Infinity Ward bosses suing Activision

By Oli Welsh Published 4 March, 2010

For breach of contract, unpaid royalties.

Jason West and Vince Zampella, the Infinity Ward studio heads fired by Activision earlier this week, are to sue the publisher for wrongful dismissal, unpaid royalties and the right to control "Modern Warfare-branded games".

They've issued a strongly-worded statement via their lawyers responding to Activision's claims of "insubordination".

The statement claims that, in Call of Duty and Modern Warfare, West and Zampella created "two of the most successful videogames in history" and, get this, "the most successful entertainment product ever offered to the public".

"Activision terminated their employment weeks before they were to be paid substantial royalty payments as part of their existing contracts for Modern Warfare 2," the statement reads.

"Instead of thanking, lauding, or just plain paying Jason and Vince for giving Activision the most successful entertainment product ever offered to the public, last month Activision hired lawyers to conduct a pretextual 'investigation' into unstated and unsubstantiated charges of 'insubordination' and 'breach of fiduciary duty,' which then became the grounds for their termination on Monday, March 1st," said their attorney, Robert Schwartz.

Jason West said, "We were shocked by Activision's decision to terminate our contract. We poured our heart and soul into that company, building not only a world-class development studio, but assembling a team we've been proud to work with for nearly a decade.  We think the work we've done speaks for itself."

"After all we have given to Activision, we shouldn't have to sue to get paid," Zampella said.

"Activision seized control of the Infinity Ward studio, to which Activision had previously granted creative control over all Modern Warfare-branded games," the statement concludes. "The suit was filed to vindicate the rights of West and Zampella to be paid the compensation they have earned, as well as the contractual rights Activision granted to West and Zampella to control Modern Warfare-branded games."

In legalese, that translates to a suit claiming for "breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, wrong termination in violation of public policy, and declaratory relief".

There has clearly been a power struggle between Activision and the Infinity Ward bosses over the future of the Call of Duty franchise. Within 24 hours of dismissing the pair, Activision had announced plans to expand Call of Duty with two or three new games in the next two years, an action-adventure game from its new Sledgehammer studio, and pushes into new markets, different genres and new ways of making even bigger piles of money.

That power struggle is now headed for the courts, and we think this one's going to be ugly, kids.

Picture of Oli.

About Oli Welsh

Oli is Eurogamer's acting deputy editor and reviews editor and likes to take things one word at a time. He is among the best dressed people in South London.

Read more articles from Oli by visiting the Oli Welsh archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (94) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • joe90 #1 2 years ago

    Crikey.. no guesses who has the deepest pockets here..

  • Shikasama #2 2 years ago

    Meh.

    Rich Company sacks two rich guys. Rich guys sue rich company. Tedium drags on for months and is reported as 'gaming news'.
    Edited by 1 at 04/03/10 @ 09:13

  • Mcstrife #3 2 years ago

    Now that's modern warfare for you.

  • Bonders99 #4 2 years ago

    "Spelled "expand" wrong.

    "plans to expand" link "

    Spelt "spelled" wrong !

  • Shikasama #5 2 years ago

    Modern Warfare 3: Grammar

  • urban #6 2 years ago

    This really is a disgusting state of affairs. infinity ward will win this one me thinks.

  • Quint2020 #7 2 years ago

    Man I hope they win, if there's any justice in this world they will.

  • mingster #8 2 years ago

    Disgusting behaviour by Activision. Hope they have to pay out millions.

  • UKwoods #9 2 years ago

    These guys should start a new company and poach all their old team back! COD was getting stale anyway, they should work on something new.

  • Shikasama #10 2 years ago

    They could basically remake MW2 but add the things most of it's playing community likes.

    Fart jokes and graffiti cocks.

  • EgbertoTheGreat #11 2 years ago

    Good luck to them.

  • Kremlik Verified Co-Founder, Crash To Desktop #12 2 years ago

    Even if it wasn't Activision. lets say it was Nintendo that did this, it's still totally wrong, publishers shouldn't be able to control a IP like that IMO.

    Either way I'm behind these guys, IF they did have the rights to the MW IP AND the charges for their dismissal are THAT minor, it's techically theft. of not only the money but also of the IP, unless they can prove that the dismissal was justified and have soild ground to do so - the guys have got this case in the bag...

