Activision frisky about Brutal Legend?

By Tom Bramwell Published 16 February, 2009

Report: "Legal concerns" about EA deal.

Activision is reportedly hot and bothered about EA Partners' plans to publish Double Fine's game Brutal Legend.

Brutal Legend used to be a Vivendi game prior to the merger that created Activision Blizzard last year, and was supposedly one of those "identified as not likely to achieve the profit margin potential that we look for", in the words of Activision super-boss Bobby Kotick.

However, Variety now reports that Activision is "threatening to sue developer Double Fine and new publisher Electronic Arts" because it reckons it still holds publishing rights.

The report claims Activision Blizzard has written a letter "to EA (and possibly Double Fine)" about its "legal concerns", even though the publisher doesn't actually want to publish Brutal Legend itself.

Rather brilliantly, an EA spokesperson then apparently expressed doubts about the likelihood of legal action by saying, "That would be like a husband abandoning his family and then suing after his wife meets a better looking guy." Indeed - virtually indistinguishable.

We've contacted both Activision Blizzard and Electronic Arts for comment and will update this story if we hear anything useful.

At the time of EA Partners' signing Brutal Legend, Double Fine founder and Eurogamer hero Tim Schafer welcomed his new masters by saying, "They're the perfect place to launch a new IP and to do something that is pushing the boundaries of gaming."

In Schafer's excellent world, that means an action-adventure where roadie Eddie Riggs (played by Jack Black) enters a heavy-metal fantasy world and faces off against demons using a giant axe and guitar among other things.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (20) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • DFawkes #1 3 years ago

    Oh we don't want it, but you sure as heck can't have it? What a bloody immature attitide. If they thought it would be profitable, they should've published it. If they don't, let EA make a loss.

  • Wastelander #2 3 years ago

    Somebody really needs to beat the videogames industry about the face and neck with a spade.

  • kangarootoo #3 3 years ago

    "That would be like a husband abandoning his family and then suing after his wife meets a better looking guy"

    That is great.

    I have a bit of a addiction to metahors, to the point that I sometimes find myself using them even when the original point is clear and the introduction of a metaphor makes things less clear.

    This feels just like one of those moments, so I can't help but smile.

  • BBIAJ #4 3 years ago

    Metahor?

    Is that some sort of working girl review collective resulting in an average website that truck drivers use?

    Sounds a bit dodgy to me...

  • DanWhitehead #5 3 years ago

    This all sounds like the recent legal spat between Warner Bros and 20th Century Fox over the rights to the Watchmen movie.

  • Les #6 3 years ago

    "and was supposedly one of those "identified as not likely to achieve the profit margin potential that we look for", in the words of Activision super-boss Bobby Kotick."

    Mergers can be messy things so I wouldn't be surprised if there had been miscommunication around whether or not Brutal Legends was one of the titles dropped by Activision. It might very well be that the contract between Activision and Double Fine hadn't been properly terminated yet before Double Fine went to EA.

    In that case it would be more like the wife, thinking that her husband will leave her, hooks up with another guy when actually he never had plans of the sort.
    Edited by 1 at 16/02/09 @ 10:04

  • HermitArcader #7 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • kangarootoo #8 3 years ago

    @BBIAJ

    Hehe. That's why I describe it as an addiction. Would make a good headline if I were an mp or a bishop.

  • kangarootoo #9 3 years ago

    "Mergers can be messy things so I wouldn't be surprised if there had been miscommunication around whether or not Brutal Legends was one of the titles dropped by Activision"

    It strikes as a situation where Activision probably did plan to drop the game, but now they are thinking that if there is any whiff of money to be made by someone else, they want a cut of the action.

    And I guess, if they genuinely do own the IP they are fairly due a cut of the action. If they spent money on it, they are entitled to a return on that investment, even if they themselves decided not to invest further in full development.

    It all hinges on whether they DO still own some aspect of the IP imo.

  • sneetch #10 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo
    "Mergers can be messy things so I wouldn't be surprised if there had been miscommunication around whether or not Brutal Legends was one of the titles dropped by Activision"

    It strikes as a situation where Activision probably did plan to drop the game, but now they are thinking that if there is any whiff of money to be made by someone else, they want a cut of the action.

    And I guess, if they genuinely do own the IP they are fairly due a cut of the action. If they spent money on it, they are entitled to a return on that investment, even if they themselves decided not to invest further in full development.

    It all hinges on whether they DO still own some aspect of the IP imo.

    I find it hard to believe that they would have miscommunicated with DoubleFine to such a degree that they went and found another publisher and only noticed months (a year?) later.

    They may be legally entitled to a slice of the pie depending on how it works out but I sincerely hope they're not: they walked away and were willing to let the project die, that counts for a lot (well, in non-legal terms it does).

    I never thought I'd be rooting for the underdog EA against the evul Blizzard (ActivisionBlizzard, Actizzard whatever).

  • neilka #11 3 years ago

    They need to perform a hostile takeover of Charmin so the can become Charizzard.

  • Ignatius_Cheese #12 3 years ago

    Kudos to the EA spokesperson! \o/

    Activision are turning into a right bunch of arseholes. Who would have thought the tides would turn so quickly for EA...!?

  • thisisatempaccount #13 3 years ago

    So EA are the underdogs being sued mercilessly by the bloated faceless games industry monopolists?

    This can only be the end times. If anyone needs me while the world collapses, I'll be in the cellar with all the tinned fruit and pasta Yorkshire has to sell.
    Edited by 1 at 16/02/09 @ 13:25

  • Redeye #14 3 years ago

    What *is* the next step up from an epic facepalm? Because this certainly warrants one, whatever it is.

    Wastelander: Not the industry per se, just Activision (or Kock-end in particular, if you want to be specific).

  • djed #15 3 years ago

    I hope they sue the digested and disposed of food out of each other. Lawyers don't have enough cash.

  • smelly #16 3 years ago

    "we dont want it"

    "shit.. hang on.. it looks like it might be a seller.. shit.. we've changed our minds"


    (waiting for them to do the same with ghostbusters)

  • Tomo #17 3 years ago

    ""That would be like a husband abandoning his family and then suing after his wife meets a better looking guy." Indeed - virtually indistinguishable."

    ROFL. Fucking superb!

  • Triggerhappytel #18 3 years ago

    I never thought I'd see the day when EA were the plucky underdogs everyone was rooting for.

    But a new evil has risen in the games industry and its name is ActiBlizz.

  • Les #19 3 years ago

    "It strikes as a situation where Activision probably did plan to drop the game, but now they are thinking that if there is any whiff of money to be made by someone else, they want a cut of the action."

    Who knows? Other stories around the web are that they tried to bully Double Fine into accepting a less lucrative (from the POV of DF of course) agreement so that the project would be able to meet their internal profit margin targets... Anyway, it seems like it might have been a good idea if DF had hired lawyers in advance to properly settle with Activision. But I guess any 'creative' industry has its share of naiveté...

  • FooAtari #20 3 years ago

    "identified as not likely to achieve the profit margin potential that we look for", in the words of Activision super-boss Bobby Kotick

    The games industry depresses me a little more everyday.