Topic: Games Industry Death Watch 2010-present

[TJ Spyke]

No, I am just sick of people acting like this is all Activision Blizzard's fault. Although they share some of the blame, West and Zampella are at fault too.

BlackNMild, I hope you aren't referring to the thread where I thoroughly showed you were wrong but you kept not understanding the facts?

[SixthAngel]

No, I am just sick of people acting like this is all Activision Blizzard's fault. Although they share some of the blame, West and Zampella are at fault too.

Really?  Because I thought we had a bunch of he said/she said with Activision being the huge, huge loser if they are found at fault.  What the accusations are and what is at stake makes it seem to me that Activision is the one who is at fault.

Also Activision is insanely late with the bonuses.  Yes, insanely late with the bonuses of the team whose game is one of the biggest of all time.

[NWR_Lindy]

We really don't know who was at fault at the moment, and that will come out in court I'm sure.  For all we know, both West and Zampella might have been trying to cut a back-door deal with EA to start a new studio as soon as they got their Modern Warfare 2 money.  Activision wouldn't randomly and purposely torpedo Infinity Ward out of nowhere; something had to have triggered the move.  Where Activision blundered was in miscalculating the fallout.  Employees aren't going to sign retaining contracts if they simply don't want to work for you any more, and can make the same money working for their old bosses elsewhere.

I also expect another Activision lawsuit claiming that Respawn poached employees from IW.  That's about the only card that Activision has left to play at this point.

As far as Sega goes, I love it when companies say stuff like, "We've laid off half of our staff...but it's going to be GREAT for our bottom line, and we'll really be able to streamline our business processes now!"  Good for you Sega, good for you.

[BlackNMild2k1]

BlackNMild, I hope you aren't referring to the thread where I thoroughly showed you were wrong but you kept not understanding the facts?

How could you prove me wrong when I wasn't debating you? that just shows how incredibly dense you are. go re-read the topic. I wasn't trying to prove your point wrong, I was stating that you never actually proved your point in the first place. I was trying to help you out.



But back on topic here.....

No, I am just sick of people acting like this is all Activision Blizzard's fault. Although they share some of the blame, West and Zampella are at fault too.

Let's see.

Activision tells IW that they can make a new IP after the MW2 and that IW is the only ones that can make a game under the MW label.

IW finishes MW2, wants to start New IP, Activision says "no, we want MW3 NOW!!!"

IW cites agreement they had before hand

Activison gets pissed.... (Is this related?) Activision withholds bonus payments from MW2 for some reason and refuses to pay the promised bonus until some undisclosed later date.

IW secretly started pre-production on their own IP

Activision finds out and call the 2 IW heads into the office. Fires them on the spot (citing insubordination)

Activision is still holding bonus payments hostage.

several other key IW people leave

Activision brushes off their shoulder

2 exIW heads form new company - Respawn

more IW people leave

Activision starts to panic (supposedly)

even more people leave, some joining Respawn

Activision starts pushing out bonus payments to keep employees

IW people leave anyway.

-That is how I've seen the situation, so I'm not sure how IW is at fault here.
they were promised multiple things that they never got, and when they complained about it, things got even worse., but like Lindy said, the courts will sort it out, right or wrong.

[KDR_11k]

West and Zampella are arseholes but in the end they're extremely profitable arseholes and apparently very well liked among their staff so where they go, their staff follows. I don't think Activision had a chance to come out of this unscathed though, either they fire the two and have the team leave or the two quit and join EA, prompting the team to follow.

[SixthAngel]

You guys aren't saying the elephant in the room.

West and Zampella were supposedly promised exclusive rights to Modern Warfare.

If that is true then that gives Activision every reason in the world to want to fire them for some bull**** reason and negate their contract.  This is the part that pade me think Activision was at fault.  Trying to wrestle that name away seems like he purpose of all the bull**** to me and is par for the course for a company like Activision.  That name is worth a lot of money right now and when suddenly your developer who is supposed to be the only one allowed to make the next one says "No you promised we didin't have to" you start to think of ways to either a) force them to make it or b)take the name back by any means necessary.  It looks like both were tried to me.

[KDR_11k]

As they say, verbal contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on. Unless they've got it in writing that promise is useless.

Honestly it was stupid of Activision to promise anything like that to them but it also sounds like IW was unwilling to do their fucking job (what do you think Activision paid them for?) without that promise.

