One major concern I have right now, is all this anti-activision clout and people saying they will never buy anther activision game ever again. People you are mostly hurting the developer that is just doing its best to make a great game. Developers that may be owned by Activision but are not involved with all this crazy stuff going on. All I ask is you think about your fellow polycounters who just want to make great games and keep there jobs.
Yeah you don't really hurt activision as much as the devs with that mentality.
The obvious thing is that the people at IW along with the 2 founders are that they make too much damn money off of their games, plain and simple. I’m sure that when contracts were being written no one could fathom the success of the IP. Now that it has made as much money as a movie like Avatar Kotick’s eyes realized that the royalties alone would be counter intuitive to shareholder interests.
By removing the people in charge you totally bypass royalty agreements AND pretty much guarantees other costly employees to leave the studio; the people with enough clout to not have to worry about not finding a job again, the ones that also make a shit ton of money relative to other devs. The ones that stay are the ones that don’t earn as much or are scared for their job. Meanwhile newer cheaper people will roll in knowing that at least they can attach the name to their resume while getting pay. Hey it beats not having a job right?
Now Activison can renegotiate terms with another developer that would totally be grateful to work on a IP that is almost guaranteed to sell millions of units, all at a much cheaper cost than the original developer. I’m sure that Kotick recognized that Treyarch is working for peanuts in comparison to IW regardless of the fact that the original dev pioneered and in many cases innovated the product.
I think it’s smart that West and Zampanella are suing for IP rights AND LAWYER FEES. That shit right there is important because Activision, being a giant entity with a bottomless well of money and all, can and will deadlock this suit in litigation forever until the founders money dries up and can no longer sustain the battle. I really think those guys have a shot but I know that Kotick/Activision is capable of prolonging a perceived win into a massive debt filled nightmare.
Besides, any losses Activision incurs from the suit can be made up if they retain the rights to the MW property which guarantees massive profit. That’s what I gather from all of this.
To be honest, it’s a real morale killer. It makes me realize how little Balls devs have in the industry, OR BRAINS for that matter, to manage our IP’s and creative license while being independent. This industry is founded on creativity and allows for the introduction of franchises that can append additional creative components and avenues while people and game companies continually grow. Instead we get shit on like idiots because we are more interested with pretty pictures and lines of code than managing or trying to find like minded people to help manage the awful but totally necessary business aspect that controls our daily lives and ever increasingly, renders us jobless like true starving artists…
To be honest, its a real morale killer. It makes me realize how little Balls devs have in the industry, OR BRAINS for that matter, to manage our IPs and creative license while being independent. This industry is founded on creativity and allows for the introduction of franchises that can append additional creative components and avenues while people and game companies continually grow. Instead we get shit on like idiots because we are more interested with pretty pictures and lines of code than managing or trying to find like minded people to help manage the awful but totally necessary business aspect that controls our daily lives and ever increasingly, renders us jobless like true starving artists
The love of money that some posses, never ceases to amaze me...It is just sad. Yes money is important but selling your own soul for it is pathetic, especially when we as an industry get to this point.
The love of money that some posses, never ceases to amaze me...It is just sad. Yes money is important but selling your own soul for it is pathetic, especially when we as an industry get to this point.
Originally Posted by cochtl
To be honest, its a real morale killer. It makes me realize how little Balls devs have in the industry, OR BRAINS for that matter, to manage our IPs and creative license while being independent. This industry is founded on creativity and allows for the introduction of franchises that can append additional creative components and avenues while people and game companies continually grow. Instead we get shit on like idiots because we are more interested with pretty pictures and lines of code than managing or trying to find like minded people to help manage the awful but totally necessary business aspect that controls our daily lives and ever increasingly, renders us jobless like true starving artists
Nicely said. I bet practically every successful(both monetary and quality) artistic endevaour, be it game, film, book, music, didn't start off with "how much money can we make off this b!tch?!!?" More likely the person or group responsible for the creative output poured what they loved into it. While places like Activision may have enabled the creative outpouring by investing a little(or big) sum, I think with all the legal-mumbo-jumbo, society loses sight of what the real work and creation is.
