ActiBlizz: Not So Fast With Brutal Legend EA...

[DoctorFinger]

http://www.colonyofgamers.com/images/newsimages/brutal-legend.jpg

It's no secret that I'm extremely excited about the upcoming Brutal Legend. The announcement that the game - apparently set adrift in the maelstrom kicked up by the Activision/Vivendi merger - had finally found a publisher in Electronic Arts (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?t=3480). It looks like I may have spoken too soon.

According to Variety (http://weblogs.variety.com/the_cut_scene/2009/02/activision-brutal-legend-is-ours-ea-activision-is-a-jealous-exhusband.html), Activision Blizzard is claiming that they still posses the publishing rights to the game, and they've taken steps to dissolve the deal Double Fine has struck with Electronic Arts. Now Activision Blizzard has written a letter to EA (and possibly Double Fine) informing them of its legal concerns. According to two sources familiar with ActiBlizzard’s position, the publisher believes that it was still in negotiations with Double Fine and that the EA deal is invalid.

Does that mean ActiBlizzard wants “Brutal Legend” for itself? Nope. I’ve been told it doesn’t think the game has the potential to be the kind of mega-profitable, “Call of Duty”-size franchise that it looks for these days.

So what does it want? A good guess would be money in exchange for giving up its publishing rights. That is what it received from Atari (http://weblogs.variety.com/the_cut_scene/2008/10/riddick-assault.html) for “Ghostbusters” and “The Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Athena,” for instance.
It looks like ActiBlizzard is trying their best to earn the title of "Most Hated Video Game Company (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/blog.php?b=413)", which I bestowed upon them last year. I'm no legal expert, so I can't comment directly on the merits of the case. But, this is in keeping with the history of this case. Before the EA announcement came about, reports emerged that ActiBlizz (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?t=1911) was warning potential suitors that they'd have to pony up if they picked up the publishing rights. The final word on this (for now) goes to EA, and their rather...pointed response to the situation.We doubt that Activision would try to sue. That would be like a husband abandoning his family and then suing after his wife meets a better looking guy.Source - Variety (http://weblogs.variety.com/the_cut_scene/2009/02/activision-brutal-legend-is-ours-ea-activision-is-a-jealous-exhusband.html).

[Goronmon]

We doubt that Activision would try to sue. That would be like a husband abandoning his family and then suing after his wife meets a better looking guy.Ooooh...burn.

[crazyD]

Goddamn mother fucking cock bags. I dare them to try to keep a Tim Schafer game out of my hands.

[Telefrog]

Ooooh...burn.

Yeah, it's a good burn. Unfortunately, if Acti-Blizz still holds the rights, then that burn means nothing.

[Superman's Dead]

I call zombie bullshit on A/B.

[Stoke]

Two years ago if you would have told me Blizzard and EA were fighting, and that I'd side with EA, I'd have laughed. Now I can't help but feel that A/B are trying to take the place that EA once held.

[Restlessavenger]

So basically they are suggesting that they can drop a title, stop funding of it and then expect a cut when the developer actually finds a place to publish? I couldn't comment if thats legal, but it certainly seems underhanded. I would think that this may make a developer thing twice about saddling up with Activision if that were the case.

[Goronmon]

Yeah, it's a good burn. Unfortunately, if Acti-Blizz still holds the rights, then that burn means nothing.Even if it doesn't "mean" anything, it's still EA comparing ActiBlizz to an ugly guy who abandons his family.

[CES]

Who'd have thought EA would be the good guys in a dispute? Truely, the world has changed.

Also, if this game doesn't see release, I shall be incredibly pissed.

[Telefrog]

So basically they are suggesting that they can drop a title, stop funding of it and then expect a cut when the developer actually finds a place to publish? I couldn't comment if thats legal, but it certainly seems underhanded. I would think that this may make a developer thing twice about saddling up with Activision if that were the case.

Fox versus Warner - Watchmen.

