Who are you for? EA, Jason West and Vince Zampella or activision?

[Alby_da_Wolf]

Kasz216 said:

Alby_da_Wolf said:

Kasz216 said:

.jayderyu said:

Ethics & Morals weighed against Legal Contract. That's the dillema. Do you favor a legal contract that owns your soul? or do you favor what's more ethical? Legal does not mean Ethical. Often I find that Legal is a way to get around Ethical treatment of employees. Ever notice some of the contracts you sign up to a company that waves the rights to some of the labour laws? Legal yes, Ethical no.

How is it ethics and morals vs a legal contract when West and Zampella were the unethical, immoral ones who broke their contracts?

Activision not paying the whole team in due time their share on the game profits was actually the first to violate the contract. A CEO that doesn't pay his best teams in due time is a bad CEO and a danger for his company.

Except for the fact that Activision tried to pay them.... but West and Zampella blocked said payments and demanded they be paid all the bonus if anything and didn't submit any actual bonus payment structure outside of that?

You can't blame a company for not paying you if you refuse to fill out your tax forms and refuse to take your paycheck everytime it's haned to you.

This is what Activision states about the issue, while West and Zampella's versions are quite different. And IIRC, they didn't agree about the amount, either . And there was also disagreement about the control on the MW series. I wouldn't take W and Z's versions as Gospel , but neither I would Activision's one. So, given Kotick's record about trying to get blood out of a stone, I prefer to side with W and Z unless Activision's reason become undoubtable.