pezus said:
Kasz216 said:
pezus said:
Kasz216 said:
pezus said:
Kasz216 said:
Do developers have to listen to the people who pay there bills?
Why yes... yes they do...
and there isn't anything wrong with that.
If you want to completely see your own vision go make indy games... or just do the gruntwork "movie tie in" games that they get random devs to do so you can self fund your own game.
Otherwise, yeah you'll have to do what the developer wants unless you can convince them it's a bad idea.
It's only fair really. I mean, who wants to give 5 million + dollars to someone without having any say in what they're doing at all?
|
Yeah, but devs like Infinity Ward. Activision was surely unjust towards them, why would the majority have left otherwise? It's not like Activision give them money of their good will, they only do it so they can get their money back multiplied by ~20. Surely Infinity Ward deserved more respect from them, some of their biggest moneymakers.
|
Most of infinity ward left Activision because their department heads were charismatic dicks who were screwing over everyone but convinced everyone it was activision who did so by intentionally not distribuiting bonuses or directing almost all of it to themselves and making it look like it was activision who was screwing them.
|
Hmm I've actually never heard that. But didn't the heads of Infinity Ward leave and create another company with the other IW devs? Zampella I think one was called. Or was he not one of the heads?
|
Well yeah... hence the "tricked them" part.
Best as can be figured, West and Zampella were unhappy with the deal they signed with Activision, wanted more money so they met with EA via privately chartered flight to sign a contract, while still under contract with Activision... with a contract that specifically had a non-compete can't talk about forming a new company clause.
Then preceded to do all they could to submarine the Treyarch COD's by releasing stuff related to theirs on days to try and block it's momentum, directly stole files and refused to distribute bonuses or when finally doing so, putting such a huge portion towards themselves that it was deemed" ridiculous".
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/108/1082893p1.html
Looks like they have a pretty strong case since the trial will move along.
http://www.play.tm/news/34563/activision-lawsuit-against-ea-jason-west-and-vince-zampella-to-proceed/
Though the IW Group lawsuit will still go along as well, simply because West and Zampella were Activision employees while they were screwing their co-workers.
|
Wow, but can Activision lawyers be trusted? Was this completely confirmed and weren't the former IW employees that left with them pissed?
|
Would have to wait for the trial to be certain... however considering that most of what Activision has said has already been backed up by coutroom evidence, most of what they've said you would think could be trusted.
They've already shown proof of the meeting while West and Zampella were under contract, showed proof of the trailer being release date being made specifically to screw over Treyarch's DLC and had specific texts published about the stealing of corporate information.
It's rare that actual physical proof is produced to the public so early on since most of these cases rely on hersay.
Just outright fabricating the proof already provided would be so criminally dangerous and just outright stupid it's pretty safe to beleive that W&Z did meet with EA while under contract, did steal company information and did intentionally work against the company to screw it over.
The only thing that hasn't had some info published about it yet is the bonuses issue. So that will depend really on whether or not their bonus system has a paperwork trail. Which I'd guess it would, but we'll see.
W&Z's only real defense is claiming that they were consistantly joking about everything. Which considering some of the texts seems... unlikely at best.
Another older article on it before the texts about screwing over Treyarch were leaked.
http://www.gamespy.com/articles/108/1083587p1.html
