Support NeoGAF

[goldenpp72]

They'll get at least royalties paid out in some form. I really doubt they'll get control of the brand though. If it even kinda appears that they might possibly win, Activision will start throwing barrels of money at them above and beyond their royalties to keep control of the brand. It's way too lucrative a franchise to let go of.

If these guys had the possibility of somehow getting the MW brand (I don't think this is the case) I doubt activision could pay them off. MW2 probably already made a cool billion dollars, factor in sequels every few years, I don't think activision could afford a payoff.

However I don't think that's a possibility so..

 

[beat]

I definitly don't like Kotick because I think all of Activision's recent successes have been from acquisitions, while every actual initiatives of their own have been poor choices (Prototype, Blur, Tony Hawk, Singularity (is that game out yet?), etc.).

Pretty sure Prototype was initiated under the Vivendi era.

 

[Brad Grenz]

I would love to see the modern warfare label taken away from Activisions dirty hands. As bad as MW2 seems to some of you guys already, I can only imagine what horrible milked COD products activision is thinking of creating.

I was thinking about the same thing.

Really looking forward to playing CoD: WarVille on facebook. :lol

 

[Kifimbo]

According to Ben Fritz (LA Times), Activision bought IW for only $5 millions.

Source: http://twitter.com/benfritz/status/9983027871

 

[fortified_concept]

:lol An environment that appreciates your work in the gaming industry? Oh, Fortified, you are incorrigible!

You kinda have a point. "Appreciates their work more" is better. "Doesn't look for slave labour" is much, much better.

 

[MattyGrovesOrMe]

Kotaku has the lawsuit filing docs up in full... Kotick is referred to in the filing, framed by his "skepticism, pessimism and fear" quote.

 

[LiK]

It's on bitches....

 

[Kibs]

First reply on that article pretty much sums it up :

Wow that's a lot of Legalese. Okay, in case anyone doesn't feel like reading all that stuff:

WHAT HAPPENED: The two developers were promised royalties as part of their contract for Modern Warfare 2. They're claiming Activision fired them under false pretenses in order to avoid paying those royalties.

The lawsuit then gives background about the company, including alleging that Activision purposely gave Infinity Ward a small budget for Call of Duty in order to buy 30% of its stock for cheap since the small budget would keep them from fighting it.

It also states some things we all know; sales figures, revenue numbers, etc. West and Zampella (the two developers and plaintiffs) had only one year on their contract before MW2 started. They were reluctant to get an extension on their contract, but did so anyway because Activision promised complete control of IW AND creative control over any post-Vietnam Call of Duty and MW games that might be developed.

Blah, blah, blah; more sales figures and talks of how MW2 was praised upon release. Activision then launched the investigation of Zampella and West about a week after the release of MW2. They hired outside lawyers and investigators to question other employees (some of whom cried from anxiety) and threatened insubordination charges if the two plaintiffs tried to console the other employees.

West and Zampella then said they were going to talk to their lawyers, at which point they were told Activision would make things worse if they did. The two men were also never told what exactly they had done wrong at any given point during the investigation. Activision strung the investigation along, then gave the two IW guys about six hours to respond to the accusations. A couple days later, Activision announced the new Call of Duty games they want to make (which were posted in another article).

WHAT THEY WANT: The first claim is to about US$36 million in damages. Second, they also want control of the Modern Warfare franchise back, since that was what was promised. Third, they also say Activision cannot make any further MW games OR post-Vietnam Call of Duties set in the present, near future, or far future. Fourth, they feel that Activision owes them their royalties and bonuses regardless of whether or not their termination from IW was legitimate. And obviously, they want their attorney fees covered.

And that's about it. I may have misread the complaint a bit, so feel free to correct me

What a disgusting company ...

 

[BananaBomb]

Kotaku has the lawsuit filing docs up in full... Kotick is referred to in the filing, framed by his "skepticism, pessimism and fear" quote.

Holy shit.

edit: felt like those smilies were out of place cause this is fucked up.

 

[Docpan]

So, wait a second. Activision initiated an investigation against West and Zampella, and subsequently fired them, without having ever specified what it was they were doing wrong? They weren't allowed to talk to their crying employees? They weren't allowed to talk to their own LAWYERS????

