Kotick Tells His Side of Brutal Legend Story

[Logan Westbrook]

Kotick Tells His Side of Brutal Legend Story

The tangle of lawsuits surrounding the release of Brutal Legend [http://www.amazon.com/Brutal-Lege-Playstation-3/dp/B000XJLQ24/ref=sr_1_1?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1289310719&sr=1-1] meant that Activision was unfairly cast as a villain, says CEO Bobby Kotick.

The tussle over who had the rights to publish Double Fine's heavy-metal inspired Brutal Legend was an ugly episode, and one that earned Activision no small amount of negative PR. As is so often the case in the business world, the dispute was over money, but according to Kotick, not in the way that Double Fine and EA let people believe.

When Activision merged with Vivendi to become Activision Blizzard, it dropped a few of Vivendi's projects, including Brutal Legend. When EA picked up the game, Activision responded with a lawsuit, not because it didn't want anyone else playing with its toys, even the ones it had discarded, but because Double Fine owed Vivendi money. Kotick explained that Vivendi had advanced Double Fine somewhere between $15 million and $20 million for Brutal Legend, and when Double Fine signed the deal with EA, Vivendi's successor wanted that money back.

"Unbeknownst to everybody," Kotick said, "[Double Fine] didn't have the rights to sell. So all we'd said is, 'Look: If you go and do a deal with somebody else, pay back the money that was advanced to you.' That was all we were looking for. We ultimately got a fraction of the money that had been advanced to [Schaffer], and as far as I know, that was the end of it."

He added that the decision to drop Brutal Legend was taken because Activision didn't think that they game was going to be successful, a position somewhat vindicated by the lackluster sales and mixed reviews. Interestingly, Kotick said that he was hands-off with the entire affair, from the decision to drop the game, to the subsequent legal proceedings. "I had very limited knowledge of what we were even doing with him," he said. "The guy went off and signed a deal with Electronic Arts for millions of dollars and owed Vivendi money."

"I could honestly tell you, sitting here," he added. "I never saw Brutal Legend ... the judgment of the people who I trust and respect about the quality of the game, and whether or not audiences would be excited and enthusiastic about this game, was 'No.'

Source: Joystiq [http://www.joystiq.com/2010/11/08/activisions-kotick-on-brutal-legend-drama-thats-not-really-w/]



Permalink

 

[MercurySteam]

Making excuses for poor mistakes... look what you've done. Now EA has my money instead.

 

[Meggiepants]

If this is his version of events, he still hasn't managed to endear himself to me.

 

[Void Droid]

If money was indeed owed then it's expected that it gets paid back, other than that I don't have anything else to say as I fell/fall in to the "It doesn't endear to me" group.

 

[Zhukov]

Y'know, as much as I hate to say this, that doesn't sound entirely unreasonable.

If I'd given an advance of $20,000,000 I'd want it back.

 

[Kouen]

while some points was or at least sound plausible im sorry but the whole i didn't know much about a law suit and debt that big? I smell a rat xD

 

[Grounogeos]

So Activision wanted Double Fine to pay back the money that was spent on a project that Activision decided to cancel?

Sounds retarded to me.

 

[RatRace123]

I guess it sounds a little bit more reasonable, but Activision still dropped it, after putting all that money behind it, just because it wasn't a Guitar Hero or COD sequel.

I'm still siding with EA and Double Fine on this one.

 

[Ldude893]

I wish there were oil wells that were like Bobby Kotick. He never stops spewing crude muck.

Just another lame excuse by a bad game publisher to cover up his mistakes.

 

[Andronicus]

Oh, well then, that explains it all. Kotick, you're now my most favouritist game publisher person in the whole wide world, and every word you say is just and true and everyone else is obviously just out to get you. Poor, little, misunderstood you.

It's subtle, but if you read the above paragraph really carefully, you might be able to detect a hint of sarcasm.

 

[Lord Krunk]

Y'know, as much as I hate to say this, that doesn't sound entirely unreasonable.

If I'd given an advance of $20,000,000 I'd want it back.

