| Machiavellian said: The problem I really have is not that you have an opinion is that like everyone on the net, always willing to call a developer a lier when you have no shred of proof. |
You can keep saying that, but it doesn't change the fact that I have explained to you over and over again why their explanations don't add up. But I'm flexible. If "lying" is too ugly a word for your delicate disposition, then let's just call it "dissembling".
| Machiavellian said: Next you link an interview that clearly states that Respawn sided with EA partners because one, they help fund their new company and 2 Respawn gets to keep their IP, their business direction and control of their business and games. Why do you ignore the info you post then just make up your own scenerio. |
I didn't ignore it. I just interpreted it realistically. A contract (even a contract with the magical EA Partners) is not, as you seem to think, a Choose Your Own Adventure book. It is a binding agreement. Sure, Respawn retains control of its business. It retains control by building an IP that will remain an asset to them in the future as opposed to an IP that they will have to check at the door if they part ways with EA. That is what they mean when they talk about freedom and owning their own destiny. They don't mean that they can run around willy nilly getting Microsoft and Square-Enix and Burger King involved with their game against EA's wishes. That would be silly.
Now, why do you ignore what Carmack said and what you yourself have said? "As stated, each deal is custom and developers can pick and choose how much of EA they want in their business." That's right. So Valve and id didn't incur much involvement at all because they weren't asking for much at all. But it stands to reason that Respawn and EA are going to be intimately involved because Respawn asked for and received a lot.
You think it's a given that EA would offer West and Zampella the moon because of who they are, but who they are didn't keep Activision from firing them in the first place. (And it's funny how you can think this while also believing it's plausible that EA would let Respawn run out of money, forcing them to go to MS for additional funding.) No other publisher besides Activision has the cash to compete with EA, so it's not like they faced a lot of serious competition. Who else even was there? Microsoft and Ubi? With how ugly and personal things were getting between Kotick and West/Zampella, I can see Microsoft not wanting to do anything that might cheese off Kotick. Like helping the employees he was spying on and trying to run out of the company set up shop, and then publishing their direct competitor to COD. There was no need when they could always buy exclusivity off of whomever Respawn ended up with. Which they eventually did.
