Acti: Modern Warfare 3 "held hostage"

By Tom Bramwell Published 12 April, 2010

Claims West/Zampella were very naughty.

Activision has accused former Infinity Ward heads Jason West and Vince Zampella of "delaying pre-production of Modern Warfare 3" in its cross-complaint against the duo, who launched a legal action against the publisher after they were sacked last month.

"Activision did not arrive at its decision to fire West and Zampella lightly or without good reason," according to the publisher's suit, which has been published on IGN.

West and Zampella claimed they were dismissed following an "inquisition" that reduced colleagues to tears and included six-hour interrogations in windowless rooms.

"In certain respects, West and Zampella were valuable executives at the company," Activision's cross-complaint continued. However, "West and Zampella morphed from valued, responsible executives into insubordinate and self-serving schemers who attempted to hijack Activision's assets for their own personal gain."

Activision has accused the pair of "embarking on a secret trip by private jet to Northern California, arranged by their Hollywood agent, to meet with the most senior executives of Activision's closest competitor" - something also alleged last month.

Furthermore, the publisher has claimed that West and Zampella were "holding future editions of the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare franchise hostage unless Activision acceded to their demands".

To be more specific, it said they were "delaying pre-production of Modern Warfare 3 and attempting to use that delay as leverage in their negotiations". As a result, "Activision has been forced to commit additional resources to Modern Warfare 3."

Activision also claimed that this brinkmanship came at a cost to rank-and-file Infinity Ward employees. According to the publisher, West and Zampella were preventing their colleagues lower down the order receiving "additional compensation" due to them so that Activision would seem like the bad guy, making employees "easier to poach". Not only that, but they allegedly took "1/3 of the total bonus pool for the Call of Duty franchise" rather than sharing it about.

"West and Zampella informed IW employees that they intended to leave Activision and discussed with some IW team members whether they would leave Activision and participate in a spin-off company," the suit claimed.

Nor have they stopped following their dismissal, according to the Call of Duty publisher. "West and Zampella are continuing to engage in this misconduct, or waiting for a propitious moment to do so," its suit claimed.

Activision's suit claimed that redacted employee contracts spell out just how naughty that would have been, as they included clauses that were designed to stop the pair soliciting Activision employees for two years following termination.

Activision confirmed last month that it had terminated Jason West and Vince Zampella and would be reorganising its Call of Duty efforts into a specialised business unit to oversee multiple titles.

These would include a new effort from Sledgehammer Games - the studio set up by EA veterans Glen Schofield and Michael Condrey - in addition to this year's Call of Duty 7 title from Treyarch.

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 (32) Latest comment 7 months ago

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

  • Xerx3s #1 2 years ago

    "West and Zampella morphed from valued, responsible executives into insubordinate and self-serving schemers who attempted to hijack Activision's assets for their own personal gain."

    You can claim anything you want but nobody will believe that. It is far more likely that activision where the "self-serving schemers" who tried to force IW to make a new MW until the end of time.

  • chudders #2 2 years ago

    The plot thickens...

  • the_dudefather #3 2 years ago

    How much is the ransom in Microsoft points?

  • ISmoke #4 2 years ago

    They planed on making a 3rd? Jesus Christ.

  • aldo_14 #5 2 years ago

    "embarking on a secret trip by private jet to Northern California, arranged by their Hollywood agent, to meet with the most senior executives of Activision's closest competitor"

    So they were sacked for having a job interview?

  • SAMagic #6 2 years ago

    Really, it all comes down to the contractual agreement - which I'll doubt we'll find out about for several months, presumably when this finally reaches court. Were IW on an extremely tight contract where the publisher practically owned them and everything they produce? Or were they actually more independent and Activision are desperately trying to stop them running away with a golden goose of a franchise?

    Either way, I reckon that the result will have enormous impact on the industry in the long-term, relationships between publishers and developers may never be the same.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #7 2 years ago

    So they were sacked for having a job interview?

    Not unlikely depending on their contract.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #8 2 years ago

    Either way, I reckon that the result will have enormous impact on the industry in the long-term, relationships between publishers and developers may never be the same.

    I doubt that. It's never a good thing when it happens but it does happen. It's just a bit blown out of proportions because MW2 was THE flagship title for Activision last year (and a very important cornerstone in their general business plans, for example selling it at a higher RRP etc.)

  • bad09 #9 2 years ago

    "Activision has accused the pair of "embarking on a secret trip by private jet to Northern California, arranged by their Hollywood agent, to meet with the most senior executives of Activision's closest competitor"

    The devil lives in California now?

  • FireMonkey #10 2 years ago

    "So they were sacked for having a job interview?"

    I thought contracts that stated things such as you couldn't go to interviews with other companies were not legally binding as it actually contradicts your employment rights, and no contract is above the law.

  • linksdad #11 2 years ago

    The interview wont have been the problem, they probably have a clause barring private jet travel... or something.

    Activision do not own these guys, or any of their colleagues. They should be free to persue their own carreer paths, and tout their skills to whoever they choose. And besides, who would want to buy a game built by someone under duress.

  • Meho #12 2 years ago

    So... we made you sign a contract that says you can't have job interviews because we want to keep you, but when we discovered you went out and had one, we sacked you. Um... that... makes sense???