    HOWEVER

    Money is on Activision dragging the case on for ages while in the meantime they copy and paste MW2's code to rattle off those 3 games as fast as possibile gaving us half-arse projects, ruining the IP's rep and then just tossing it to the guys in a 'settlement' outside of court - basically saying we've done what we wanted with it you can have whats left - oh we're keeping most of the profits'

  • Bonders99 #13 2 years ago

    To be honest, this fallout will be rather inconsequential to the masses who buy the majority of the volume of COD's. They probably don't even know who developed it and will continue to buy the series purely on name alone. The informed amongst us are rather glued to this high stakes episode.

  • stuarty_2003 #14 2 years ago

    Maybe Activision will lose the modern warfare franchise, but not the CoD brand? Not paying people for hard work is so....British.

  • Shikasama #15 2 years ago

    Sorry but based on a press release from either side how can anyone say anything like either side has 'the case in the bag'.

    I guarantee you it is considerably more complicated than this release (note: by the victims) allows and more complicated than Activision were willing to discuss in their own release. It can be rather difficult to sack people, especially at that level. Just because Activision are dicks doesn't mean they were wrong and just because it was developers (and I've never understood why developers can still trade on this idea that they are the poor guys still coding from their bedrooms, IW is a huge corporate entity) that were the victims doesn't mean they are right.

  • X3Entente #16 2 years ago

    they should form a new studio and call it 2015

  • coolbritannia #17 2 years ago

    Sometimes to put out a fire, you need to start a bigger fire.

  • ZuluHero #18 2 years ago

    West and Zampella will win. I can't believe Activision wouldn't have known there would be ramifications from this. If they didn't then they need to hire different lawyers from the ones they used to perform this "pretextual investigation".

    You just can't fire someone just because you have to pay them!

  • kangarootoo #19 2 years ago

    @Bonders99

    Spelled and spelt are both valid words.

  • kangarootoo #20 2 years ago

    @Kremlik

    "publishers shouldn't be able to control a IP like that IMO"

    Its not that straight forward though. If a publisher paid for an IP, and owns an IP, why on earth should they NOT be able to control it? I understand where you are coming from regards the creators of the art and so on, but its a bit over simplistic to say publishers should be able to control their IP.

    What it really comes down to is whether there was a contract that said IW get to control the IP or not.

    And the unpaid royalties are another entirely seperate issue also.

  • kangarootoo #21 2 years ago

    @ZuluHero

    It is rare anyone wins this kind of thing. It will probably get settled out of court, or just run for years until somebody dies of old age.

  • Bonders99 #22 2 years ago

    @ kangarootoo

    Yes I know they are ;-)
    Gramatically in the sentence it was the wrong one used

  • Bonders99 #23 2 years ago

    "It is rare anyone wins this kind of thing. It will probably get settled out of court, or just run for years until somebody dies of old age."

    Agree this will be the most probable outcome. After all money does talk. An out of court settlement will probably be the order of the day with both parties claiming to have "won" the case.
    Edited by 1 at 04/03/10 @ 09:40

  • the_dudefather #24 2 years ago

    If they get control of the MW ip and Activision keep the COD ip, who owns Captain Price?

  • space_ace #25 2 years ago

    > Now that's modern warfare for you.

    but is it a pre-scripted sequence?

  • sesskie #26 2 years ago

    ITs humorous their new CoD team is called Slegehammer, since tis clearly en route to completey smash and destroy the CoD franchise.

  • homerramone #27 2 years ago

    Whats to say the royalties are even due ? I would expect it to be common place for this to be paid either several months after the product is released, or at the end of the fiscal year.

    Course wouldnt sound quite the same then would it 'Activision has not paid royalties that are not due to be paid for a month'

    Still being careless with the truth - its what makes the worlds press go round :-)
    Edited by 1 at 04/03/10 @ 09:43

  • zuljin #28 2 years ago

    @ZuluHero
    "You just can't fire someone just because you have to pay them!"

    This case is anything but open and shut. I'm not standing up for Activision, but the reasons they had for removing the heads wasn't because of pay, but it was rumoured to be because they were having talks with other publishers.

  • zuljin #29 2 years ago

    @squarejawhero
    I know rumoured isn't the same as having, what I'm saying is that the case is not simply - Activision doesn't want to pay us so they're firing us.

    Theres a whole lot more to it and we'll probably never find out most of it.

