The Activision / Infinity Ward legal battle

[Vympel]

The story so far

Included are scans of the originating process filed on behalf of the two ousted IW heads. Its highly inflammatory stuff, clearly drafted for PR effect, but to me on the face of it, it looks like Activision is screwed. I can't imagine how they could begin to rebut the claims, given the nature of the agreement between IW and Activision.

[CaptHawkeye]

"Everything We Know About Call of Dutygate"



Anyway, this thing doesn't really surprise me. The way it sounds, IW wanted to make a sequel to Modern Warfare but Activision was highly manipulative of the process. *Gasp*, a developer being bullied by its publisher? We've sure never seen THAT before Batman!

IW obviously doesn't want to make Modern Warfare forever, but Activision won't have it any other way. This is SAME EXACT SHIT that happened to Bungie. They'll try to pull out some bullshit contract stipulations, but no matter what they do, they won't be able to stop IW's employees from just fucking quiting if they don't like where things are going. Bungie was lucky in that they were able to leave Microsoft as a whole, rather than have to leave piecemeal and eventually form a new studio like FASA. FASA's offspring have been starting from Square 1 since they left Microsoft and haven't made much progress, but this was still better to them than having Microsoft run their lives day in and out.

IW will either leave this mess intact, in name only, or gutted and scattered. Leaving "Intact" is a Bungie style exit. The studio still exists and has enough money to begin private game development immediately.

Leaving "in name only" means that all the developers from the company who mattered left, and the studio is now run by Activision shills and yes-men. Old employees leave to build new studio. IE: The "FASA" style exit.

"Gutted" is pretty much what it sounds. The legal battles end disastrously, Activision "absorbs" IW completely and forces them to an eternal damnation of making progressively worse and worse sequels until the publisher pulls the plug. IE: The "Every studio EA has ever bought" exit.

Sledgehammer studios is irrelevant. They sound just like 343 Studios, a group of fanboy developers who's only job is to keep making the same game over and over again. They're an insult to every consumer and developer out there, but their existence is not surprising.

[Darksider]

you know, I used to make jokes about how Activision was assuming EA's mantle of "Evil Game Publishing Empire," now that EA has taken at least some steps towards decency, (at least as far as consumers are concerned. IIRC they still treat their employees like shit) but it really is true isn't it?

[Oskuro]

Heh, it is actually funny how not long ago Activision took a shot at EA by claiming that they "succeeded only in sucking the soul out of their studios".

I guess this is the price of success. Once you creation makes a fuckload of money, all pretense of honor or respect is thrown out the window. In other news, guess why after adquiring WORLD OF WARCRAFT from Vivendi, Activision doesn't give a shit about PC releases anymore (or why they are killing Sierra, for example).

[Losonti Tokash]

Heh, it is actually funny how not long ago Activision took a shot at EA by claiming that they "succeeded only in sucking the soul out of their studios".

Yeah, you can pretty much just look at a comparison between the paths of Guitar Hero (Activision) and Rock Band (EA/MTV) to see how much bullshit that statement is.

[Minischoles]

If the MOU contains what is stated within the papers submitted to the court and scanned up, then I don't see how Activision can possibly win this short of outright bribery - or proof that the two IW heads were using company money to fund a pornography ring on the side, and snuck in each night to defecate on Koticks desk.

Of course they won't care. Even if they lose the license of the Modern Warfare label, they've still got WoW - and it won't stop them making very similar games, and pumping them out at a rate of 2 a year - because there are enough die hard fans who wouldn't even care if the game came packaged with a device that smacked you straight in the nutsack everytime you cracked open the games case.

[Ypoknons]

Woah is it usual to be this inflammatory and writing for the benefit of the press in the United States? I did civil procedure this morning and in the English / Hong Kong tradition we have succinct pleadings where we're supposed to keep material facts that gave rise to our cause of action.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Woah is it usual to be this inflammatory and writing for the benefit of the press in the United States? I did civil procedure this morning and in the English / Hong Kong tradition we have succinct pleadings where we're supposed to keep material facts that gave rise to our cause of action.

Not according to what Vympel said when he found out about it on SB.com.

[Edward Yee]

If the MOU contains what is stated within the papers submitted to the court and scanned up, then I don't see how Activision can possibly win this short of outright bribery - or proof that the two IW heads were using company money to fund a pornography ring on the side, and snuck in each night to defecate on Koticks desk.

From what I've read at Joystiq, it basically comes down to whether the actual wording made the MOU a binding contract or a non-binding agreement, akin to a Letter of Intent.

