ok i missed the news. why jason west and zampella are fired by activision?

topic

We can come to our own conclusions.

-IW made COD a huge franchise via modern warfare.

-West and zamp get the sack and security shows up at the building.

-The next day Acti announce COD is goin to a bunch of newb studios and no longer IW.

Like with GH, acti funnel the franchise away from the proven studio to newb ones, likely offering a smaller cut to that studio (which would of course be happy to handle COD at this point) than IW would have demanded, due to their experience and prior success.

So, IW got bent over by Acti and the two heads flipped out enough to cause security concern. Acti once again look like a ruthless business run by a pack of wolves. Everyone again wonders why blizzard ever attached their name to garbage.

The end

i imagine Activision want to take the Cod ip in a direction that those guys were not happy with. so they told activision to go falk themselves.

dog_dirt

This^^ I imagine they alerted those guys about the future milkage and they didn't want anything to do with it.

[QUOTE="dog_dirt"]

i imagine Activision want to take the Cod ip in a direction that those guys were not happy with. so they told activision to go falk themselves.

tempest91

This^^ I imagine they alerted those guys about the future milkage and they didn't want anything to do with it.

No proof, but I think it has to do with Infinity Ward practically refusing to make Modern Warfare 3. Activision came to them about it, and they said they want to do something new. Activision wants to continue milking the franchise. I think the two companies should just go their seperate ways(PLEASE IW!!! Please go to EA!!!!)

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="dog_dirt"]

i imagine Activision want to take the Cod ip in a direction that those guys were not happy with. so they told activision to go falk themselves.

SilentlyMad

This^^ I imagine they alerted those guys about the future milkage and they didn't want anything to do with it.

I'm done with COD games.....MW2 was decent but you could tell their heart wasn't in it like MW1

I think it either has something to do with Activision denying Infinity Ward royalties for MW2, or IW didn't want to do more CoD and Activision didn't like that.

No proof, but I think it has to do with Infinity Ward practically refusing to make Modern Warfare 3. Activision came to them about it, and they said they want to do something new. Activision wants to continue milking the franchise. I think the two companies should just go their seperate ways(PLEASE IW!!! Please go to EA!!!!)

Phoenix534

Apparently their both trying to sue Activision now. Good luck to that. I hope they win. Activision has got to be one of the most hated game companies right now. EA has been put on hold.

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="dog_dirt"]

i imagine Activision want to take the Cod ip in a direction that those guys were not happy with. so they told activision to go falk themselves.

SilentlyMad

This^^ I imagine they alerted those guys about the future milkage and they didn't want anything to do with it.

Since we are all just speculating, I'm sure Activision promised some creative freedom that was then reneged at this meeting, which is why they counted on having to bring security. You don't plan on having security guards unless you know something you are doing will cause problems, and i'm assuming it's because they knew that IW would not like what they had to say, which was we are no EA and you will pump out COD games like Madden titles or else.

Here's how it probably went in terms of txt messages

IW: hey we wanna make our own IP

AV: K sure, just finish MW2

IW: we finished MW2, now we work on new IP

AV: no we want you to work on MW3

IW: no we're working on new IP as we agreed.

AV: baawwwwwww, you're fired for being insubordinate

IW: WTF?!?!

Here's how it probably went in terms of txt messages

IW: hey we wanna make our own IP

AV: K sure, just finish MW2

IW: we finished MW2, now we work on new IP

AV: no we want you to work on MW3

IW: no we're working on new IP as we agreed.

AV: baawwwwwww, you're fired for being insubordinate

IW: WTF?!?!

jrhawk42

pretty much. as i said, you don't just bring security to a meeting because people are being insubordinate. You bring them because you know that you are being ethically questionable and doing something that will knowingly infuriate these guys.

Here's how it probably went in terms of txt messages

IW: hey we wanna make our own IP

AV: K sure, just finish MW2

IW: we finished MW2, now we work on new IP

AV: no we want you to work on MW3

IW: no we're working on new IP as we agreed.

AV: baawwwwwww, you're fired for being insubordinate

IW: WTF?!?!

jrhawk42

Now that is only if what happened is what you sugested. It could be something far different.

[QUOTE="jrhawk42"]

Here's how it probably went in terms of txt messages

IW: hey we wanna make our own IP

AV: K sure, just finish MW2

IW: we finished MW2, now we work on new IP

AV: no we want you to work on MW3

IW: no we're working on new IP as we agreed.

