[Update] Activision Claims EA Tried to Drink Its Infinity Ward Milkshake
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Sorry to break the hate-boner train but, uh have we actually consider what if Activision is right? Breach of corporate contract and conspiracy to undermine are pretty serious, and if Activision can prove its case in court, then... that's pretty big.
Of course, that's an if. This will be decided in a court of law where we will hopefully learn the whole story, not on an internet message board by angry teenagers who care more about "their side" winning than who is legally in the right.
It's entirely possible that EA Zampella and West ARE guilty (or that they aren't, also as likely), and that they were in fact doing something wrong against Activision. What is more important, a law being served or the Big Bad Publisher not getting a payout?
I just don't think that Activision would be deepening its bluff if it wasn't sure it had a case. If it didn't have a case then they'd almost certainly be trying to settle out of court.
Of course, that's an if. This will be decided in a court of law where we will hopefully learn the whole story, not on an internet message board by angry teenagers who care more about "their side" winning than who is legally in the right.
It's entirely possible that EA Zampella and West ARE guilty (or that they aren't, also as likely), and that they were in fact doing something wrong against Activision. What is more important, a law being served or the Big Bad Publisher not getting a payout?
I just don't think that Activision would be deepening its bluff if it wasn't sure it had a case. If it didn't have a case then they'd almost certainly be trying to settle out of court.
I don't really understand this at all.
I mean.
I would have thought they stood a chance before, if not on basis of fact, then on the basis of bleeding the two dry in legal fees.
Now that they're suing EA though, and throwing a bunch of subjective arguments that don't even seem relevant or have definite basis in law, it seems like they're just a big crying baby that is angry that it didn't get what it wants and just makes everyone as miserable as possible by screaming all night long.
Maybe i'm biased though, lol :/
I mean.
I would have thought they stood a chance before, if not on basis of fact, then on the basis of bleeding the two dry in legal fees.
Now that they're suing EA though, and throwing a bunch of subjective arguments that don't even seem relevant or have definite basis in law, it seems like they're just a big crying baby that is angry that it didn't get what it wants and just makes everyone as miserable as possible by screaming all night long.
Maybe i'm biased though, lol :/
It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. It's a horrible, expensive mess, and somebody is probably going to get hurt, but you can't help but watch it and be entertained anyway.
Incidentally, Daily Drop, if you're reading this, you know what to do.
Incidentally, Daily Drop, if you're reading this, you know what to do.
skimming over the text describing the childish behavior of...
ah forget it. I did really enjoy MoH if even for just some moments, but I do admit (while not a huge CoD fan) that it didn't really do anything to wow me (looking back, Black Ops didn't either, but overall I had fun playing through both games)
I guess as long as the games themselves are enjoyable (if even just for a quick rental/borrow for the single player and maybe some MP if my friends are available online) then WE (gamers) win either way
ah forget it. I did really enjoy MoH if even for just some moments, but I do admit (while not a huge CoD fan) that it didn't really do anything to wow me (looking back, Black Ops didn't either, but overall I had fun playing through both games)
I guess as long as the games themselves are enjoyable (if even just for a quick rental/borrow for the single player and maybe some MP if my friends are available online) then WE (gamers) win either way
Remember the days when seeing "Activision" or "Electronic Arts" on a game box meant a quality game done by properly-compensated developers? From the Atari 2600's Megamania to the C64's Caveman Ugh-lympics? 'Cause I do.
And I miss those days greatly.
And I miss those days greatly.
Even if EA conspired with West and Zampella, why does EA owe Activision anything? Activision didn't want to give their top talent what they wanted (proper compensation, creative freedom, etc). EA did. So they left Activision, and went with EA. Welcome to Capitalism, baby.
Check out Exclusivity Clauses and Conflict of Interests in contracts. Legally, those EA people shouldn't have ever contacted Zampella and West at that time (or vice versa, if that turns out to be the case). Perhaps around contract re-negotiations time, and informally at most.the_maestro_sartori said:
By approaching them well in advance of that time, the motive for conspiracy has some plausibility, no matter how absurd it may look to a layman. If I were Activision, I would definitely be pissed if my contract-bound money cattle were looking around for a new job with my most hated rival.
While I won't condone Activision treating their employees like subhuman wage-slaves, I would not dismiss the plausibility of their claims; if they are accusing Zampella and West of Corporate Espionage or Conspiracy, then the other conspirators are naturally included in that as well (being EA, obviously).
It's disgusting how much legal power a corporation can exert over you with a contract, no matter how sensible or practical the terms may look on paper at the time of signing.
Can we just fire all these guys and get some real freaking gamers in charge here. People that, uh, you know, care about the games?
These two multi-million dollar corporations have reduced themselves to school children arguing over who gets to use the swing.
These two multi-million dollar corporations have reduced themselves to school children arguing over who gets to use the swing.
I can only hope that these lawsuits are dismissed as frivolous, and that EA/IW wins its counterclaim (that Activision is just trying to waste everyone's time, of course).
"This is a conspiracy!"
Yeah...somehow, unless they have some *really* well-put together proof of it, this is mainly just Activision riding the stupid train again, thinking that all the cash from Black Ops gives them the right to do this.
Gonna be fun to watch though.
Yeah...somehow, unless they have some *really* well-put together proof of it, this is mainly just Activision riding the stupid train again, thinking that all the cash from Black Ops gives them the right to do this.
Gonna be fun to watch though.
Well, I guess the question here is: Is it illegal for one company to "court" another company's under-contract employees to leave. I highly doubt any EA executive came out and said "Hey, why don't you persuade as many people to leave Infinity Ward as you can and send us some Activision insider information while you're at it?"
I'm not a lawyer, but this sounds more like publicity/scare tactic to me.
I'm not a lawyer, but this sounds more like publicity/scare tactic to me.
I pretty much agree with you, and I think most people here would be expressing the same sentiments if it weren't for Activision's atrocious behavior in the past. Just type in the words "Activision" and "lawsuit" in the search bar and you'll see what I mean.JerrytheBullfrog said: