Infinity Ward founders canned by Activision

[Calax]

http://kotaku.com/5523154/five-more-out-at...o-infinity-ward

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Ouch, they're leaving fast.

[Volourn]

Another 4 have left. IOt's hialrious because it seems ACTI is using a threat of loss of bonuses to intimidate people from leaving as one ACTI guy mentioned that those who leave 'forfeit' their bonuses while those who remain get bigger and bigger cuts from the bonuses. That should tell people how much people don't want to work for ACTI. LMAO

[Dakar]

They are basically holding the bonuses (which should have been paid ALREADY) over the heads of the people still at IW, and STILL can't retain them.

 

Its pretty disgusting behavior.

[Calax]

They are basically holding the bonuses (which should have been paid ALREADY) over the heads of the people still at IW, and STILL can't retain them.

 

Its pretty disgusting behavior.

as is holding a games development over a publishers head to get more money, go figure.

[Nepenthe]

They are basically holding the bonuses (which should have been paid ALREADY) over the heads of the people still at IW, and STILL can't retain them.

 

Its pretty disgusting behavior.

as is holding a games development over a publishers head to get more money, go figure.

 

Not if the publlsher in A) is in breach of contract in doing it and the people in your example B) have creative control.

 

I think that what Activision will take away from this is that they will never ever give creative control to anybody, again.

[Calax]

They are basically holding the bonuses (which should have been paid ALREADY) over the heads of the people still at IW, and STILL can't retain them.

 

Its pretty disgusting behavior.

as is holding a games development over a publishers head to get more money, go figure.

 

Not if the publlsher in A) is in breach of contract in doing it and the people in your example B) have creative control.

 

I think that what Activision will take away from this is that they will never ever give creative control to anybody, again.

Well, I don't think that they were in breach of contract when IW was saying "Give us more money or we'll slow work on your game until Duke Nukem Forever looks like it had a lightning quick development cycle"

[Volourn]

"Well, I don't think that they were in breach of contract when IW was saying "Give us more money or we'll slow work on your game until Duke Nukem Forever looks like it had a lightning quick development cycle""

 

I have no reason to believe ACTI wans't in breach of contract. They've already admitted to theft.

[Calax]

"Well, I don't think that they were in breach of contract when IW was saying "Give us more money or we'll slow work on your game until Duke Nukem Forever looks like it had a lightning quick development cycle""

 

I have no reason to believe ACTI wans't in breach of contract. They've already admitted to theft.

And the IW guys breached as well, by not following the benchmarks set for their product. It's a matter of who was a **** first.

[Volourn]

What product are you talking about? the one that made millions for Activision? The one that is the 'most successful game ever'?

 

Sorry, but ACTI should pay up. Youn can list all the so called 'crimes' IW comitted but the bottom line is they more than delivered the 'product' to ACTI. But, ACTi was greedy and tried to steal money and broke the contract repeatedly. And, now they are using the money they stole to bully people into staying when that money is owed to ALL IW employees.

[Calax]

What product are you talking about? the one that made millions for Activision? The one that is the 'most successful game ever'?

 

Sorry, but ACTI should pay up. Youn can list all the so called 'crimes' IW comitted but the bottom line is they more than delivered the 'product' to ACTI. But, ACTi was greedy and tried to steal money and broke the contract repeatedly. And, now they are using the money they stole to bully people into staying when that money is owed to ALL IW employees.

 

Yeah, that one, where they deliberately ignored a direct order to put the publishers logo in the game because they were just that petty.

[Nepenthe]

"Well, I don't think that they were in breach of contract when IW was saying "Give us more money or we'll slow work on your game until Duke Nukem Forever looks like it had a lightning quick development cycle""

 

I have no reason to believe ACTI wans't in breach of contract. They've already admitted to theft.

And the IW guys breached as well, by not following the benchmarks set for their product. It's a matter of who was a **** first.

 

I'm having a lot of trouble following this discussion, mostly because I never have any idea when you're making things up or when you're just referencing material I've missed.

 

Of course, odds are, we'll never know what really happened, since it would be the surprise of the century to me if this one doesn't get settled out of court. Of course, if IW is getting gutted by rats jumping to the new ship of the EA Line, Acti might have little to lose.

[Volourn]

"Yeah, that one, where they deliberately ignored a direct order to put the publishers logo in the game because they were just that petty."

 

While IWn were being jerks for not putting it in, this is ultimiatrely ACTI's fault. if they *really* wantedm their logo in the agme it would have been in the game. They're the puiblisher. They decide when the game is released. Complaining loudly about it afterwards is silly. It's not like IW publishes the game with no final say by ACTI. Both companies are at fault in that situation.

 

Besdies, being a jerk is not the same as being a thief.

[Calax]

"Yeah, that one, where they deliberately ignored a direct order to put the publishers logo in the game because they were just that petty."

 

While IWn were being jerks for not putting it in, this is ultimiatrely ACTI's fault. if they *really* wantedm their logo in the agme it would have been in the game. They're the puiblisher. They decide when the game is released. Complaining loudly about it afterwards is silly. It's not like IW publishes the game with no final say by ACTI. Both companies are at fault in that situation.

