Kotick: Easy decision to fire Infinity Ward devs

[ComeTurismO]

Activision CEO Robert Kotick says taking action against Vince Zampella and Jason West was easy decision to make; no plans for Call of Duty movie.

Staff edit- Background to the case was the developers in question were apparently set to leave and take a good chunk of their team and see Activision rivals E.A. take them on after a fashion. The case was eventually settled out of court with the usual nondisclosure agreements in place to prevent parties concerned from talking.

------

Well, guess who is a piece of shit!

Source

 

[Nemesis90]

Who doesn't think he's scum? He's butchered a multitude of series under his wing for the sake of money.

 

[FAST6191]

I recall the original story and just caught up- I fail to see the problem if the devs in question were indeed about to effectively take out an entire dev team (that would be the no-compete part of various contracts one signs when playing at higher levels in the business world).

 

[ShadowSoldier]

I recall the original story and just caught up- I fail to see the problem if the devs in question were indeed about to effectively take out an entire dev team.

Except they weren't. IW dev team was around 100+ people. Also, you don't treat your studios and developers like that after they've made you millions of dollars and put your company name on the map. Besides, Activision was turning CoD into something that it wasn't, Kotick ruined the franchise and blemished the name, and he's worried about Hollywood doing it? This guy is a joke upon the gaming world. He's like the head honcho of EA. He doesn't care about the quality or integrity of games. He doesn't care about gamers, he only cares about making money.

Where as people like say Miyamoto, or BioWare or the Uncharted team where they cater to the fans and try everything they can to please them and give them a new experience each time, Activision and Kotick just go "eh, just give them the same stuff, I want money". Seriously, the BlackOps 2 engine... it's the same engine IW came up with in Modern Warfare.

And look at all the franchises that have essentially died with Activision, Tony Hawk Pro Skater which was phenomenal and now it's just a joke. Guitar Hero is another one. If it wasn't for CoD, Activision would be in some serious money problems.

 

[FAST6191]

Whether the devs were or were not planning to leave and take a good chunk of their team with them is somewhat immaterial to the decision at the time assuming the evidence Mr Kotick acted upon when choosing to fire them looked to be good at the time (some emails or something and some testimony from someone that was approached with an offer by the devs/executives in question for example).

I would agree that treating developers badly is not good form, but regardless of how much money/prestige they have generated for you if they are about to screw you over you cut them loose and/or minimise damage. Equally I am not sure the 100+ people holds much weight as a concept- I take 40 skilled people (and usually if you are about to pull such a move you pick the good ones) out of almost any engineering/science/development group of any type and it will hurt them badly.

As for the rest I might agree with your sentiments, however if we are doing business strategy as it is conventionally understood is "if it makes money and is not illegal then carry on with it".

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Probably because they realized Treyarch made the better games anyway.

Seriously every Treyarch CoD at least has some effort put into it. Infinity Ward ones feel really half assed after CoD4.

 

[Foxi4]

I wonder when people will realize that the days when Call of Duty had an important story to tell are over. The campaign is like a training mode before Multiplayer kicks in, and they do have stories that are interlinked with each other... and they usually are interesting to follow, but that's not the main focus of the game.

The main focus of the game is to shoot other players in the face. That's it, that's the whole point of those games, and CoD does it perfectly fine. These games get a lot of undeserved grief while they cater to the exact needs of CoD players - the largest portion of dev effort goes into the Multiplayer Mode which is fun. Very primitive fun that's directed at the lowest human instincts, but fun nonetheless. Remember when gaming was about having fun? Yeah.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

I wonder when people will realize that the days when Call of Duty had an important story to tell are over. The campaign is like a training mode before Multiplayer kicks in, and they do have stories that are interlinked with each other... and they usually are interesting to follow, but that's not the main focus of the game.

The main focus of the game is to shoot other players in the face. That's it, that's the whole point of those games, and CoD does it perfectly fine. These games get a lot of undeserved grief while they cater to the exact needs of CoD players - the largest portion of dev effort goes into the Multiplayer Mode which is fun. Very primitive fun that's directed at the lowest human instincts, but fun nonetheless. Remember when gaming was about having fun? Yeah.

