Infinity Ward founders canned by Activision

[Orogun01]

http://kotaku.com/5486210/rumor-infinity-w...ther-publishers

 

 

Honestly if this proves to be true, I'd be siding with Acti. I mean IW does get a measure of freedom because they make DAMN good games, but they don't get total freedom to do what they want. They were in an exclusive deal with Acti, that means that they don't go shopping around to another publisher because they don't want to follow orders. As much as you may hate on Acti for trying to impliment some creative control, they do have that right to earn money, this is still a business.

They were on the approaching their end of their contract with Activision, right? Is not to much of a stretch to think that they wanted a little more creative freedom to develop games aside from the Modern Warfare series. Considering that Activision's policies are to squeeze every moneymaking cow dry (see Guitar Hero) and that they were already planning another IP when Activision forced them to do MW2.

IMO, they decided to dash out there before they were turned into a MW making Rapunzel, forced to only work on those titles or to see them dragged down by a series of spin offs.

[Nepenthe]

http://kotaku.com/5486210/rumor-infinity-w...ther-publishers

 

 

Honestly if this proves to be true, I'd be siding with Acti. I mean IW does get a measure of freedom because they make DAMN good games, but they don't get total freedom to do what they want. They were in an exclusive deal with Acti, that means that they don't go shopping around to another publisher because they don't want to follow orders. As much as you may hate on Acti for trying to impliment some creative control, they do have that right to earn money, this is still a business.

They were on the approaching their end of their contract with Activision, right? Is not to much of a stretch to think that they wanted a little more creative freedom to develop games aside from the Modern Warfare series. Considering that Activision's policies are to squeeze every moneymaking cow dry (see Guitar Hero) and that they were already planning another IP when Activision forced them to do MW2.

IMO, they decided to dash out there before they were turned into a MW making Rapunzel, forced to only work on those titles or to see them dragged down by a series of spin offs.

 

AFAIK, Infinity Ward is 100 % owned by Activision. I'm pretty sure even the court documents from the other day confirm this. So there's no way IW as an entity is going awol. It's always an option that everybody quits at the same time, or a benevolent (relatively speaking) publisher lets you have your freedom back, like with Bungie and Microsoft... But seems a little bit far-fetched at the moment. I still think the most likely story is that the IW head honchos wanted to exercise their creative control of CoD: MW by not allowing anybody else to make a sequel while they chose to work on something else - thus earning them the ire of Assembly Line Kotick himself - and I can't say I don't understand his viewpoint, it is his methods I find... totally amoral?

[Orogun01]

AFAIK, Infinity Ward is 100 % owned by Activision. I'm pretty sure even the court documents from the other day confirm this. So there's no way IW as an entity is going awol. It's always an option that everybody quits at the same time, or a benevolent (relatively speaking) publisher lets you have your freedom back, like with Bungie and Microsoft... But seems a little bit far-fetched at the moment. I still think the most likely story is that the IW head honchos wanted to exercise their creative control of CoD: MW by not allowing anybody else to make a sequel while they chose to work on something else - thus earning them the ire of Assembly Line Kotick himself - and I can't say I don't understand his viewpoint, it is his methods I find... totally amoral?

According to the documents they were negotiating their contract while they were "courting" other publishers. Activision is; no doubt, fighting for their most popular product on the market. But i'm on IW side on this one, 1 good MW game is better than a thousand spin offs. It is their right as creators after all.

[Calax]

AFAIK, Infinity Ward is 100 % owned by Activision. I'm pretty sure even the court documents from the other day confirm this. So there's no way IW as an entity is going awol. It's always an option that everybody quits at the same time, or a benevolent (relatively speaking) publisher lets you have your freedom back, like with Bungie and Microsoft... But seems a little bit far-fetched at the moment. I still think the most likely story is that the IW head honchos wanted to exercise their creative control of CoD: MW by not allowing anybody else to make a sequel while they chose to work on something else - thus earning them the ire of Assembly Line Kotick himself - and I can't say I don't understand his viewpoint, it is his methods I find... totally amoral?

According to the documents they were negotiating their contract while they were "courting" other publishers. Activision is; no doubt, fighting for their most popular product on the market. But i'm on IW side on this one, 1 good MW game is better than a thousand spin offs. It is their right as creators after all.

Then all the designers of cars should have complete creative control over their car? And they should tell toyota, honda, ford, and chevy to shove it because "the car doesn't need a cupholder! or upgraded crumple zones! that ruins the aesthetic!"

