Qays said: 1) So... if I hire someone to remodel my bathroom I'm suddenly not aloud to make any suggestions or choose anything, I just have to let them do whatever they please and hope I like it. No. 2) No... it is... always. You promise to do something, then you go back on that promise. That is always immoral. I promise to help you. You tell me to kill your neighbor. I refuse. I have broken my promise, but I have not engaged in any sort of immoral act. 3) Once again... read the actual quote... and the countersuit by activision. Activision is lying. Their interpretation of events simply does not make any sense in the light of the fact that their own employees obviously support West and Zampella.

1) How is this different then?  Aren't I robbing them of "Creative control over their creation" by demanding they do it my way?

2) So... you're saying Activisions contract included a provision that forced them to commit a crime?

3) Uh... yes they do... based on the fact that... you know... their own employees are supporting West and Zampella.  That's like saying "They left the cookie jar open so they could steal cookies."  "They're lieing, I mean why else do they have all the cookies!"

1. Your bathroom is not their creation, it's yours. West and Zampella, on the other hand, created Modern Warfare. It is their creation, regardless of who owns the rights.

2. No. Committing a crime is not the definition of an immoral act.

3. So you're saying that West and Zampella tried to fuck over their subordinates by denying them bonuses, and this endeared them to their subordinates and caused those subordinates to quit Activision to go work with them? Lol wut?

Qays said: I'm going to ask a very serious question that may come off as insulting... but it is very serious. How old are you? I'm going to ask a very serious question that may come off as insulting. . .but it is very serious. Do you listen to Rush Limbaugh? Are we to ignore how much coprorations have improved the world? Also, hat coprorations are made up of... people? Corporations are not Immoral. They are Amoral. They are neither good or bad, they are simply a collection of people trying to provide products to people. Corporations do not exist to improve the world. They don't even exist to provide products to people. They exist to make money. Many of them will go to any lengths to make money, even if it causes untold suffering: remember the economic collapse we just experienced due to the actions of selfish, irresponsible, and evil banks? Some corporations are worse than others. As far as video game publishers go, Activision is one of the worst. If you made it so people could break contracts whenever they wanted... society just wouldn't work anymore. And if you made it so that corporations could unilaterally destroy the careers of employees who crossed them creativity wouldn't exist.

1) no... he's as bad as Keith Oberman... I ansewered your question... so answer mine then?

 

2) Corporations need to provide goods and services from which to make money.  Also... that's not what created the economic collapse.  It was more the governments fault then anything.  Additionally, you should look up what Amoral means.

 

3)  They didn't?  West and Zampella could of just sat out their contract and THEN negotiated with EA.  There was nothing stopping them from signing with EA.  They just had to wait till their contract with Activision was over.  Kind of how... if someone agrees to redo your bathroom for you they can't just pick up in the middle of your contract say "see you later" and go across the street because your neighbor decided to pay him double.

Kaz, you are a god! Thanks for straightening this out!

Thirty-six.



Lol, yeah, the government's fault. I see you haven't heard the news about Goldman Sachs today.



Or, they could simply have decided that they had had enough, quit working for Activision, and go work for EA. Seems to be working out pretty well for them. Chances are it'll work out well for gamers, too.

ironman said: Kaz, you are a god! Thanks for straightening this out!

I wouldn't say that.  It just annoys me that people just like to pile on because Activision is unpopular.

It's like how everyone was crying that EA was going to buy Take 2 and that Take 2 was being undervalued and the CEO's weren't just protecting their jobs and bonuses...

And then EA couldn't aquire Take 2... Take 2 lost money DURING GTA 4's quarter... and their stock price is like... a 4th of what EA was offering for it.

There was nothing "immoral" these guys were fighting out against.  They just regretted the deal they signed... and rather then wait it out... what with their contracts coming up fairly soon... they decided to play corporate espionage and poison the well before they quit.

Does it suck to only make 5 million dollars when your work makes 3 Billion?  Yeah, sure but.. it also sucks when Companies pay tons of money for development studios and the development stuidos never end up making that money back.  Not to mention Modern Warfare would of never been that big without Activision in the first place.