And yeah, Ypoknons, it pretty much sounds clearly written to grab hype/media attention, since while there would be high stakes and media attention either way, said inflammatory language also lets sound bytes and little catchphrases get out into the press.

Even if they lose the license of the Modern Warfare label, they've still got WoW

I assume by "WoW" you mean World of Warcraft and not World at War? There's two more factors going for Activision here:
1. Before the game's release there was news that Activision chose not to simply call it Modern Warfare 2, since their research found that the Call of Duty name was more of what people thought of/remembered when they meant "Call of Duty 4" or "its sequel." If they still get to keep the Call of Duty name, the Modern Warfare brand may not have nearly as much value for another publisher.
2. I had a guy in my store today who actually spoke well of World at War in comparison to Modern Warfare 2, complaining of glitching and camping in the latter while praising Nazi Zombies from the former as always bringing the replay value. If this view spreads further over time and makes World at War look better in retrospect while the Modern Warfare brand looks worse in retrospect... same result as #1.

[Ritterin Sophia]

1. Before the game's release there was news that Activision chose not to simply call it Modern Warfare 2, since their research found that the Call of Duty name was more of what people thought of/remembered when they meant "Call of Duty 4" or "its sequel." If they still get to keep the Call of Duty name, the Modern Warfare brand may not have nearly as much value for another publisher.

Except according to the papers for the lawsuit the MOU stipulates both Modern Warfare and any post-Vietnam War Call of Duty games.

2. I had a guy in my store today who actually spoke well of World at War in comparison to Modern Warfare 2, complaining of glitching and camping in the latter while praising Nazi Zombies from the former as always bringing the replay value. If this view spreads further over time and makes World at War look better in retrospect while the Modern Warfare brand looks worse in retrospect... same result as #1.

War's not fair, cry some more? How do you reply to something as inane as whining about camping? If it's the most effective tacticyou should by all rights use it, so long as you don't complain when it's used against you.

[Edward Yee]

Except according to the papers for the lawsuit the MOU stipulates both Modern Warfare and any post-Vietnam War Call of Duty games.

Alright, makes sense. If Treyarch is really doing a Vietnam War-era CoD then that gets by the terms of the MOU, binding or not.

War's not fair, cry some more? How do you reply to something as inane as whining about camping? If it's the most effective tacticyou should by all rights use it, so long as you don't complain when it's used against you.

Hey, I'm not the one complaining about camping here, though I should emphasize that the overall growing negative view of MW2 was what I was referring to.

P.S. Apparently a guy streaming his Napoleon: Total War play complained when the AI camped against him instead of marching piecemeal into his artillery... hilarity ensued.

[PeZook]

P.S. Apparently a guy streaming his Napoleon: Total War play complained when the AI camped against him instead of marching piecemeal into his artillery... hilarity ensued.

You know, that could explain why Total War AI remained so crap for so long

Gamers with self-esteem issues couldn't feel big and mighty after the AI raped them by the use of a brilliant strategem like "Do not charge straight into overwhelming missile fire"

[starfury]

well Mr. Sean Malstorm weighs in, not so thinkly highly of IW however.

Email: Infinity Ward sues ActivisionHi Malstrom,

What do you think of this link?
-

http://abovethelaw.com/2010/03/lawsuit_ ... vision.php

Yet more Industry corporate douchebaggery from Activision and Kotick. A couple of weeks ago, Kotick had the founders of Infinity Ward escorted out of their offices by security. They are now suing because they allege that they were fired just before they were to receive their first royalty checks for Modern Warfare 2.
-
It would appear that the Industry is going from greedy and lazy to criminal. Keep up the good work and I’ll keep reading your blog.
-
You’re not going to like my reply to this. I’ve always called Kotick as ‘King Kotick’ and have been critical of many ‘game company’ decision makers (i.e. the “Industry”). But I also have been critical of the ‘artist personality’ who thinks they are geniuses and can ignore business reality. I want to destroy the ‘Game Gods’. These bad businessmen like Kotick did not appear from the sky. They got their tentacles into gaming precisely because of the ‘artist personalities’ who believe business matters are of no importance to them so they outsource it to people outside of gaming.

While details will be debated, here is the general cusp of events as I understand it:
_
-Infinity Ward does not wish to make Modern Warfare 2. Wishes to do something else.

-Activision forces Infinity Ward to make Modern Warfare 2.

-Infinity Ward does not allow Activision to see its milestones on time. This infuriates Kotick.

-Infinity Ward hides the ‘Russian Mission’ where you kill civilians until it becomes so late that Activision cannot tell them to take it out without ruining the launch date for Modern Warfare 2 (which already had millions invested in the marketing and advertising side for the launch date).