Something doesn't seem right here.

 

[theignoramus]

First reply on that article pretty much sums it up :



What a disgusting company ...

damn. nasty company, activision.

 

[jmdajr]

fight the power!!!!

 

[duk]

what the fuck activision... u better have a good explanation of this... who were these guys the main guys behind COD and MW?

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Not to defend Activision, but a lawsuit filing is not necessarily a list of facts.

 

[FreedomFrisbee]

Didn't Kotick just get done trying to tell us how he wasn't the devil? This is really ridiculous.

 

[ghostmind]

Not to defend Activision, but a lawsuit filing is not necessarily a list of facts.

Usually the truth is somewhere in the middle, but in this case I'm prepared to believe the worst about Activision.

 

[SecretBonusPoint]

The two developers were promised royalties as part of their contract for Modern Warfare 2. They're claiming Activision fired them under false pretenses in order to avoid paying those royalties.

They hired outside lawyers and investigators to question other employees (some of whom cried from anxiety) and threatened insubordination charges if the two plaintiffs tried to console the other employees.

Wow. Activision has to be fucking bulldozed if this is true. "Thanks for making us billions of dollars!"

 

[wud]

deserve it after modern warfare 2 :lol

 

[GillianSeed79]

The irony of current day Activision never ceases to amaze me. The company was basically founded to stick it to the man, i.e. Atari, and give developers the credit and royalties they deserved. Now they are the complete opposite.

From Wiki:
Before the formation of Activision, software for video game consoles were published exclusively by makers of the systems for which the games were designed. For example, Atari was the only publisher of games for the Atari 2600. This was particularly galling to the developers of the games, as they received no financial rewards for games that sold well, and did not receive credit for their games. This caused several programmers to resign from their jobs. Activision became the first third-party game publisher for game consoles.

 

[soldat7]

Call of Duty: Corporate Warfare

 

[hooligan]

From what I understand, two Activision executives were using IW resources to pitch a new IP to a competitor, ready to leave ship upon getting the deal, indirectly leading to many IW devs leaving as well eventually. Total breach of contract if this is true, and the two guys probably have a non-competitive clause that will prevent them from working for anyone for at least a year now. I definitly don't like Kotick because I think all of Activision's recent successes have been from acquisitions, while every actual initiatives of their own have been poor choices (Prototype, Blur, Tony Hawk, Singularity (is that game out yet?), etc.). They have horrible management. But to put all the blame on Activision in this particular case is currently unfounded.

Umm, if you are terminated you are typically not bound anymore by any non-compete clauses you may have signed in the past. It is only to protect the company from people willfully leaving and/or mutual separation.

 

[robjoh]

The funny thing is if this is somewhat correct and they actualy win the rights for call of duty back from activision, then Activision only has Blizzard to keep them a flout.

They have run every brand they have to the ground.

 

[Hugbot]

Just got done reading the filings, and holy shit. There's not a lot of thick "legalise" in it at all, it's among the most readable filings I've come across. Some of the things they are alleging are really bad for Activision, if they can be backed up.

 

[sweetvar26]

If what all Activision did is true, I might actually boycott Activision, what they did is just wrong.

 

[Vinci]

They hired outside lawyers and investigators to question other employees (some of whom cried from anxiety) and threatened insubordination charges if the two plaintiffs tried to console the other employees.

Holy shit. What? This can't be true. I... that's just... ffs, it makes Activision sound like a tobacco company. Or the mafia or something.

 

[Darklord]

Wow. Activision has to be fucking bulldozed if this is true. "Thanks for making us billions of dollars!"

Fucking sickening. No wonder IW hated their guts.

 

[Doytch]

Umm, if you are terminated you are typically not bound anymore by any non-compete clauses you may have signed in the past. It is only to protect the company from people willfully leaving and/or mutual separation.

Also, IW is in California, where non-competes are illegal except to do limited stuff like prevent trade secrets.

 

[VaLiancY]

SMFH.

That's really upsetting to hear.

 

[WillyFive]

This is going to be bigger than I thought.

 

[fortified_concept]

First reply on that article pretty much sums it up :



What a disgusting company ...