Before the formation of Activision, software for video game consoles were published exclusively by makers of the systems for which the games were designed. For example, Atari was the only publisher of games for the Atari 2600. This was particularly galling to the developers of the games, as they received no financial rewards for games that sold well, and did not receive credit for their games. This caused several programmers to resign from their jobs. Activision became the first third-party game publisher for game consoles.[6]
The company was founded by former music industry executive Jim Levy and former Atari programmers David Crane, Larry Kaplan, Alan Miller and Bob Whitehead. Atari's company policy at the time was not to credit game creators for their individual contributions; Levy took the approach of crediting and promoting game creators along with the games themselves. The steps taken for this included devoting a page to the developer in their instruction manuals[7][8][9] and challenging players to send in a high score (usually as a photograph, but sometimes as a letter) in order to receive a patch.[10][11][12][13] These draws helped the newly formed company attract experienced talent. Crane, Kaplan, Levy, Miller, and Whitehead received the Game Developers Choice "First Penguin" award in 2003, in recognition of this step.]
Then they get bought out and reformed/whatever and are what they are currently...
So yeah creative ventures are a risk FEW people/publishers/investors will take but once it becomes profitable everyone will quickly jump on board to monetize the fuck out of it and run that shit into the ground.
I find it pretty disgusting from activisions side. The more and more that comes to light the more they come off as desperately trying to keep their money making machine through any means necessary.
I hope they get the $36 million from Activision and take the licence from them and make a new start up company with EA and take IW staff from under them. To me it just sounds like the Devs are trying to secure their studio and get a bit of their independency back while Activision are trying to secure a franchise through any means. Refusing to downsize their studio staff shows you just how much these guys cared for their team and as for going to EA, it shows you that they may have had a nightmare working with Activision with the refusal to show milestones and only working through a few contacts.
If its all about money then their not even using their brains to make as much money as they can. Usually if give creative people some (relatively) free reigns, then those ideas can turn into a lot of money. Sometimes they dont, sometimes it isnt the right time, or the idea is a little to left field but, most of the time, they can make their greedy fat cat bosses a hell of a lot of money.
All they seem to want to do is waste the talent though, force it to make the same product only 4.89 percent better than the previous. Or with lots of caveats and changes because they know best and they've consulted and studied, they know because they are connected to the people from their ivory towers.
I dont even think it really is that hard to make a good game that sells. There's definite patterns. As long as the game is solid(no major bugs), and has enough unique elements, and is advertised, bought to the attention of the right people it will sell.
Personally I wouldent be surprised if it were the case, alot of high ranking people in the game industry do this.
But the crappy thing is that now if they form a new studio and go work for EA the Lawsuit they filed against Activision for wrongful termination wouldn't have that much merit
I was going to write about injunctions earlier, but figured no one would care Since it's now come up...
Whether Activision wins or loses in the long run, the IW guys can really stick it to them by dragging out this situation as long as possible. Since approval of all post-Vietnam era CoD content was granted to West and Zampella, and that contract is in dispute, they can ask for an injunction against Activision preventing their doing anything with the franchise until the matter is resolved. That means no content releases for MW2, no work on MW3, no moving the brand to another developer for anything that deal with current or future scenarios, etc.
I doubt West and Zampella really want to do that, I'm sure they'd prefer a faster verdict in their favor, but it's satisfying to know that Activision can't capitalize on it in the meantime. At least they can afford the lawyers - Activision still has to pay them royalties for their work, fired or not.
About them talking to EA or other publishers... that could be bad for them, but only if their contract explicitly forbid it. I'm not sure how that could be so, since people in this industry interact all the time. If guys from IW bump into suits from EA at the GDC, that can't possibly violate any contract provisions, so I'm not sure where the line is they'd have to cross. I suspect it's nothing concrete, which is why Activision has fired them for vague things like 'insubordination'. That kind of thing is an extremely hard sell in a court of law; contracts are very specific and technical just to avoid that kind of generic accusation, etc. The fact that Activision is allegedly still digging for evidence against them makes me suspect their case isn't strong, and (for some reason) they expected IW to go down without a fight.
I'm currently calling it 60-40 in favor of Activision, if only because they have armies of trained lawdogs who are paid expressly for this kind of work. West and Zampella still appear to have a damn good shot at winning, if what we've heard is true - way better than most creators have when they go up against a big time publisher.
About them talking to EA or other publishers... that could be bad for them, but only if their contract explicitly forbid it.