 

Besdies, being a jerk is not the same as being a thief.

One would expect that if you're expected to deliver a product within a contract, part of the contract would include putting everything the publisher wants within the game. IW didn't do that, and thus breached the contract.

 

And please, stop moving the responsibility off of IW because you're so happy to go after acti for being "thieves". IW had a job with at least one very specific point they had to do and they refused to do it, it's their own fault. If I really wanted to I could easily make a case that IW would be stealing money from Acti if they got their full bonuses because they didn't do the work they were ordered to by A) not putting the logo on the game and B) (according to the link below) forcing a reprint of a LOT of box art because they didn't put it on the box art either.

 

You don't get paid for garbage you didn't do, even if it is something that simple.

For those lost:

http://kotaku.com/5513694/the-modern-warfa...s-infinity-ward

Edited April 25, 2010 by Calax

[Volourn]

Except, you'd have to prove that the stuff they didn't do cost ACTI a loss of profits. Since we're disucssing the 'mosts uccessful game ever'; that apparantly did not happen,.

 

btw,. NEWSFLASH, unless the relationship is different than most companies and their underlings, the publishing is ACTI's responsibility and if they chose to release it wiuthout these missing features it's a defacto of okaying the IW changes. Know your law before speaking up.

 

They cvan't come whining about stuff like this after the fact when there was a way tod eal with it then. By letting it go - which is exactly what thyey did - they okayed it legally and contractually. Period.

 

Unlike their theft.

[Calax]

Except, you'd have to prove that the stuff they didn't do cost ACTI a loss of profits. Since we're disucssing the 'mosts uccessful game ever'; that apparantly did not happen,.

 

btw,. NEWSFLASH, unless the relationship is different than most companies and their underlings, the publishing is ACTI's responsibility and if they chose to release it wiuthout these missing features it's a defacto of okaying the IW changes. Know your law before speaking up.

 

They cvan't come whining about stuff like this after the fact when there was a way tod eal with it then. By letting it go - which is exactly what thyey did - they okayed it legally and contractually. Period.

 

Unlike their theft.

A) Obviously the relationship is different in that IW has the MoU operating as their personal shield of "invincibal!"

 

You can argue all you want about it being on activision to put the coding in the game, but the point still stands that they didn't do what they were told, AND Acti did catch one instance of them trying to **** acti over and corrected it. Seriously, saying that Acti should have done it themselves, and removing the responsability from IW to DO THEIR BLOODY JOB is quite the copout on your part.

[Volourn]

The copout is letting ACTI get away with tehft, and away with their responsibilty.

 

It is THEIR job to decide when the game is released. No ACTI game is released without ACTI's say so and before they think it is ready. They obviously felt the product that IW gave to them was ready to be published. It is 100% their responsibility. If the product wans't up to their standards they should not release it. Period. The moment they did, they were giving their stamp of approval.

 

You can't accept somebody's work as finished then whine about it later.

 

IfI hire someone to paint my house, and while they are doing so, I notice it's not what I want, it's my duty to tell them so and get them to do it right before I say it's finished. I cannot tell them the job is done, send them on their way, and then whine about it later. This is exactly what ACTI is doing and it's balony.

 

If ACTI was unhappy with the work why did theya ccept it then sell it.... making millions off it.. then cry about it?

 

Oh, I know why. It's a part of their plan to steal money. Plain, and simple.

 

IW did their job where it satisified ACTI enough to publish it. Now, they should pay 'em. Case closed.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Volourn

[Calax]

The copout is letting ACTI get away with tehft, and away with their responsibilty.

 

It is THEIR job to decide when the game is released. No ACTI game is released without ACTI's say so and before they think it is ready. They obviously felt the product that IW gave to them was ready to be published. It is 100% their responsibility. If the product wans't up to their standards they should not release it. Period. The moment they did, they were giving their stamp of approval.

 

You can't accept somebody's work as finished then whine about it later.

 

IfI hire someone to paint my house, and while they are doing so, I notice it's not what I want, it's my duty to tell them so and get them to do it right before I say it's finished. I cannot tell them the job is done, send them on their way, and then whine about it later. This is exactly what ACTI is doing and it's balony.

 

If ACTI was unhappy with the work why did theya ccept it then sell it.... making millions off it.. then cry about it?

 

Oh, I know why. It's a part of their plan to steal money. Plain, and simple.

 

IW did their job where it satisified ACTI enough to publish it. Now, they should pay 'em. Case closed.

And if you hired somebody to paint your house and then came back after it'd been done and realized two rooms were left undone what would happen? While we know next to nothing about this, I'd suggest that if somebody screwed up IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF ORDERS their pay gets docked (at the very least).

 

Is Acti stealing? Is IW extorting money? Is the world crashing to the ground? The Law will let us know in three months.

