Activision threatening MW2 team into making another game.

[flamingdts]

http://kotaku.com/5583710/lawsuit-activision-created-modern-warfare-police-state

Guarded doors, secret interrogations and broken promises are just the latest allegations laid out in the ongoing saga about the break-up between the world's largest game publisher and the people in charge of creating Modern Warfare 2.

Activision created a "police state," conducted secret "interrogations" of employees and held $54 million dollars hostage as they tried to threaten and cajole the team behind Modern Warfare 2 into making the next Modern Warfare game, according to an amended lawsuit filed in California today and obtained by Kotaku.

A group of nearly 40 past and present Infinity Ward developers banded together in April to file suit against the publishers of Modern Warfare 2 for half a billion dollars, alleging breach of contract and unpaid royalties.

An addendum to the suit filed today lays out what the former employees say happened to the bonus and royalties they were expecting. It also lowered what the group is asking from at most $216 million in punitive damages and unpaid bonuses, down from half a billion.

In March, according to the suit, Activision paid 40 percent of the Modern Warfare 2 bonus money to the team, but withheld the rest, demanding that Infinity Ward develop, produce, complete and publish Modern Warfare 3 by November 2011 to get the rest of the money.

The suit alleges that during the build up that led to the firing of West and Zampella, Activision forced Infinity Ward employees to submit to secret interrogations and told the employees not to tell anyone about them. The publisher also brought in security personnel to man the office exits, according to the suit.

Later that month, Activision CEO Bobby Kotick attending a meeting with Infinity Ward, promising them that they would receive their full bonus at the end of the month, but that never happened, according to the suit.

When a group of employees met with CFO Thomas Tippl in April to demand the bonus, according to the suit, Tippl responded "Get over it."

The suit says that had Activision not fired West and Zampella, withheld the bonus, created a hostile work place, not created a "police state-like atmosphere" they would have stayed on with the publisher.

A separate suit was filed by former Infinity Ward heads Jason West and Vince Zampella in March, seeking $36 million unpaid royalties and alleging an "Orwellian," "pre-ordained" investigation designed to "manufacture a basis to fire" the studio founders.

There will be a hearing in front of a judge on Aug. 5 to see the trials of both suits against Activision will be consolidated into one trial. A trial date was set for May 23, two weeks before next year's E3 is set to get underway.

Activision has been contacted for comment. We will update the story with comment when they provide one.

Stephen Totilo, Luke Plunkett and Owen Good contributed to this story.

Yep, so apparently these guys are interrogating employees and holding money hostage.

If this is real then this shit is getting ridiculous.

 

[Bad^Hat]

I'm not sure the present tense of the thread title is entirely accurate (if that was intended). They were threatening them into making another Modern Warfare, since West and Zampella hold the rights to any CoD game in a modern setting, now I think their hands are tied until the court case is settled. Unless maybe that clause was thrown out after they were sacked? Idunno, I'm pretty clueless about the legal side of things. In any case it's gotta suck to be one of the remaining employees after everyone else jumped ship, especially if all of the allegations of it being a "police state" are true.

Still not sure how Black Ops fits into all of this, I was sure their contract specified games set in Vietnam or later.

 

[Jintor]

Black Ops = Treyarch, so...?

 

[JUL3]

I think Activision have been playing too many vid'ya games.

Using terrorism to make a game about fighting terrorism? Please.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Black Ops = Treyarch, so...?

It's still a Call of Duty property, doesn't matter who it's developed by. West and Zampella own the intellectual property... as long as it's a modern CoD. Or something.

God this whole thing is such a cluster****. :rolling:

I think Activision have been playing too many vid'ya games.

Using terrorism to make a game about fighting terrorism? Please.

Someone should remake the airport level from MW2 except with Activision execs mowing down IW employees.

At the start of the level, Bobby Kotick will turn to the player and say, "remember: no bonus."

 

[VirusType2]

There will be a hearing in front of a judge on Aug. 5 to see the trials of both suits against Activision will be consolidated into one trial.

I'm no lawyer, but this seems unwise to have 1 lawyer to represent all 40 people. Everything rides on one decision.

Also, maybe if they each file separate claims, Activision will settle. Otherwise Activision would have to pay legal fees and deal with 40 court cases. It would be hilarious, at the very least.

