Vivendi sues Brutal Legend developer

By Robert Purchese Published 5 June, 2009

Looking rocky.

The publisher formerly known as Vivendi has filed suit against Double Fine Productions to prevent the release of Brutal Legend this October.

Vivendi - now Activision Entertainment Holdings, a subsidiary of Activision Blizzard - claims that Double Fine missed key deadlines and failed to deliver Brutal Legend on time, according to a report by the Associated Press.

Furthermore, Vivendi states that publishing rights were never relinquished to EA and that the game was improperly transferred.

"Hey, if Activision liked it, then they should have put a ring on it," Double Fine boss Tim Schafer responded. "Oh great, now Beyonce is going to sue me too."

Vivendi touts irreparable harm from loss of Brutal Legend game sales as well as potential earnings from post-release DLC.

But whether right or wrong, the legal tangle may have knock-on effects for the planned 16th October Brutal Legend release.

We hope not, as Schafer's third-person action ode to rock is shaping up rather well. Head over to our Brutal Legend preview to find out more.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (53) Latest comment 3 years ago

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

  • Baranga #1 3 years ago

    It's like that Watchmen fiasco all over again

  • Batfink #2 3 years ago

    Oh ffs, can't they leave this game alone? Schafer must have defiled the wrong god's temple or something...

  • Reihn #3 3 years ago

    I'm siding with the developers on this. This sounds like desperate, sour-grapes bullpucky.

    Anyone who tries to maliciously screw with Brutal Legend is officially on my sh*tlist. : /
    Edited by 1 at 05/06/09 @ 12:56

  • Hunam #4 3 years ago

    I wish Activision would just fuck off personally.

  • Toothball #5 3 years ago

    This is a new low from Activision. They're not only refusing to publish anything that isn't a sequel, but now actively attempting to stop other publishers releasing new games. This is making Sony's attitude toward Europe look quite reasonable in comparison.

  • _Price_ #6 3 years ago

    Don't know whos in the right legally, but the notion of Vivendi / Activision pushing absolute deadlines on developers for the production of a game makes me immediately side with Double Fine.

    Rush a game and it turns into something less than it would otherwise be, pissing off the paying customer far more than having to wait for a few more months.
    Edited by 1 at 05/06/09 @ 13:03

  • drunkymonkey #7 3 years ago

    Oh, bugger off, Activision.

  • Waffleaber #8 3 years ago

    Indeed. Activision were quite happy to see this become vaporware only for the game to be saved by EA(!) who have generated a healthy interest in the industry and the public.

    I'm shocked how quickly Activision/Blizzard went after EA's biggest industry c***s title after taking their one for largest third party publisher.

  • Chris Gardiner #9 3 years ago

    Dick move.

  • Britesparc Verified Creative, ITV #10 3 years ago

    I know, it's amazing when EA are considered the good guy... I've always liked EA, ever since my Amiga days, but it's interesting now they seem to be in most fans' good books.

    I'm siding with Double Fine in this; Schafer can do no wrong, as that quote above proves.

  • Headache #11 3 years ago

    If they wanted to publish Brutal Legend why did they drop it in the first place? Petty moves by Activision, bugger off.

  • UncleLou #12 3 years ago

    They've funded the development with a double-digit million US$ sum, DF didn't abide by the contract, of course they're not happy. Wouldn't be a big problem if both sides just cut their losses, but if DF are allowed to take it to another publisher without any compensation for Activision, Activision needs a new legal counsel.
    Edited by 1 at 05/06/09 @ 13:26

  • kangarootoo #13 3 years ago

    1. Big corp tells original and saleable idea to bugger off.

    2. Original and saleable ideas gets picked up by other big corp and made potentially successful.

    3. First big corp looks a bit stupid, regrets their hasty decision, and tries to get back in on the action.


    Vivendi should be suing whoever it is in their employ that sent Tim a'knocking on EA's door.

  • UncleLou #14 3 years ago

    1. Big corp tells original and saleable idea to bugger off.

    ...after the developer needs 50% more budget than initially planned.

    There's 3 just options in such a case:

    1. Project is finished together
    2. Project is cancelled in agreement
    3. Project is continued by one party, other gets compensation for work or money

    What DF did isn't the gentleman's way.

  • alnya #15 3 years ago

    An EA representative responded at the time that it would "be like a husband abandoning his family and then suing after his wife meets a better looking guy."

  • Redeye #16 3 years ago

    UncleLou: How do we know that DF didn't abide by their contract - because Activision says so? I've worked for a couple of devs where publishers have tried that particular stunt (by sneakily shifting milestone dates, in one example) and saying that as a result the contract had been breached. So quite frankly, until something a bit more concrete comes out, I'm thinking this is more bullshit to cast the dev in a negative light.

    And Hunam: whole-hearted agreement.

  • Eraysor #17 3 years ago

    Further proof that Activision is made up of a bunch of lawyers and nothing else.

  • UncleLou #18 3 years ago

    So quite frankly, until something a bit more concrete comes out, I'm thinking this is more bullshit to cast the dev in a negative light.

    We don't. Which is why my post is just as speculative as all the "Activision are cunts" posts are, but some balance was desperately needed.