Good post. This is a good point. Usually a contract like this would hinge on ATVI wrapping up the IW guys for the future. Like "You are contracted to us for 5 years, in return we will pay you this and give you this level of corporate control." But, non-competes are non-enforceable in CA. So, I'm not sure how the law would rule on this one. Now that they have been sacked, I think they could go get money from anyone to set up a new studio. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out.
i rather think this approval for MW game clause is only active as long as they with IW and atvi.... if they were talking to other publishers while still under contract with atvi, i really hope they lose this case...
i rather think this approval for MW game clause is only active as long as they with IW and atvi.... if they were talking to other publishers while still under contract with atvi, i really hope they lose this case...
lol, why? You better believe Activision would actively talk to other developers of theirs to take over the COD franchise without telling these guys, why can't they do the same? If non competes are illegal in CA (they are) then it comes down to a moral or ethical thing, and Activision is anything but ethically in the clear in this situation.
People sure have a boner for the corporations full of mindless managers who don't know a good game from a hole in the ground when actual content creators are getting screwed.
Let's play a thought exercise: If Activision shares any responsibility for the success of the products, why aren't all of their products profitable?
If it's the developers themselves that make or break profitable content, why aren't they remunerated at a higher ratio than the publishers who provide an easily replaceable service? (MW2 would have sold just as many had it been published by Ubi, EA or Activision)
I really dont see the problem with them talking to other publishers whilst under contract.
In the real world, if you want to work somewhere else, how many people actually quit their jobs before looking for a new one?
because COD is atvi s IP, IW is NOT an independent studio (though operating under the independent studio model atvi is using) , if they decide to expand the franchise its up to them... if they want to do a Lego COD so be it...
i do agree that the dev studio behind a succesful product should be havig thei fair share of profits, thats out of the question...
I really dont see the problem with them talking to other publishers whilst under contract.
In the real world, if you want to work somewhere else, how many people actually quit their jobs before looking for a new one?
that depends of what was discussed.... if they just wanted to move on to other jobs after their contract ran out that would be fine, but not negotiating about taking tech, IP, etc...
i dont know what they did talk about..... but atvi wouldnt do such a thing if there was no reason, that makes no sense...
I was reading through those documents, and they were talking about how Activision ended up holding people and interrogating them inside some windowless room. Making accusations, etc. If true, god damn.. what a messed up company.
from their point of view they might do, but atvi maybe has another view on that, so as we dont know who is right on that i have my doubts that a billion dollar company as atvi grants them complete control over the franchise even if they are not with IW anymore....
of course everyone attorney tries to paint a picture i favour of their clients... i mean "windowless room" come on, who didnt have talks or meetings in rooms that had no windows... and a meeting or questioning sounds just better for them if they state is as interrogation...
Only through the lens of time will we be able to see through all the histrionics and exaggerations. Sounds like both parties are kinda guilty in some ways to me. The IW guys likely violated contracts and probably some ethical boundaries. The guys at ATVI are just playing the usual heavy handed callous corporate profit protection role.
My old boss did similar crap. "Sure, you can have a raise, and here's a contract...but I'm not going to pay it to you anyway. I'll try to get away with it and force you to fight tooth and nail just to get me to live up to my end of the contract that you had to fight to negotiate already. Its just business!"
Nobody is disputing this-- I don't think you even understand what you are talking about-- this is about the brand "Modern Warfare" not "Call of Duty"
dont take it out of the context...
I already said that it is about MW the brand... and that they might have the control over this brand as long as they are with IW... sure its speculation, but dont be naive thinking that atvi would ensure that their property (and MW is their property, they just have a veto on it) isnt secure in case they d leave the company...
all people bashing on atvi in this case dont even seem to think about it... whatever they do, they wouldnt do it because they are evil... thats just stupid thinking...
Yeah I mean who here on Polycount has NEVER talked to another studio/recruiter or whatever while still employed at another studio?
you know, that artists and higher management personel might have a bit diferent contracts... and I assume noone talked to another studio about taking IPs , tools etc with them when joining
IW could never take the MW IP with them when leaving. That's silly and nobody is saying that. The whole point is they wanted to work on new IP anyway. Please read the articles. Tech is the same deal, can't take it with you. People. . . . now that is where things get hairy with employment contracts and state law.
IW could never take the MW IP with them when leaving. That's silly and nobody is saying that. The whole point is they wanted to work on new IP anyway. Please read the articles. Tech is the same deal, can't take it with you. People. . . . now that is where things get hairy with employment contracts and state law.
I was just going to post this. Even in West and Zampella thought they were somehow entitled to take the MW IP with them, the lawyers at EA wouldn't be dim enough to think so. Beyond that, there's nothing magical about the tech or whatever at InfinityWard. They have their own engine and all, but it's not some irreplaceable bit of tech that EA or Ubisoft or whomever couldn't provide the guys to make a new title, etc.