 

[flamingdts]

I'm not sure the present tense of the thread title is entirely accurate (if that was intended). They were threatening them into making another Modern Warfare, since West and Zampella hold the rights to any CoD game in a modern setting, now I think their hands are tied until the court case is settled. Unless maybe that clause was thrown out after they were sacked? Idunno, I'm pretty clueless about the legal side of things. In any case it's gotta suck to be one of the remaining employees after everyone else jumped ship, especially if all of the allegations of it being a "police state" are true.

Still not sure how Black Ops fits into all of this, I was sure their contract specified games set in Vietnam or later.

I kind of followed what the article wrote, but after doing a little more reading you are correct.

 

[Deleted member 56031]

It's still a Call of Duty property, doesn't matter who it's developed by. West and Zampella own the intellectual property... as long as it's a modern CoD. Or something.

God this whole thing is such a cluster****. :rolling:

uh uh, activision own the IP hence why there are so many studios working on CoD games.

The IW contract apparently stated that west and Zampella get creative control of all CoD games made post-vietnam (black ops altho apparently jumps time a bit is still considered a vietnam game, at least i figure thats how that works legally).

Because west and zampella were fired, they forfeit the contract and activision now own the MW IP rights instead of west and zampella (you smell anything fishy yet? )

The suit filed against them means the rights are up in the air until the matter is resolved on May 2011 but MW3 wont be released until Nov 2011 most likely and it doesn't mean that IW can't work on the game until the case is over.

 

[ríomhaire]

Yeah, I can seem myself not buying any activision games in future. That company has gone ****ing insane.

 

[T-6000]

I read that article yesterday after coming back from work, and if this is really true than this is indeed a shocker. This isn't the first time I've heard such stories from developer studios. I've read many stories online about how developers are pressured to develop a game and get it ready in a certain amount of time with the resources and manpower they have. And the results of getting the game out have been stressful, especially in "Crunch Weeks". And these situations are becoming more common with developers anymore. And this is one of the reasons why it's getting harder to find a good quality title with sufficient polish and design anymore. Game Development is starting to warp into digital sweatshops.

But it seems like Activision took it one step above. How could Activision treat them like this? IW made them one of the most profitable franchises in Video Game history, and they treat them with deception, trickery, and abuse? Well I have seen greed get people into making bad decisions, but it's so stupid to mistreat your gold laying goose. Half of IW have left, and it'll take IW awhile to recover from this. I wonder if Treyarch and others under Activision's wing are going through similar abuse?

 

[Dr.Demento]

played MW1 and didn't like it and probably wouldn't like MW2.

tl;dr MW2 sucks

 

[Ennui]

Wow, that's some surreal shit. **** Activision anyway.

 

[Combine Hybrid]

You know what that means, folks. From now on, activision is going to be bashed by people like they have never been bashed before.

Just like recent past EA phenomenon.

 

[Ennui]

Activision is already getting bashed to hell and back due to all their Battle.net / Starcraft 2 shenanigens and the fact that Kotick is a complete moron.

 

[Combine Hybrid]

Activision is already getting bashed to hell and back due to all their Battle.net / Starcraft 2 shenanigens and the fact that Kotick is a complete moron.

I'm saying it's going to be a lot worse from now on.

 

[Ennui]

I don't think it can even get much worse. Activision surpassed EA in the Internet Universal Hatred Index a while back.

 

[Krynn72]

See sig.

 

[YROC]

Shit's getting real. I never knew the game industry was so dirty.

 

[Shem]

This display of incongruous behavior from a game publishing company such as Activision is frightening to hear about. Interrogating the very employees that you work with and having security personnel placed at the office exits is an incomprehensible method in trying to make a game. I think I'm going to have to agree with Krynn's sig, this has gotten way out of hand. Infinity Ward created one of the most popular war series in gaming, the Call of Duty franchise, and they're treated like suspects of some crime?

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Who's going to write the epic Masters of Doom style book concerning this drama? It's one of, if not the best our industry has ever seen in terms of widespread influence and making the mainstream press interested.

I'd settle for an HBO miniseries I suppose.

 

[Ennui]

Masters of Doom was an awesome, awesome, awesome read.

