Support NeoGAF

[ShockingAlberto]

Bernie Stolar once road-rage tailgated me. I believe he was simply in a hurry to get somewhere and my five-miles an hour more than the posted speed limit wasn't enough for him. He had no idea who I was but I had just printed an article where he said some arguably inflammatory things about his Japanese bosses, so I was a bit suspicious that he was trying to end me.

Maybe he thought you were a Saturn.

 

[Kittonwy]

Errr, because W&Z presumably weren't interested in anything but a deal where they retained 100% control of any IP they generated and would've just shopped around to someone who wasn't EA if EA wasn't prepared to deliver that?



Blizzard is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Activision-Blizzard. Mike Morhaime reports to a guy who reports to Bobby Kotick. They have no independence whatsoever.



No, it should not "be obvious" that this is a lousy deal for EA. Generally speaking, retaining the IP comes at the expense of a lower royalty rate and potentially other factors like a right of first-refusal for a certain number of future titles, so EA can easily stand to make a mint on this. It's not like EA is their only potential choice of publisher here.

Essentially you're suggesting that EA would rather pony up money to West and Zampella to make a game that might or might not be a success and if it does become a success, they rake in money for one title and risk having West and Zampella walk out on them WITH THE IP, any "right of first refusal" would basically come down to EA still owning NOTHING. It's not a matter of whether EA is the only potential choice, it's a matter of EA risking their capital on an IP that can be taken away if they don't pony up even more money for a sequel, as a publisher it's not a good deal, they have no control over anything, not the talent, not the IP, and they will be the one putting up the most of not all of the funding just to get the product to the market.

 

[GillianSeed79]

Maybe he thought you were a Saturn.

:lol :lol :lol

 

[Effect]

It's fairly impossible to get a non-compete that holds up when you fire someone. Otherwise employers could just hire someone with a five year non-compete and fire them the next day, preventing them from working in that industry for five years.

Regardless of this, non-competes aren't actually valid in California, the same goes for non-competes that were signed with other states' laws if the employee goes on to work at a California company, so that loophole doesn't work anymore.

They can still go after them if they were using their employment at Activision (and it's resources) to help setup this new company through right? Which is looking like that could be the case due to the timing of this announcement. For example if they turn around and use some technology or code that was created while they were working at IW (on a project) then they are screwed I believe. Last time I checked you couldn't do that as that's theft. That's what Activision most likely will claim. Whatever was created while employed by a company belongs to that company. Does anyone know if there is a chance that Activision could lay claim to whatever they create?

 

[sweetvar26]

There are people who think MW2 is pretty crappy but loved CoD4. Me being one of them.

I'm probably one of the biggest fans of COD4, still play the game almost everyday, so do few of my friends.

None of us play or played MW2 after the first month, we just don't think it was as good as COD4. May be COD4 was just perfect that it is hard to top it.

Either way, can't wait to see what Respawn would come up with.

 

[Nirolak]

They can still go after them if they were using their employment at Activision (and it's resources) to help setup this new company through right? Which is looking like that could be the case due to the timing of this announcement. For example if they turn around and use some technology or code that was created while they were working at IW (on a project) then they are screwed I believe. Last time I checked you couldn't do that as that's theft. That's what Activision most likely will claim. Whatever was created while employed by a company belongs to that company. Does anyone know if there is a chance that Activision could lay claim to whatever they create?

I imagine they will be making everything from scratch for the new company for the very reason of avoiding that issue.

Honestly starting this late as a new studio they might not even be able to finish a game before the generation ends, so I imagine any existing engines and art assets probably wouldn't be exceptionally useful to them.

 

[CrazedArabMan]

http://kotaku.com/5515489/modern-warfare-team-loses-at-least-one-more-veteran

Yeah, just saw that, IW had a good run, I wonder how many more will leave within the next of couple of days.

 

[Kittonwy]

http://kotaku.com/5515489/modern-warfare-team-loses-at-least-one-more-veteran

It looks like IW is bleeding talent in terms of leads which can devastate morale, it works more in favor for EA in terms of sabotaging Activision's MW factory than getting a profitable mega-IP out there in the short-run.

 

[DMczaf]

"I love to tussle."

 

[ghst]

robert bowling's twitter will read like a contemporary ozymandias when this is all through. though i don't doubt he will continue to relentlessly shill for infinity ward long after they've been shuttered and activision is reduced to a blizzard content farm and outsourced to china.

 

[Dipswitch]

I just realized how sweet this situation must be to EA, like a juicy orange. This is not just payback for Activision luring 2015/IW away from them lo those many years ago. This is also a kick in the nads for Activision for stealing away Michael Condrey and the other Dead Space alums last year. Who ironically are probably working on a COD spin-off.

