Vodka, I'm going to dissect this a bit.
Tom Phoenix said:
While I have no reason to believe Activision's side of the story, I also find it a bit too convenient that Zampella and Ward received a very favourable deal with EA shortly after they were forced to depart from Infinity Ward. Coincidences do happen, but the timing in this case seems all too perfect.
What's interesting is that EA was bashing on Activision almost as soon as this was aired. At the time their message was, "we support them and hope they can get back to making games" (roughly.)
In that sense, I'm not sure there's much of any "timing" at all here. Activision shit-canned them, and EA had been posturing trying to figure out how to take a notch out of MW2 for a while. The time between their termination is enough for EA to approach them with an offer, and in the middle of this mess before its sorted out, that's a bit of a gamble.
Now, John Schappart did say something that lends credence to your theory, circumstantially. He said: "I'm disappointed on a couple fronts, because I think Jason and Vince, on the human side are two great guys.
I know them personally; I think they've done great things, and they are two of the greatest creative leaders in our space."
This can go one of two ways. Either, Activision is telling the truth and Schappert was their contact in between, which seems unlikely, and very sloppy, or they had prior contact within the industry, which makes that gamble less serious.
Tom Phoenix said:
Usually, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. So my guess is that the Infinity Ward conflict had been brewing for a long time and that Zampella and Ward were on the lookout for potential new positions. Then, once Activision discovered this after terminating their contracts, they decided to use it as a reason for their dismissal in public.
It is possible that this prior personal contact with EA employees was the pretense. But, again, it's circumstantial.
Tom Phoenix said:
Of course, that leaves the question of what the Infinity Ward conflict was really about. But chances are that nobody outside of those directly involved will ever find out.
Tom, as a quick apology I didn't mean to carve up your post too, mybad.
Vodka Dude said:
I think you are reasonably correct in the assumptions you have made.
The way I perceived it all happen was, 2 guys who acted like non-corporate execs (even tho they were being paid to act as responsible corporate execs) thought that since they had a money tree (CoD MW2) they had the right to act like children and tell the suits to f'off.
The real question here is, how did they actually behave? We have many conflicting stories on this front, and unlike the general litigation, I don't think there's a clear picture here. No offense.
These guys have run a major studio for the last... 10 years? Under Activision. Including some spectacular successes. Unless something seriously changed in the last year, there's no reason Activision wouldn't have termed their asses back in 2001.
Like I said, I don't know, and there's too much conflicting information, but, the idea that they suddenly decided to "act like children" and "[told] the suits to fuck off" doesn't sound quite right.
Vodka Dude said:
As any intelligent corporate employee knows, you have to 'play the game'. When you think the rules don't apply to you, and you can do what ever you want because you know you have a desired product, you will get burned. When you even hint at talks w/ competitors, you are in the wrong, and you forfeit any $$$ because of the contract you signed w/ the original corporation.
No offense intended, but you seem to be taking the Activision claims at their word here. And again, I have to ask, if Modern Warfare 2 triggered this change, why didn't CoD4? If anything they've had prior experience with this kind of success, so it should have happened when they didn't.
Vodka Dude said:
The trials (if it comes to it) will easily show a breach in contract, and we will know why the new company Respawn exists.
Do we? I mean, do we really? There are two possible explanations, either, West and Zambella decided to jump ship covertly, and started working to set up Respawn, or, Activision fired them in an effort to avoid having to pay out their bonuses on MW2 and EA snapped up some of the hottest talent names in the industry at the moment.
As for breach of contract, yeah, there's definitely a breach of contract here. According the the class action, Activision's only prereq on the bonuses was that the game make it's shipping deadline, which it did. According to Activision that contract is null because West and Zampella were looking to jump ship.
It's going to be a lot harder for Activision to prove that West and Zampella jumped ship, than it will be to prove that Activision broke a contract. And once the class action burns through it's going to be a perfect storm against Activision. Especially if it goes to trial before the West Zampella case does.
Vodka Dude said:
I have no inside knowledge, I'm just saying my observations on the little I have read, but big companies like EA and Activision have groups of people known as 'bean counters'. Most major corporations have people like this.... they add losses vs earnings to decide how to continue dealings. Just like other major companies (GM, Microsoft, Sony), they foretell losses that don't exceed profits, so the big business general mind set is to cut anything that might hinder future profit growth, or ignore that which loses $ if it would cost more to deal w/ than what is lost. Yeah, I have not studied economics, but I think we can get the general idea, no?
The allegation from Schappert is that Activision has been viewing their legal team as a revenue source. It kinda makes sense too, if your legal team can net you 500 million in revenue you'd otherwise have to pass out to people... why the hell not? And now, true or not, Activision looks like they're playing a game of keep away.
Vodka Dude said:
This seems to me, like a story of 2 guys who are known as simple, easy going, non-corporate types, who got in over their heads, and decided they wanted greener pastures. Well guess what, you can't just go against what you sign your name onto. They were in the wrong by having talks (yes, even talking to the competition is often violating a contract) and now they are left having to make a new beginning for themselves.
Honestly, they seem to have traded up. EA is more likely to give them more freedom than they allegedly had under Activision. Alternately you could say they were two easy going guys who ran afoul of Emperor Palpatine [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/99196-Game-Lawyer-Calls-Bobby-Kotick-Emperor-Palpatine] and were looking for a way to escape.
Vodka Dude said:
The lesson we all should learn from this is: Read what you sign your name to. I don't for a minute think Respawn came into existence after the two guys were fired. This was in the works before, and that is why the 2 guys were fired.
Whether it was in the works before they left Activision or not. Its kinda a moot point, they're in a better place than they were before.
Also, that is very good advice, in general, for anyone. Don't sign any contract you haven't actually read. If you don't understand it, get a lawyer to help you through it.
Vodka Dude said:
And thanks for welcoming me to Escapist, I don't plan on being anyone's friend.... I just like to post my thoughts. Thanks again for reading my little wall o text..
Also, welcome here. I hope I didn't come across as too abrasive. You've got a good argument, I just think you need to flesh it out a bit more with some evidence, you know?
) great, too