 

[Deleted member 56031]

Well i can say that i can't see myself buying another activision game ever again. And if the need should arise there's always that "evil" known as rentals and used games

It's for the greater good

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

People who make notable and original games have no qualms with resale, rentals or borrowing/trading physical copies of games, just big publishers. For the small guy without big brand awareness it raises... brand awareness. It's actually a more conscientious and "fair" way of consuming video games and promoting the development side of things and not the overwhelmingly big business oriented environment so often discussed.

People start talking about products instead of services, sleeper hits are made into cult hits, etc.

It's a viable, fully legal and fiscally responsible way to participate and I admire those that take advantage of it more regularly than myself.

 

[T-6000]

I don't think it can even get much worse. Activision surpassed EA in the Internet Universal Hatred Index a while back.

I have a feeling that these actions of Activision could get worse over time, and more widespread to other publishers/developers.

 

[Ridge]

It's hard to tell who the bad guy is in this scenario. Activision seems pretty douchy for doing things the way they are, but IW just ****ed PC players and walked....

 

[Deleted member 56031]

It's hard to tell who the bad guy is in this scenario. Activision seems pretty douchy for doing things the way they are, but IW just ****ed PC players and walked....

May have been an activision influence tho after all they own IW =/

People who make notable and original games have no qualms with resale, rentals or borrowing/trading physical copies of games, just big publishers. For the small guy without big brand awareness it raises... brand awareness. It's actually a more conscientious and "fair" way of consuming video games and promoting the development side of things and not the overwhelmingly big business oriented environment so often discussed.

People start talking about products instead of services, sleeper hits are made into cult hits, etc.

It's a viable, fully legal and fiscally responsible way to participate and I admire those that take advantage of it more regularly than myself.

That's a damn good way of putting it

I've always hated the argument that used sales are somehow as banal as piracy, ****ing ridiculous. And if they do have such a problem with it make a deal with gamestop (i think i remember hearing activision doing this =/) and stop this online pass crap! :flame:

 

[morgs]

I would like a sequel, because I am interested not so much in the story, but what happens to the characters. I wouldn't want them to force it out though.

 

[Krynn72]

I've always hated the argument that used sales are somehow as banal as piracy, ****ing ridiculous. And if they do have such a problem with it make a deal with gamestop (i think i remember hearing activision doing this =/) and stop this online pass crap! :flame:

Well, considering they dont get jack shit out of rentals or used games, it does indeed hurt them just as much as piracy. One might argue that it actually hurts them more, since all of those people who rent/buy used are actually willing to pay money, unlike with piracy.

Also, do you know how much money it would take to make gamestop stop selling used games? They make almost all of their money on it. They buy a new game for 50 bucks, sell it for 60 and make 10 dollars. They buy a used one from a customer for 25 bucks, sell it for 55, and make 30 bucks. It would be stupid of gamestop to make any kind of deal with any developer until developers get some kind of leverage. Which is what EA is doing with the 10 dollar used game fee.

 

[bbson john]

Next news:

Activision threatening Diablo3 team into making another game

 

[Bad^Hat]

uh uh, activision own the IP hence why there are so many studios working on CoD games.

The IW contract apparently stated that west and Zampella get creative control of all CoD games made post-vietnam (black ops altho apparently jumps time a bit is still considered a vietnam game, at least i figure thats how that works legally).

Because west and zampella were fired, they forfeit the contract and activision now own the MW IP rights instead of west and zampella (you smell anything fishy yet? )

Ah, thanks for clearing that up.

Like I said, the legality of all of this is way over my head.

played MW1 and didn't like it and probably wouldn't like MW2.

tl;dr MW2 sucks

You must have a PhD in completely missing the point, doctor.

People who make notable and original games have no qualms with resale, rentals or borrowing/trading physical copies of games, just big publishers. For the small guy without big brand awareness it raises... brand awareness. It's actually a more conscientious and "fair" way of consuming video games and promoting the development side of things and not the overwhelmingly big business oriented environment so often discussed.

What is? Renting/buying them used? I somehow think the small business guy is just as distraught at people playing their games without seeing a single dollar for it than the big business guy is. Anyway, it's entirely possible the smaller guys aren't utilizing these measures because they just don't have the customer base for it. Activision and EA can afford to lose a few customers over these kind of moves if it ultimately means bigger profits.