AV: baawwwwwww, you're fired for being insubordinate

IW: WTF?!?!

SilentlyMad

Now that is only if what happened is what you sugested. It could be something far different.

So when martin scorsese tells leo dicaprio to do something and he wants to try something else, he gets fired? I think not. This is just to lower costs by baiting these guys into being fired so they can steal their franchise and give it to cheaper devs.

[QUOTE="jrhawk42"]

Here's how it probably went in terms of txt messages

IW: hey we wanna make our own IP

AV: K sure, just finish MW2

IW: we finished MW2, now we work on new IP

AV: no we want you to work on MW3

IW: no we're working on new IP as we agreed.

AV: baawwwwwww, you're fired for being insubordinate

IW: WTF?!?!

tempest91

pretty much. as i said, you don't just bring security to a meeting because people are being insubordinate. You bring them because you know that you are being ethically questionable and doing something that will knowingly infuriate these guys.

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="dog_dirt"]

i imagine Activision want to take the Cod ip in a direction that those guys were not happy with. so they told activision to go falk themselves.

SilentlyMad

This^^ I imagine they alerted those guys about the future milkage and they didn't want anything to do with it.

They didn't sell it to Activision. As a matter of fact, Activision and West/Zampella signed an MOU that basically states that nobody can create and release a Modern Warfare game without the explicit written consent of the two of them.

Just for a little reference, this is a statement directly from the formal complaint against Activision:

First, the MOU gives West and Zampella creative authority over the development of any games under the Modern Warfarebrand (Or any other Call of Duty game set in the post-Vietman era, the near future, or the distant future) including complete control over the Infinity Ward studio. The MOU explicitly provides that no such game can be commercially released without the written consent of West and Zampella.

Second, the MOU gives West and Zampella the right to operate Infinity Ward independantly and to choose to develop new intellectual property after they completed Modern Warfare 2.

[QUOTE="SilentlyMad"]

[QUOTE="jrhawk42"]

Here's how it probably went in terms of txt messages

IW: hey we wanna make our own IP

AV: K sure, just finish MW2

IW: we finished MW2, now we work on new IP

AV: no we want you to work on MW3

IW: no we're working on new IP as we agreed.

AV: baawwwwwww, you're fired for being insubordinate

IW: WTF?!?!

tempest91

Now that is only if what happened is what you sugested. It could be something far different.

So when martin scorsese tells leo dicaprio to do something and he wants to try something else, he gets fired? I think not. This is just to lower costs by baiting these guys into being fired so they can steal their franchise and give it to cheaper devs.

[QUOTE="SilentlyMad"][QUOTE="tempest91"]

This^^ I imagine they alerted those guys about the future milkage and they didn't want anything to do with it.

Greyfeld

They didn't sell it to Activision. As a matter of fact, Activision and West/Zampella signed an MOU that basically states that nobody can create and release a Modern Warfare game without the explicit written consent of the two of them.

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="jrhawk42"]

Here's how it probably went in terms of txt messages

IW: hey we wanna make our own IP

AV: K sure, just finish MW2

IW: we finished MW2, now we work on new IP

AV: no we want you to work on MW3

IW: no we're working on new IP as we agreed.

AV: baawwwwwww, you're fired for being insubordinate

IW: WTF?!?!

SilentlyMad

pretty much. as i said, you don't just bring security to a meeting because people are being insubordinate. You bring them because you know that you are being ethically questionable and doing something that will knowingly infuriate these guys.

I'm not wrong. If your boss knows something that you don't want to and has most likely promised you that you will never have to do it, then comes out and says do it or your canned and I have security waiting to rid you from thepremisesthat is different. Activision, if they wanted to, could have handed the franchise over to the devs who are going to work on it now anyways and let IW do what they wanted to. Why did they have to force them into this position then? It was because they wanted to force their hand and have them fired. Having huge security guys is not a regular thing as it was aluded to in the article that these guys, seemingly, were corporate thugs.

[QUOTE="Greyfeld"]

[QUOTE="SilentlyMad"]Then they should have not sold it to activision. It is not their property anymore it is Activisions.SilentlyMad

They didn't sell it to Activision. As a matter of fact, Activision and West/Zampella signed an MOU that basically states that nobody can create and release a Modern Warfare game without the explicit written consent of the two of them.