Activision should have just given IW the freedom to do what they wanted and kept the bonuses coming. My mind boggles at how shortsighted they were to so royally derail the gravy train. Now they get to watch one of their chief money making studios disband in slow motion. Dumb bastards.

 

[Mileena]

Me too. BC2 is just a better game then MW2, it's not a meme.

I disagree, though I've only played the BC2 multiplayer demo.

 

[alr1ght]

I disagree, though I've only played the BC2 multiplayer demo.

smh

 

[Kittonwy]

I just realized how sweet this situation must be to EA, like a juicy orange. This is not just payback for Activision luring 2015/IW away from them lo those many years ago. This is also a kick in the nads for Activision for stealing away Michael Condrey and the other Dead Space alums last year. Who ironically are probably working on a COD spin-off.

Activision should have just given IW the freedom to do what they wanted and kept the bonuses coming. My mind boggles at how shortsighted they were to so royally derail the gravy train. Now they get to watch one of their chief money making studios disband in slow motion. Dumb bastards.

It's a matter of Activision feeling supreme confident and EA actually seizing the opportunity and ponying up the money just to fuck them up the ass.

 

[Y2Kev]

robert bowling's twitter will read like a contemporary ozymandias when this is all through. though i don't doubt he will continue to relentlessly shill for infinity ward long after they've been shuttered and activision is reduced to a blizzard content farm and outsourced to china.

ozymandias :lol

 

[macfoshizzle]

interesting interview with west and vince. the name respawn was thought of when playing BC2! lol

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/respawns-jason-west-and-vince-zampella-interview?page=3

 

[VOOK]

smh

 

[saelz8]

 

[charlequin]

Essentially you're suggesting that EA would rather pony up money to West and Zampella to make a game that might or might not be a success and if it does become a success, they rake in money for one title and risk having West and Zampella walk out on them WITH THE IP, any "right of first refusal" would basically come down to EA still owning NOTHING.

Yes, I am indeed suggesting that because that's exactly what fucking happened.

That your creepy corporatist bent makes such an arrangement incomprehensible to you nonetheless does not, in fact, make it an unreasonable, unpredictable, or anything but completely mutually beneficial arrangement for EA to enter into with Z&W.

 

[Chrange]

interesting interview with west and vince. the name respawn was thought of when playing BC2! lol

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/respawns-jason-west-and-vince-zampella-interview?page=3

If they'd been playing MW they'd have called it Infinite Respawning.

 

[nemesun]

interesting interview with west and vince. the name respawn was thought of when playing BC2! lol

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/respawns-jason-west-and-vince-zampella-interview?page=3

Good read. Now it be all about wait and see I guess.

 

[Firestorm]

Essentially you're suggesting that EA would rather pony up money to West and Zampella to make a game that might or might not be a success and if it does become a success, they rake in money for one title and risk having West and Zampella walk out on them WITH THE IP, any "right of first refusal" would basically come down to EA still owning NOTHING. It's not a matter of whether EA is the only potential choice, it's a matter of EA risking their capital on an IP that can be taken away if they don't pony up even more money for a sequel, as a publisher it's not a good deal, they have no control over anything, not the talent, not the IP, and they will be the one putting up the most of not all of the funding just to get the product to the market.

Yeah it's not like EAhas done this for Valve, Harmonix, Crytek, Double Fine, and others yet so there's no precedence.

 

[benita]

Would be a huge blow for the FPS genre if the top dev just up and decided they were going to start making RPGs instead.

:lol

 

[Rated-Rsuperstar]

Another interview this time from G4.

http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/7...lla-And-Jason-West-Discuss-Their-Future-.html

Sorry if old.

 

[Kittonwy]

Yeah it's not like EAhas done this for Valve, Harmonix, Crytek, Double Fine, and others yet so there's no precedence.

To answer your point, how many of those did EA actually fully fund their projects? There's a difference between just picking up the distribution rights, and paying for a game's development from beginning to end and then owning neither the team nor the IP, unless in Respawn's case EA doesn't have to fully fund the title.

 

[Kittonwy]

Yes, I am indeed suggesting that because that's exactly what fucking happened.

That your creepy corporatist bent makes such an arrangement incomprehensible to you nonetheless does not, in fact, make it an unreasonable, unpredictable, or anything but completely mutually beneficial arrangement for EA to enter into with Z&W.

It's unreasonable because EA basically will take the bulk of the financial risk while Zampella and West will own the IP.