Please note I'm not against game rental, I actually use it quite often to see if something's worth purchasing, just trying to see it from a publisher's point of view.

 

[Stigmata]

It's hard to tell who the bad guy is in this scenario. Activision seems pretty douchy for doing things the way they are, but IW just ****ed PC players and walked....

The development of IWnet and the treatment of the PC platform in general is almost undoubtedly on orders from ActiBlizzard.

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by greed and a power trip.

 

[Ridge]

The development of IWnet and the treatment of the PC platform in general is almost undoubtedly on orders from ActiBlizzard.

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by greed and a power trip.

I disagree. It would be called ActiNet or something, then. IW did it so they could just make the game for one console, then all they had to do was change the control mappings. Lazy sonsabitches..

 

[MultiVaC]

I disagree. It would be called ActiNet or something, then. IW did it so they could just make the game for one console, then all they had to do was change the control mappings. Lazy sonsabitches..

It had nothing to do with laziness, it was a way for them to monetize worthless map packs like they do on consoles. With a game based on dedicated servers run by users and a widely available editor there was no way they could charge $15 for 3 maps or whatever the **** they are asking for with MW2, because there were tons of fans who were making all kinds of custom maps for free and IW had no authority over the dedicated servers that everyone played on. IWNet was a totally transparent short term cash grab; an attempt to force a system that could bring the same ridiculous profits they were getting from their half-assed DLC on consoles. I can easily see Activison demanding that IW put a system like that in place. It's something straight out of Bobby Kotick's douchebag playbook.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Regardless, I don't see how IWnet has anything to do with this. What, IW ****ed over PC gamers, so it's cool if Activision ****s them over in return because they're the "bad guys" too? Cool logic bro.

 

[Stigmata]

I disagree. It would be called ActiNet or something, then. IW did it so they could just make the game for one console, then all they had to do was change the control mappings. Lazy sonsabitches..

No True Scotsman fallacy. Also, IWnet is not an operating system or a hardware platform, and it does not make game development for PC any easier or faster. If anything, it makes it more complex, as you have to make your game compatible with random hardware, several operating systems, AND your content delivery platform, which itself must work on random hardware and several operating systems.

 

[Ridge]

But it allows the game to function multiplayer the same way consoles would.

I wonder if there could be a class action lawsuit against Activision and/or IW for not upholding part of their sales pitch, primarily stopping cheaters faster by implementing IWNet......

 

[MultiVaC]

I wonder if there could be a class action lawsuit against Activision and/or IW for not upholding part of their sales pitch, primarily stopping cheaters faster by implementing IWNet......

If you could be sued for not upholding part of a sales pitch, the entire games industry would be in court for the next 50 years.

 

[Krynn72]

But it allows the game to function multiplayer the same way consoles would.

I hope you're not saying this as if it were something good. Matchmaking services are generally terrible, and matchmaking services that are the only way to join a server makes it the worst invention in pc gaming ever.

 

[Stigmata]

But it allows the game to function multiplayer the same way consoles would.

True, but function is not the same as source code. It's easy(-y+ier) to develop for consoles, because you know exactly what hardware you're dealing with; you know exactly which functions the CPU will be able to execute, every single time, regardless of who buys the game. If you develop, or port to, PC, you suddenly have to deal with variables in every single component that your game uses. Different processors, different amounts of RAM, different RAM speeds and timings (which affects how often memory can be accessed, per cycle), different video cards, even mice with a different number of buttons. You have to make your game run, at playable speeds, on as many different hardware combinations as possible. It's not easy to just lift code that runs on an Xbox 360 and make it work on almost any computer made from 2004 onwards.

 

[Bad^Hat]

But it allows the game to function multiplayer the same way consoles would.

You're simplifying this to such a ridiculous extent...

IWnet was implemented so they could make more money, no one is disputing this. They did not do it because it was "easier" or some other stupid reason. You only have to look back at their previous online systems to realise the extra work that went into this - the server list in CoD 1-4 was awful. I can't speak for everyone, but personally I could never play them without using a third party program to launch into servers from.

Yes, IWnet was dumb. Yes, people think less of IW for shafting PC gamers. How does that have anything to do with this lawsuit?