-Infinity Ward begins to talk to other publishers in a breach of their contract. Apparently, Infinity Ward knew they were in trouble and were looking to bail out.

-The big risk is that when the founders of Infinity Ward left, they could poach the entire team. So Activision made the preemptive attempt to stop any poaching by cutting off the head of the company.

It has been extremely disappointing to see how this issue is being reported as a ‘little creative artist being stomped on by big ugly corporate giant’. West and Zampelli are certainly millionaires. While it was PC gaming where Call of Duty found its initial success, the two of them turned against PC gaming (remember the ruckus of no dedicated servers for Modern Warfare 2?). I thought the stupid Russian mission was something Activision had put in as the dopey ‘big business guy’ trying to be creative. But it was West and Zampelli who were the ones behind it. And the fact that they were trying to hide it until it couldn’t be taken out was definite grounds of insubordination. That Russian mission could have exploded into a ‘Hot Coffee’ situation and done huge damage to the Call of Duty franchise.

One thing I do not see anyone reporting is how Infinity Ward did not wish to make Modern Warfare 2 but Activision made them. Activision was correct to make them make the game as Modern Warfare 2 is a smashing success. But I suppose this isn’t being reported because it would show Activision had the correct judgment on that decision and that would ruin the template of ‘poor artists stamped on by big corporate giant’ of a story. It is also not being reported that West and Zampelli have so much money now that they don’t even need a job. They are not like your typical employees. This, too, is not being said because it doesn’t fit the emotional template our little game journalists want to write.

Activision did help build Infinity Ward. They invested in the company. They funneled in the money. When someone invests in you, they have leverage over you. Period. It is looking like West and Zampelli suffer from the ‘artist disease’ in thinking that they, alone, are cause of the success of Modern Warfare. They probably are so egotistical to think the marketing departments and sales departments are just parasites off of “their” genius.

In matters between an artist who is annoyed he cannot be ‘creative’ in any way, shape, or form to the business that pays his bills, I’ll always side with the business. The reason why is that the business, even ones that I do not consider ‘good businesses’ like Activision, have to live in reality. The artist,.as his profession demands, intentionally does not live in reality. West and Zampelli had their PR dude call the Activision producer a ‘douche’ publically. The question isn’t why West and Zampelli were terminated but why Activision waited so long to do so.

But more troublesome is the bad reporting over the story. I don’t expect anything decent on business matters to come from game journalists. And this isn’t a slam. Game journalists want their job to report on games, not talk about business and that is fine. But when a site like Venture Beat writes some odd stuff, you have to be totally disappointed. Let us look at this story for a second.

After the Medal of Honor game shipped in 2002, Grant Collier and Vince Zampella left 2015 to set up their own game studio, Infinity Ward. They started out in Santa Monica, Calif., as close to the beach as possible. Their friend Jason West joined them, as did a total of 22 former 2015 employees. They got their startup money from Activision, a game publisher run by Bobby Kotick, who wanted them to get Activision into the then-hot genre of World War II shooting games. Activision gave them $1.5 million for a 30 percent stake. At the time, that was plenty of money to make a PC game. The deal made a lot of sense because the Infinity Ward crew had proven it could make an outstanding game. And Kotick was always happy to give seed money for teams that were willing to break away from Electronic Arts, his chief rival.

The bold always comes up as a red flag to me. What the hell does a beach have to do with game development? It sounds like West and Zampelli were ‘lifestyle developers’ from the start. But note that Kotick is directly responsible for investing the money that created Infinity Ward.

Activision was thrilled at the reception and agreed to acquire the remaining 70 percent of Infinity Ward in 2003 for $3.5 million. While Activision now held the purse strings for resources, Kotick let the team run independently. He wanted to “preserve the magic.”

Isn’t this what most studios want? They want the financial resources but want the business dudes to butt out? Kotick was happy to comply. Activision wanted their studios to be as successful as possible.

In talking about Call of Duty 2, we get the following:

Infinity Ward also put serious effort into putting artificial intelligence into its enemy soldiers. If a player stayed too long in one spot, the enemies would gather and outflank or encircle him just as in a real battle. The player also had intelligent squad mates who had to stay out of the real player’s way and yet guide him to the battle’s objective. All of this extra programming pushed the budget for the game toward $30 million. That was a big bet by Activision, which had to approve the game’s direction and budget.

Activision, again, is betting big on Infinity Ward. In other words, Activision is directly responsible for the success of Infinity Ward.

They were also starting to feel Activision wasn’t given them their fair share of compensation from the games’ sales.

