Vivendi sues Brutal Legend developer Related content
-
Brutal Legend multiplayer deathmatch
-
Latest Brutal Legend screenshots
- Interview Double Fine's Tim Schafer [19]
£24.50
RRP: £49.99
In stock
Buy Online
Order before 5.30pm and receive your order the next working day!
Advertisement
Vivendi sues Brutal Legend developer News
Xbox 360 PlayStation 3 News by Robert Purchese
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.
Advertisement
Are you excited about Brutal Legend on PlayStation 3/Xbox 360?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games
Thanks!
Related Games
Brutal Legend
Latest Features
-
Brutal Legend Interview [19]
-
Brutal Legend Review [157]
-
Brutal Legend Interview [21]
-
Brutal Legend Preview [44]
-
Brutal Legend Interview [45]
Latest Videos
Brutal Legend multiplayer deathmatch [0] 3 November, 2009
Latest News
-
Brütal Legend DLC next week [17]
-
UK charts: FIFA 10 beats Uncharted 2 [54]
-
Tim Schafer is 20 years old or something! [10]
-
Brutal Legend demo in September [7]
-
Brutal Legend multiplayer has RTS twist [13]
Latest Screenshots
14 August, 2009 [0]
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Poster
|
0
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 1 times,
most recently on 05/06/09 @ 13:03
|
|
Waffleaber
05/06/09 @ 12:05
0
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. |
|
Britesparc
05/06/09 @ 12:10
0
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. |
|
0
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 1 times,
most recently on 05/06/09 @ 13:26
|
|
kangarootoo
05/06/09 @ 12:28
0
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. |
|
0
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. |
|
0
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. |
|
0
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 |
|
0
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. |
|
kangarootoo
05/06/09 @ 13:11
0
"Bobby Kotick's exact words were" doesn't sound like speculation to me. Are you saying the quote is false?
|
|
0
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. |
|
Autocanibal
05/06/09 @ 13:31
0
I remember when I was in Vivendi their only hope was to be the new EA. Their plan was to buy other publishers so they could combine and be bigger than EA and to do what EA was doing back them: sequels and licensed IP (I remember doing Ice Age DS: 'Yes, we all know it's shit, but it's going to sell well because it's Ice Age and on the DS, and the people who buy these games don't really know'). Well, now they managed to be the biggest publishers and to release a lot of crap, good job. And probably all thanks to WoW giving them the funds, a game they didn't give a shit about and had no hope on it before release.
Just ask Valve or Monolith how great Vivendi is with developers, just to mention two well known studios. Activision was unlucky to be bought by these guys. The best thing they have is Blizzard, and that's because they leave them alone because they make a lot of money. |
|
0
""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. |
|
0
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
05/06/09 @ 14:09
0
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 1 times,
most recently on 05/06/09 @ 15:13
|
|
kangarootoo
05/06/09 @ 14:39
0
@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
05/06/09 @ 14:43
0
@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
05/06/09 @ 14:51
0
Well I'm calling shenanigans on this. Activision have just lost themselves a customer (MW2 aside).
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 05/06/09 @ 15:51
|
|
Vertical Stand
05/06/09 @ 14:51
0
While I think UncleLou makes some good points about why its not so clear cut what went on behind the scenes and issues regarding initial funding, this looks really bad for Vivendi in the public domain (such as the speech about sequels) and so they need to come to an agreement quickly and quietly even if that means taking a slight loss on what they hope to claim.
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. |
|
0
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." |
|
spliffhead
05/06/09 @ 15:17
0
Maybe Tim could email the 8bit flash version to Activision and rename the real game to Sprutal Hedgend and everyone is happy?
|
|
Triggerhappytel
05/06/09 @ 17:20
0
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. |
|
CountFapula
05/06/09 @ 18:23
0
Lou, it's not really speculation is it?
''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. ... ". No mention of Double Fine needing more time or money there. Seems a bit odd that this only comes out when ea and BL are getting some good press. After all, Prototype isn't a sequel and needed more time and money, activision gave it to them, so why not Brutal Legend? They clearly had no faith in the game. Again, I don't know this 100% sure, but if you look at that quote, the fact that activision gave another non sequel IP more money and time whilst now complaining about BL needing more money and time...well it doesn't take stephen hawkins to realise they probably didn't really have much faith in the game in the first place.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 05/06/09 @ 19:27
|
|
CountFapula
05/06/09 @ 20:22
0
Not knocking him for that, knocking him for really calling things speculation, when (although to be fair to him, speculation is the right term) the facts support what most people here have been saying, that activision didn't seem to give a fuck before ea got some good publicity.
I can't imagine schafer or double fine shopping the game to other publishers if activision hadn't given blessing to do so. 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. I suppose we will see, all I'm saying is, the facts seem to support the speculation of those of us who believe this is activision's fault, and not lou's version of events. (I'm saying seem because again, in fairness to lou, none of us know for certain, but the facts do seem to point the blame at activision thus far). |
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
