible ways to spin this. I'm no lawyer. I'm just saying that we shouldn't be so quick to assume that Activision is right. If this document sounds persuasive, that's because it's written by a team of incredibly talented and well-paid lawyers.

As is typically the case in legal disputes, both sides generally agree on the facts. It's the motivations and reasoning behind them that differs. The fact they both agree on is that IW employees didn't receive their bonuses. But the reason they didn't get those bonuses is the clincher. Activision says W and Z "blocked" their employees from getting bonuses. W and Z will likely come back and say that they "wouldn't accept less than their employees were owed." It's all in whose lawyers tell the more convincing story.

 

[Gattsu25]

can't say they come off as looking all that classy. but we don't know the full-story.

I mean, the W@W video thing is cut and dry douchism, but the bonus materials might be a tad more layered than those documents indicate.

Yeah. What strings were attached to the bonuses? The first set of bonuses where tied to "Oh, and you will develop COD for Wii". they declined. Good on them.

The second set Activision conveniently forgot to mention what was attached to it.

Maybe nothing. Maybe it was a severance. Who knows.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

IW leaders were douchebags? Can't say I'm surprised.

 

[DiscoJer]

The second Activision purchased them CoD stopped by their theirs (IW) and became Activision's and they could do what they wanted. They had every right to simply shelve the franchise if wanted. IW had no say so. Everything they do is the property of Activision in the end. If they didn't like it they could have left.

I'm actually curious as to who owned the CoD property to begin with - sometimes publishers do (like Sony and Heavenly Sword) while others it's the developer (Bioware and Mass Effect).

But apparently Activision owned 30% of Infinity Ward before the first game in the Call of Duty series shipped and bought the rest only a few days after it did.

So it's not like they swooped in after the series was popular. Activision has owned it for the last 7 years.

Indeed, reading up on the article at Wikipedia, it seems like this sort of happened before.

Infinity Ward (or what would become it) was part of 2015 who did an EA WW2 FPS (Medal of Honor: Allied Assault), and these two were poached by Activision (and eventually most of the team that made that game). Now it seems the same thing is happening again, but EA doing it to Activision.

 

[apana]

lol fail

These dudes are looking like a bunch of immature pricks, but I'm sure Activision did some sneaky shit at well. Still, nobody should fuck with these ActiBlizzard lawyers.

 

[Beer Monkey]

If you don't want a publisher farming out sequels to other developers, don't sell your company and all its IPs to that publisher.

If you don't want to cooperate with other developers, don't sell your company.

It's pretty fucking simple.

 

[Neuromancer]

Call of Duty? More like Call of Douchey!

Seriously though... Fuck those guys, if true.

 

[beat]

Don't forget about how Infinity Ward was forced to sell to Activision after the Super Douche comment was upheld via the Retrostitution Clause in the Thirdest Court of Appeals on Planet Zedonia.

As I understand it, when they started IW, the publishing deal with Activision included a clause that Activision could buy IW for $5M at its option, which it exercised as soon as it saw they could deliver.

$5M was ridiculously low for a studio of that caliber, even considering it was a new studio without any IP it owned.

(I am also reminded that MW, a huge success, was something IW had to fight to even develop; Activision wanted to stick with the historical games.)

Not just that, but clearly these guys inspired loyalty in their employees since so many of them left a comfy job at Activision to join a risky position in a totally untested, untried, unformed studio.

Twice! As I understand it, Zampella and West took bunches of 2015 staffers with them when they left to start IW.

I'm actually curious as to who owned the CoD property to begin with - sometimes publishers do (like Sony and Heavenly Sword) while others it's the developer (Bioware and Mass Effect).

But apparently Activision owned 30% of Infinity Ward before the first game in the Call of Duty series shipped and bought the rest only a few days after it did.

I can't imagine Activision would NOT own COD. They obviously had the upper hand in that negotiation (see also the buyout provision). The situation with Bioware and ME was totally different in that Bioware was already an AAA dev and pretty flush with cash. Depending on when that publishing deal was signed, it might have been during or after Elevation Partners was injecting tons of VC cash into the business. Given that, Bioware had all the leverage to own the IP it created.

 

[subversus]

It seems that they're all big assholes. No regrets for anybody.