 

While I understand where IW is coming from, going out and trying to sell a game to another company WHILE they were still under contract (and owned by) Acti is a move DESIGNED to anger Acti (Imo) and to me smacks of trying to trigger something like this. And the "has total creative control over any game made in CoD post-vietnam" thing strikes me as quite specific for what was going on.

 

Yes, one good game is worth more, but if you're that desperate to keep creative control and be independent, FORM AN INDEPENDENT STUDIO! Don't sneak around behind your bosses back and see if somebody would buy the game first, leave THEN do it, just like you don't go out and date other women behind your wifes back, you divorce her THEN start dating again.

[Orogun01]

Then all the designers of cars should have complete creative control over their car? And they should tell toyota, honda, ford, and chevy to shove it because "the car doesn't need a cupholder! or upgraded crumple zones! that ruins the aesthetic!"

First of all, terrible analogy. Car designers are payed for the look of just one model and don't hold any property over their design.

A series expands for more than just one game (duh) This is one of those "artistic" areas of game development where creativity clashes with the corporate.

While I understand where IW is coming from, going out and trying to sell a game to another company WHILE they were still under contract (and owned by) Acti is a move DESIGNED to anger Acti (Imo) and to me smacks of trying to trigger something like this. And the "has total creative control over any game made in CoD post-vietnam" thing strikes me as quite specific for what was going on.

They wanted control of their IP, Activision gave it. They have control over the Cod series beyond the modern era.

Plus, there were clashes between Activision and IW; namely the rushing of MW2 when they wanted to focus on a new IP. It was a move to find a more comfortable environment with another publisher that doesn't to kill the golden hen to get rich quick. The relationship between publisher and developer must be healthy and if not is time to move on. You wouldn't force a woman to stay in a abusive marriage just because she committed to it?

Yes, one good game is worth more, but if you're that desperate to keep creative control and be independent, FORM AN INDEPENDENT STUDIO! Don't sneak around behind your bosses back and see if somebody would buy the game first, leave THEN do it, just like you don't go out and date other women behind your wifes back, you divorce her THEN start dating again.

There are cons to being independent, such as lack of resources and publicity.

To continue the marriage analogy, this was more like they were in the middle of a separation and free to see other people. But this is the corporate world, manners and good will only get you so far. IW was protecting themselves against a much larger entity, fairness went out the window at that point.

[Calax]

Yes, one good game is worth more, but if you're that desperate to keep creative control and be independent, FORM AN INDEPENDENT STUDIO! Don't sneak around behind your bosses back and see if somebody would buy the game first, leave THEN do it, just like you don't go out and date other women behind your wifes back, you divorce her THEN start dating again.

There are cons to being independent, such as lack of resources and publicity.

To continue the marriage analogy, this was more like they were in the middle of a separation and free to see other people. But this is the corporate world, manners and good will only get you so far. IW was protecting themselves against a much larger entity, fairness went out the window at that point.

Usually when a couple is getting seperated, both parties know about it. And from the looks of the current situation, IW hadn't exactly told Acti that they were looking at other publishers.

 

And the cons you mentioned are not exactly applicable. Resources maybe, but publicity is doubtful. If the IW team had left the company to form their own studio, they'd probably have a fanbase simply for people knowing who they are. They want to have their cake (and be getting resources from somebody else, not having to worry about their own income etc because their corporate bosses pay the bean counters) and eat it (act like an indie studio who get total creative control and get to do whatever they want how they want to, not having to answer to much) which is unrealistic. Even if they were at EA or Ubi or Take Two they'd be unhappy because all of the publishers are trying to get as much money as they can. Sure Acti goes about it hiding their motives less, but EA is the group that brought us "Tiny updates to game with a roster change" aka: Madden after all. Basically the only way they're going to get the level of control they want is to become an indie studio.

[Nepenthe]

AFAIK, Infinity Ward is 100 % owned by Activision. I'm pretty sure even the court documents from the other day confirm this. So there's no way IW as an entity is going awol. It's always an option that everybody quits at the same time, or a benevolent (relatively speaking) publisher lets you have your freedom back, like with Bungie and Microsoft... But seems a little bit far-fetched at the moment. I still think the most likely story is that the IW head honchos wanted to exercise their creative control of CoD: MW by not allowing anybody else to make a sequel while they chose to work on something else - thus earning them the ire of Assembly Line Kotick himself - and I can't say I don't understand his viewpoint, it is his methods I find... totally amoral?