I think it seems obvious that Activision gave more control over the CoD franchise to InfinityWard than they wanted to, doing so only as a way convince the guys to make MW2 against an aggressive schedule. Once Activision got their game, they tried to find reasons to claim IW guys had broken the contract, so Activision could take back control of the IP. They want to have their cake and eat it to, so to speak.
The interesting thing is, if West/Zampella really wanted to leave IW for another publisher, they'd have had to turn over control of the Modern Warfare IP anyway. That right was granted under their contract, which would have been voided if they had voluntarily left or chose not to renew. Activision would have gained control at that point by default. By trying to speed up the process by firing them, Activision has probably pushed ownership of the MW franchise back further than the contract expiry date. On the surface, this looks like a mistake by Activision.
I think it seems obvious that Activision gave more control over the CoD franchise to InfinityWard than they wanted to, doing so only as a way convince the guys to make MW2 against an aggressive schedule
i d hardly call 2 years with all tech in place an agressive schedule
and i dont think anyone here would have to be convinced to work on something that big, i m sure they made their fair share of money with their games... (although i dont know their royalty agreements)
i am sure before activision signs any agreement with another party they have an army of lawyers checking everything...
they'd have had to turn over control of the Modern Warfare IP anyway
so why is one of their main focuses in the suit against atvi to get hold of the franchise then?
makes no sense to me then..
just get some popcorn and see what happens i might be completely wrong tho.. to fire them just to not pay royalties to me makes no sense at all... they d ve braught back the money anyway with their next title...
see as example all of the banks, they pay huge bonuses just to keep their top personel with them, becuase (sometimes) they make even more money than these bonuses (although i am completely against these ptactices) ....
I was just going to post this. Even in West and Zampella thought they were somehow entitled to take the MW IP with them, the lawyers at EA wouldn't be dim enough to think so. Beyond that, there's nothing magical about the tech or whatever at InfinityWard. They have their own engine and all, but it's not some irreplaceable bit of tech that EA or Ubisoft or whomever couldn't provide the guys to make a new title, etc.
I think it seems obvious that Activision gave more control over the CoD franchise to InfinityWard than they wanted to, doing so only as a way convince the guys to make MW2 against an aggressive schedule. Once Activision got their game, they tried to find reasons to claim IW guys had broken the contract, so Activision could take back control of the IP. They want to have their cake and eat it to, so to speak.
The interesting thing is, if West/Zampella really wanted to leave IW for another publisher, they'd have had to turn over control of the Modern Warfare IP anyway. That right was granted under their contract, which would have been voided if they had voluntarily left or chose not to renew. Activision would have gained control at that point by default. By trying to speed up the process by firing them, Activision has probably pushed ownership of the MW franchise back further than the contract expiry date. On the surface, this looks like a mistake by Activision.
The engine for all of the Call of duty is just a modified version of the quake 3 engine, allot of the tools are still relics of the quake 3 era (anyone who has done modding or mapping for any of the CoD series will tell you that).
i d hardly call 2 years with all tech in place an agressive schedule
and i dont think anyone here would have to be convinced to work on something that big, i m sure they made their fair share of money with their games... (although i dont know their royalty agreements)
It's great that you don't consider that an aggressive schedule. You must be very good at your job. The guys at Infinity Ward apparently must feel differently, though, because that phrase is exactly what they wrote in their legal filing. On page 7 on the complaint: "...Activision forced Infinity Ward's employees to continue producing the games at a break neck pace under aggressive schedules..."
i am sure before activision signs any agreement with another party they have an army of lawyers checking everything...
I'm sure they do, too.
so why is one of their main focuses in the suit against atvi to get hold of the franchise then?
makes no sense to me then..
Because they didn't willingly leave the company. There's no evidence that they really were talking to other publishers or looking for a new job - that's part speculation and part rumor dropped by Activision. Moreover, their control over the MW franchise is their one bit of real leverage over Activision, so of course they want to keep it as long as they can.
I used to buy any comic drawn by Todd McFarlane
I used to buy any comic written by Alan Moore
I used to buy every album released by Metallica
I used to watch every movie with Al Pacino in it.
Common theme was, talent is what sold me on their products.
I will buy every Blizzard game.
I will buy every Bioware game.