Problem is, they'd wasted said money anyway. Vivendi/Activision chucked in the money and later cancelled it; they wouldn't have asked for their money back because they were the ones wasting their own in the end.

It's only when Schafer decided to up the ante and get it published despite Activision that this whole kerfuffle began, and you can bet that it wasn't because of debt, it was because that it meant that EA's newfound revenue = lost revenue for Activision.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

So... let's take Kotick's version as the truth.

Christopher Grant of Joystiq meets Kotick "in September over a glass of water at the posh Beverly Hills Hotel. " - Joystiq claims it never bought into the war between him and Schafer, so we can assume this is at least neutral ground for Kotick.

Vivendi, without Kotick's knowledge - and with him having no idea that they were working with this guy, loaned them $15/20 million. - So, the CEO doesn't know where $15/20 million went and to who.

Then they drop the project, and presumably, the money they invested in it. So, you just gave up $20 million, Bobby.

Then, when EA come along and offer to buy Tim Schafer's intellectual property (remember that DRM you talk about?), you see a way to get some of that money back that you dropped.

Instead of going to THE POLICE or the courts or anyone else, you go to EA/Double Fine and say "By the way, can we have our money back please?"

I don't know if it was a decision not to publish it. I don't even really know where we were in the negotiation and discussions about what was going to happen to the product.

So all we'd said is, 'Look: If you go and do a deal with somebody else, pay back the money that was advanced to you.'

But I don't even know if there was a lawsuit from my recollection.

So, for this guy who you didn't know, who worked for you, who you lent huge amounts of money to, who you never even saw his work, and when he didn't properly work to your schedule, you asked him to pay it back when he got it but you didn't actually go to any trouble to get it?

This is the same group of people that criminally stormed Infinity Ward's HQ, and still make $4.28 Billion a year?

And what of Joystiq? Well in their review of Brutal Legend, "Joystiq's own Randy Nelson, who wrote that Brutal Legend 'doesn't live up to its billing,' were left wanting."

Oh, I shall look forward to tomorrow when he tries to explain further why he is actually useless at his job.

Or, he could be lying, be competent at his job and be a prick. Only you can decide.

TL;DR: I loaned someone I didn't know $20 million and he didn't pay it back.

 

[Modus Operandi]

What baffles me is why the response comes so late. By now it's useless, the event has gone down in gaming history (in most gamers' minds) as Activision being dicks to a developer. Where was Kotick (or anyone else from Activision) explaining their side when it actually mattered?

I also agree that if you give someone money to do something, then change your mind and don't take the money back right then and there then it's your loss and stop being a dick about it when the developer finds someone else to back the game.

 

[Kevonovitch]

Bobby Kotic is the sole reason (almost, but it sounds nice ) i will never give activision any money.

 

[Krat Arona]

I'm waiting patiently for the day that we see an article pop up here on the Escapist about this moron finally being forced out of his position in that company. Then maybe Acti can get back on track as a decent company.

 

[pluizig]

It's pronounced 'Brütal.'

 

[xmbts]

Somehow the idea of Schaffer walking off with alot of their money makes me like him more.
And if you put the 20 million into it then canceled it wouldn't you make sure to get that back sooner? It seems weird.

 

[Hoplon]

This still all screams "toys ejected from pram" if you drop a project why they hell wouldn't the dev team try to find a new publisher.

While asking for you investment back is understandable, blocking the publication of a game you didn't want to get that money back is called being a bunch of tossers.

 

[Moriarty70]

Y'know, as much as I hate to say this, that doesn't sound entirely unreasonable.

If I'd given an advance of $20,000,000 I'd want it back.

But at the same time, they were willing to take a bath on that money when it was simply dropped. That's where it seems like a case of sour grapes.

 

[Brockyman]

I guess it sounds a little bit more reasonable, but Activision still dropped it, after putting all that money behind it, just because it wasn't a Guitar Hero or COD sequel.

I'm still siding with EA and Double Fine on this one.

Difference is Call of Duty and Guitar hero made tons of money and didn't suck balls....

Gotta side with Activision on this one, for at least knowing how to run a business.