According to the documents they were negotiating their contract while they were "courting" other publishers. Activision is; no doubt, fighting for their most popular product on the market. But i'm on IW side on this one, 1 good MW game is better than a thousand spin offs. It is their right as creators after all.

Then all the designers of cars should have complete creative control over their car? And they should tell toyota, honda, ford, and chevy to shove it because "the car doesn't need a cupholder! or upgraded crumple zones! that ruins the aesthetic!"

 

This isn't a question of how things should be: based on the court documents IW key personnel were given creative control over CoD: MW sequels. Looks like Acti didn't know the value of the franchise back in the day and are now scrambling to undo their mistake.

 

Obviously they when they made the agreement, they thought that the cost of creative control was less than the amount of raw cash needed to keep the guys working for them. As obviously, they were mistaken.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Nepenthe

[Volourn]

"Then all the designers of cars should have complete creative control over their car? And they should tell toyota, honda, ford, and chevy to shove it because "the car doesn't need a cupholder! or upgraded crumple zones! that ruins the aesthetic!"

 

While I understand where IW is coming from, going out and trying to sell a game to another company WHILE they were still under contract (and owned by) Acti is a move DESIGNED to anger Acti (Imo) and to me smacks of trying to trigger something like this. And the "has total creative control over any game made in CoD post-vietnam" thing strikes me as quite specific for what was going on."

 

Depends what the contract says. Seems to me that Activision wans't upholding their end of the contract. Also, the potential of them holding various employees PRISONER goes beyond a contract squabble.

 

Sorry, if eveyrthing both sides are saying is true, Activision is more in the wrong.

[Orogun01]

Usually when a couple is getting seperated, both parties know about it. And from the looks of the current situation, IW hadn't exactly told Acti that they were looking at other publishers.

Is an analogy, is not 100% perfect. The fact is that it was not a marriage it was a business relationship, they had no reason to tell Activision that they where in negotiations to change publisher as soon as their contract expires. They needed that leverage on Activision as a bargaining ground.

And the cons you mentioned are not exactly applicable. Resources maybe, but publicity is doubtful. If the IW team had left the company to form their own studio, they'd probably have a fanbase simply for people knowing who they are. They want to have their cake (and be getting resources from somebody else, not having to worry about their own income etc because their corporate bosses pay the bean counters) and eat it (act like an indie studio who get total creative control and get to do whatever they want how they want to, not having to answer to much) which is unrealistic. Even if they were at EA or Ubi or Take Two they'd be unhappy because all of the publishers are trying to get as much money as they can. Sure Acti goes about it hiding their motives less, but EA is the group that brought us "Tiny updates to game with a roster change" aka: Madden after all. Basically the only way they're going to get the level of control they want is to become an indie studio.

A cult following is not the same as primetime exposure. The kind of publicity that whole lot of money can buy; they wouldn't have that. Doesn't matter how good is the product, without advertising their sales will be lower than with it. As a matter of fact advertising is the major factor on games sales.

The falling out was not because publishers want to make money; if the publisher makes more money the developer makes more money. Or in this case they don't; the case is not just about control. There are unpaid royalties and breach of a contract that allowed IW to work on a new IP and the rights to the MW future titles. This is because Activision is trying to seize control from IW's founders.

[Calax]

Usually when a couple is getting seperated, both parties know about it. And from the looks of the current situation, IW hadn't exactly told Acti that they were looking at other publishers.

Is an analogy, is not 100% perfect. The fact is that it was not a marriage it was a business relationship, they had no reason to tell Activision that they where in negotiations to change publisher as soon as their contract expires. They needed that leverage on Activision as a bargaining ground.

And the cons you mentioned are not exactly applicable. Resources maybe, but publicity is doubtful. If the IW team had left the company to form their own studio, they'd probably have a fanbase simply for people knowing who they are. They want to have their cake (and be getting resources from somebody else, not having to worry about their own income etc because their corporate bosses pay the bean counters) and eat it (act like an indie studio who get total creative control and get to do whatever they want how they want to, not having to answer to much) which is unrealistic. Even if they were at EA or Ubi or Take Two they'd be unhappy because all of the publishers are trying to get as much money as they can. Sure Acti goes about it hiding their motives less, but EA is the group that brought us "Tiny updates to game with a roster change" aka: Madden after all. Basically the only way they're going to get the level of control they want is to become an indie studio.

