By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Activision claims EA and former IW execs schemed to 'inflict serious harm on the company'

mhsillen on 23 December 2010

Waaaaah I hate activision they are mean and nasty I hope they and all their hardworking employees lose their jobs

Oh ea is such a good publisher...what ever



Around the Network
Beuli2 on 23 December 2010
Scoobes said:

This could make an awesome movie (although a better one if West and Zampella win).

"The creators of the greatest gaming franchise in history. Betrayed by the coporate, money hungry Activision."

You're wrong on this. COD isn't the biggest gaming franchise and you know it. It's not even in the top 5.



Above: still the best game of the year.

Scoobes on 23 December 2010
Beuli2 said:
Scoobes said:

This could make an awesome movie (although a better one if West and Zampella win).

"The creators of the greatest gaming franchise in history. Betrayed by the coporate, money hungry Activision."

You're wrong on this. COD isn't the biggest gaming franchise and you know it. It's not even in the top 5.

The whole point of me putting the comment in quotations was you're meant to imagine a cheesy Hollywood voice over.




Get your Portable ID!

Killiana1a on 24 December 2010
noname2200 said:
Killiana1a said:
noname2200 said:

Incorrect.  Even in a material breach, the breachor is entitled to some compensation under the contract for (non-gratuitious) services rendered, albeit minus the damages caused by the breach.

Remember, contract law does not care about who the "bad guy" is, it cares about economic efficiency.  Morality only enters the equation in contract law when the violator has done something incredibly egregious.  Screwing over your employer rarely, if ever, reaches that level.

Yes, but does screwing over the artist?

From what I read on here, Kotaku, Joystiq, Gamespot, and IGN regarding this issue is:

West and Zampella = Artists; Activision (especially Kotick) = Bad, greedy corrupt Corporation.

Lets not forget West and Zampella would have never created Call of Duty unless Activision and it's shareholders put their faith and trust in them by investing money to allow them the space and resources to create the Call of Duty series.

So many are so quick to side with West and Zampella because they are two men against Activision. Nevermind, they are multi-millionaire game developers at the echelon of their industry while those who work below them will most likely never reach their level.

West and Zampella are businessmen the same way Activision is, if not more as evidenced by their unprofessional behavior in demanding more (rights to CoD) than the original contract allowed for (this is up for debate). The problem here is, they signed a contract with Activision in the early 2000s, which gave Activision rights to the Call of Duty before it was even created. During their work with Activision and due to the success of Call of Duty, West and Zampella became multi-millionaire developers well respected amongst their peers. Thus forth, I have a really hard time finding sympathy for them.

We are not talking about bohemian artists living in run down apartment buildings in an ex-industrial district in a big city. West and Zampella have the wealth of a Molyneux, Miyamoto, and on.

Indie game developers = bohemian artists; West and Zampella = Thomas Kinkade level wealth and art.

Again, none of this is relevant under contract law.  The law does not care for the size of the breachor's pocket book*, it only cares about the numbers involved in the contract.  If Activision had been the breachor, the analysis would be precisely the same.  Keep in mind that in this quote tree I am not offering my moral or ethical opinion, I am simply stating the law on the matter.

*Except for the very rare occasion of punitive damages, in which case the breachor's wealth is one factor taken into account.

Reading from the plaintiff's (West and Zampella) original suit, they allege Activision signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with West and Zampella giving them complete creative control over any Modern Warfare or Call of Duty game set in post-Vietnam after the release of Modern Warfare 2. This was done on March 31, 2008 during employment contractual negotiations to keep West and Zampella employed by Activision.

I say allege because the plaintiffs want the Call of Duty IP and the Modern Warfare brand as part of the "First Claim of Relief." Whether or not this allegation was in the MOU, Employment Agreement, or original contract with Infinity Ward is up for dispute.

West and Zampella delivered Modern Wafare 2 in November of 2009, then and prior the relationship went to hell causing this lawsuit and Activision's countersuit. The plaintiffs basically want alleged unpaid bonuses and rights to the Modern Warfare brand and Call of Duty.

As for me mentioning their wealth and prestige in their industry, this is my perception trying to battle the ignorant mass public perception of West and Zampella being artists versus a Corporation. Neither side in this suit is hurting for money...yet. If West and Zampella lose, I would surmise they would be labeled as "damaged goods" within the industry and have a hard time finding a publisher. Just my opinion. Has no bearing on the contractual case.

Source: West and Zampella v. Activision pages 7, 8, and 12. http://kotaku.com/5485703/ousted-infinity-ward-founders-lawsuit-against-activision-the-court-documents/gallery/



Killiana1a on 24 December 2010

As for Activision's countersuit and recent naming of EA to it, their main claim is that West and Zampella's behavior was conduct in breach of fiduciary duty and breach of loyalty of duty. To make it short, they allege West and Zampella first conspired with EA through liasions such as CAA no later than July 30, 2009 thus breaking any MOU for future Call of Duty and Modern Warfare brand games, and breaching their contract. The timing of this allegation is prior to the release of Modern Warfare 2, thus rendering the original lawsuit invalid and baseless according to my reading of Activision's countersuit.

I read through it all, but found pages 5, 6, 7, 10, 13-14, 15, and 19-24 very interesting if they have the documentation to back it up.

Source: West and Zampella v. Activision Publishing. http://kotaku.com/5715884/activision-vs-ea-complaint//gallery/2



Around the Network
easyrider on 24 December 2010
Wagram said:

I hope Activision loses. I honestly don't think I would care if they got wiped off of the planet.

I second that.