    An EA representative responded at the time that it would "be like a husband abandoning his family and then suing after his wife meets a better looking guy."

    Meh. Funny, but incorrect.

    More like a planned wedding where the bride admits at the last moment she's a man, the (other) man cancels all, then the shemale bride marries someone else using the catering service the first man had already paid for. :p

  • conchis #19 3 years ago

    UncleLou:

    Things aren't that black and white in movie and game industry. The project wasn't dropped because of missed deadlines, deadlines regularly slip and no project finishes with the initial budget.

    Bobby Kotick's exact words were "[Those games] don't have the potential to be exploited every year on every platform with clear sequel potential and have the potential to become $100 million dollar franchises. ... ". True, internal reasons might be different though I doubt anyone would have a publicly better sounding reason but state that your company just wants exploitable titles.

    Besides developers generally don't have that sort of cash to throw around. That's why they weren't sued. Activision simply didn't like the title, cut their losses and didn't think any other publisher would like the title. Now that their biggest rival picked it up, they want a piece of the action. EA comment was spot on.


  • UncleLou #20 3 years ago

    You're speculating, just like everyone else. Including me.

  • Redeye #21 3 years ago

    Fair enough, UncleLou, but equally I'd speculate that Tim Schafer would like to repeatedly smash Bobby Kotick's face in with a 1972 Stratocaster.

  • kangarootoo #22 3 years ago

    "Bobby Kotick's exact words were" doesn't sound like speculation to me. Are you saying the quote is false?

  • conchis #23 3 years ago

    Perhaps, but I can back my speculation with a fact such as Kotick's quote right there. It's all over the internet if you want to look it up.

    Neither Schafer nor Kotick are paying me for their advocation and I won't grow taller for this. Just saying that there are not just 3 options in such a case.

  • Domovoi #24 3 years ago

    Dammit Vivendi, must you destroy everything you touch?

  • ardamillo #25 3 years ago

    Lawyers, eh?

  • UncleLou #26 3 years ago

    ""Bobby Kotick's exact words were" doesn't sound like speculation to me. Are you saying the quote is false? "

    No. But noone knows what has actually happened that has lead to that quote.

    I just find the knee-jerk reaction - albeit understandable (people want to play the game) - a little depressing, and I am frankly amazed that people seem to think it's just that a third party is the one who in the end profits from a title that was mostly funded by someone else, and whose development was stopped for reasons noone of us exactly knows.

  • conchis #27 3 years ago

    True. But one can make educated guesses. This has been going on for a year now. It didn't happen overnight. Not everyone is making knee-jerk reactions.

    As for paying for most of the costs:
    Come release date ( if it ever happens now) it will be a full year development cycle. A development team reaches their full growth towards launch, not as soon as the idea was conceived. On top of the (generally massive) team growth, you have advertisement costs which Activision did very little of. The game wasn't even on display during last year's E3 and that wasn't because Activision wasn't part of it. It would be a surprise if EA didn't sink at least just as much into game. If all that was left was another million to pay, why cut losses on something you already paid double digit millions for?

    Strange reason to get depressed about, especially for a person who visits a gaming website.

  • AphoticCosmos #28 3 years ago

    Anyone who so much as files a formal complaint against Tim Schafer and his work needs to be shot in the face.

    More douchebaggery from Activision, how surprising.

    Further proof of a complete role reversal as well - ActiBlizz is now one of the most absurdly fascistic and limiting pub/devs out there, while EA has turned over a new leaf and not only creates it's own awesome stuff [DEAD SPACE WOOT!] but even funds others doing it, too, and still churns out their megabucks mainstream franchises like Madden and NFS on top of it so that it can fund more awesome stuff.
    Edited by 1 at 05/06/09 @ 15:13

  • UncleLou #29 3 years ago

    Strange reason to get depressed about, especially for a person who visits a gaming website.

    Oh my.

  • kangarootoo #30 3 years ago

    @UncleLou

    "No. But noone knows what has actually happened that has lead to that quote."

    Well we can make reasonable assumptions. Its not like it s a 3 word soundbite. If those exact words were used in reference to Brutal Legend, its hard to imagine a situation where our assumptions would be way off the mark.

    I mean, I can even understand Activision's logic. It makes sense for them to invest in products that have that potential. The only issue really is whether they failed to see that potential in Brutal Legend when it did in fact exist.

  • kangarootoo #31 3 years ago

    @conchis

    "Strange reason to get depressed about, especially for a person who visits a gaming website."

    Though we seem to agree on this subject, that ad hominem is just trying to dodge the subject at hand. If your view is based in truth, you don't need diversions like that to back it up :(

  • VandelayIndustries #32 3 years ago

    Well I'm calling shenanigans on this. Activision have just lost themselves a customer (MW2 aside).
    Edited by 1 at 05/06/09 @ 15:51

  • HermitArcader #33 3 years ago

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

  • OllyJ #34 3 years ago

    You can't defeat the METAL!!!