A cult following is not the same as primetime exposure. The kind of publicity that whole lot of money can buy; they wouldn't have that. Doesn't matter how good is the product, without advertising their sales will be lower than with it. As a matter of fact advertising is the major factor on games sales.

The falling out was not because publishers want to make money; if the publisher makes more money the developer makes more money. Or in this case they don't; the case is not just about control. There are unpaid royalties and breach of a contract that allowed IW to work on a new IP and the rights to the MW future titles. This is because Activision is trying to seize control from IW's founders.

*shrugs* they're both wrong, but I personally think that IW is trying to be off of any leash, and wouldn't be happy if they were told to really do ANYTHING that they didn't want to. They want the best of both worlds (indie, and owned) and none of the downsides.

[Orogun01]

Usually when a couple is getting seperated, both parties know about it. And from the looks of the current situation, IW hadn't exactly told Acti that they were looking at other publishers.

Is an analogy, is not 100% perfect. The fact is that it was not a marriage it was a business relationship, they had no reason to tell Activision that they where in negotiations to change publisher as soon as their contract expires. They needed that leverage on Activision as a bargaining ground.

And the cons you mentioned are not exactly applicable. Resources maybe, but publicity is doubtful. If the IW team had left the company to form their own studio, they'd probably have a fanbase simply for people knowing who they are. They want to have their cake (and be getting resources from somebody else, not having to worry about their own income etc because their corporate bosses pay the bean counters) and eat it (act like an indie studio who get total creative control and get to do whatever they want how they want to, not having to answer to much) which is unrealistic. Even if they were at EA or Ubi or Take Two they'd be unhappy because all of the publishers are trying to get as much money as they can. Sure Acti goes about it hiding their motives less, but EA is the group that brought us "Tiny updates to game with a roster change" aka: Madden after all. Basically the only way they're going to get the level of control they want is to become an indie studio.

A cult following is not the same as primetime exposure. The kind of publicity that whole lot of money can buy; they wouldn't have that. Doesn't matter how good is the product, without advertising their sales will be lower than with it. As a matter of fact advertising is the major factor on games sales.

The falling out was not because publishers want to make money; if the publisher makes more money the developer makes more money. Or in this case they don't; the case is not just about control. There are unpaid royalties and breach of a contract that allowed IW to work on a new IP and the rights to the MW future titles. This is because Activision is trying to seize control from IW's founders.

*shrugs* they're both wrong, but I personally think that IW is trying to be off of any leash, and wouldn't be happy if they were told to really do ANYTHING that they didn't want to. They want the best of both worlds (indie, and owned) and none of the downsides.

If they didn't want to have a leash, why did they get an owner? If this was a divorce the cause would be irreconcilable differences and the legal battle is for who gets custody of the kids (Modern Warfare).

[Calax]

If they didn't want to have a leash, why did they get an owner? If this was a divorce the cause would be irreconcilable differences and the legal battle is for who gets custody of the kids (Modern Warfare).

Money. They needed start up income, and assumed that they wouldn't mind a few strings. Heck they even went along with the "distortion of vision" that was CoD2 and didn't make a fuss. It's feeling like when they realized they might be onto something with a modern day shooter in the vein of the WW2 sucesses that they wanted to basically be the sole controller of the item. So basically they'd do what they wanted and acti would HAVE to publish it... even if it was call of duty:modern warfare, Carebears edition.

 

I'm all for letting a group go with it's design decisions, but they still need to honor the requests of their bosses, and (if they're indie) make changes if the publisher has problems. I mean, Too Human seems like the perfect example of developer does what they want without any form of publisher input or control, and it turned out to be a bland, boring mess of a game.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Calax

[Volourn]

"Too Human seems like the perfect example of developer does what they want without any form of publisher input or control, and it turned out to be a bland, boring mess of a game."

 

'Perfect example'? More likely you took an example just to prove a point. Not to menion it's just your one person's opinion. 8shrug*

 

Counter example ism BIo who probably have very limited EA involvement at the development level. And, whether one eprsonally likes them or not, it seesm to work out well for them. *shrug*

[Calax]

"Too Human seems like the perfect example of developer does what they want without any form of publisher input or control, and it turned out to be a bland, boring mess of a game."