We know how that turned out. :D

[LongStepMantis]

I foresee the meeting between them going like this:

iakR7sB0skw

In the end I just hope EA's scrappy old dogs pull through.

[Purple Santa]

What happened? A/B realize that game Brutal Legend has some nice buzz and may actually sell some copies? Where before the suits wrote it off as another niche title? I hope EA wipes the floor with them in court.

[Sammael]

Everyone wanted EA to fall. Now that someone is contesting them for the crown as "Ginormous publisher" noone is happy. But that is because noone considered that to dethrown an asshole like EA you'd have to be a bigger asshole. Enter Activision / Blizzard.

[Morangie]

Two years ago if you would have told me Blizzard and EA were fighting, and that I'd side with EA, I'd have laughed. Now I can't help but feel that A/B are trying to take the place that EA once held.

They aren't trying, they have it.

What games do Activision actually have coming out in the near future? I can't think of anything they have, except the next Infinity Ward game, that I'm interested in.

[Sazime]

Why the hell is everyone so down on A/B? Did they hurt your feeling by being a well run company and not "Fan-Boy Base 1"?

Shit, at this point all they've done is point out the still have publishing rights. Whoop-de-doo. Far as I can tell, they're making smart decisions to keep as much as the company running rather than trying to do more than is possible and go out of business.

And for those of you attaching "great game" to "popular designer," may I direct you to Tabula Rasa and Spore. Settle down, yeesh.

[bapenguin]

Activision = Dicks

[agentgray]

Wow. Reminds me of Fox/Warner over Watchmen.

Sneaky.

[crazyD]

Why the hell is everyone so down on A/B? Did they hurt your feeling by being a well run company and not "Fan-Boy Base 1"?

Shit, at this point all they've done is point out the still have publishing rights. Whoop-de-doo. Far as I can tell, they're making smart decisions to keep as much as the company running rather than trying to do more than is possible and go out of business.

And for those of you attaching "great game" to "popular designer," may I direct you to Tabula Rasa and Spore. Settle down, yeesh.

I am down on AB because they are attempting to screw over a solid developer, and may prevent me from getting a game I want on time. Well run or not, dropping funding but retaining publishing rights as an effort to get more money is a sleazy fucking tactic.

[Kelegacy]

Activision = Dicks

I never really thought much about Activision until the last couple years. I really never owned any of their games, barring a couple. Thankfully they don't own any IPs I'm crazy about.

I can't believe I'm actually rooting for EA. I used to be an EA hater, but in the recent year or two I think they've turned it around a bit, made some ground. Now I want them to succeed a bit in gaming, and want Activision to burn in hell and fail miserably.

Activision should be on every gamer's hit list after they basically came out and told us how much they want to run their franchises into the ground, milk them for all the gold their worth, until they are so worn out nobody respects the IP anymore. They had the balls to tell us this, which is a sign of massive disrespect for the industry that they are a part of.

I fucking hate them. But people will lap up everthing they do, including many on these boards, because Starcraft is coming out and people will have to buy 3 different games to get the entire experience. Crazy. And not to mention all the Guitar Hero crap.

Basically, I hate all of you.

[Kelegacy]

So basically they are suggesting that they can drop a title, stop funding of it and then expect a cut when the developer actually finds a place to publish? I couldn't comment if thats legal, but it certainly seems underhanded. I would think that this may make a developer thing twice about saddling up with Activision if that were the case.

In the latest issue of Game Informer, Raven Software says that it's nearly impossible to get a new IP started at Activision. They won't even listen...they are not interested. Thankfully they were allowed to get Singularity approved, but if that does bad be prepared for no more new IPs until Guitar Hero is showcasing the swinging 1930s and Call of Duty is on WWII for the XVIth time.

[opsin]

I'm glad I wound up unable to stand WoW. 'Cause it makes boycotting ActibBlizzard for being complete fucking cockbags a whole hell of alot easier. I understand for a number of people it would be like tryingto boycott their skag dealer, but I've always felt uneasy giving them heaps of cash for something as generic (in MMO terms) as WoW.

