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

[Kasz216]

Alby_da_Wolf said:

Kasz216 said:

Alby_da_Wolf said:

Kasz216 said:

[...]

So your taking the word of the group of people you KNOW did something wrong, because you dislike the other group of people.  Thank you for proving my point.

 

Afterall your taking the side of "They did something wrong, but it's ok because they said activision did something wrong too, with no proof, and apparently with memos and notices stating the exact opposite in evidence."

Which by the way isn't an actual defense.   Even if they are telling the truth about the payments, they are still guilty of breach of contract.  If someone else breaches your contract you don't breach it as well and claim "they did first" and thing everything is going to be ok.  You start legal procedings.

Unless you are buying the story that "They fired them so they could keep a few million dollars while risking sales in the billions of dollars..."

Two wrongs don't make a right, I perfectly know. No wrong from any part has been proven in tribunal yet, anyway, but you accuse me of buying W and Z's story while you buy Activision's one. And you also look desperate to downplay Activision's possible wrong just in case two wrongs are proven. BTW, in many countries, after the strongest part commits a serious breach of contract, the weakest one is often considered relieved from many or even every contract obligations.

1. Only if proven before they breach said contracts themselves.  Hence you know, why you'd lawyer up.

I'm not "buying" anything.  I'm looking at the facts objectivly.  I mean hell, I can't even name the last activision game I've bought.  I recieved Red Steel as a gift... that's all I can thnk of.

One the one hand, you've got West and Zampella,  who are pretty much known for this kind of thing, who definitly did something illegal that everyone can agree with.

On the otherhand you have activision... who may or may not have done something wrong... and who specifically mention correspondense to them about said event.  Which either they have or it's more or less an auto-lose so there is no point to bring it up unless it exists unless they exist.

I mean, have you even bothered to look at the evidence that HAS released so far? 

There are text messages of Zampella while working at activison talking about how he did something specifically to hurt activision and "COD: WaW". 

You are taking the side who is pretty much already proven guilty of something, (or at least there is heavy proof they are guilty) against the side of someone in which there is no proof against them.

Also the evidences in favour of Activision must be checked in tribunal, though, and about W and Z messages, opinions and wishes, even harsh, will have to be told from actual actions.

About 1, yes, breaking the contract in their turn as an answer to a supposed previous breach by the other part to their disadvantage and BEFORE taking any actual legal action is risky, because then they MUST prove the other part broke the contract first, otherwise they'll be considered the only ones guilty of breach. But if the previous breach by Activision were proven, their successive breach could be fined too or not, but most probably less than Activision's one, or in an extreme case, fined in the same measure, and what it would remain would be that fines would compensate each other and Activision then would still have to pay what was due. BTW, if you look at the chronology of facts, both parts started legal actions later than their respective supposed breaches, they are both at fault at least up to a certain degree from this point of view.

Finally, about W and Z attitudes, if Activision will be found in the right, they'd be quite weasely, besides guily of the breach, otherwise, if their claims against it are proven instead, it would be a reaction to an unfulfillen promise by Activision to leave them more control on their series. But also about this everything still has to be established in tribunal, Activision's claims are still only claims just like W and Z ones are. Both parts claim to have evidences, but it hasn't been extablished yet by a tribunal what these evidences actually prove.

They specifically talk about how they released a video specifically do ruin treyarchs buisness.

As in, the specifically took the action to do it.

Then they lied and said they had no idea that the Treyarch map pack was coming out the same day.  (Despite you know, saying when they released it via text message that it was done to inentionally screw Treyarch.)

There is no doubt of West and Zampella's guilt.  The only tricky part is proving that they were damaged iby it.

With Black Ops selling so well and Infanty Ward in general shown as overrated in terms of the franchises success.... it's a hard thing to prove.  Plus Activisions stock only went up.  In general Infinity Ward's value seems to have been greatly inflated by all 3 parties.

Once again though, I point out, and you've yet to have any defense for the fact that you are supporting the side who has produced zero evidence vs a side that that has produced evidence.

This is an illogical stance to take at present.

Espiecally considering Infinity Ward was created by West and Zampella raiding 2015 INC... in the exact same manner as they are accused of doing with Respawn.

 

It's like saying "I know they have some proof that they said he was going to rob their house... and I know that he's robbed houses before.... but I think they're lieing!"

Whether the person is lieing or not is irrelevent to the point that your stance is irrational.  If your arguement was "I'm not taking anyside" that would be rational.  "I'm taking the side of the group that has shown no proof vs the side of the group that has."

Not so much.