 

'Perfect example'? More likely you took an example just to prove a point. Not to menion it's just your one person's opinion. 8shrug*

 

Counter example ism BIo who probably have very limited EA involvement at the development level. And, whether one eprsonally likes them or not, it seesm to work out well for them. *shrug*

Wasn't there a point where Bio wasn't owned by EA? To be indie and then get bought out tends to be a SLIGHTLY different situation than being formed under a publisher.

 

And it's not just "your one persons opinion" (which makes no sense as a sentance but *shrugs*) Even Yahtzee pointed out that the game seemed to have no moderating influences that could hold the developers starry eyed wants in check. You make games for the public, not yourself.

 

Full creative control works in books, but in games it doesn't because what if IW decided they would tank Acti alone by making Call of Duty: MW: Cows edition, where you simply were one of the dead cows on the fields of whatever this is land?

[Orogun01]

If they didn't want to have a leash, why did they get an owner? If this was a divorce the cause would be irreconcilable differences and the legal battle is for who gets custody of the kids (Modern Warfare).

Money. They needed start up income, and assumed that they wouldn't mind a few strings. Heck they even went along with the "distortion of vision" that was CoD2 and didn't make a fuss. It's feeling like when they realized they might be onto something with a modern day shooter in the vein of the WW2 sucesses that they wanted to basically be the sole controller of the item. So basically they'd do what they wanted and acti would HAVE to publish it... even if it was call of duty:modern warfare, Carebears edition.

 

I'm all for letting a group go with it's design decisions, but they still need to honor the requests of their bosses, and (if they're indie) make changes if the publisher has problems. I mean, Too Human seems like the perfect example of developer does what they want without any form of publisher input or control, and it turned out to be a bland, boring mess of a game.

They did delivered a product with each game completed, there was no guarantee that it would be a success with any of them. Now that one of them turns out to be gold and they want to protect themselves from goldiggers, can you blame them? BTW, Activision would had let them go a long time ago if they did the Carebears edition. The investors in any product have a right to check on the development of it as well as to take measures to protect it. They have the right to pull out their invested money if they feel that the product won't meet their standards. But that doesn't qualify them to make games, which is why they hire developers.

[Calax]

If they didn't want to have a leash, why did they get an owner? If this was a divorce the cause would be irreconcilable differences and the legal battle is for who gets custody of the kids (Modern Warfare).

Money. They needed start up income, and assumed that they wouldn't mind a few strings. Heck they even went along with the "distortion of vision" that was CoD2 and didn't make a fuss. It's feeling like when they realized they might be onto something with a modern day shooter in the vein of the WW2 sucesses that they wanted to basically be the sole controller of the item. So basically they'd do what they wanted and acti would HAVE to publish it... even if it was call of duty:modern warfare, Carebears edition.

 

I'm all for letting a group go with it's design decisions, but they still need to honor the requests of their bosses, and (if they're indie) make changes if the publisher has problems. I mean, Too Human seems like the perfect example of developer does what they want without any form of publisher input or control, and it turned out to be a bland, boring mess of a game.

They did delivered a product with each game completed, there was no guarantee that it would be a success with any of them. Now that one of them turns out to be gold and they want to protect themselves from goldiggers, can you blame them? BTW, Activision would had let them go a long time ago if they did the Carebears edition. The investors in any product have a right to check on the development of it as well as to take measures to protect it. They have the right to pull out their invested money if they feel that the product won't meet their standards. But that doesn't qualify them to make games, which is why they hire developers.

It doesn't qualify them to make games, but if they do invest and it's a multimillion dollar flop they can't get that money back and it'd be a fairly significant loss for them.

 

Even if they pulled out before it was released they'd still have a fairly large loss on that.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Calax

[Orogun01]

It doesn't qualify them to make games, but if they do invest and it's a multimillion dollar flop they can't get that money back and it'd be a fairly significant loss for them.

 

Even if they pulled out before it was released they'd still have a fairly large loss on that.

Those are the dangers of investing, my friend. That's why you don't put a million dollars on the hands of someone unless you believe that there will be a return. But they obviously believed on IW or else the CoD series would be a few games shorter.

[Calax]

It doesn't qualify them to make games, but if they do invest and it's a multimillion dollar flop they can't get that money back and it'd be a fairly significant loss for them.

 

Even if they pulled out before it was released they'd still have a fairly large loss on that.