  • kangarootoo #30 2 years ago

    @Bonders99

    I kind of assumed that grammatically speaking, "Spelled "expand" wrong" was buggered regardless of which variant was used.

    Have I completely misunderstood the whole complaint? :)


    "Bonders - why didn't you say so? You called me up on spelling you joey! "

    This is what I thought. A correctly spelled word used incorrectly within a sentence, is still spelled correctly.

  • dadrester #31 2 years ago

    and I've never understood why developers can still trade on this idea that they are the poor guys still coding from their bedrooms, IW is a huge corporate entity

    <a href = "http://latim esblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/02/anatomy-of -a-60-dollar-video-game.html">anatomy of a $60 game</a>

  • schnide #32 2 years ago

    I don't know the specifics, but I can say that I hope the Infinity Ward guys come out on top, and Activision get the shit beaten out of them.

    Chickens, coming home, roosting.. there's a phrase in there somewhere.

  • TitusCrow #33 2 years ago

    You know, this could be a complicated one. I'm sure Actiblizz will claim that they added value to this franchise at every turn. Through stuff like there Channels of distribution, Providing a low risk secure atmosphere for the two said individual’s to lobby and then secure other members of the team they assembled. Maximum exposure for said product using activision money as well as the bi-partisan deals they brokered at many places to sell give away and hype the game.

    It is to be - and will be now - debated that such a level of saturation and success could be achieved without these things, thus Activision will be ruled to have at least semi-ownership I would think. Many of the thing's debated will be intangibles unfortunately, which will mean they will be rife for filibustering emotive worded plea's from both party's. None of this stuff is open and shut and will as other's rightly pointed out take time.

    If I were the judge I would rule that no company or party can use the said disputed IP in any way for commercial purpose while the litigation is on going. That should get them moving :D
    Oh and they should be glad that this isn't the recording industry - royalties are paid there for albums on a bi yearly basis. It could always be worse!

  • Shikasama #34 2 years ago

    You're right Daduster, they are all just scraping by, barely managing to buy the scraps of bread they use for sustenance. Blizzard, IW, Bioware, Rockstar, Bungie and 2k are all struggling along and eeking out a meagre existence. I heard their directors and managers actually work for free.

    The reason the publisher takes a huge slice? Because they cover most of the cost of the game, thats where the massive salaires for the likes of these two guys comes from.

    sqj - it says in the article that they hired investigators. If I ehar a rumour that two of my principle staff on my principal franchise are talking to other companies I'd be investigating it aswell.

    Not necessarily you, but people are so quick to hate Actviision that they are automatically assuming they are in the wrong. I would wage that Activision employ people that know more about the contracts their staff hold with them, the current state of employment law and exactly how liable they are in the evnt of a law suit more than anyone else on this site.

  • giant_frying_pan #35 2 years ago

    This suit has come very, very quickly. I hope they've had time to build a solid case. Even a sure-fire case should be taking a while to prepare.

  • Monkey_Puncher #36 2 years ago

    I can't believe that Activision wouldn't have foreseen this and probably have a number of trump cards up their sleeves. As much of an asshat as Mr Kottick seems to be, he's a hell of a canny business man

  • MrMud #37 2 years ago

    "the most successful entertainment product ever offered to the public"

    World of Warcraft says hi

  • Murton #38 2 years ago

    This one is going to go on for quite a while I reckon. While the IW lads will be arguing that they "gave" Activision their biggest and most successful franchise Activision will be arguing the exact same point in that they "gave" IW the resources and environment required to make that franchise what it became. We essentially have a court case with a circular argument at its center, if I were presiding over such a case (and I'm no judge here so call this my opinion) I would drop the "who made Call of Duty" bit from the case and concentrate on the claims of breach of contract and wrongful dismissal.

  • SAMagic #39 2 years ago

    @the_dudefather: Price is on loan from Sunhill CID, so expect him back on the beat in no time.

  • sanctusmortis #40 2 years ago

    I imagine there'll be legal words about ousting the heads of a studio and putting your own people in charge, too.

  • Spekingur #41 2 years ago

    Activision had been planning to fire these guys for a long time, obviously. The time that takes to plan who gets to do what with a game and in what way takes months, not hours.

    Even if IW won't win legally they will probably win over the gamers. Which are the people who buy the games. Which Activision so often seem to purposely dislike and try to screw over as many times they can.