I will buy every Valve game.
I will buy every IW developed game (now up in the air).
I will buy every Relic developed RTS
I will buy every Castlevania game made by Konami Tokyo.
just the same as:
I will watch every James Cameron directed movie
I will read every book by Neil Gaiman and Chuck Palahniuk.
I will buy every NIN album.
I Do NOT watch movies because they were distributed by Paramount.
I do NOT buy songs because they were from Columbia Records.
I do NOT buy all books published by Penguin Publishing.
I do NOT watch shows because they are on NBC.
And I sure as hell don't buy games because they were published by EA or Activision.
I think it's about time they started marketing their talent rather than hide it.
I agree with this entirely. There are games I bought that I knew were sheit games, but I bought them anyways because I know people at the game studio (star trek online) Or I am a fan of the artwork of a specific artist (tends to be a lot of japanese games) I don't buy games because it's the latest and greatest thing according to such and such a person from x studio or x publisher.
I wouldn't be surprised when the dust settles if these two guys start a new studio or get sucked into another studio and a lot of talent at IW would probably follow.
People follow good leadership. Sadly though, I think it will mean I never buy another CoD game again, not that I was impressed immensely by mw2... I thought the first one was much more effective as a narrative.
I find it impressive, it seemed more powerful. Runs at a rock solid 60fps with a lot going on.
Well obviously if you modify anything heavily enough it will be able to perform completely differently.
I imagine huge amounts of the original code have been re-written / replaced / removed, you probably wouldn't recognise much Q3 about it after all these years of CoD development.
It might have resembled Q3 back in CoD1 days, but 5 titles down the line I'd wager it's got a completely new renderer, new physics system, new particle system, new online services, all sorts of extra features.
They'll still have similar tools just because they (arguably) don't need to change much, especially if the map format and workflow is about the same, or maybe they just don't have a big tools team and choose to focus on the engine/gameplay features instead.
Gotcha. So it might have initially used the Q3 engine, but now it's probably evolved so much it's only loosely based on the Q3 framework (maps tools etc), and is in essence a different engine.
Oh and back on topic, I can't believe anyone would want West/Zampella to lose this case, whether they talked to other publishers or not.
So what if they talked to other publishers? Should they just get in the corner, shut up, and do as they are told like good little boys? They might have been (read - were) unhappy with the way they were treated, the way Activision runs things, or what Activision had planned for them etc.
As others mentioned, it's not that unusual to look for another job while you still have one. Only an idiot would show blind loyalty even if they were very unhappy with their employer.
For someone to want them to lose this case, surely you'd have to be employed by Activision or related to that ugly munchkin that calls the shots at Activision?
And I highly doubt they planned to you know, do a heist, IP and tech in their swag bags, and run for the hills of another publisher. By all accounts they want to move on to other projects anyway - it's almost certainly why they want to leave Activision in the first place.
It's great that you don't consider that an aggressive schedule. You must be very good at your job. The guys at Infinity Ward apparently must feel differently, though, because that phrase is exactly what they wrote in their legal filing. On page 7 on the complaint: "...Activision forced Infinity Ward's employees to continue producing the games at a break neck pace under aggressive schedules..."
.
well, i dont know where you re working, but 2 years is quite a normal dev cycle for an established IP & tech ... depends if the 2 years includes pre production or not...if not, then it can get hard considering the standart of quality & polish....
still, its not unusual for any publisher to force a 2 years cycle on a product
Replies
Yeah you don't really hurt activision as much as the devs with that mentality.
"RAWR I'm online and I have a big VOICE!"
Damn you Bobby Kotick... your... nom nom brownies nom... nom... are good... I nom hate you...
By removing the people in charge you totally bypass royalty agreements AND pretty much guarantees other costly employees to leave the studio; the people with enough clout to not have to worry about not finding a job again, the ones that also make a shit ton of money relative to other devs. The ones that stay are the ones that don’t earn as much or are scared for their job. Meanwhile newer cheaper people will roll in knowing that at least they can attach the name to their resume while getting pay. Hey it beats not having a job right?
Now Activison can renegotiate terms with another developer that would totally be grateful to work on a IP that is almost guaranteed to sell millions of units, all at a much cheaper cost than the original developer. I’m sure that Kotick recognized that Treyarch is working for peanuts in comparison to IW regardless of the fact that the original dev pioneered and in many cases innovated the product.