Apparently Blops II actually gave a crap about single player and story telling a bit. Admittedly the original Blops and the Russian campaign in WaW were pretty decent story wise.

 

[Devin]

The Modern Warfare franchise pretty much died after MW2. BO2 had a wonderful, thrilling campaign. Which I am tempted to play through again now.

 

[Foxi4]

Apparently Blops II actually gave a crap about single player and story telling a bit. Admittedly the original Blops and the Russian campaign in WaW were pretty decent story wise.

The main gripe people seem to have is the length of the campaigns, and I admit, they are very, very short - not nearly long enough to constitute a stand-alone game... which is why the games have a very extensive online mode, and it shows that it's the main attraction.

Just to level with you guys, I think the stories aren't half bad. They're short as hell, but that alone doesn't make them bad, especially if they're supposed to be a snack before meal proper - Multiplayer Mode. I can't imagine people buying CoD these days for Single Player alone, then waiting a whole year or more to get a continuation of the plot.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

The main gripe people seem to have is the length of the campaigns, and I admit, they are very, very short - not nearly long enough to constitute a stand-alone game... which is why the games have a very extensive online mode, and it shows that it's the main attraction.

Just to level with you guys, I think the stories aren't half bad. They're short as hell, but that alone doesn't make them bad, especially if they're supposed to be a snack before meal proper - Multiplayer Mode. I can't imagine people buying CoD these days for Single Player alone, then waiting a whole year or more to get a continuation of the plot.

Well it's a multiplayer game. I just find people constantly shrug off a great single player game with bad multiplayer but find the reverse inexcusable. There's nothing wrong with being multiplayer focused and the single player is a bunch of neat set pieces. It's an action movie basically. It's not meant to be terribly deep, but just exciting, good looking, and serviceable. That's what it is.

Also Gahars plays CoD for single player, true story.

 

[Foxi4]

Also Gahars plays CoD for single player, true story.

Yeah, but not just the Single Player... right? Right?

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Yeah, but not just the Single Player... right? Right?

He usually plays some multiplayer but mainly for the single player.

Yeah confess son.

 

[Foxi4]

Yeah confess son.

Well, if he digs the story, cool. It's a bit short, but if he can afford to buy a game just for 6-10 hours of Single Player, that's cool.

 

[ShadowSoldier]

I'll be honest, I don't like how the story in CoD games play out. I don't understand any of the story's or how they progress. It's annoying. I don't know why but I just find their execution of storytelling to be garbage. Hell I still don't know the story in Blops2.

 

[Gahars]

Also Gahars plays CoD for single player, true story.

Lies, unfounded lies and slander.

Well, okay, I do pay attention to it more than most (though I get most of the mileage out of multiplayer). I don't know, the franchise has a really checkered history with campaigns from CoD 4 onward. 4's campaign, story-wise, is still the best of the bunch; people always seem to gloss over the bleak tone and powerful set-pieces. It was an anti-war game through and through; the tone and message were pretty consistent. World at War was a frustrating case - the Japanese campaign was an awful, boring slog, but the Russian campaign was actually interesting. Modern Warfare 2 seems to have been made by a different Infinity Ward - it suffered from complete tonal whiplash; it was more Red Dawn than Saving Private Ryan. That being said, as a dumb, thrilling roller-coaster, it was fine enough. Black Ops also went for the action movie approach, but with much more engaging results, and a neat little twist. Lastly, Modern Warfare 3 had a laughable opening and the flimsiest plot yet - but with some really great set pieces. It felt like the developers had some really cool ideas for levels, couldn't figure out a way to thread them all together, and decided to throw them in anyway. I have no idea how Black Ops II will fare, but I've heard good things, so I'm hopeful.

/Dissertation

Huh. Infinity or not, I guess that Ward just wasn't strong enough to best Activision.

 

[FAST6191]

*raises hand on the "plays COD for single player" call*
The only multiplayer I ever play is the co-op missions and whatever is available over LAN.

My usual verdict was complete fluff but who does not enjoy a bit of fluff from time to time.