Wow... wow. Sleazy fucks. Blackmail, shady tactics, and false promises; it's all in there. I despise this company but if this is true... wow. I have no fucking words.

 

[MacBosse]

Holy shit. What? This can't be true. I... that's just... ffs, it makes Activision sound like a tobacco company. Or the mafia or something.

It's all about the benjamins baby.

 

[Mr Cola]

IF the above events are true and IF in a court of law it is proven that activision acted in such a way i have no hesitation in never buying an activision game again. Im not some super eco clean company freak but there are limits....nike, coke im looking at you

 

[MattyGrovesOrMe]

The funny thing is if this is somewhat correct and they actualy win the rights for call of duty back from activision, then Activision only has Blizzard to keep them a flout.

They have run every brand they have to the ground.

Call of Duty is firmly an Activision property, West and Zampella no longer have a claim to that. The lawsuit is instead after retaining rights to the Modern Warfare branding, or if not that, an MW style of game (and preventing CoD from doing anything post-Vietnam).

Don't underestimate the reach and power of corporate lawyers though, Activision can and will put up a fight. Not usually the kind of thing that goes to trial though, expect an undisclosed settlement wrapping this up, unless the MW rights thing is the sticking point. A worst-case trial scenario would be crazy

Spoiler

and facing the legal team put together by Activision and/or Vivendi is frightening as fuck

 

[Haethos]

Just got done reading the filings, and holy shit. There's not a lot of thick "legalise" in it at all, it's among the most readable filings I've come across. Some of the things they are alleging are really bad for Activision, if they can be backed up.

I agree that there is very little "legalese" involved in the filing. While I tend to take W/Z's side in this dispute--we've all seen Activision do this kind of junk before, with Brutal Legend for instance--I can't help but feel that this filing was one meant to be read easily by the public and do even more damage to Activision's public image.

If the filing's description of what is contained in the MOU is true, then it is pretty miserable on Activision's part. According to the filing, it gave W/Z, along with royalties and bonuses:

"creative authority over the development of any games under the Modern Warfare brand (or any Call of Duty game set in the post-Vietnam era, the near future, or the distant future) including complete control over the Infinity Ward studio"

"no such game can be commercially released without the written consent of West and Zampella"

"the right to operate Infinity Ward independently and to choose to develop new intellectual property after they completed Modern Warfare 2"

I can see why Activision would try to void that agreement, but it sounds extremely dirty, considering that they announced their vision of CoD's new direction in the same release that they talked about W/Z's termination.

I'll reserve judgment until Activision submits their response, but it seems pretty damning.

 

[Kinan]

Holy fuck, I just read the filings. If its true, its just horrible. I cant do much, but I do refuse to buy any Activision game until Kotick is fired.

And >36M$ royalties is not the main thing here. Activision wanted to have complete control over the CoD franchise. And, sadly, they will get it whatever court outcome will be.

 

[MinnesotaFatz]

Holy shit. What? This can't be true. I... that's just... ffs, it makes Activision sound like a tobacco company. Or the mafia or something.

What a bitch move by Activision if true. I hope this plays out very publicly.

 

[Binabik15]

deserve it after modern warfare 2 :lol

Quoting you. Just in case. You do realize that GAF isn´t the right place to laugh about devs loosing jobs, right?

Not believing everything from the two fired guys, of course they´re trying to make themselves look good and Activision bad, especially for the court.

BUT it´s Activision, so the truth might be closer to their "Activision managers are dicks" side of the coin than the Activision version of this incident.

 

[OutlawSamurai]

if Activision wins its time to boycott them and I hope they go bankrupt... seeing how many developers feel for IW. I wish the best for the true IW guys.

 

[Doytch]

The rights to control present- and future-based MW titles is interesting. I wonder if the wording of that agreement stipulated shooter or FPS, and what kind of a role that plays in the next two CoD games being WW2 (Treyarch) and action-adventure (Sledgehammer). Almost like ATVI knew that this could be an issue and put any thought of MW on the backburner until they know what they have.

 

[GillianSeed79]

Didn't Kotick give a speech at Dice recently where he basically said he wasn't the devil. I specifically remember one quote where he said he always felt like a rebel but "suddenly I wake up and I'm on board the Death Star".

