Gamers Rights Law » Infinity Ward

The Fall of Infinity Ward – And the New Rise of the Personal Service Contract

jaymoffitt — Sat, 15 May 2010 16:01:06 +0000

Photo Credit:

http://creativecommons.org/ns#” about=”http://www.flickr.com/photos/-cavin-/747847877/in/photostream/”> rel=”cc:attributionURL” href=”http://www.flickr.com/photos/-cavin-/”>http://www.flickr.com/photos/-cavin-/> / http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/”>CC BY 2.0

(Flickr Creative Commons, attribution required) [You should visit the photo to read to read the narrative, no one was killed in this explosion].

What led to the destruction (total?) at Infinity Ward Studios?(read the other stories tagged Infinity Ward if you’re not familiar with the mass defections). I’m going to give a short history lesson… and instructions to big companies (as if they’re listening… HAHA) on how to gain allegiance.

It’s been detailed in many places, including Activision publications, how Infinity Ward was founded from the ashes of another War title. Those developers formed Infinity Ward. Activision became their biggest company user, and later sole supporter, and later owner. The last title became bigger than Avatar (in gross money terms) and then the bubble went “pop”.

Going back a little earlier into “tech history”, IBM, Xerox, Honeywell (look it up), these ground-breaking companies wore starched shirts, ties, and no one on the outside knew the programmers’ names. Later, names like Jobs, Gates, and then of course West/Zampanella came into being. It goes without saying the stock prices of Microsoft and Apple are dependent upon their leaders, so why would anyone think Infinity Ward would be different? Arguably, they lose their biggest asset from their biggest asset.

[The rest is stirctly commentary]Let me get into my “modest proposal”. Years ago it started, and runs currently, the “personal service contract” would be the preferred method by which big stars Sinatra, Bruce Springsteen, Mariah Carey, Katy Perry, etc… would be held to perform. It’s a personal obligation, binds personally (with penalties including restrictions on future work in the industry) and compensates fully and fairly. For example, no one ever seriously said, “Springsteen is gone, but the E Street band is still here, so we’re cool with it, K?” You knew the talent, and if you’re a multinational corporation YOU SHOULD KNOW that the lead programmer is the talent. Inspires the troops. Maybe is not (or has been for years) the best programmer…. but is THE COACH, the chief, the leader, and it’s undisputed. (Don’t believe it, just check the couple of dozen pink slips from Infinity Ward people over the last months… and don’t think Activision has not…. and you should look at this when all the court docs come out, and not just now… been throwing some serious money at these other departing IW developers.)

The day of strictly “buying a company” is over; recognize your talent, put them into lucrative personal service contracts, make it public, don’t just “buy the asset”…. BUY THE TALENT. Maybe I’m way off base, but the way all this has rolled out makes me think I am not. Welcome your comments, and as always if someone has REAL proof that it’s shaken out in a different way, I’d love to hear that.

Jay Moffitt is a Tennessee attorney. This blog is for entertainment and educational purposes only and does not consitute legal advice or create an attorney/client relationship. Jay Moffitt is not certified as a specialist in this area by Tennessee and Tennessee does not certify specialists in this practice area. All comments will be answered promptly and courteously as long as they are germane to the discussion and do not contain specific game names or incidents.

New lawsuits update

jaymoffitt — Tue, 04 May 2010 05:19:14 +0000

Infinity Ward Developers sue Activision (for unpaid royalties)

From Lawsuits and Settlements Web site (talking about the California state law factor) ; and story from the Vancouver Sun.

A slightly different take…The Lawsuit and Public Relations, from Gamasutra. Other lawsuits, after the jump….

Linden Lab “land-owners” sue for the change in Terms of Service over the years

In California… AGAIN… article here at this online mag.

The story from Virtual Worlds News… ; From the Los Angeles Times Business blog; the always dependable Massively

Linux Users sue for loss of that capability on PS3 (via the latest PSN update “killing” any Linux installation).

Gamespot article here….; and from Kotaku.

All of these lawsuits are very complicated, and interesting, and I hope to discuss them in full, at a later date.

Developer Dischord at “The Big A”…. a historical fairy tale

jaymoffitt — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:10:47 +0000

Once upon a time the pre-eminent development firm for computer games had several top developers.

These developers were responsible for a goodly portion of the market for this top firm.