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="SilentlyMad"]Like I said before then they deserve to be fired. Next time your boss tells you to do a major product then tell him screw off since you want to do something else and see how he feels about it. IW should not have sold their company to Activision and also give Activision the rights to CoD if they want to complain about making whatever game they want? They liked what Activision could do for them but did not want ant rules.

Now that is only if what happened is what you sugested. It could be something far different.

SilentlyMad

So when martin scorsese tells leo dicaprio to do something and he wants to try something else, he gets fired? I think not. This is just to lower costs by baiting these guys into being fired so they can steal their franchise and give it to cheaper devs.

That's where you are wrong. They would not fire Leo for insubordination at that point, the movie would be nothing without him. You are defending bad business ethics. Let me show a formula of how this works. I am the boss and I don't want these guys working for me because they make a lot of money and other people can do the a marginally similar job for less and people will still buy the product. I can't fire them outright, because they are under contract. Now, I know that they really do not want to do "X" and I promised them that they wouldn't or alluded to it, either one. Now I'm going to make them do "X" so they can refuse and I can fire them, hire in cheaper talent and not have to worry about legal issues. It's called bad business ethics and it seems to be the norm at Activision, who has become EA over night. Ruining new franchises every day.

this is a tough one. it all depends on what is in the contract. Activision has to prove that the developers were being insubordinate against their agreed upon contract. If Activision can't prove the insubordination, it was a wrongful termination. On top of that, it would be a breach of contract and implied covenant. Did West and Zamp fulfill their contractual obligations? If so, Activision has to fulfill their side of the contract.

Without fully understanding the contract, it is hard to say.I can see this being in an employment law book someday.

[QUOTE="SilentlyMad"]

[QUOTE="Greyfeld"]

They didn't sell it to Activision. As a matter of fact, Activision and West/Zampella signed an MOU that basically states that nobody can create and release a Modern Warfare game without the explicit written consent of the two of them.

Greyfeld

We can come to our own conclusions.

-IW made COD a huge franchise via modern warfare.

-West and zamp get the sack and security shows up at the building.

-The next day Acti announce COD is goin to a bunch of newb studios and no longer IW.

Like with GH, acti funnel the franchise away from the proven studio to newb ones, likely offering a smaller cut to that studio (which would of course be happy to handle COD at this point) than IW would have demanded, due to their experience and prior success.

So, IW got bent over by Acti and the two heads flipped out enough to cause security concern. Acti once again look like a ruthless business run by a pack of wolves. Everyone again wonders why blizzard ever attached their name to garbage.

The end

Phacet

I heard one of them farted and the other couldn't help but laugh about it. One thing let to another and now they're both fired. And you thought these things only happen in movies?

[QUOTE="Greyfeld"][QUOTE="SilentlyMad"]Activision owns the rights to the Call of Duty name and Infinity Ward.

SilentlyMad

[QUOTE="SilentlyMad"]

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

So when martin scorsese tells leo dicaprio to do something and he wants to try something else, he gets fired? I think not. This is just to lower costs by baiting these guys into being fired so they can steal their franchise and give it to cheaper devs.

tempest91

That's where you are wrong. They would not fire Leo for insubordination at that point, the movie would be nothing without him. You are defending bad business ethics. Let me show a formula of how this works. I am the boss and I don't want these guys working for me because they make a lot of money and other people can do the a marginally similar job for less and people will still buy the product. I can't fire them outright, because they are under contract. Now, I know that they really do not want to do "X" and I promised them that they wouldn't or alluded to it, either one. Now I'm going to make them do "X" so they can refuse and I can fire them, hire in cheaper talent and not have to worry about legal issues. It's called bad business ethics and it seems to be the norm at Activision, who has become EA over night. Ruining new franchises every day.

Yes that can not just up and fire them but it would be over the course of events.

Also your actor analogy does not make sense. 1- they just finsihed a came and are not in the middle of one. 2- They would not have to remake a movie or game because like with a actor since 1/2 the movie has a certain actor.

Also again I do not know who is wrong since I do not work there but to many just trying to scream damn the man and fight the power.

[QUOTE="SilentlyMad"]

[QUOTE="Greyfeld"] Please go back and read my edited post.Greyfeld

If only there were some sort of vast network of computers, which you could query for information about recent news events instead of making threads to ask people about it.

I know it sounds like something out of a science fiction movie, but it would be awesome.

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="SilentlyMad"]Yes if Leo does not want to do what he is told then yes vof course he is fired. Even better yet if MArtin Scorsese does not do his job he gets fired also. I am sure this was not the first time Activision tallked to these guys.

SilentlyMad

That's where you are wrong. They would not fire Leo for insubordination at that point, the movie would be nothing without him. You are defending bad business ethics. Let me show a formula of how this works. I am the boss and I don't want these guys working for me because they make a lot of money and other people can do the a marginally similar job for less and people will still buy the product. I can't fire them outright, because they are under contract. Now, I know that they really do not want to do "X" and I promised them that they wouldn't or alluded to it, either one. Now I'm going to make them do "X" so they can refuse and I can fire them, hire in cheaper talent and not have to worry about legal issues. It's called bad business ethics and it seems to be the norm at Activision, who has become EA over night. Ruining new franchises every day.

Yes that can not just up and fire them but it would be over the course of events.

Also your actor analogy does not make sense. 1- they just finsihed a came and are not in the middle of one. 2- They would not have to remake a movie or game because like with a actor since 1/2 the movie has a certain actor.

[QUOTE="SilentlyMad"]

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

That's where you are wrong. They would not fire Leo for insubordination at that point, the movie would be nothing without him. You are defending bad business ethics. Let me show a formula of how this works. I am the boss and I don't want these guys working for me because they make a lot of money and other people can do the a marginally similar job for less and people will still buy the product. I can't fire them outright, because they are under contract. Now, I know that they really do not want to do "X" and I promised them that they wouldn't or alluded to it, either one. Now I'm going to make them do "X" so they can refuse and I can fire them, hire in cheaper talent and not have to worry about legal issues. It's called bad business ethics and it seems to be the norm at Activision, who has become EA over night. Ruining new franchises every day.

Greyfeld

Yes that can not just up and fire them but it would be over the course of events.

Also your actor analogy does not make sense. 1- they just finsihed a came and are not in the middle of one. 2- They would not have to remake a movie or game because like with a actor since 1/2 the movie has a certain actor.

[QUOTE="Greyfeld"][QUOTE="SilentlyMad"]Well as far as I know Activision owns both at least that is what GT4TV and Giantbomb both were saying.

SilentlyMad

[QUOTE="SilentlyMad"]

[QUOTE="Greyfeld"] I'm sure the complaint isn't completely unbiased, and I'm not saying that the two from IW didn't do something to instigate the conflict in some way (I've heard that they're pretty vocal about trashing Activision), but even so, there are some things in the complaint that are unsettling and have a ring of truth, despite being a 1-sided report. Kotaku has the whole file here: http://kotaku.com/5485703/ousted-infinity-ward-founders-lawsuit-against-activision-the-court-documents/gallery/Greyfeld

Also again I do not know who is wrong since I do not work there but to many just trying to scream damn the man and fight the power.

SilentlyMad

I wonder if we should ever care as we are not a party to the lawsuit. Also, why assume that Activision is in the wrong while the founders of Infinity Ward are in the right? It is possible that the plaintiffs in this lawsuit could be in the wrong and are abusing litigation to get back against their former employers as disgruntled employees even though they know that they were fired for the right reasons. Things like this are unfortunate, but I am neutral on this case and I am not taking any sides on something that does not personally affect me and most gamers.

I personally think like most lawsuits, it will be settled out of court with the terms kept confidential and we will never know the truth behind why the IW founders were fired.

If only there were some sort of vast network of computers, which you could query for information about recent news events instead of making threads to ask people about it.

I know it sounds like something out of a science fiction movie, but it would be awesome.

Teufelhuhn

haha i LOL'ed. good one

[QUOTE="Greyfeld"][QUOTE="SilentlyMad"]lol sorry I do not feel like reading the whole lawsuit. I am not pro Activision on this I am just saying I am also not one of those people screaming Ya fight the power damn the man. Seems to many trying to blame Activision when no one knows all the details.

gamer620

That doesn't make what they did any less sleazy. It's about the intent, not the actions.