Yeah Bobby. You're not only on board the Death Star, you're in the fucking throne room circling Yavin 4.

 

[sflufan]

There's an old legal maxim: "Possession is 9/10 of the law."

Unfortunately for West and Zampella, that will be working against them in this case. "Possession" is clearly with Activision, despite any implied or explicit agreements that may be present.

I have no doubt there will be a pretty decent out-of-court settlement, but the chances of them retaining the "Modern Warfare" intellectual property are probably pretty slim.

 

[Vinci]

if Activision wins its time to boycott them and I hope they go bankrupt... seeing how many developers feel for IW. I wish the best for the true IW guys.

That depends. I know we're all on a hate Activision campaign at the moment, but there's nothing saying (at this time) that everything in that filing is true. So 'if Activision wins' because a formal review of the situation states that these alleged events did not take place the way West and Zampella have described... that's only fair.

That said, if very much of that shit is true, Activision is a horrific company to work under. Holy shit.

 

[Hugbot]

I agree that there is very little "legalese" involved in the filing. While I tend to take W/Z's side in this dispute--we've all seen Activision do this kind of junk before, with Brutal Legend for instance--I can't help but feel that this filing was one meant to be read easily by the public and do even more damage to Activision's public image.

Yeah, it's pretty clearly written to be quoted from and understood by people without specific knowledge of legal terms, to maximize the impact it has on Activision. There were times reading it when I was struck by how informally it was written.

It's very likely that there's been some fudging by both parties and we will definitely never get the whole story, but it's going to be interesting to watch it develop, especially if they both keep going for the throat.

 

[TheRagnCajun]

Lets not kid ourselves. Boycotts mean nothing - especially on games that sell millions. I thought we learned that lesson already, with the same game franchise no less.

 

[Vinci]

Yeah, it's pretty clearly written to be quoted from and understood by people without specific knowledge of legal terms, to maximize the impact it has on Activision. There were times reading it when I was struck by how informal it was reading.

Yeah, it's definitely written for the sake of rousing public opinion.

 

[MinnesotaFatz]

Yeah, it's definitely written for the sake of rousing public opinion.

And its working!

 

[bigdaddygamebot]

Tha language in the actual law suit seems to have no small amount of hyperbole and gives the impression that it was written by one of us here in wall-of-text-post on one of the many "Fuck Fuckin' Activision" threads.

It's nice to read a lawsuit and actually understand what's going on but is this really, REALLY the ACTUAL document or is it just spin to affect the court of public opinion?

 

[VaLiancY]

Lets not kid ourselves. Boycotts mean nothing - especially on games that sell millions. I thought we learned that lesson already, with the same game franchise no less.

Maybe it doesn't mean much to the companies but to the developers who are in the middle of this fiasco, it shows that their are people who won't stand for it and support their struggle. I didn't buy MW2 but I do feel bad that a developer that made one of the major pillars supporting the company gets this kind of treatment.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

deserve it after modern warfare 2 :lol

No, they really did not.

All of that bitching about MW2 only proves ONE thing beyond any doubt: people are playing it.

And despite the whole Michael Bay syndrome in it (singleplayer mostly), I felt it's mp was cool and for some time even addictive. They did improve console standards for what to expect in MP, even if the specific implementation is somewhat unbalanced (including the magic knife).

You might even argue that the difference between Treyarch and IW is not as big as people claim (I have done this in the MW2 thread), but I wouldn't dream of saying that anyone at IW "deserves" whatever bad thing I could think of. Even with the dedicated server thing, for which it is unlikely that we will get to know why that even happened.

After all, I still bought their game.

 

[poppabk]

Tha language in the actual law suit seems to have no small amount of hyperbole and gives the impression that it was written by one of us here in wall-of-text-post on one of the many "Fuck Fuckin' Activision" threads.

It's nice to read a lawsuit and actually understand what's going on but is this really, REALLY the ACTUAL document or is it just spin to affect the court of public opinion?

Yeah going back to 2003/2004 to complain about Activision purchasing IW seems kinda petty and entirely irrelevant to the lawsuit.