I think it’s smart that West and Zampanella are suing for IP rights AND LAWYER FEES. That shit right there is important because Activision, being a giant entity with a bottomless well of money and all, can and will deadlock this suit in litigation forever until the founders money dries up and can no longer sustain the battle. I really think those guys have a shot but I know that Kotick/Activision is capable of prolonging a perceived win into a massive debt filled nightmare.
Besides, any losses Activision incurs from the suit can be made up if they retain the rights to the MW property which guarantees massive profit. That’s what I gather from all of this.
To be honest, it’s a real morale killer. It makes me realize how little Balls devs have in the industry, OR BRAINS for that matter, to manage our IP’s and creative license while being independent. This industry is founded on creativity and allows for the introduction of franchises that can append additional creative components and avenues while people and game companies continually grow. Instead we get shit on like idiots because we are more interested with pretty pictures and lines of code than managing or trying to find like minded people to help manage the awful but totally necessary business aspect that controls our daily lives and ever increasingly, renders us jobless like true starving artists…
Couldn't have said it any better myself, Cochey.
Money makes the world turn
Nicely said. I bet practically every successful(both monetary and quality) artistic endevaour, be it game, film, book, music, didn't start off with "how much money can we make off this b!tch?!!?" More likely the person or group responsible for the creative output poured what they loved into it. While places like Activision may have enabled the creative outpouring by investing a little(or big) sum, I think with all the legal-mumbo-jumbo, society loses sight of what the real work and creation is.
From wikipedia:
[History
Before the formation of Activision, software for video game consoles were published exclusively by makers of the systems for which the games were designed. For example, Atari was the only publisher of games for the Atari 2600. This was particularly galling to the developers of the games, as they received no financial rewards for games that sold well, and did not receive credit for their games. This caused several programmers to resign from their jobs. Activision became the first third-party game publisher for game consoles.[6]
The company was founded by former music industry executive Jim Levy and former Atari programmers David Crane, Larry Kaplan, Alan Miller and Bob Whitehead. Atari's company policy at the time was not to credit game creators for their individual contributions; Levy took the approach of crediting and promoting game creators along with the games themselves. The steps taken for this included devoting a page to the developer in their instruction manuals[7][8][9] and challenging players to send in a high score (usually as a photograph, but sometimes as a letter) in order to receive a patch.[10][11][12][13] These draws helped the newly formed company attract experienced talent. Crane, Kaplan, Levy, Miller, and Whitehead received the Game Developers Choice "First Penguin" award in 2003, in recognition of this step.]
Then they get bought out and reformed/whatever and are what they are currently...
So yeah creative ventures are a risk FEW people/publishers/investors will take but once it becomes profitable everyone will quickly jump on board to monetize the fuck out of it and run that shit into the ground.
http://edge-online.com/news/infinity-ward-founders-planned-ea-defection
I hope they get the $36 million from Activision and take the licence from them and make a new start up company with EA and take IW staff from under them. To me it just sounds like the Devs are trying to secure their studio and get a bit of their independency back while Activision are trying to secure a franchise through any means. Refusing to downsize their studio staff shows you just how much these guys cared for their team and as for going to EA, it shows you that they may have had a nightmare working with Activision with the refusal to show milestones and only working through a few contacts.
I hope they go the route Valve went.
Let EA simply market and publish for them. NOT own them.
All they seem to want to do is waste the talent though, force it to make the same product only 4.89 percent better than the previous. Or with lots of caveats and changes because they know best and they've consulted and studied, they know because they are connected to the people from their ivory towers.
I dont even think it really is that hard to make a good game that sells. There's definite patterns. As long as the game is solid(no major bugs), and has enough unique elements, and is advertised, bought to the attention of the right people it will sell.
http://kotaku.com/5486210/rumor-infinity-ward-had-been-courting-ea-other-publishers
Personally I wouldent be surprised if it were the case, alot of high ranking people in the game industry do this.
But the crappy thing is that now if they form a new studio and go work for EA the Lawsuit they filed against Activision for wrongful termination wouldn't have that much merit
http://www.thelostgamer.com/2010/03/05/activision-court-battle-means-no-dlc-for-mw2/
Whether Activision wins or loses in the long run, the IW guys can really stick it to them by dragging out this situation as long as possible. Since approval of all post-Vietnam era CoD content was granted to West and Zampella, and that contract is in dispute, they can ask for an injunction against Activision preventing their doing anything with the franchise until the matter is resolved. That means no content releases for MW2, no work on MW3, no moving the brand to another developer for anything that deal with current or future scenarios, etc.