If you want creative control work on your own dime, investors want results.

[BlackNMild2k1]

You guys aren't saying the elephant in the room.

West and Zampella were supposedly promised exclusive rights to Modern Warfare.

If that is true then that gives Activision every reason in the world to want to fire them for some bull**** reason and negate their contract.  This is the part that pade me think Activision was at fault.  Trying to wrestle that name away seems like he purpose of all the bull**** to me and is par for the course for a company like Activision.  That name is worth a lot of money right now and when suddenly your developer who is supposed to be the only one allowed to make the next one says "No you promised we didin't have to" you start to think of ways to either a) force them to make it or b)take the name back by any means necessary.  It looks like both were tried to me.

Actually I did mention it

Activision tells IW that they can make a new IP after the MW2 and that IW is the only ones that can make a game under the MW label.

It seems like a really messed up situation.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Activision is SO ANGRY, they're gonna fire the people who left.

[noname2200]

No, I am just sick of people acting like this is all Activision Blizzard's fault. Although they share some of the blame, West and Zampella are at fault too.

Let's see.

Activision tells IW that they can make a new IP after the MW2 and that IW is the only ones that can make a game under the MW label.

IW finishes MW2, wants to start New IP, Activision says "no, we want MW3 NOW!!!"

IW cites agreement they had before hand

Activison gets pissed.... (Is this related?) Activision withholds bonus payments from MW2 for some reason and refuses to pay the promised bonus until some undisclosed later date.

IW secretly started pre-production on their own IP

Activision finds out and call the 2 IW heads into the office. Fires them on the spot (citing insubordination)

Activision is still holding bonus payments hostage.

several other key IW people leave

Activision brushes off their shoulder

2 exIW heads form new company - Respawn

more IW people leave

Activision starts to panic (supposedly)

even more people leave, some joining Respawn

Activision starts pushing out bonus payments to keep employees

IW people leave anyway.

Serious question: how do you know any of this is true? And are you certain that this is the complete chain of events? If so, how did you manage to get privy to information that the rest of us lack?

As  they say, verbal contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on.  Unless they've got it in writing that promise is useless.

Not actually true; oral contracts are generally as enforceable as their written counterparts, but since it raises the question of credibility it's best to get these things in writing.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Serious question: how do you know any of this is true? And are you certain that this is the complete chain of events? If so, how did you manage to get privy to information that the rest of us lack?

I'm pretty sure that everything I stated is posted in this thread. I posted all the IW drama in this thread so just look for my name. But it's just my understanding of the events, obviously all the facts aren't public, but from my point of view IW reacted to Activision not following through with promises made. I can't blame them for speaking up for themselves and looking to get out on their own time.

A few small concessions on Activisions part(such as keeping small promises or paying the bonuses on time) could have prevented this whole situation and kept everyone happy. Activision has no one to blame but themselves as far as I'm concerned, only knowing what has been made public so far.

[Peachylala]

This IW drama is so headache inducing.

[SixthAngel]

As they say, verbal contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on. Unless they've got it in writing that promise is useless.

I never said it was verbal.  They aren't going to show us the documents but I imagine it has to be written down (along with the bonuses that haven't been given which these two were owed 36 million dollars apparently).  They already had experience being screwed by EA for them to learn what they need and if it wasn't written down I don't see why two guys would burn money in a lawsuit with a giant corporation.

Honestly it was stupid of Activision to promise anything like that to them but it also sounds like IW was unwilling to do their ****ing job (what do you think Activision paid them for?) without that promise.

IW had contract negotiations.  You don't "do your ****ing job" if you don't have a contract because you don't get paid and you don't have a ****ing job.  They had incredible success with previous games and MW so they were able to get a great contract, huge bonuses(profit sharing), and apparently creative control in the MW brand which they started.  They then did their ****ing job and made one of the best selling games of all time.

If you want creative control work on your own dime, investors want results.

If making MW and MW2 aren't results what is?  Which, by the way, they started it and had to fight to start.  Creative control from these guys really kicked those investors in the balls, huh?
Also if you want some creative control you could get something in contract that says, I don't know, you get to make a new series after MW2, like they say they did.  The more successful someone is the more they can demand from investors and the company because they produce results, its not a oneway street.