Those are the dangers of investing, my friend. That's why you don't put a million dollars on the hands of someone unless you believe that there will be a return. But they obviously believed on IW or else the CoD series would be a few games shorter.

An ounce of prevention...

[Orogun01]

It doesn't qualify them to make games, but if they do invest and it's a multimillion dollar flop they can't get that money back and it'd be a fairly significant loss for them.

 

Even if they pulled out before it was released they'd still have a fairly large loss on that.

Those are the dangers of investing, my friend. That's why you don't put a million dollars on the hands of someone unless you believe that there will be a return. But they obviously believed on IW or else the CoD series would be a few games shorter.

An ounce of prevention...

The CoD series don't need to be cured.

[Calax]

It doesn't qualify them to make games, but if they do invest and it's a multimillion dollar flop they can't get that money back and it'd be a fairly significant loss for them.

 

Even if they pulled out before it was released they'd still have a fairly large loss on that.

Those are the dangers of investing, my friend. That's why you don't put a million dollars on the hands of someone unless you believe that there will be a return. But they obviously believed on IW or else the CoD series would be a few games shorter.

An ounce of prevention...

The CoD series don't need to be cured.

it doesn't but if the devs decided to go bat**** crazy they would

[Orogun01]

It doesn't qualify them to make games, but if they do invest and it's a multimillion dollar flop they can't get that money back and it'd be a fairly significant loss for them.

 

Even if they pulled out before it was released they'd still have a fairly large loss on that.

Those are the dangers of investing, my friend. That's why you don't put a million dollars on the hands of someone unless you believe that there will be a return. But they obviously believed on IW or else the CoD series would be a few games shorter.

An ounce of prevention...

The CoD series don't need to be cured.

it doesn't but if the devs decided to go bat**** crazy they would

Funny thing is that is the devs who have their sanity on this situation, IMO. Since the MW success is the perfect momentum that a new IP needs.

Just look at Bad Company who is now "rightfully challenging the MW titles" the standard has been set and the next game will be successful simply by wearing the brand name. At the same time they might want to keep the name that made them famous high, and not have Activision rush them to make a game every year or to give the job to another studio who they don't trust.

[Calax]

Funny thing is that is the devs who have their sanity on this situation, IMO. Since the MW success is the perfect momentum that a new IP needs.

Just look at Bad Company who is now "rightfully challenging the MW titles" the standard has been set and the next game will be successful simply by wearing the brand name. At the same time they might want to keep the name that made them famous high, and not have Activision rush them to make a game every year or to give the job to another studio who they don't trust.

Well, when they jumped ship from EA and Medal of Honor they turned around and took their place as kings of the FPS with that. Stating they HAVE to have that publisher and brand name is meaningless.

[Orogun01]

Funny thing is that is the devs who have their sanity on this situation, IMO. Since the MW success is the perfect momentum that a new IP needs.

Just look at Bad Company who is now "rightfully challenging the MW titles" the standard has been set and the next game will be successful simply by wearing the brand name. At the same time they might want to keep the name that made them famous high, and not have Activision rush them to make a game every year or to give the job to another studio who they don't trust.

Well, when they jumped ship from EA and Medal of Honor they turned around and took their place as kings of the FPS with that. Stating they HAVE to have that publisher and brand name is meaningless.

IW is the brand name not the publisher, they set the standard throughout their many games.

[Calax]

Funny thing is that is the devs who have their sanity on this situation, IMO. Since the MW success is the perfect momentum that a new IP needs.

Just look at Bad Company who is now "rightfully challenging the MW titles" the standard has been set and the next game will be successful simply by wearing the brand name. At the same time they might want to keep the name that made them famous high, and not have Activision rush them to make a game every year or to give the job to another studio who they don't trust.

Well, when they jumped ship from EA and Medal of Honor they turned around and took their place as kings of the FPS with that. Stating they HAVE to have that publisher and brand name is meaningless.

IW is the brand name not the publisher, they set the standard throughout their many games.

Except that they'd started the standard wayyy back in Medal of Honor:Allied Assault. While they were part of a different publisher and company, and got frustrated for about the same reason (I think) and the same two guys who got fired, quit and formed their own studio that all their employees joined, called infinity ward.

 

Now if I was a publisher and that was the history about the formation of one of my internal studios, I'd probably be a bit worried if I heard that they were shopping around, much less was being told that they were saying "We wanna do what we want, go shove it".

[Enoch]

Legal-minded rundown of the complaint filed by West & Zampella