I doubt West and Zampella really want to do that, I'm sure they'd prefer a faster verdict in their favor, but it's satisfying to know that Activision can't capitalize on it in the meantime. At least they can afford the lawyers - Activision still has to pay them royalties for their work, fired or not.
About them talking to EA or other publishers... that could be bad for them, but only if their contract explicitly forbid it. I'm not sure how that could be so, since people in this industry interact all the time. If guys from IW bump into suits from EA at the GDC, that can't possibly violate any contract provisions, so I'm not sure where the line is they'd have to cross. I suspect it's nothing concrete, which is why Activision has fired them for vague things like 'insubordination'. That kind of thing is an extremely hard sell in a court of law; contracts are very specific and technical just to avoid that kind of generic accusation, etc. The fact that Activision is allegedly still digging for evidence against them makes me suspect their case isn't strong, and (for some reason) they expected IW to go down without a fight.
I'm currently calling it 60-40 in favor of Activision, if only because they have armies of trained lawdogs who are paid expressly for this kind of work. West and Zampella still appear to have a damn good shot at winning, if what we've heard is true - way better than most creators have when they go up against a big time publisher.
Good post. This is a good point. Usually a contract like this would hinge on ATVI wrapping up the IW guys for the future. Like "You are contracted to us for 5 years, in return we will pay you this and give you this level of corporate control." But, non-competes are non-enforceable in CA. So, I'm not sure how the law would rule on this one. Now that they have been sacked, I think they could go get money from anyone to set up a new studio. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out.
lol, why? You better believe Activision would actively talk to other developers of theirs to take over the COD franchise without telling these guys, why can't they do the same? If non competes are illegal in CA (they are) then it comes down to a moral or ethical thing, and Activision is anything but ethically in the clear in this situation.
People sure have a boner for the corporations full of mindless managers who don't know a good game from a hole in the ground when actual content creators are getting screwed.
Let's play a thought exercise: If Activision shares any responsibility for the success of the products, why aren't all of their products profitable?
If it's the developers themselves that make or break profitable content, why aren't they remunerated at a higher ratio than the publishers who provide an easily replaceable service? (MW2 would have sold just as many had it been published by Ubi, EA or Activision)
In the real world, if you want to work somewhere else, how many people actually quit their jobs before looking for a new one?
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/107/1074655p1.html
i do agree that the dev studio behind a succesful product should be havig thei fair share of profits, thats out of the question...
that depends of what was discussed.... if they just wanted to move on to other jobs after their contract ran out that would be fine, but not negotiating about taking tech, IP, etc...
i dont know what they did talk about..... but atvi wouldnt do such a thing if there was no reason, that makes no sense...
theres always 2 sides
of course everyone attorney tries to paint a picture i favour of their clients... i mean "windowless room" come on, who didnt have talks or meetings in rooms that had no windows... and a meeting or questioning sounds just better for them if they state is as interrogation...
lets wait and see
Nobody is disputing this-- I don't think you even understand what you are talking about-- this is about the brand "Modern Warfare" not "Call of Duty"
My old boss did similar crap. "Sure, you can have a raise, and here's a contract...but I'm not going to pay it to you anyway. I'll try to get away with it and force you to fight tooth and nail just to get me to live up to my end of the contract that you had to fight to negotiate already. Its just business!"
dont take it out of the context...
I already said that it is about MW the brand... and that they might have the control over this brand as long as they are with IW... sure its speculation, but dont be naive thinking that atvi would ensure that their property (and MW is their property, they just have a veto on it) isnt secure in case they d leave the company...
all people bashing on atvi in this case dont even seem to think about it... whatever they do, they wouldnt do it because they are evil... thats just stupid thinking...
you know, that artists and higher management personel might have a bit diferent contracts... and I assume noone talked to another studio about taking IPs , tools etc with them when joining
I was just going to post this. Even in West and Zampella thought they were somehow entitled to take the MW IP with them, the lawyers at EA wouldn't be dim enough to think so. Beyond that, there's nothing magical about the tech or whatever at InfinityWard. They have their own engine and all, but it's not some irreplaceable bit of tech that EA or Ubisoft or whomever couldn't provide the guys to make a new title, etc.