[KDR_11k]

Not actually true; oral contracts are generally as enforceable as their written counterparts, but since it raises the question of credibility it's best to get these things in writing.

Yes, without proof that the contract was made you'll have no way of actually enforcing it.

If making MW and MW2 isn't results what is?

Oh, those are results but Activision had a hard time convincing IW to actually make MW2 and now they wanted to see MW3 and IW refused to do that. With full creative control there wouldn't have been an MW2.

[SixthAngel]

Oh, those are results but Activision had a hard time convincing IW to actually make MW2 and now they wanted to see MW3 and IW refused to do that. With full creative control there wouldn't have been an MW2.

That is why they negotiated and IW made them the game MW2 in exchange for among other things the ability to make a different game next time.  A game that based on their track record will still make money and possibly start a new profitable franchise and even if it didn't would be worth it to get MW2.  IWs hand in MW was obviously considered extremely valuable.
It seems like a fairly basic deal, each side gets something they want but after Activsion got their piece of the pie they said "Screw you, deals off."

[noname2200]

Not actually true; oral contracts are generally as enforceable as their written counterparts, but since it raises the question of credibility it's best to get these things in writing.

Yes, without proof that the contract was made you'll have no way of actually enforcing it.

Granted, but proof of some sort is usually pretty easy to come by. A person's testimony is evidence, for example, but more common is to simply point to a pattern of behavior between the parties. Again, it's better to have it in writing, but with a few exceptions it's not absolutely required.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Judge Judy says you need a written contract ensure payment for services rendered.  The dumb contractor didn't produce a signed work order to protect his ass.

[KDR_11k]

The way the lawsuit against Activision is worded I think the promise was oral, not in writing. Otherwise they'd have a very easy case against Activision and would be able to ruin the company.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Good job, Activision.  IW, you're morons.

[ThePerm]

Judge Judy says you need a written contract ensure payment for services rendered.  The dumb contractor didn't produce a signed work order to protect his ass.

depends on the state

they are both in California

California Civil Code 1662
1622.  All contracts may be oral, except such as are specially required
by statute to be in writing.

i couldn't find anything in the exception rules about parent companies and bonus agreements, so IW may have a case.

[TJ Spyke]

It would be up to West and Zampella to prove anything. If they also refused to to do their jobs (they were employees of Activision Blizzard, NOT members of a independent company), then Activision had just cause to fire them and maybe not pay any bonuses. It doesn't matter if they were told they could work on a non-Call of Duty game, Activision was their boss and got to decide what games they and Infinity Ward would work on.

[Chozo Ghost]

It would be up to West and Zampella to prove anything. If they also refused to to do their jobs (they were employees of Activision Blizzard, NOT members of a independent company), then Activision had just cause to fire them and maybe not pay any bonuses. It doesn't matter if they were told they could work on a non-Call of Duty game, Activision was their boss and got to decide what games they and Infinity Ward would work on.

So what you're telling us is that Activision was acting like Hitler and that somehow we're supposed to sympathize with them because their employees got tired of being pushed around and left? Boo freakin Hoo.

[TJ Spyke]

No, I am saying that an employer has the right to fire a employee if the employee refuses to do their job (which is what happened if Activision wanted them to work on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 and they refused). It's also a little suspicious how quickly they formed their own company and aligned with Electronic Arts after getting fired, like they were planning to do it.

[NWR_insanolord]

Having the history they had, they knew it was possible they'd get screwed, so they probably had a backup plan for making their own new company long before this happened. I'm not saying they were working with EA on it; EA was just smart enough to quickly make them an offer as soon as they were available.

[BlackNMild2k1]

No, I am saying that an employer has the right to fire a employee if the employee refuses to do their job (which is what happened if Activision wanted them to work on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 and they refused). It's also a little suspicious how quickly they formed their own company and aligned with Electronic Arts after getting fired, like they were planning to do it.

Your ignoring the part where IW had renegotiated their contract prior to even starting on MW2(the deal was negotiated to make MW2 in the first place according to the reports) and the deal was that they get to do a new IP after they complete the game.... and there were profits that were to be shared (aka bonus).

Activision ignored this new contract, stomped on the concept for the new IP, denied timely bonus payments(to pay the bonus from the interest earned?) and then fired the heads of the company for complaining about it.

If that's just business as usual, then I will side with IW each and everytime.