Activision was making billions of dollars in revenue from Call of Duty. It entered into negotiations with Zampella and West and induced them to take on the sequel. In March, 2008, Activision offered them more money. They extended their contracts through 2011. They promised to deliver Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 by Nov. 15, 2009.

Activision is offering West and Zampella more money, and they still aren’t happy. Like all artists, they believe they feel ripped that the business owners are the ones getting big bucket of the cashflow. Forget the fact that Activision’s investment money made the company.

In any entertainment business, it is always the business owner who gets the money. You will see the owner of the radio station driving the nice car, not the talent. You will see the publisher have the money, not the writer. The reason why this is so is because the ‘creative artist’ refused to learn the business side and let others do it for him. The result is that the destiny of the ‘creative artist’ is to always be leveraged. There are some ‘artists’ who do know the business side, and they, themselves, are fantastically wealthy.

You need to know business not just to make money but more importantly to protect yourself from ridiculous leveraging. If you are working harder and in under more stress while getting the same amount of money, you are likely being leveraged.

In a year and eight months, Infinity Ward completed the game. Modern Warfare 2 launched on Nov. 10, 2009, to almost universal critical acclaim. It created a huge controversy because there was a scene where the player, acting as an undercover agent, had to accompany a group of terrorists as they mowed down unarmed Russian civilians at an airport. The outcry from critics only generated more sales for the game, which set records of all kinds.

Good job putting your opinion in the middle of this piece, Takahashi.

Activision’s legal investigation into Infinity Ward’s alleged “insubordination” and “breach of contract” continued. Activision lawyers grilled Zampella and West in a windowless room for six hours on President’s Day. They interviewed other Infinity Ward employees. The attorneys were allegedly seeking information about attempts by the founders to contact Electronic Arts and other potential competitors.

This is really where I don’t like this piece. Takahashi is trying to imply that Activision interrogated and tortured West and Zampella. This is so stupid. Why not tell us whether the air conditioner was on or off as well?

President’s Day is the equivalent of St. Patrick’s Day in America meaning that it is no holiday at all. The reason why President’s Day was invented was by ski lobbyists so people would have time to skiing on the slopes some more before the weather got too warm. If they were brought in at Christmas Day or Thanksgiving, that would be something. But President’s Day? Give me a break!

Infinity Ward’s lawsuit says this was simply an attempt to “manufacture a basis to fire West and Zampella.”

And what is wrong with this? If a company wants to fire you, they will most certainly find a way to do so. Activision invested tons of money into Infinity Ward and definitely wanted West and Zampella to do their thing, be happy, and make more money. But the two of them must have really pissed off Activision in order for them to try to push them out.

Activision Blizzard lawyers had demanded that the founders surrender their cell phones, PCs and other communications devices. When they refused on privacy grounds, the lawyers asserted that this was an additional act of insubordination.

You live by a contract, you die by a contract.

Zampella added, “After all we have given to Activision, we shouldn’t have to sue to get paid.”

Says the millionaire. Ooops. Sorry. I didn’t mean to say that. Pretend you never heard that, reader.

The fact is Infinity Ward is successful because of Activision. This is almost as absurd as Retro suing Nintendo.

In a statement, Activision Blizzard said, “Activision is disappointed that Mr. Zampella and Mr. West have chosen to file a lawsuit, and believes their claims are meritless. Over eight years, Activision shareholders provided these executives with the capital they needed to start Infinity Ward, as well as the financial support, resources and creative independence that helped them flourish and achieve enormous professional success and personal wealth. In return, Activision legitimately expected them to honor their obligations to Activision, just like any other executives who hold positions of trust in the company. While the company showed enormous patience, it firmly believes that its decision was justified based on their course of conduct and actions. Activision remains committed to the Call of Duty franchise, which it owns, and will continue to produce exciting and innovative games for its millions of fans.”

I have a hunch that Activision is going to win this case. And it is not because of Activision’s lawyers. The West and Zampella defense seem to be little more than ‘grieved artist being stamped on by big corporation’ where all information shows that Activision was a central player in building Infinity Ward. If Activision can build Infinity Ward, they can disassemble it or re-arrange it. The legal contracts will have the final say, of course, but all Activision has to do is show how much money they have invested into the company and show off West and Zampella’s insubordinate attempts through the years (which are not being reported because, of course, that does not fit the template of ‘poor artist being stamped on by big corporation’.)

When looking at the comments, I was pleased to find people defending Activison on this issue. And, more interestingly, people becoming unhinged when someone defended Activision.