    I have no idea what rights IW had/have (or these guys that got fired had) regarding contracts they made with Activision. Seems that they might have had a not really good negotiator. I really do hope that Activision is going to take a fall - hopefully either just go away or the top branch completely replaced by actually competent people.

  • Shikasama #42 2 years ago

    How is the top branch of Activision incompetentt? Say what you like about Bobby, he is a shareholders dream. He transformed Activision into the huge conglomorate it is todaya nd created a whole new genre of revenue streams called 'plastic shit people will pay for'.

    This action won;t hurt activision at all. the 5000 people who use this website are the 'informed' gamers, yet look how many of you have CoD MW2 or GH anyway. As to the rest of the millions of people that buy this games, why the hell would they care?

    'The gamers' aren't the people who buy games, they are the vocal minority on websites like this, most of whom will espouse their opinions before buying the games anyway. The people who buy games in the main couldn't give two shits about this sort of thing.
    Edited by 1 at 04/03/10 @ 10:50

  • Gearskin #43 2 years ago

    These guys kidnapped Maddie. And yet you're so quick to defend them!

  • JayKwon #44 2 years ago

    Damn you Activision, this just seems wrong.

  • zuljin #45 2 years ago

    @Gearskin
    I heard they raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.

    Now I don't know whether thats true or not, but they're not denying it!

    (Edit: spelling!)

    Edit 2: Negs - I'm guessing there aren't enough Americans on Eurogamer then :)
    Edited by 2 at 04/03/10 @ 11:11

  • sneetch #46 2 years ago

    Purchasing what is, by most accounts, a very good game does not make you a moron. Otherwise you could just as easily say there are enough morons to keep the GTA/GoW/The other GoW/Uncharted/Zelda/Metroid/Mario/Half-Life/Your-Franchise-H ere franchise alive indefinitely.

    I hope they're successful in their suit. This whole affair reeks of sleaze to me.

  • spekkeh #47 2 years ago

    Not sure how American law works, but in Socialist Europe, I don't think you're allowed to fire a worker if they had talks with other employers.

    Anyway, Activision will probably win this, as they've obviously had more time to prepare the legal aspect of their move. I do hope it turns very, very ugly though, as it will probably scare all the other capable devs away from Activision.

  • RobotRocker #48 2 years ago

    I think what a lot of people are forgetting is that its not about the franchise itself. They are suing because they feel they were wrongfully dismissed for "insubordination". Its more likely a personal case due to the timing of the dismissal before royalties were due to be paid out and there are a lot of questions to be asked over how quickly Activision announced they were starting up their own Call of Duty division (Like the old Guitar Hero division) as soon as it was announced they were gone.

    There are conflicting reports too, for example Giant Bomb mentioned that IW's recent demeanour towards Activision could have been a factor but they would have probably canned Robert Bowling too if it was a case of the whole company acting the bollocks. Gamasutra sources reckon that Activision made a power play and used some corporate subterfuge to give them a reason to fire both with the company wide layoffs and install some puppet producers to bring IW fully into line.

    The question we really should be asking was did West and Zampella jump, or were they pushed?

  • kangarootoo #49 2 years ago

    @PatAU

    "There are enough morons to keep the CoD franchise alive indefinitely"

    Its a little rich to call the many millions of CoD buyers out there morons, just 'cos they have better things to give a f*ck about than the legal wrangling between the various companies that made it.

  • Dylbot #50 2 years ago

    Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Lawyer Warfare

  • lucky_jim #51 2 years ago

    Actually, most COD players I know (and I rarely play it, so I'm not sticking up for them for no reason) know enough about the development studios to know that IW=good. They learnt that through COD:WAW if they didn't know before.

  • Shikasama #52 2 years ago

    designerheadache - Yup, the size and weight of the publishers is the biggest problem in the inudstry. Sadly, without them, most developers wouldn't even be able to finance their games.

  • budgietheii #53 2 years ago

    Claiming they own the modern warfare franchise, puts all the constant name changes in the lead up to the release of Modern Warfare 2 into an interesting new light.

    IW want it to be a modern warfare game, Acti want it to be a Call of Duty game...

  • Spekingur #54 2 years ago

    @Shikasama:
    Bobby had little part in it. Thankfully Blizzard exists as its own entity, although there is no real info on how much control the heads of Activision Blizzard have over Blizzard (and which side they are on, Activision or Blizzard).