  • conchis #35 3 years ago

    Ah, I wasn't trying to back up anything. Sorry if it came out like that, I was genuinely curious about why he was depressed by people's reactions but not by Activision's attempt at court restraint. I think it's a safe bet that most of the people reading news about Brutal Legend at this point are interested in playing the game. As such, Vertical Stand put it very well.

    "Clearly gamers don't like them for trying to hold up a game they rejected from a highly respected team and don't like the idea of a game they want being held up by legal disputes."

  • dingo75 #36 3 years ago

    Well that is what you get for not announcing the game for the PC Tim!

    /goes back to voodoo doll

  • spliffhead #37 3 years ago

    Maybe Tim could email the 8bit flash version to Activision and rename the real game to Sprutal Hedgend and everyone is happy?

  • Kyle #38 3 years ago

    Best response ever.

  • sonicgoo #39 3 years ago

    It's a shame someone like Tim Schafer has so much trouble making games while the people behind Duke Nuken Forever get huge piles of money and ages of time to go blblblblblblblbl

  • Triggerhappytel #40 3 years ago

    Ooh, those dirty cunts. I hope EA have better lawyers than ActiBlizz.

    And yes, we are all speculating, but that doesn't stop us disliking Activision for generally being everything that is wrong and abhorrent about the games industry.

  • riz23 #41 3 years ago

    Stop knocking UncleLou for simply playing Devils Advocate. Also if we are not careful "ad hominem" will become the new EG meme.

  • Rack #42 3 years ago

    It's speculation, but when you see a pyromaniac walking away from a smoking building it isn't totally unreasonable to suspect arson.

  • ardamillo #43 3 years ago

    I reckon the timing has more to do with this being a good week to bury bad news, rather than them suddenly noticing that the game is looking good.

  • hairsuit #44 3 years ago

    No speculation from me- Vivendi needs to go the way of the medieval ages- dark and clueless are they. I guarantee it. LOL. Remember, you heard it here first.

  • Kremlik Verified Co-Founder, Crash To Desktop #45 3 years ago

    Fact is BL was one of the titles Activision dropped during the Blizzard merger as dead weight, which then EA has picked up to make it into one of this years biggest titles.

    All this is is the ActiBlizz suits trying to get money from it as they feel that it is their 'right' to have it, basically they shot themselfs in the foot with this one, and they are trying to make back their 'loss'.

    Shame is that even tho they're probly in the wrong about this, AB will probly get a cut and have this settled out of court, it's dirty business play - Much like the apprently patant things with the wireless controlers and motion tech, funny how those 'companies' only popped up once Nintendo and Sony were in the money with them.

  • Quint2020 #46 3 years ago

    God damn Activision.

  • Kremlik Verified Co-Founder, Crash To Desktop #47 3 years ago

    @ GhenghisNaan - no it's because they own the biggest IP on the planet (Warcraft) now - IMO thats probly like 60% of the company moneyspinning there, plus yea true they want to control everything and be the 'Mircosoft' of the gaming world

  • trooperdx3117 #48 3 years ago

    I can't believe im saying this but go EA, Activision really does seem to be acting like a petulant child. Also what is up with Tim Schaefer he always makes brilliant games that don't sell and then finally he makes a game that looks like it will sell well and then this happens, poor bloke

  • GregorV #49 3 years ago

    " I mean would anyone go shopping a game to another publisher if the company hadn't already legally dropped the game? Thjat would be naive and foolish, and schafer seems smart enough not to do something like that if he legally had no rights."

    This is a very important point.

    The whole issue revolves around the question, who was the owner of the assets for Brutal Legend after it was dropped? We don't know the details of the contract, but looking at the sequence of events it's fair to say that it was Double Fine that retained the rights to their game. Vivendi did not protest or even react when EA first announced they will be publishing the game, so they will have a very hard time convincing anyone that they were wronged. If it was actually Vivendi that had the rights to the assets, you can bet that they would have yelled the moment EA even thought about publishing Brutal Legend.

    That they only speak now when the preview version is so well received with the press is simply sour grapes.

  • AHiFi #50 3 years ago

    As UncleLou said, he was just trying to create some balance. We don't know the whole story. Of course we can speculate, but it does become silly when everyone sings from the same hymn book.

  • DjFlex52 #51 3 years ago

    When Vivendi dropped Brutal Legend, it also dropped Ghostbusters & the Chronicles Of Riddick sequel, which both went to Atari. They dropped Wet which is coming out by Bethesda.

    So there's definitely more to this story regarding the reasons why Vivendi only went after Double Fine & EA.

  • lucky_jim #52 3 years ago

    Atari and Bethesda aren't Activision's closest rivals, EA are. And EA are pursuing success through a policy which has been loudly rubbished by Activision. If I'd publicly said that there's no room for original IP in gaming, I wouldn't want my closest rivals to be in with a shout of proving me wrong.

  • actionfitz #53 3 years ago

    You can't kill the metal
    The metal will live on
    Acti-Blizz tried to kill the metal
    But they failed, as they were smiten to the ground
    Bobby Kotick tried to kill the metal
    But he failed, as he was striken down to the ground.

    No-one can destroy the metal
    The metal will strike it down with a vicious blow
    We are the vanquished foes of the metal
    We tried to win for why we do not know!!

    etc.

    :p