It's not "incomprehensible", it's just bad business sense in the long run because EA is the major investor in Respawn's new project but with no ownership of either the talent or the IP. Under any normal circumstances most publishers wouldn't do such a thing. EA can certainly enter into such an agreement but it's not in their long-term benefit outside of fucking up IW by allowing Zampella and West to poach talent from IW.

 

[Nirolak]

To answer your point, how many of those did EA actually fully fund their projects? There's a difference between just picking up the distribution rights, and paying for a game's development from beginning to end and then owning neither the team nor the IP.

Crysis 2 is a full margin game so I assume they actually are funding the entire project.

 

[Firestorm]

It's unreasonable because EA basically will take the bulk of the financial risk while Zampella and West will own the IP.

It's not "incomprehensible", it's just bad business sense in the long run because EA is the major investor in Respawn's new project but with no ownership of either the talent or the IP. Under any normal circumstances most publishers wouldn't do such a thing. EA can certainly enter into such an agreement but it's not in their long-term benefit outside of fucking up IW by allowing Zampella and West to poach talent from IW.

It is very likely that EA belives by forging a relationship with them early in a way that gives them independence, they will want to work with EA again in the future. It seems like a risk that is worth taking considering all of their games have been huge hits.

 

[Nirolak]

It is very likely that EA belives by forging a relationship with them early in a way that gives them independence, they will want to work with EA again in the future. It seems like a risk that is worth taking considering all of their games have been huge hits.

EA actually pretty much said just that.

[Dave De Martini:] I don't think contracts keep people together, I think it's trust in a relationship that keeps people together.

http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/7...lla-And-Jason-West-Discuss-Their-Future-.html

 

[fortified_concept]

Essentially you're suggesting that EA would rather pony up money to West and Zampella to make a game that might or might not be a success and if it does become a success, they rake in money for one title and risk having West and Zampella walk out on them WITH THE IP, any "right of first refusal" would basically come down to EA still owning NOTHING. It's not a matter of whether EA is the only potential choice, it's a matter of EA risking their capital on an IP that can be taken away if they don't pony up even more money for a sequel, as a publisher it's not a good deal, they have no control over anything, not the talent, not the IP, and they will be the one putting up the most of not all of the funding just to get the product to the market.

Jesus Christ man, are you gaining something from these fucking corporations that you have to defend them so much? Let me make it simple for you: EA makes an investment which is indeed a risk like all investments and they'll be gaining from it if it succeeds. Investing in a product doesn't mean that you'll be secured endless amounts of cash until the end of eternity.

Your corporatist mind has been spoiled by Activision.

 

[Kittonwy]

It is very likely that EA belives by forging a relationship with them early in a way that gives them independence, they will want to work with EA again in the future. It seems like a risk that is worth taking considering all of their games have been huge hits.

But this is business we're talking about, West and Zampella haven't exactly shown loyalty to anyone, if another publisher offers them better terms, West and Zampella can just take their ball (and everything else) and go elsewhere, forget about a risk worth-taking, basically it's all risk, with the only reward being one-time profits from a title that they will be fully funding.

 

[Kittonwy]

EA actually pretty much said just that.


http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/7...lla-And-Jason-West-Discuss-Their-Future-.html

If everything is based on "trust", we wouldn't need legal contracts.

 

[Nirolak]

If everything is based on "trust", we wouldn't need legal contracts.

You see, EA's kind of thinking landed them the creators of Call of Duty while your kind of thinking landed Activision with a slowly dissolving studio.

 

[I AM JOHN!]

But this is business we're talking about, West and Zampella haven't exactly shown loyalty to anyone, if another publisher offers them better terms, West and Zampella can just take their ball (and everything else) and go elsewhere, forget about a risk worth-taking, basically it's all risk, with the only reward being one-time profits from a title that they will be fully funding.

Perhaps that has something to do with why EA's strategy is "let them do what they want so long as it isn't economically insane and do everything we can to keep them on our good side." If it pays off, then West and Zampella will work with them again. If it doesn't, then West and Zampella are jerks and someone else's problem then, but they'll at least get a (most likely) successful game out of it that gets them bank. Either way, it's good business.

I really don't get what you think EA should've done. If they insist on owning the IP or the studio or whatever, West and Zampella would've gone to someone else who would've given them exactly what EA has.

 

[Mael]

If everything is based on "trust", we wouldn't need legal contracts.

Forget about contract we wouldn't even need laws!
Is there a precedent of a publisher fully funding a young dev house then not owning anything at all after that and then being beneficial to them?

 

[TheFLYINGManga_Ka]

interesting interview with west and vince. the name respawn was thought of when playing BC2! lol

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/respawns-jason-west-and-vince-zampella-interview?page=3

That's funny. The irony!