    Seriously, when Chairman of Activision Blizzard has a name like René Penisson - it all seems like a really crude joke.

    [Edit] IW probably sold the Call of Duty name to Activision. But what about the Modern Warfare name?
    Edited by 1 at 04/03/10 @ 11:39

  • actionfitz #55 2 years ago

    "the most successful entertainment product ever offered to the public"

    I'm pretty sure that title goes to the humble 'Condom' :)

  • Slipstream #56 2 years ago

    Watch out Blizz, you're next...

  • FortysixterUK #57 2 years ago

    That's what you get for getting into a partnership with the corporation of evil.
    Activision are the new evil, and are trying to take the evil crown from EA, whose modus operandi is to buy a company, then shut it down and steal their IPs. ( Command and Conquer etc ).

    You should have just sold the company and taken the cash up front guys, then gone off and made a new studio with your former employees. Activision only ever wanted the IP, not the people.

  • kangarootoo #58 2 years ago

    @PatAU

    "I'm comfortable in making the assumption there are millions of morons available to buy the same old game year after year"

    So you are comfortable making an inaccurate assumption? I'm not sure your comfort is really here nor there in all of this.
    Edited by 1 at 04/03/10 @ 11:57

  • Golgo #59 2 years ago

    Fuck them all, every one. Is it possible for both sides of a litigation to fail?

  • sneetch #60 2 years ago

    @actionfitz
    "the most successful entertainment product ever offered to the public"

    I'm pretty sure that title goes to the humble 'Condom' :)

    Or the PS2, or the iPod. Logically, following on from that the iCondom2 will be absolutely amazing! ;)

  • fknetwork #61 2 years ago

    @ Shikasama
    You must have shares in craptavision to be ass licking like that non stop, activision are totally in the wrong on this matter and they will lose the case and lose respect from all the major developers and gamers around the world.

    Craptavision certainly know how to treat their developers, let them make a billion dollar game then sack them while not paying them what they are owed, hope they go bankrupt in the future for this......
    Edited by 2 at 04/03/10 @ 12:53

  • hiddenranbir #62 2 years ago

    Activision will win. Sorry IW but you made your own bed.

  • RobotRocker #63 2 years ago

    @ Shikasama

    Kottick did make Activision into a financial powerhouse. The problem is with the ruthless corporate decisions they took to get there.

    -They tried to squeeze out as much profit out of the Guitar Hero franchise as possible and now the series is on its last legs as they had to lay off hundreds of people working on the franchise and close whole studios because of their spectacular mismanagement.
    - They closed Shaba Games because they didnt want to just be the "Spider-Man" studio. Which interfered in their plans so they just let everyone go instead
    - Raven is probably going to be wrapped up once Singularity is finished unless it does spectacular business and even then they still got rid of the Wolfenstien team once that was finished.
    - Tony Hawk Ride was an unmitigated disaster which is costing the company a huge amount of money. They have to do a sequel just so they can try get some sort of profit back on those boards
    - DJ Hero lost them a lot of money but its Kotick's pet project so its getting a sequel.
    - They fired the majority of Radical entertainment even though Prototype did decent sales (Though it had a hell of a development cycle and both Acti and Radical were at loggerheads by the end of it apparently).
    - The Marvel licence is pretty much a goner or extremely limited due to the Disney/Marvel merger (They had to remove Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 DLC for one).
    - The Sony Animated pictures licence is gone (Ice Age etc) and the Dreamworks one probably soon to follow.

    Generally, they have made money but they have absolutely screwed their future. And its even more apparent if this Lawsuit goes the wrong way since Call Of Duty and Blizzard are their only guaranteed profit avenues left. Unless they do a total 180 like EA did before they hit the brink. They are looking at a very shaky future.

  • darleysam #64 2 years ago

    Son of a whore, I'm just out of words (for now, there's always time) to describe how utterly despicable, vile and loathsome Activision and their business practices have become. Everyone knows, but it bears repeating that Activision was set up as a safe haven for by former Atari developers to escape the hellish environment they were in.

    Just.. holy buggering slutbuckets this is absurd beyond all usable hyperbole.

