Rumor: Security Locks Down Infinity Ward, Ousts Studio Head *UPDATE*

[Premonition]

Auch, so Modern Warfare 2 is IW's swansong? Not exactly a good way to go, in my opinion.

 

[Jared]

The plot thickens...

 

[Triggerhappy938]

The saddest part is that anyone who might be willing to speak on the matter with any sort of authority is probably pinned down under NDAs. I really wish we had more hard facts.

 

[SnipErlite]

Whoopsies. I read that as "has not paid."

Apologies.

No worries

In all fairness, that's not quite as bad as the report made it sound, say analysts [http://www.joystiq.com/2010/03/02/infinity-ward-modern-warfare-2-royalties-analysis/]. It's basically saying they hadn't yet seen their bonus, which is understandable in the world of big companies - most aren't paid until the end of February.

Well surely they should've been payed 2 or 3 days ago then? I assume it's some delay from the tense goings on that Activision hope to stretch out long enough until everyone forgets about the money.

Then they keep it and add it to the global EVIL fund, mwhauahuahuaha.

Or, you know, something plausible.

 

[Banana Phone Man]

So IW are getting fired becuse they didn't get payed. I don't get it, Im' kinda confused.

I only saw this recently and it's like the times you watch a TV programe but it's already 3/4 of the way through. If someone could tell me what happened using very simple terms (I'm very tired) it would be massively appreaciated.

 

[samsonguy920]

One thing for sure, the SEC doesn't get involved over a minor disagreement between department bosses. I give this at least a week before we start getting some real facts about what is going on.

 

[elricik]

Nobody knows exactly why West was fired.

If I have to guess I would say it was probably because he was trying to take Infinity Ward in a new direction. Maybe he wanted to become independent again? After the success of Modern Warfare, he was probably thinking about moving away from Activision.

Well, it doesn't matter. Mr. West has a solid resume and I'll bet there are a lot of companies which would be willing to hire him, and his team if they decide to follow him out of Infinity Ward.

As for Bobby Kotick - the man's a business man. I strongly doubt he even plays games at all, or care about the fans or care about anything else except money, more money and even more money. Which is why he's a CEO and a very wealthy man. I can't say he's evil (because he hasn't killed anyone or burned down any orphanages), but I can say he is the very essence of the stereotypical 80's Corporate Boss. Successful, but has no passion or zeal for anything except money. That's actually very sad when you think about it.

*sigh* As much as I don't like to admit it, your right. Bobby Kotick isn't evil, he's just a business man. But when I think of games, I don't want to think about money. I want to think about what character I'm going to play as next? or what scenario are they going to put me in now? Now how much money is this game going to make. I guess I always just pictured the video game industry as something different, something magical, where those that succeeded did so because they deserved to. At the end of the day, the video game industry is no different than any other industry, its all about the money.

 

[benoitowns]

Damn Activision just dont want to share that $$$$$ MW2 made eh? Greedy bastards...lol

 

[Narcogen]

Frankly, one of my theories about what went down is that West and maybe Zampella were considering leaving Infinity Ward to start a new studio again, because of dissatisfaction with Activision management and the work environment, Activision brass caught wind of it and came down like a ton of bricks to stamp out any hint of rebellion.

So to stop them from quitting, Activision fired them? Brilliant!

/snip

Nice end quote but .. THere are these things called contracts .... I imagine if they are fired the contractual obligation upon them will be very restrictive so much so making a game that involves being able to see or hear will be considered part of their past experience & suable.

So you think that there's some kind of noncompete clause that is inactive when the contract is in effect, but is active after it's terminated?

If Activision is concerned about employees working on other projects on company time and using company resources, then firing is a disciplinary measure, but it doesn't give Activision any more (nor any less) leverage to prevent people from leaving the studio than they had before the contracts were terminated.

If people under contract are working on side projects the leverage you have in order to prevent it is to threaten termination and then threaten legal action, but having to execute one does not necessarily improve the prospects for the latter.

For myself I doubt most contracts are that restrictive, even for studio heads. If they were we'd see a lot more designers, programmers and artists staying at one studio for life and a lot fewer new studios being started-- almost no one would be able to ever quit or change jobs if noncompetes were that widespread and that aggressive.