[DoctorFinger]

Activision Blizzard is a weather machine away from being Bond villains at this point.

[Johan]

The fact that a gaming company has come along that has caused me to feel sympathy for EA (a company I normally loathe with a blinding passion) is proof that, at least to this gamer, Activision has trumped EA as the bastards of gaming.

[Rock Bandit]

Fuck you ActiBlizz, fuck you right up your stupid, corpulent fucking asses. The only game I'll play from you now is one that involves me, your CEO, and a bucket full of AIDS and razorblades. I hope you fucking go under and everyone who works for your goddamn company, from the top suits to the guys that scrub the goddamn toilets, get sold into slavery in some 5th world country.

I hope the EA lawyers tear your asshole so wide apart you make goatce look like a fucking dimple. It's bad enough you bought yourself solid gold rocket cars whoring out a franchise another company built while patting yourself on the back about how fucking "innovative" you are but then you try to stop Tim "Allah Buddha Christ" Shaeffer from makings his rock n' roll epic with Jack Black, Rob Halferd, and Lemmy? There is a special 8th level of hell for you where molten lava is eternally poured on your genitals while your forced to watch the guys who used to beat you up in high school violate your mothers with barb wire dildos all to the sounds of Debbie Boone's Greatest Hits.

Fuckers.

[DoctorFinger]

I wonder what one factor triggered the switch in public sentiment? Even before the merger was announced, Activision was going to surpass EA as the largest publisher. Is that all this is? Hating whomever is at the top?

Personally I think the whole Guitar Hero/Rock Band situation was a big catalyst, for a number of reasons. It also doesn't help that Bobby Kotick has a recurrent case of foot-in-mouth disease. Although more often than not, it's really just a little too much honesty from the man.

[Johan]

Wow, Rock Bandit...can I offer you a bag of Ritalin or tranquilizer darts? ;)

Is that all this is? Hating whomever is at the top?

Not for me. For me, it's corporate behavior (which seems to be more egregious in the larger companies, and much more visible) toward competitors, gamers, and the like. I think larger companies lose touch with what got them there...they become hell-bent on growth at all costs, which makes you a real bitch, frankly.

[ElektroDragon]

EA are my heroes, and Activision/Blizzard is the devil, hell bent on enslaving us all to cookie cutter yearly sequels. movie games, and MMO fees. If you had told me things would flip this drastically a year ago, I would have labeled you a loony. I think I can (almost) forgive the Spore DRM fiasco now (which to me was always about account restrictions, not install restrictions)

I would really like to punch Kotick in the face right now.

[bean]

This story is very rumor-mongery (though that isn't criticism of Doctor Finger who established the poor reliability of the information). We simply don't know enough about the situation to assign black (or white) hats to any of the participants.

Well, that's not entirely true. We know that ActiBlizz did stop support of the project that has seen enormous gamer interest and that is the much awaited project from one of the most respected developers in the industry. So they still deserve to be called bastards for this dick move.

What we don't know is whether or not ActiBlizz has a real claim to the publishing rights. For instance, they probably paid Double Fine several million dollars during the development of the project, and they would therefore, correctly, wish to be reimbursed for their investment should someone offer to purchase it. Imagine you paid an artist a monthly commission to work on an enormous work of art for your home, but because you were married and your wife didn't like the project, you chose to dump the artist out on his ass before he completed the project (dick move). Would the artist be responsible for paying you back the commission he received from you should he choose to sell the project to someone else?

We know that ActiBlizz, through WoW, has plenty of money to support projects like Brutal Legend, so I find it highly immoral of them to stop production on a game because they do not think it has the market potential to sell multiple millions of copies. If they had found the quality of Brutal Legend to be lacking, or they were short on funds, such an abandonment could be excused. Clearly, they are run by soulless assholes who should take a good look at themselves in the mirror. . . but that does not mean that they do not have a legal (and moral) right to compensation should Brutal Legend be picked up by another publisher.