    EDIT: zuljin, you heard that too? Damn, next you'll tell me they're in cahoots with Glenn Beck.
    Edited by 1 at 04/03/10 @ 13:09

  • Ranger101 #65 2 years ago

    The devs need to take out an injunction preventing the further sale of any MW games until there is a resolution to really hit Activision. Then we'll see a very quick resolution to this, instead of a dragged out "who can afford to pay their lawyer the longest (Activision)" case.

  • Ranger101 #66 2 years ago

    "Everyone knows, but it bears repeating that Activision was set up as a safe haven for by former Atari developers to escape the hellish environment they were in."

    Ahh irony, you cruel, cruel mistress.

    When you look into the void, the void looks back at you etc. etc.

    For shiksamam - you'll always get more people siding with the Artist than the Art Dealer. Especailly when you're talking amongst a group of people that includes a lot of artists and art-critics. Either way there will be a lot of paint spilt, and people are going to be tarred with the wrong brush. And I've really, really stretched this analogy.

  • Retroid #67 2 years ago

    Hopefully this case won't be set on Veteran difficulty, or else these two will think they'll be making good progress but unless they fight past a set point in the case Activision will just keep infinitely spawning lawyers on them.

  • Ranger101 #68 2 years ago

    After which, they'll probably just shut the suit down and go work on Bad Company 3 instead.

  • Shikasama #69 2 years ago

    You must have shares in craptavision to be ass licking like that non stop, activision are totally in the wrong on this matter and they will lose the case and lose respect from all the major developers and gamers around the world.

    Ah, I obviously don't have your sharp legal mind and intimate knowledge of the details. Could you fax over those copies of the Activision/IW contractual agreements you have? If you could send it with an appendix containing the relevant statutes and case law that'd be grand. Cheers pal.

    RobotRocker - I totally agree. I dissaprove of Kotick as much as the next human being but he is awesome at his job. I defy you to find one company of Activisions size, value and wealth that hasn't or doesn't act like a complete dick in the industry it operates in. That's where hyper capitalism takes us.

    As for Activision's future, no-one on this site is particularly qualified to answer that, the best we can do is speculate absed on the drip of information that we have. Can I see where there revenues might come from? No, but they own about 15 studios that are capable of producing new games. Kotick and the board are not stupid (despite what people think) and if there is one thing they know how to do, it's make money. There's always licenses to acquire and games to be made.

    I'm enjoying how people think I'm defending Activision because I love the company. I just don't buy into sensationalist 'gamer logic' crap.

    Rangers - Good effort with that analogy anyway
    Edited by 1 at 04/03/10 @ 13:40

  • Spekingur #70 2 years ago

    It's not about their business sense. It's about their attitude. This attitude/behaviour will be part of word of mouth that will spread amongst gamers - there will be alot of dislike. I just wish Blizzard didn't bring in revenue that can keep up the Activision part of Activision Blizzard.

  • Shikasama #71 2 years ago

    Spek - McDonalds, Microsoft, Coca-Cola, Mars, Siemens, BMW, Nike, News International, Nestlé

    All of these companies have done things far beyond anything Activision will ever do and 'word of mouth' spread about those to. I don't think they stand today too concerned about it though do you.

    This story reaches people who buy gaming sites. All of the people that bought MW2 (the millions of them) aren't those people and will buy whatever game they want regardless of the business that makes them. For the people who do visit these sites a lot of people will STILL buy them. This is only the latest move in Activisions long history but check out the MW2 thread on the forums.

    Seriously, at the end of the day all of this is irrelevant.

  • Chukka82 #72 2 years ago

    We can only hope that the quality of the the new COD games deteriorates enough that people refuse to buy them which unfortunately I strongly doubt. I had really high hopes for Activision after the Blizzard merger and it's a real shame that these sorts of incidents are happening to the second biggest team within the company. It must make the Blizzard staff and every other sub studio within Activision worry that if they can back stab Infinity Ward then they can aim a decent head shot at the rest *apologies*.

    I sincerely hope the ex Infinity Ward directors get their payout and get hired by EA!! :p

  • markypants #73 2 years ago

    @budgietheii - I agree with you. I think if we look at the way in which the games name was going to be changed to just 'Modern Warfare 2' and then back to being COD. I think there has obviously been a power struggle about the direction and ownership creatively of this IP. My guess is that IW were being obstructive to Activision who (understandably) will be wanting to capatalise on the success of this franchise. IW probably felt they were the ones that turned the COD franchise around and deserved to have more control over the IP than Activision wanted.