Keeping the workforce in line ... Well they get paid for shit all, fan made maps are usually more impressive & well art assets consist of photographing dirt. I wouldnt risk my high paying job to enter a market place swamped with wannabes that will work for less & probably do a better job.

On a completely offtopic note, you sound like someone who is trying to justify piracy. You like to play games, but making them is easy and people get paid too much to do it, so it's OK to not pay for them-- is that it? Because if I felt the way you do about game developers, I certainly wouldn't want to give them any of my money.

 

[SovietSecrets]

Anybody else think it went down like this? Activision demanded that Infinity Ward start working on Modern Warfare 3, but West and Zampella both wanted to work on another game. Activision sends down moron to tell them due to them disagreeing they no longer have jobs and have now probably destroyed an awesome company due to their idiocy?

 

[DoW Lowen]

Okay now I'm confused....

Someone please very succinctly tell me what just happened?

 

[DigitalSushi]

While this may be true, it's currently unknown just which publisher in question we're talking about - all we know is that it is reportedly not Activision rival EA.

I'm just going to add that the only other publishers which could afford that sort of scratch are Sony, Microsoft and Zenimax.

I'd go with Zenimax myself, providing Activision didn't fire me for rumour mongering before I post this comment.

 

[Daniel_Rosamilia]

Bobby Kotick is the devil... geez, what a way to destroy morale among the artists by doing something like this. THere's a major rift between the corporates and the developers, and it's ruining the industry

Even without the 'shopped in images, he still looks evil enough to be the bloody devil incarnate himself.

Now, this does seem rather perplexing.

*Stays tuned to the point of creepy obsessive stalker-ish-ness*

 

[Lucifron]

I want to have Tim Schafer's babies. Buuuuuurnt!

 

[Narcogen]

YEs their are that restrictive contracts in the software industry and in graphic design and moreso in finance. Contracts extend past the date of closure. Dont quote me but I think the term tends to be 50 years past the termination of contract the signee is liable for any forfiture issues.

Let's not get off track. Noncompetes have nothing to do with forfeitures. One of us is confused about what we're talking about. I seriously doubt anybody at Infinity Ward was planning on taking any of Activision's intellectual property with them out the door. What we're talking about is preventing one or more developers from defecting and forming a new studio to work on new IP and new code with noncompete clauses. A noncompete clause with a term of 50 years (which would be ludicrous) would be tantamount to indentured servitude-- you'd be stuck at a single employer for life.

Its not justification its fact.

What's a fact?

Look at the excellent market driven russian titles from the Stalker guys. First game £40, second game (same engine and very little new content) £30, OMG geuss what third game £20 (£15 if you own the previous titles). Wow its almost as if their fair, equitable and sensible about pricing an iteration of a game.

There is more piracy in Russia than probably anywhere else in the world except China, and even then I'm not sure (I haven't been to China to check.) Those titles are priced that way because their development costs are way below that of Western and Japanese studios and because they need to find a way to compete in a crowded and competitive space. Their cost structures give them flexibility on pricing, and they take advantage of it. It is hardly altruism or a desire to be fair and equitable. For them it makes good business sense. If it didn't, they wouldn't do it. For Activision and others, it doesn't make sense-- so they don't. The developers of Stalker are no less "market-driven" than anybody else-- nor any more. They just have a different position in the market, one that requires them to compete on price.

I cite Bioshock 2 having less in it than the first game, its certainly shorter the minigames less fun and the end battle weak. What new art assets are in BS2 ? new models ? Basically you paid £40 for some maps (which fans can usually do better) some voice acting (dont even get me started on what actors get paid for doing NOTHING) and a new box. Is that fair is that equitable ?

Would you kindly explain that to me ?

No. Since you think "fans" make better levels than pros and think voice actors get paid for nothing, I don't think I can explain anything to you.

 

[Brad Shepard]

Seven updates in and my heads already spinning...

 

[Undercover]

I'm actually really surprised that Activision pulled a move like this. This is going to be the start of a lot of interesting news I bet.

I agree. I think there's a lot more to this story than we're being told. See? This is why I'm a freelancer. A lot less headaches and when the contract is done its DONE.