I think it seems obvious that Activision gave more control over the CoD franchise to InfinityWard than they wanted to, doing so only as a way convince the guys to make MW2 against an aggressive schedule. Once Activision got their game, they tried to find reasons to claim IW guys had broken the contract, so Activision could take back control of the IP. They want to have their cake and eat it to, so to speak.
The interesting thing is, if West/Zampella really wanted to leave IW for another publisher, they'd have had to turn over control of the Modern Warfare IP anyway. That right was granted under their contract, which would have been voided if they had voluntarily left or chose not to renew. Activision would have gained control at that point by default. By trying to speed up the process by firing them, Activision has probably pushed ownership of the MW franchise back further than the contract expiry date. On the surface, this looks like a mistake by Activision.
i d hardly call 2 years with all tech in place an agressive schedule
and i dont think anyone here would have to be convinced to work on something that big, i m sure they made their fair share of money with their games... (although i dont know their royalty agreements)
i am sure before activision signs any agreement with another party they have an army of lawyers checking everything...
so why is one of their main focuses in the suit against atvi to get hold of the franchise then?
makes no sense to me then..
just get some popcorn and see what happens
see as example all of the banks, they pay huge bonuses just to keep their top personel with them, becuase (sometimes) they make even more money than these bonuses (although i am completely against these ptactices) ....
I'd play it.
The engine for all of the Call of duty is just a modified version of the quake 3 engine, allot of the tools are still relics of the quake 3 era (anyone who has done modding or mapping for any of the CoD series will tell you that).
I find it impressive, it seemed more powerful. Runs at a rock solid 60fps with a lot going on.
It's great that you don't consider that an aggressive schedule. You must be very good at your job. The guys at Infinity Ward apparently must feel differently, though, because that phrase is exactly what they wrote in their legal filing. On page 7 on the complaint: "...Activision forced Infinity Ward's employees to continue producing the games at a break neck pace under aggressive schedules..."
I'm sure they do, too.
Because they didn't willingly leave the company. There's no evidence that they really were talking to other publishers or looking for a new job - that's part speculation and part rumor dropped by Activision. Moreover, their control over the MW franchise is their one bit of real leverage over Activision, so of course they want to keep it as long as they can.
Er, they've kinda rewritten a lot of the engine, at least the renderer. The two games actually look very different.
That will ship with windows 8...:poly136:
I agree with this entirely. There are games I bought that I knew were sheit games, but I bought them anyways because I know people at the game studio (star trek online) Or I am a fan of the artwork of a specific artist (tends to be a lot of japanese games) I don't buy games because it's the latest and greatest thing according to such and such a person from x studio or x publisher.
I wouldn't be surprised when the dust settles if these two guys start a new studio or get sucked into another studio and a lot of talent at IW would probably follow.
People follow good leadership. Sadly though, I think it will mean I never buy another CoD game again, not that I was impressed immensely by mw2... I thought the first one was much more effective as a narrative.
Well obviously if you modify anything heavily enough it will be able to perform completely differently.
I imagine huge amounts of the original code have been re-written / replaced / removed, you probably wouldn't recognise much Q3 about it after all these years of CoD development.
It might have resembled Q3 back in CoD1 days, but 5 titles down the line I'd wager it's got a completely new renderer, new physics system, new particle system, new online services, all sorts of extra features.
They'll still have similar tools just because they (arguably) don't need to change much, especially if the map format and workflow is about the same, or maybe they just don't have a big tools team and choose to focus on the engine/gameplay features instead.
That was a bit off-topic!
Oh and back on topic, I can't believe anyone would want West/Zampella to lose this case, whether they talked to other publishers or not.
So what if they talked to other publishers? Should they just get in the corner, shut up, and do as they are told like good little boys? They might have been (read - were) unhappy with the way they were treated, the way Activision runs things, or what Activision had planned for them etc.
As others mentioned, it's not that unusual to look for another job while you still have one. Only an idiot would show blind loyalty even if they were very unhappy with their employer.
For someone to want them to lose this case, surely you'd have to be employed by Activision or related to that ugly munchkin that calls the shots at Activision?
And I highly doubt they planned to you know, do a heist, IP and tech in their swag bags, and run for the hills of another publisher. By all accounts they want to move on to other projects anyway - it's almost certainly why they want to leave Activision in the first place.
well, i dont know where you re working, but 2 years is quite a normal dev cycle for an established IP & tech ... depends if the 2 years includes pre production or not...if not, then it can get hard considering the standart of quality & polish....
still, its not unusual for any publisher to force a 2 years cycle on a product