    I don't think Activision are purposefully being wankers, it's most likely that there could be a huge risk if IW were to stop the momentum of the current COD cash cow.

    We as the 'hardcore' consumers prioritise a high quality well thought out product which we'd rather (within reason) wait for... Whereas a company as big as Activision probably wants to make the most out of the product whilst it is hot.

    I don't think Activision are right to be doing this, but I can understand that there would be pressure to make money out of it whilst there is a hungry market. Sometimes the only way to make these things happen is to take legal action. The way in which they have played it, means that Activision as it stands have the control to keep the machine rolling without coming to a stand still.

  • Chukka82 #74 2 years ago

    @markypants

    I certainly understand that companies such as these are under enourmous pressure from shareholders and internally to make money but there are ways of being ethical and doing that too. They could have spoken to IW about cash flow and offered them a better deal but paid over time for example.

    I guess we won't know more till it all unfolds..

  • Jayke #75 2 years ago

    It's pretty simple, if the IW heads were negotiating contracts elsewhere they don't deserve to get paid. If there contract didn't guarantee payment regardless of employment at the given time and they were rightfully terminated, they don't deserve to get paid.
    But if the unlikely is the case and Activision had no evidence of their wrong doings, they will probably have to pony up the dough!

  • RobotRocker #76 2 years ago

    RobotRocker - I totally agree. I dissaprove of Kotick as much as the next human being but he is awesome at his job. I defy you to find one company of Activisions size, value and wealth that hasn't or doesn't act like a complete dick in the industry it operates in. That's where hyper capitalism takes us.

    Agreed. But the issue is that Kotick is trying to apply hyper capitalism to an industry that's falling in line with the creative industries very quickly. As I pointed out, they are having trouble trying to find staff since their reputation is making them inhospitable for an industry that relies on skilled workers. The major thing is in a creative industry is that you cant act like a dick or else employees will go elsewhere. Despite its reputation for anti-trust. Microsoft has always treated its workers incredibly well because they know they have to hold onto them or else they will just go elsewhere. A lot of British studios have tanked or lost a lot of talent because management is so full of twats that treated the workers like shit so they left at the end of projects when their contract was up and left the studio in the lurch. Telling your workers they are disposable is not a way to do it. McDonalds etc can because they rely on unskilled labour for their business. Activision cant.

    While you say Activision are smart enough to avoid this. A lot of companies make seriously bad decisions. Enron for the most extreme example. Activision have even made some ridiculously boneheaded decisions themselves. The litigation against Brutal Legend for example and the creation of a division for exploiting the Guitar Hero franchise. We all know how that went.

    Again, its rampant speculation but at the same time, from an economic perspective, they have been extremely short sighted recently and its only MW2 doing obscene amounts of business and Blizzard propping them up that have been keeping them in profit. But since these revelations hit, their future is looking seriously uncertain.

    It's pretty simple, if the IW heads were negotiating contracts elsewhere they don't deserve to get paid.

    According to California Labour Laws. Talking to another company about hiring/entrepreneurial activities is not grounds for dismissal unless its divulging trade secrets. So unless they were giving whoever they talked to a heads up on MW3. They were allowed to negotiate with someone else.

  • markypants #77 2 years ago

    @Chukka82 - True. I get the feeling that there must have been some driving force beyond the money owed, most likely the possible disruption to the ongoing development plans for the IP. If you have two key figures kicking up a fuss and possibly creating a negative atmosphere with the team etc, I can see why you'd look to have them removed to clear the way for work to continue.

    Again, I'm certainly not advocating what's going on if it proves to be unethical... But I genuinely believe it will all come down to Activision choosing to remove what could potentially have turned into an obstruction to the companies plans with COD brand which they own. The grey area will be the 'Modern Warfare' part of it.

  • VibratingDonkey #78 2 years ago

    This whole situation is completely bonkers. And the worst part is we'll never get to hear the specifics about how things went down, or how things are going to go down. Eventually they'll work out some form of settlement, and that's probably the last we'll hear of this drama explosion.

    I want to know damn it. :(
    Although I'm sure that in one way or another Activision is being a big mean jerk as usual.
    Edited by 1 at 04/03/10 @ 15:13

  • Shikasama #79 2 years ago

    Yeah RobotRocker, I hadn't given enough condiseration to the recruitment side of a companies reputation, I also know first hand that what you say about Microsoft is certainly true. Of course, the silver lining in this is that it may force Activision to get some more licenses and release some new games, although with the recent announcements regarding CoD I won't hold my breath too long.