 

[The Antitype]

I doubt West and Zampella were trying to 'crush' WaW to hurt Treyarch. More likely they were trying to hurt Activision for handing over their franchise - COD - to another dev team when the contract they originally signed with the company stated that they would have control over the series and it's direction.

Then Activision goes and hands it over to another dev team to crank out double the product.

Still a shitty thing to do.

Unfortunately, anything marked 'Activision has been informed' is hersey, so unless they can get a witness to sign something or more evidence like more emails and text messages, it can't be used in the lawsuit.

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

If not true, bless those guys.

 

[FunnyBunny]

It's just shortsighted.

Hurting Activision, and the Call of Duty franchise would only hurt Infinity Ward. Most people buying Call of Duty games have no idea who the developer is.

 

[bigtroyjon]

They filed a motion, they can say whatever the hell they want in the motion. This isn't some kind of under oath deposition.

If they don't have any evidence that supports their motion it gets thrown out, nothing illegal about a lawyer making an outlandish claim.

 

[FunnyBunny]

If they don't have any evidence that supports their motion it gets thrown out, nothing illegal about a lawyer making an outlandish claim.

All those Edge lawsuits taught us something!

 

[bigtroyjon]

I'm no lawyer.

Go on...

As is typically the case in legal disputes, both sides generally agree on the facts.

Yeah, I'd say that it pretty much is never the case that both sides generally agree on the facts. Including this case which has two sides telling two completely different versions of the way things deteriorated between the two sides.

 

[The Antitype]

The blocking bonuses from being paid out doesn't make sense though. Cause once West and Zampella were fired, IW employees STILL didn't get their bonuses. That's what caused something like 30 of them to file a suit against Activision. What was stopping Activision from paying then?

 

[iammeiam]

Why would they run interference with with bonuses like that?

Don't pay them...pay us, and we'll pay them. It adds a needless extra step and makes little sense to me.

Either way, both sides have lots of 'splaining to do. I'm fascinated to see how this will play out in court if it makes it that far.

Hypothetical:

"We are prepared to pay out five million dollars in equity bonuses; please provide the names of the twenty employees most instrumental in the success of your products and so most deserving of the bonuses."

"Fuck you, you owe EVERYBODY bonus money. If you don't feel like paying up, how about you just send the whole thing to us and we'll distribute it across our entire staff."

The parent company only rewarding a portion of the people owed bonus payouts could be seen as toxic to office morale. If nobody gets bonus money, it's IW vs Activision. If a small subset of employees did, it's Them Vs IW. Plus then Activision could claim W and Z had full control over who got money and who didn't.

Also possible they told Activision to give them the full of offered amount directly, and come back with a separate offer in-line with what they actually owed the rest of the staff.

Totally possible West and Zampella were dicking over their staff, but not certain yet I don't think.

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

They filed a motion, they can say whatever the hell they want in the motion. This isn't some kind of under oath deposition.

If they don't have any evidence that supports their motion it gets thrown out, nothing illegal about a lawyer making an outlandish claim.

"It had come to our attention that West and Zampella once confronted Kotick in the men's restroom and committed acts that would be construed as sexual abuse. Kotick was too mentally unstable to report it at the time from fear of retaliation."

 

[itxaka]

Activision's lawyers are god tier. Just a quick look at this thread confirms it :lol

 

[legend166]

The whole thing just seems like amateur hour.

I find it funny that Infinity Ward seemed to be offended that Treyarch were allowed to develop the game, as if it were somehow above them. Call of Duty is a lowest common denominator military shooter. It's not like Tolkien giving Lord of the Rings to Uwe Boll.

 

[faceless007]

Hypothetical:

"We are prepared to pay out five million dollars in equity bonuses; please provide the names of the twenty employees most instrumental in the success of your products and so most deserving of the bonuses."

"Fuck you, you owe EVERYBODY bonus money. If you don't feel like paying up, how about you just send the whole thing to us and we'll distribute it across our entire staff."

Why on Earth would anyone try to pull that as a negotiating tactic for anything? "You don't want to pay the staff, fine, pay us and we'll disburse it"? Either way the money is out of ATVI's hands and into the staff's, and they don't even get the credit of having given it. Why the fuck would Activision or any company agree to do that? And if the end goal was to deny the staff the bonuses, why tell them that's exactly what you're going to do anyway?