Business education is 95% emotion. Matters of money are not a matter of arithmetic but of emotion. Investing money, building a business, these are massively emotional hurdles.

There are many people out there who are wedded to the idea of ‘artists are always wonderful’ and ‘businessmen are always corporate pigs’. When someone makes the point that the creative, imaginary, artist is likely the guilty party in this, they get very emotionally upset. This is why you learn business. The Infinity Ward story smells like a typical ‘arrogant artist’ scenario. And I have no love for Activision either.



It has gotten so absurd as to paint Kotick as Hitler. (And Modern Warfare 2 is most certainly not the best selling game on the planet.) But I have noticed most modern problems coming from disgruntled artists (usually disgruntled because of how their ‘visions’ never end up becoming recognized). Hitler was a failed artist. The Jews he slaughtered were the ‘businessmen’.

The Infinity Ward issue worries me only in the sense that people blindly side with the ‘artist’ and automatically paint the investor of the artist as ‘evil corporation’. With how much money Call of Duty was bringing in, West and Zampella had to have been doing something really drastic to have Activision force them out. But for some reason, the ‘artist’ can never be guilty.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Ritterin Sophia]

Can I get a source for the claim that the hid the Russian "Kill Civilians" (You can, but it's not required, the only people you have to kill are some Russian SWAT, even the security guards in the mission are easily handled by your partners) mission? I've never heard of this. Or Hell any of his claims?

[starfury]

Just email him, I frequent His site more the samus Young, since it adds nice alternative view on the current gaming industry.

[General Zod]

Can I get a source for the claim that the hid the Russian "Kill Civilians" (You can, but it's not required, the only people you have to kill are some Russian SWAT, even the security guards in the mission are easily handled by your partners) mission? I've never heard of this. Or Hell any of his claims?

They wound up modifying or removing that scene for the Japanese and Russian releases, respectively, so the claim seems rather suspicious.

[CaptHawkeye]

The relationship between publishers and developers in the industry makes me sick. I've never been one to necessarily side with developers (who I largely think are unimaginative fanboy shills), and Activision is doing nothing out of the ordinary for a company poised to make unbelievable amounts of money. Even if it means a handful of careers and livelihoods are ruined. I honestly suspected this was the whole situation long before we ever heard of it. It's happened god knows how many other times.

[Vympel]

I think that post is freaking stupid. It makes no substantive analysis of the issues at play, it just engages in trite character assassination - (leaving aside that quoted post has no link to where it comes from, it links to somewhere else and I can't tell who's talking) - who gives a shit how rich they already are? What kind of idiot reads a lawsuit that says "we didn't get paid and we're entitled to be" and thinks "well you've already got lots of money" is a fucking reubttal?

It also means precisely dick how much Activision put into Infinity Ward. That completely misses the point. Its not "the contracts will have the final say" - the contracts will have the only say. Thats the question here.

There's one obvious mistake in the drafting of that complaint that has been pointed out - that the effect of the MOU would 'keep Infinity Ward as part of Activision'. Activision already owns IW, AFAIK. The two heads have confused themselves with the company, I think. The lawyer should have caught that.

[Edward Yee]

They wound up modifying or removing that scene for the Japanese and Russian releases, respectively, so the claim seems rather suspicious.

Also edited in the German version too.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Just email him, I frequent His site more the samus Young, since it adds nice alternative view on the current gaming industry.

Or I can hold you responsible for the contents of the articles you're quoting when you claim them to be accurate.

[starfury]

Or I can hold you responsible for the contents of the articles you're quoting when you claim them to be accurate

I found his views How should say amusing, since it goes against most the entire industry, he never really claims to be accurate and he is pretty laughing at anyone who does take offense, after all he never made it secrat he despises the current gaming industry and is waiting for the entire thing to come crashing down.

[Silver Jedi]

Jesus Christ, can't you even give a link to the fucking source? I had to google this guy, then wade through pages of him bitching about PS3 stuff to even find the post you quoted, so I could make sense of it. You didn't carry over the formatting, so the first clue I had that he was quoting people the entire time was halfway through it.

All of that aside, I agree with Vympel. All he seems to be saying is that because the "artists" dared disagree with the "businessmen" they don't deserve to be paid for their work. This is apparently ok to him, because they do the same thing in other parts of the entertainment industry.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I found his views How should say amusing, since it goes against most the entire industry, he never really claims to be accurate and he is pretty laughing at anyone who does take offense, after all he never made it secrat he despises the current gaming industry and is waiting for the entire thing to come crashing down.

Protesting simply to protest makes him a fucking moron that likes to be argumentative and makes you look like a twat for wasting our time since his protests are unfounded.