  • jebus #80 2 years ago

    Clearly Activision are utter w*****s but you know IW knew that when they lept into bed with them....

  • MrE26 #81 2 years ago

    It's so fucking obvious, they clearly didn't want to rape the franchise they created, so that detestable little shit had them fired.
    What Kuntick fails to realise, is that if it's not made by Infinity Ward, it's not Call of Duty.

    Withholding payment to the guys who've just made you a BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS is just the icing on a cake made of pure shit.

    I really hope Activision lose, & these guys self-publish the next MW game.

  • Spekingur #82 2 years ago

    Yes, self-publish. They are going to need money for that and undoubtedly Activision will try to hold them down for as long as they can. Possibly even get court-orders to try them from stop working or something similarly stupid.
    I'd love to be able to buy straight from the guys that made up IW and give them my money right into their pockets - rather than some third party go-between.

    (Although I realise that this is what Steam really is. But they aren't like a power-hungry controlling diva queen, like Activision seems to be.)
    Edited by 1 at 04/03/10 @ 16:27

  • gaselite #83 2 years ago

    I'd be surprised if this goes to the courts. Surely they'll try and settle.


    Interesting that almost everyone is siding with IW by default. Two sides to every story innit.

    It's pretty simple, if the IW heads were negotiating contracts elsewhere they don't deserve to get paid. If there contract didn't guarantee payment regardless of employment at the given time and they were rightfully terminated, they don't deserve to get paid.
    But if the unlikely is the case and Activision had no evidence of their wrong doings, they will probably have to pony up the dough!

    imagine if you gave this answer in a Contract exam


    Shikasama has been posting some sense.

  • darleysam #84 2 years ago

    Chukka, the problem there is that they already left EA for being forced to work on endless Medal of Honor titles (I believe, subject to further evidence that will no-doubt be presented). So they left one totalitarian state to seek refuge and fortune in the developer safe haven of Activision, only to be put to work in the labour camps for severely reduced pay, then to be fired rather than given a bonus.

  • abot #85 2 years ago

    Breach of Duty: Legal Warfare

  • actionfitz #86 2 years ago

    Kotaku have posted the legal docs :p
    makes for some tasty reading :)
    excerpt:
    "Activision is run by a CEO who has been publicly quoted as believing that the best way to run a videogame studio is to engender a culture of "skepticism, pessimism and fear" and who prefers to pay his lawyers instead of his employees"

  • RobotRocker #87 2 years ago

    I just got to the part where they alledgedly interrogated employees in a windowless room.

    That is some serious evil shit. Not quite Coca Cola death squads in South America but goddamn.

  • chiefcoma #88 2 years ago

    This is kind of ironic.

    Activision may go down as the most succesful software pirate of all time.

    Oh Wait! I forgot about M$, make that second biggest software pirate.

  • Diabeu #89 2 years ago

    WAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • man.the.king #90 2 years ago

    @Quint2020

    "if there's any justice in this world they will"

    Look around you. Look at the world around you. What do you think?

  • man.the.king #91 2 years ago

    @RobotRocker

    "Unless they do a total 180 like EA did before they hit the brink. They are looking at a very shaky future."

    I agree. What will happen though is by that time fat little Kotick will have taken the money and have jumped the sinking ship that was once Activision.

    And, as Quint2020 said, if there is any justice in the world, Kotick would have to pay for his mismanagement. But realistically speaking, did any of the assholes on Wall Street who participated in bringing about the current US economic recession pay for their mistakes and/or crimes?
    Edited by 2 at 04/03/10 @ 21:08

  • General_Zod #92 2 years ago

    Ah so glad I didnt support Activision by buying MW2.

  • gjgjg #93 2 years ago

    ^ was just thinking i wont be buying a COD 'wars' like the halo iteration (or however theyre going to 'expand' the franchise).

    vote with your wallets &c

  • Lemming81 #94 2 years ago

    I hate to be a miserable old git, but I hope this means the end of the CoD series locked in an endless sea of legal battles.

    Not that I was that partial to it anyway of course, but how often can they make the same old shit again and again before it starts to effect the national IQ average? At least this way CoD goes out on a high.

    Let's hope FPS games try to grow a little now.