And the fact that Activision absolutely refused to tell them why they were being investigated sends up a ton of red flags.

i heard they didnt want to make whatever game Activision wanted them to. sounds a bit like insubordination to me. plus they may have had some dealings with Electronic Arts while they were still with Activision(just a rumor for now) if that actually happened, considering how much EA and Activision hate each other and the fact theyre in direct competition, im not surprised how things turned out. im not playing favorites here i dont really care about either party, but you do not have security escort people out of a building for no reason. its not as simple as Activision bad IW good. lol

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="SilentlyMad"]Yes if Leo does not want to do what he is told then yes vof course he is fired. Even better yet if MArtin Scorsese does not do his job he gets fired also. I am sure this was not the first time Activision tallked to these guys.

SilentlyMad

That's where you are wrong. They would not fire Leo for insubordination at that point, the movie would be nothing without him. You are defending bad business ethics. Let me show a formula of how this works. I am the boss and I don't want these guys working for me because they make a lot of money and other people can do the a marginally similar job for less and people will still buy the product. I can't fire them outright, because they are under contract. Now, I know that they really do not want to do "X" and I promised them that they wouldn't or alluded to it, either one. Now I'm going to make them do "X" so they can refuse and I can fire them, hire in cheaper talent and not have to worry about legal issues. It's called bad business ethics and it seems to be the norm at Activision, who has become EA over night. Ruining new franchises every day.

Yes that can not just up and fire them but it would be over the course of events.

Also your actor analogy does not make sense. 1- they just finsihed a came and are not in the middle of one. 2- They would not have to remake a movie or game because like with a actor since 1/2 the movie has a certain actor.

Also again I do not know who is wrong since I do not work there but to many just trying to scream damn the man and fight the power.

Actually, my analogy does make sense because it proves this point: people are fired because their boss wants them fired, not just because they did something wrong. People do things that could get them fired every day, but they are not fired. They were fired because activision owed them large amounts of money from royalties for MW2 as just published on GS which further backs up my claim that this was a case of a huge lack of business ethics.

Here's a good summary from NeoGAF

WHAT HAPPENED: The two developers were promised royalties as part of their contract for Modern Warfare 2. They're claiming Activision fired them under false pretenses in order to avoid paying those royalties.

The lawsuit then gives background about the company, including alleging that Activision purposely gave Infinity Ward a small budget for Call of Duty in order to buy 30% of its stock for cheap since the small budget would keep them from fighting it.

It also states some things we all know; sales figures, revenue numbers, etc. West and Zampella (the two developers and plaintiffs) had only one year on their contract before MW2 started. They were reluctant to get an extension on their contract, but did so anyway because Activision promised complete control of IW AND creative control over any post-Vietnam Call of Duty and MW games that might be developed.

Blah, blah, blah; more sales figures and talks of how MW2 was praised upon release. Activision then launched the investigation of Zampella and West about a week after the release of MW2. They hired outside lawyers and investigators to question other employees (some of whom cried from anxiety) and threatened insubordination charges if the two plaintiffs tried to console the other employees.

West and Zampella then said they were going to talk to their lawyers, at which point they were told Activision would make things worse if they did. The two men were also never told what exactly they had done wrong at any given point during the investigation. Activision strung the investigation along, then gave the two IW guys about six hours to respond to the accusations. A couple days later, Activision announced the new Call of Duty games they want to make (which were posted in another article).

WHAT THEY WANT: The first claim is to about US$36 million in damages. Second, they also want control of the Modern Warfare franchise back, since that was what was promised. Third, they also say Activision cannot make any further MW games OR post-Vietnam Call of Duties set in the present, near future, or far future. Fourth, they feel that Activision owes them their royalties and bonuses regardless of whether or not their termination from IW was legitimate. And obviously, they want their attorney fees covered.

And that's about it. I may have misread the complaint a bit, so feel free to correct me

the documents:

http://kotaku.com/5485703/ousted-inf...ents/gallery/#

A small but very interesting part from these documents (thanks to D4Danger)

Yeah, sounds like Activision is to blame here.

Zampella and West were pissed because Activision did not pay them any of the royalties that they were entitled to for the sales of Modern Warfare 2. Apparently, they let their feeling become known and Activision fired them for "insubordination" and then sent security to lock down the IW office. My opinion is that Activision is a big corporate a$$ and for whatever reason is trying to screw Zampella and West. Now there is a big legal battle regarding the unpaid royalties and the legal rights to the Modern Warfare brand.

If only there were some sort of vast network of computers, which you could query for information about recent news events instead of making threads to ask people about it.

I know it sounds like something out of a science fiction movie, but it would be awesome.

Teufelhuhn

That was harsh. :lol:

So...long story short activision are A-holes?