And the developers were looking at the dollars they were making, and what the company was making… and weren’t happy.

It did not end well…. for any reconciliation.

The company’s name was Atari, and the independent developers formed a company called… Activision.

Here’s a couple of links to the historical story of Activision’s formation.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1537/the_history_of_activision.php

Movie Props page of Atari http://www.movieprop.com/videogames/atari/

Classic Retro http://www.retrothing.com/2007/09/the-poultry-tha.html

I’m inviting my readers to contribute in the comments their own ending for this latest modern-day nursery rhyme.

Gaming Cases Updates

jaymoffitt — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:39:00 +0000

Links to Activision vs. West/Zampanella (IW) case – my original post HERE: more links after the jump

Infinity Ward lawsuit in depth (Crispy Gamer)

Infinity Ward Update; developers sign with C.A.A. (LA Times blog)

IW firings may impact COD future (Game Career Guide)

SEC filing Activision/Blizzard, Official filing (http://investor.activision.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1047469-10-1649)

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Links to O’Bannon vs. NCAA, my original referral to the subject HERE

Chicago Sun-Times article (from Gannett) that tells of other ex-players joining lawsuit.

Article from Joystiq describing NCAA’s failure to get case dismissed.

Here’s the link to the amended complaint of March 10: http://www.scribd.com/doc/28209552/O-Bannon-v-NCAA-Amended-Class-Action-March-10-2010

Response to NCAA’s motion to dismiss case, February 2010: http://www.scribd.com/doc/26623903/O-Bannon-v-NCAA-Order-re-Motion-to-Dismiss (Notes about Scribd links – this is an external link to a third-party Website that is clearly a secondary source… it apparently is the scanned copy of the original court document, but if I receive information any third-party link is compromised… I will remove the link)

Daily News, UCLA (Feb 2010)

Professional articles on this Subject

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/To+license+or+not+to+license:+that+is+the+question+for+professional…-a0216352319 (From Sports Marketing Quarterly, September 2009)

Photo credits: Library of Congress collection, Flickr, no known copyright restrictions (Note: titled UniformNoNumber… get it?)

Monday miscellaneous

jaymoffitt — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:34:15 +0000

A couple of very important links that don’t fill up enough for a complete post.

Viewing Virtual Property Law Through the Lens of Innovation: cite as “Vacca, Ryan G., Viewing Virtual Property Ownership Through the Lens of Innovation. Tennessee Law Review, Vol. 76, p. 33, 2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1100302”

Other less authoritative, but still noteworthy posts from blogs, after the jump

Great article by the law firm that continues to impress me with their thoroughness

Joystiq Law of the Game looks at the Infinity Ward dispute

Trademarking Avatars (from Pixels and Policy)

Music Issues:

Joystiq talks to the RBN developers at GDC

Virtual Economy Issues:

JVW Research - latest issue (ALWAYS worth the read)

All these jump out at me, plus there are others I may have missed. Please feel free to point out in the comments… as always, I have final say on whether it’s approved – as long as it’s reasonably relevant.

Activision/Infinity Ward Studios Dustup: THIS COULD BE THE ONE

jaymoffitt — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:07:22 +0000

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jorgemiente/ / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Yes, the one that hits the mainstream media. Allegedly security called, developers dismissed from their office, power struggles, money struggles, the biggest one-shot in gaming history (bigger than movie Avatar). This could be “THE ONE” that the mainstream media reports on as if it were a movie star or a rock star. Anonymity goodbye? More after the jump…

This disagreement is not about money, this is about power. Within the past month Activision has taken major personnel moves at 3-4 studios they control, and also announced the possibility the next Call of Duty Title (which has always been done by Infinity Ward; all 6 versions) would be a subscription-based MMO.

I’ll provide a couple of links to the core news story; and then I’ll conclude with a couple of my own thoughts as to why THIS IS HUGE!

In sequence:

Security called to Infinity Ward (from Maximum PC)

Lawsuit filed by Infinity Ward (from Kotaku)

Infinity Ward suing for unpaid royalties (from Kotaku)

Activision accused of conspiracy (from Escapist Magazine)

Legal Warfare Break out over Modern Warfare (from Barrons)

__________________________________________________________________

Now, to the commentary part. This isn’t about money. This isn’t about whether Activision is paying a king’s ransom (which I’m sure they are) to keep the developers happy. This isn’t about whether the developers are giving the best efforts to produce a good product and other good products for Infinity Ward and Activision (they obviously have, and obviously have done that… in a groundbreaking fashion). As pointed out in the Barron’s article, this is about control. Control of the Future of THE BIG ONE, THE ONE THAT CHANGED EVERYTHING.