  • Der_tolle_Emil #13 2 years ago

    It makes more sense than having them on the payroll for another two years while they are doing nothing - and probably even contributing to a bad work climate. I'm not saying that these two guys are doing that, not at all, but it's often the case (in any industry) that you sack people even though the contract states they have to stay for another x months/years etc.

  • Malek86 #14 2 years ago

    We'll never know the truth. But as it usually goes, i bet both sides were being too greedy for their own good. That's human nature for you.

  • Eraysor #15 2 years ago

    I bet it was simply that IW are fed up with making Modern Warfare games and would rather do something different for once. Can't blame them for wanting to jump ship.

  • Murton #16 2 years ago

    "I thought contracts that stated things such as you couldn't go to interviews with other companies were not legally binding as it actually contradicts your employment rights, and no contract is above the law."

    American employment law differs massively to our own, beside even our country allows employers to put clauses in employee contracts preventing them from being in contact with the competition, so if it can be proven that West and Zampella did indeed meet with this "biggest competitor" *cough* EA *cough* then Activision will finally have something that resembles a case for the upcoming day in court.

  • icematt12 #17 2 years ago

    Did I read it right, Activision have been forced to put extra resources onto the third? Will this mean that the story mode will be more than creating a plot around set pieces?

  • Jonny5Alive7 #18 2 years ago

    Modern Warfare is obviously going to continue in name, but you get the impression the people behind them will change a lot.

  • Slipstream #19 2 years ago

    Activision's closest competitor

    EA?

    Or maybe Midas? When it comes to developers I despise it's definitley a competition between these two.

  • FogHeart #20 2 years ago

    I don't understand....either IW were contractually obliged to create MW3 (or anything else that Activision told them to), or they were still negotiating an agreement with Activision. If it was the latter, then IW are within their rights, nay obliged for the sake of their employees, to obtain the most lucrative deal they could, before even thinking about pre-production for MW3.

    Did Activision just decide they were asking too much and start figuring out a backdoor way to force IW to make MW3?

    Oh and how about this one..."West and Zampella are continuing to engage in this misconduct, or waiting for a propitious moment to do so"

    The latter part is rubbish. How can you prove that someone is waiting for the right moment to do something? Maybe we could all be slung in prison for waiting to murder someone - not actually doing anything, just waiting.
    Edited by 1 at 12/04/10 @ 12:12

  • geeza2020 #21 2 years ago

    does anyone care about this anymore?

  • chrisola #22 2 years ago

    2 sides to every story revelation shocker!

  • Spekingur #23 2 years ago

    Activision is claiming breach of contract that Activision themselves might have broken before Zampella and West. Also, with all their hordes of lawyers, why has it taken so long for Activision to file a lawsuit of this nature? :p

    As for the contract, I'd like to see that on Wikileaks. Heck, if they can get video from within the US military they should be able to get their contracts.

  • darleysam #24 2 years ago

    "It wasn't us that withheld your money and tried to screw you over for making us so much money, it was them"

    Okay Satan, I completely believe you.

  • Ranger101 #25 2 years ago

    West and Zampella claimed they were dismissed following an "inquisition" that reduced colleagues to tears and included six-hour interrogations in windowless rooms.

    A boardroom?

    Also, about 2-hours into an "interrogation", I'd be walking out.

    Anyway, whichever party is ultimately telling the truth, it's always bad news for the remaining employees having to put up with either a tyrant of a company (the likely option) or disorganised, low-morale team that has lost it's creative leads, and possibly, the financial and career merits they deserved.

  • superdelphinus #26 2 years ago

    "Were IW on an extremely tight contract where the publisher practically owned them and everything they produce?"

    that is the base point for an employment contract involving IP. so base in fact that it doesn't even need to be written down

  • kangarootoo #27 2 years ago

    Here is a crazy thought.

    I know we all hate Activision, and we also like black and white biblical type situations, where there is clear good and evil.....

    but how about.... just how about.... the possiblity that Activision are indeed the terrible House of Satan that you believe them to be AND everything they said about these two guys is also true?

    It is possible is it not that EVERYONE involved was looking out for number one?

    I don't know anything at all about this case, but I wonder how the general forum populace will react if the stuff about with holding royalties from the rest of IW turns out to be true. Will we deny the facts because it messes with our "pick a side" mentality?


    This summarises it really.

    "Anyway, whichever party is ultimately telling the truth..."

    I guess my point is, what if neither party is telling the whole truth?

  • gjgjg #28 2 years ago

    so if they can hold the MW IP hostage are they saying it is infact their IP to hold?

  • kangarootoo #29 2 years ago

    @gjgjg

    I didn't think Activision's ownership of MW was in question?

  • jambo74 #30 2 years ago

    Who Cares!

  • kongzi #31 2 years ago

    Kind of interesting from a business-standpoint.. but other than that, it's just one greedy self-serving asshole calling the other a greedy self-serving asshole... that makes them all greedy, self-serving assholes.

    People with some shred of class fight these kinds of battles away from the public eye.

  • james-mw3-mw3 #32 7 months ago

    To think that Modern Warfare 3's full reveal trailer was released on May 23, 2011. What's up with Activision and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 these days, the game has the highest amount of pre-orders to date, no need for extra Call of Duty: MW3 trailers. The game will sell without them, just like this one!