 

I suppose extorting is the wrong phrase, but I'd consider holding a financially successful product hostage for a MASSIVE pay raise to be at least MORALLY reprehensible.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Calax

[alanschu]

not putting the logo on the game and B) (according to the link below) forcing a reprint of a LOT of box art because they didn't put it on the box art either.

 

According to the link you had below, it showed a pre-release box art that didn't have Activision's logo on it. Or things like the ESRB rating and whatnot. If Activision had to reprint "a LOT" of box art because of this, then I have to wonder why Activision bothered printing a lot of box art that was definitely not going to be used.

 

Vince and Jason were **** about this, but Activision is grasping at straws if they felt it hurt their ability to market the game. 4.7 million day one sales. What I see here was a publisher that decided to let members of their wholly owned company get away with stuff like this because they definitely didn't want to risk missing the holiday release, and cashed in significantly because of it.

 

The logo stuff is a red herring. It could have been caught and dealt with much earlier, and should have been dealt with when it was first brought up. Activision didn't. I wonder if they didn't because they were too busy drooling over the anticipated holiday release of what ended up being pretty much the most successful day one launch of any game.

 

 

To be fair, Activision was in a tough spot and regardless of what they did, they'd have their critics. But opting to release the game and cash in on millions is certainly a lesser morale ground than not releasing it until the logo was added, and Vince and Jason dealt with accordingly.

[Volourn]

"And if you hired somebody to paint your house and then came back after it'd been done and realized two rooms were left undone what would happen? While we know next to nothing about this, I'd suggest that if somebody screwed up IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF ORDERS their pay gets docked (at the very least).

 

Is Acti stealing? Is IW extorting money? Is the world crashing to the ground? The Law will let us know in three months.

 

I suppose extorting is the wrong phrase, but I'd consider holding a financially successful product hostage for a MASSIVE pay raise to be at least MORALLY reprehensible. "

 

By taking the product as is, and promptly selling it; ACTI was accepting what was given to them.

 

If I come home after the painting is done, don't say anything, and send them home.. I can't come whining later on that the job was fubared. I need to voice my complaints right away or I'm stating that I, in fact, am accepting the work as done.

 

This is what ACTI did.

 

Also, they stole money. That's unacceptable. NOTHING okays that.

 

Again, nothing IW did hurt the games' sales as it is the 'most successful game ever'. That's what the court is going to look at espicially when it comes to damages, which btw, ACTI cannot show they were damaged at all. The game sold tons. Game over.

[Calax]

Again, nothing IW did hurt the games' sales as it is the 'most successful game ever'. That's what the court is going to look at espicially when it comes to damages, which btw, ACTI cannot show they were damaged at all. The game sold tons. Game over.

They almost did, as in not let it get released unless ACti gave them more money, which effectively means that they extorted all the bonuses you're whining about, PLUS some extra, from activision.

 

Also think about this, if Acti HADN'T released for the christmas window, MW2 wouldn't have been NEARLY as successful as it was because most people wouldn't be able willing to toss money on the product after spending so much and seeing their checkbook accounts, which amounts to financial damage no?

[Volourn]

"MW2 wouldn't have been NEARLY as successful as it was because most people wouldn't be able willing to toss money on the product after spending so much and seeing their checkbook accounts, which amounts to financial damage no?"

 

1. You have no evidence that people wouldn't have boguht the game if it was released post Christmas.

 

2. Ifs mean nothing. Bottom line is there was no financial damage.

 

ACTI accepted the product as is, and by doing so they okayed it as it was. If it was unacceptable to them they shouldn't have sold. You cannot complain after the fact when you, in fact, have the power to get it fixed.

[Calax]

"MW2 wouldn't have been NEARLY as successful as it was because most people wouldn't be able willing to toss money on the product after spending so much and seeing their checkbook accounts, which amounts to financial damage no?"

 

1. You have no evidence that people wouldn't have boguht the game if it was released post Christmas.

 

2. Ifs mean nothing. Bottom line is there was no financial damage.

 

ACTI accepted the product as is, and by doing so they okayed it as it was. If it was unacceptable to them they shouldn't have sold. You cannot complain after the fact when you, in fact, have the power to get it fixed.

1) No evidence other than the fact that sales numbers plummet after the christmas season, to the point where ALMOST nothing sells at the rates it does during november. NO MATTER THE GAME.

 

2) Ifs do mean something because you're blaming Acti for making a decision to release the game in time for the christmas rush, without having their logo in it, in order to earn more money, where if they had decided to delay in order to put the logo in they'd probably have missed the christmas release window and have not gotten NEARLY as much in sales right off as they did now. If they were to do that would you say that IW is to blame for the lost profits? Because you seem to think they have nothing to do with the logo thing and aren't responsible for what they do/don't do if it doesn't have as much of an impact on the financial line. Acti chose to release the game without their logo to make more money, they lost name visibility but figured that that was an ok trade off... until west and zamp decided to be primadonnas.

[Volourn]

"figured that that was an ok trade off"

 

Game over.

[Calax]

You didn't answer my question volo, if they'd held onto the game and fixed it, missing the christmas window, who's fault would it be for the lost money?