This is parallel in the Gaming Industry to the legacy fights over the Tolkien books, to the final editing fights about “The Godfather” between Robert Evans and Francis Ford Coppola; this is parallel to the “Palimony” case in the 1970s in California. THIS IS THE BIG ONE.

Drama, Security Called, The biggest retail gaming franchise launch (by far) in gaming, and entertainment history, and now this? All the mainstream media, not just Joystiq, Gamasutra, G4, and the other gaming magazines, but Barrons, the Wall Street Journal, the LA Times, and yes, even Newsweek, the New York Times, and CNN and Fox News will have their say about this. Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the one that changes everything and “Gaming” will no longer be a niche industry; behind Movies, Publishing, and Network TV.

Transparency in Video Games

jaymoffitt — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:04:46 +0000

“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”. You know what movie that is from, right?

There is a very interesting article on The reticule that talks about this concept. Personally, I loved the idea that “The main tenet of their design is not playability but profit and, while this is true of most every game now, they do very little to hide this. The level grind, the uninspired quests, the ludicrously hard boss fights, it all comes together to make you shell out more money for less gratification. In fact, given that most endgames require large groups of players, your input becomes invisible amongst the unbridled throng of spells and people shouting about DPS.”

That article was not alone. A blogger in The Escapist said “the level of mystery around the games industry is still rather shocking. There remains a layer of secrecy cast over everything that goes on in gaming, something we attempt to maintain by keeping the real creators voiceless and trotting out PR men and producers to be the faces of our games, lest anyone catch a glimpse of Oz behind the curtain.”

He notes another key point, “while wholescale rip-offs do occur, the amount of sameness that plagues the games industry is not a result of outright copying – rather, it’s a more insidious process whereby one example becomes law. Only games that look like they will sell will be commissioned; only games that are similar to what’s already out look like they will sell; therefore only games that look like what’s already out there will ever get made.”

And if this leads you to a pessimistic view of the future of gaming, you are not alone. An article in the ominously titled Player vs Developer the writer states “MMORPG’s are not a democracy, and we wouldn’t want them to be – we have seen what happens when you let players make the design choices.” He is commenting on a rather frank quote from a game executive. He brashly states, “We’re not interested in developing under a system where we have to get community buy-off for our decisions. We don’t think that will ultimately lead to a strong design. I don’t mean for that to sound harsh. I’m just trying to steer you away from logic that ends up where we have to justify every decision we make or you can somehow get us to make the decisions you want if you just find the right knobs to turn.”

He is talking about feedback in the gaming industry. Lawyers, customer service professionals, marketing people are used to feedback. But I’m talking about FEEDBACK (all caps intentional). Let me give you a very recent example. Infinity Ward recently announced that Modern Warfare 2 would work not be available on “dedicated servers”.

An article on EL33TOnline says that “an online petition (which has nearly reached 120 000 signatures) seeking to convince Infinity Ward to reconsider the implementation of IWNET for the developer’s upcoming Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, and re-allow the running of dedicated servers for the hardcore online crowd, and enable players to run custom game mods, maps, and organise private matches more easily.” If you want to read the specifics about the pros and cons of a dedicated server, read that very interesting article. But for the purposes of this discussion; consider, 100,000 signatures plus in a week about what type of server an online game will run in, “once it is released.” Now that is feedback.

You should consider this article an “awakening call” to those who feel that gamers rights is an emerging field. The game companies are digging in their heels as far as their decisions being law, and maybe the gamers rights consist only of a decision whether or not to buy a game. Or maybe this is a perfectly justifiable decision. Is it a symptom of gamers being “too into their games”, or is it a symptom of a greedy game industry? Or is it somewhere in the middle? Is fairness off limits to being influenced by the players’ decisions, or are game companies too insulated from the millions who make the money for them? As for me, personally, the best sign is that the burgeoning games industry faces parallel questions to the movie industry during each of its difficult growing periods. But that’s another whole discussion. So, reader, should game companies have such absolute control over multiplayer once release has been made? Comments?