Also, seeing how more key senior members are leaving IW, looks like the main group will just start where they left off IF they re-spawn at Respawn!

 

[Rainier]

You see, EA's kind of thinking landed them the creators of Call of Duty while your kind of thinking landed Activision with a slowly dissolving studio.

Best post in the thread.

 

[Mael]

Best post in the thread.

Sooo you're telling us that publishers should always write blank checks to develop games without any supervision from corporate?
Unless I'm mistaken isn't Activision the one that forced IW to do MW2 in the first place? Since they were the one risking the money, isn't that normal that they're getting the biggest part of the pie in term of reward?
Why the hell do people think anyone involved have the interest of gamers in mind?

 

[neorej]

If everything is based on "trust", we wouldn't need legal contracts.

You totally misread that. What he meant was that contracts are only a legal binding of two parties, trust is what actually keeps them happy and makes them want to stay with you. Example:
Tim Schafer's Double Fine. They had a contract with Vivendi, then with Activision, which treated them like shit after Schafer refused to turn Brütal Legend into a Guitar Hero-spin off, Schafer went looking for and found a loophole in the contract, went to EA and Brütal Legend developed on his terms, EA took care of publishing and advertising.

You can have all the contracts in the world to bind a party to your organisation, if they are unhappy with the working conditions, they will always be inefficient and constantly looking for a way out.

 

[Mael]

You totally misread that. What he meant was that contracts are only a legal binding of two parties, trust is what actually keeps them happy and makes them want to stay with you. Example:
Tim Schafer's Double Fine. They had a contract with Vivendi, then with Activision, which treated them like shit after Schafer refused to turn Brütal Legend into a Guitar Hero-spin off, Schafer went looking for and found a loophole in the contract, went to EA and Brütal Legend developed on his terms, EA took care of publishing and advertising.

You can have all the contracts in the world to bind a party to your organisation, if they are unhappy with the working conditions, they will always be inefficient and constantly looking for a way out.

Oh come on, it can't be because he didn't want his game to be slapped with Guitar Hero on it that he went away, right?

 

[neorej]

Sooo you're telling us that publishers should always write blank checks to develop games without any supervision from corporate?
Unless I'm mistaken isn't Activision the one that forced IW to do MW2 in the first place? Since they were the one risking the money, isn't that normal that they're getting the biggest part of the pie in term of reward?
Why the hell do people think anyone involved have the interest of gamers in mind?

Do you really think the guys and gals at IW can deliver a shit-product and walk away like nothing happened? People get fired in case of a bomb.

 

[neorej]

Oh come on, it can't be because he didn't want his game to be slapped with Guitar Hero on it that he went away, right?

I'm pretty sure that the lack of interest, serious funding and not appearing on the releaselist of Activision after he turned down the Guitar Hero-label has something to do with it.

 

[Mael]

Do you really think the guys and gals at IW can deliver a shit-product and walk away like nothing happened? People get fired in case of a bomb.

You're actually right in saying that a shit product is actually a bomb (and vice versa, we're talking about sales here).
There is actually NO GUARRANTY that is game won't be one, EA look to have taken no guarranty at all either in case things go south.
It's unlikely that their project will not recoup cost (let's be honest here), but whether or not they're worth the investment remain to be seen.
Let's be fair for a second here, the reason MW is so big is certainly NOT because of IW alone, the marketing (and I don't mean advertising here) of Activision is certainly the reason it succeed (and certainly not the way IW treat its customers after they've bought the game, what with the dlc worthy of the shareware era or the dedicated server fiasco).

And anyway since EA own nothing of the new studio or the thing they do, how can they fire anyone?

I'm pretty sure that the lack of interest, serious funding and not appearing on the releaselist of Activision after he turned down the Guitar Hero-label has something to do with it.

he made a shit decision he suffered from it.
If the only thing that would have happened with the Guitar Hero label was the sticker on the box, it's a shitty decision as it would probably have a bigger appeal with it rather than without it.
Why should ATVI fund what they saw as a bomb in the making?
the final result being that Brutal Legend actually underperformed, probably the outcome ATVI expected when they cut the fundings.

 

[fortified_concept]

You're actually right in saying that a shit product is actually a bomb (and vice versa, we're talking about sales here).
There is actually NO GUARRANTY that is game won't be one, EA look to have taken no guarranty at all either in case things go south.
It's unlikely that their project will not recoup cost (let's be honest here), but whether or not they're worth the investment remain to be seen

You mean there's a risk they won't make their money back? So wait, it's like every other investment ever? Oh the horror!

And anyway since EA own nothing of the new studio or the thing they do, how can they fire anyone?