 

Qays said: 1) no... he's as bad as Keith Oberman... I ansewered your question... so answer mine then? Thirty-six. 2) Corporations need to provide goods and services from which to make money. Also... that's not what created the economic collapse. It was more the governments fault then anything. Additionally, you should look up what Amoral means. Lol, yeah, the government's fault. I see you haven't heard the news about Goldman Sachs today. 3) They didn't? West and Zampella could of just sat out their contract and THEN negotiated with EA. There was nothing stopping them from signing with EA. They just had to wait till their contract with Activision was over. Kind of how... if someone agrees to redo your bathroom for you they can't just pick up in the middle of your contract say "see you later" and go across the street because your neighbor decided to pay him double. Or, they could simply have decided that they had had enough, quit working for Activision, and go work for EA. Seems to be working out pretty well for them. Chances are it'll work out well for gamers, too.

1) Fair enough.

2) Actually Goldman Sachs isn't being charged with causing the financial meltdown.  They are being charged with not warning people about a set of securties that they knew was to go default, because one of their customers was going to benefit by shortselling said securities.  These were Sub Prime Morgage loans.  Sub Prime Morgage Loans largely happened because of government regulations and insistances to offer deals to the poor so we could raise our home ownership numbers.

If you'll note actually Goldman Sachs was actually one of the few banks that wasn't hurt by the financial meltdown.  They weren't really related to it.

3) Now EA is the paragon of good game companies.  My god how things change.  I remember the days where EA was the "Big bad" and everyone was happy Activision was beating them! 

Goldman Sachs is charged with the type of behavior that, over the course of many years, caused the financial meltdown. Subprime mortgages played a minor role in the meltdown, which was principally caused by the reckless use of derivatives and credit-default swaps on the part of greedy evil corporations.



Yes, things change. EA wised up and decided that it was time to start treating its game designers like artists instead of slaves. Activision still hasn't learned that lesson.

Qays said: 2) Actually Goldman Sachs isn't being charged with causing the financial meltdown. They are being charged with not warning people about a set of securties that they knew was to go default, because one of their customers was going to benefit by shortselling said securities. These were Sub Prime Morgage loans. Sub Prime Morgage Loans largely happened because of government regulations and insistances to offer deals to the poor so we could raise our home ownership numbers. Goldman Sachs is charged with the type of behavior that, over the course of many years, caused the financial meltdown. Subprime mortgages played a minor role in the meltdown, which was principally caused by the reckless use of derivatives and credit-default swaps on the part of greedy evil corporations. 3) Now EA is the paragon of good game companies. My god how things change. I remember the days where EA was the "Big bad" and everyone was happy Activision was beating them! Yes, things change. EA wised up and decided that it was time to start treating its game designers like artists instead of slaves. Activision still hasn't learned that lesson.

1) No it isn't.  It is being charged with witholding vital information from investors.

The government says Goldman Sachs & Co. sold mortgage investments without telling the buyers that the securities were crafted with input from a client who was betting on them to fail.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ijX619r2ag9b79Pk9JCtMrjEgJoAD9F4J2H00

Read any article and you'll see.  The Subprime morgages themselves weren't illegal... and infact the government pushed banks to give them out.

The charges have nothing to do with Subprime morgages other then... those were the assets that were expected to fail.

 

2) No they haven't.  They're the same company they've always been. 

Rush is 100 times worse than Olbermann.  Olbermann's words match reality much more often, period.  They are comparable in terms of being on their own side of the political spectrum and not trying to be "balanced" (which would be fail anyway), but that's not nearly the salient point.  Plus Olbermann is like Jon Stewart, REacting to stupidity, not putting it out there sui generis like Limbaugh/Fox do constantly.

Btw the government encouraged homeownership through several programs, yes, but the rise of bundling and selling of mortgage-backed securities tracks the price bubble much more tightly, while government programs existed for decades before the price bubble, with little change from the gov't end in the runup to the crash.  Demand for the securities drove housing prices up.  Wall Street bundling and selling them to investors abroad caused the bubble, then the crash.