They won't fire anyone but they won't invest in them again either. And considering the new studio will have a bad reputation other publishers will be reluctant to invest too. There's definitely a risk for the developer too.

 

[Lagspike_exe]

They won't fire anyone but they won't invest in them again either. And considering the new studio will have a bad reputation other publishers will be reluctant to invest too. There's definitely a risk for the developer too.

Do you actually think it's hard for a two guys who made a multi-billion dollars franchise to find money to fund new projects? They're being spammed with offers by various investment funds as we speak... And you'll have a hard time finding a bank that wouldn't give them the requested credit.

 

[BritBloke916]

I'm seeing a lot of debate here about whether or not this investment will pay off for EA in the long term, but I suspect that the amount of damage they have done to one of the biggest assets of their biggest competitor means that they are already happy with the fruits of their investment. If Respawn actually make a great game and EA make some money, that will simply be a nice bonus for them.

 

[neorej]

You're actually right in saying that a shit product is actually a bomb (and vice versa, we're talking about sales here).
There is actually NO GUARRANTY that is game won't be one, EA look to have taken no guarranty at all either in case things go south.
It's unlikely that their project will not recoup cost (let's be honest here), but whether or not they're worth the investment remain to be seen.
Let's be fair for a second here, the reason MW is so big is certainly NOT because of IW alone, the marketing (and I don't mean advertising here) of Activision is certainly the reason it succeed (and certainly not the way IW treat its customers after they've bought the game, what with the dlc worthy of the shareware era or the dedicated server fiasco).

And anyway since EA own nothing of the new studio or the thing they do, how can they fire anyone?

Part of the EA Partner programme, IIRC, is that the risk-portion shifts more in the direction of the developer. And it's not like anyone with a game-idea can join the programme, there IS a selection-criterium.

he made a shit decision he suffered from it.
If the only thing that would have happened with the Guitar Hero label was the sticker on the box, it's a shitty decision as it would probably have a bigger appeal with it rather than without it.
Why should ATVI fund what they saw as a bomb in the making?
the final result being that Brutal Legend actually underperformed, probably the outcome ATVI expected when they cut the fundings.

It went pretty further than just the sticker on the box, if you'd have to believe Tim Schafer (and I do). Activision demanded some gameplay-changes that would literally change the game Schafer had in mind.
As far as underperformance is concerned, I can't get the salesfigures up to today from a solid site (according to ******** it's 1.04 million, but I don't trust them completely), but in october, it sold 216.000 units. Not staggering, but certainly better than that game Activision was pushing like there's no tomorrow, DJ Hero: 123.000 units on twice as many platforms. So saleswise, Activision would've been wise to bet on Schafer, not the DJ Hero-team. Also: a Guitar Hero-sticker on the box (which DJ Hero has, BTW) does not guarantee sales. Quite the contrary, looking at Van Halen Guitar Hero.

Plus, if Activision thought it would bomb, why would they sue Double Fine and EA after the first trailer was hit? Maybe because all of a sudden they realised the game would be fine without a Guitar Hero-treatment?

 

[Mael]

You mean there's a risk they won't make their money back? So wait, it's like every other investment ever? Oh the horror!

There's actually a bigger risk that they're funding a competitor's product that could actually harm their internal studios projects, but I guess nobody cares about investing in stuffs you've got no control over....

They won't fire anyone but they won't invest on them either. And considering the new studio will have a bad reputation other publishers will be reluctant to invest too. There's definitely a risk for the developer too.

Like there's a risk that if you go to a big restaurant and acting like a douche will lead you to be barred to a restaurant.
There's a risk but there's way more risks for EA than for the Respawn guys.

 

[fortified_concept]

Do you actually think it's hard for a two guys who made a multi-billion dollars franchise to find money to fund new projects? They're being spammed with offers by various investment funds as we speak... And you'll have a hard time finding a bank that wouldn't give them the requested credit.

I don't disagree. But if the quality of their games isn't as expected they'll sink into oblivion like so many developers did before them. It's not the first developer publishers fund like that and it won't be the last. The notion that publishers have to use Activision tactics to secure their profits is absurd and a little disgusting.

 

[Firestorm]

But this is business we're talking about, West and Zampella haven't exactly shown loyalty to anyone, if another publisher offers them better terms, West and Zampella can just take their ball (and everything else) and go elsewhere, forget about a risk worth-taking, basically it's all risk, with the only reward being one-time profits from a title that they will be fully funding.

Yes but it was controlling the IP and development that had them get up and leave in both cases. The reward is also more profits if they come back to EA, which is made more likely by EA treating them well. You cannot write that off.