[fitbabits]

All this hate for Activision/Blizzard is a little extreme. They are a business, and much like any other business they exist to make money. Also like any other business, they have every right to protect their own interests.

If A/B do still own the rights to any game that's being published by any other company, then they have a vested interest in ensuring that no other publisher can release the game without the correct legal paperwork in place.

[Zero]

I wonder what one factor triggered the switch in public sentiment? Even before the merger was announced, Activision was going to surpass EA as the largest publisher. Is that all this is? Hating whomever is at the top?

Personally I think the whole Guitar Hero/Rock Band situation was a big catalyst, for a number of reasons. It also doesn't help that Bobby Kotick has a recurrent case of foot-in-mouth disease. Although more often than not, it's really just a little too much honesty from the man.

It was definitely the RB/GH thing for me. I still consider it the largest dick move a publisher has pulled this generation.

[bean]

I wonder what one factor triggered the switch in public sentiment? Even before the merger was announced, Activision was going to surpass EA as the largest publisher. Is that all this is? Hating whomever is at the top?
I think the problem people had with EA was that they pumped out really awful games - especially sports games - every year. The publisher became a mark of low quality.

Add to this there infamously poor treatment of employees and their aggressive sole purchase of the NFL license, and you start to have really awful brand image.

In the last year or two, this has changed. They've started pumping money into projects that were not the results of a marketer's spreadsheet that states what games douchebag frat boys will pony up $60 to own. Add to this that our expectations for sports titles have lowered due to EA having muscled out the competition, and you a gaming populace that no longer hates EA.

I'm happy they are supporting more projects, but I'd be interested to know how they are treating their employees. . . especially with the economy being what it is. While I'm rarely brand loyal, I'll boycott companies based on their behavior. Someone firing lots of employees right now would definitely put a company on my shit-list. I believe that in lean times, the fat people need to go on short rations first.

[bean]

All this hate for Activision/Blizzard is a little extreme. They are a business, and much like any other business they exist to make money. Also like any other business, they have every right to protect their own interests.
You don't think it was a dick-move to stop supporting a game that is made from one of the most highly respected developers in the industry simply because they do not think it will sell multiple millions?

I agree with you that they have a right to be paid for their interest in the project, but the fact that Double Fine is in the situation is because ActiBlizz is run by greedy tools that need to do some soul-searching.

[jpublic]

The real question in my mind, is *why* is ActiBliz turning into old school EA, now that EA is trying to pull back from their old behavior?

The only thing I can come up with, is that it's clear from the history that focusing on major properties only is a good *short term* solution for profitability, even if it's a long term mistake.

This in turn leads me to question AB's financials. Perhaps they have some strategy going forward of using the CoD and GH properties as the background earning pool to keep the company going, and using the Blizzard-related earning spikes of SC2, D3, etc as their primary sources of profit?

Nonetheless, it is strange to me.

[Iron Past]

I wonder what one factor triggered the switch in public sentiment? Even before the merger was announced, Activision was going to surpass EA as the largest publisher. Is that all this is? Hating whomever is at the top?

It was probably the point where they said they were planning on releasing sequels upon sequels for their titles, on a yearly basis, that told me they had lost touch with the gaming industry (though apparently not people with too much money). Plus crap like this. I'm not one to boycott a good game because the publisher is an ass (and despite what they say, neither are most people here), but I will be very selective or their titles; judging by recent quality it won't be too hard.

EA, on the other hand, has shown a propensity for reaching out to gamers recently that has caused me to view them in an entirely new light in the last couple of years. Go figure.

[fitbabits]

You don't think it was a dick-move to stop supporting a game that is made from one of the most highly respected developers in the industry simply because they do not think it will sell multiple millions?

I agree with you that they have a right to be paid for their interest in the project, but the fact that Double Fine is in the situation is because ActiBlizz is run by greedy tools that need to do some soul-searching.
I don't know the ins and outs of everything that happened pre and post the Activision/Vivendi merger as it pertains to Double Fine other than what was reported in the press, so I'm not at liberty to comment.

If A/B still own the right to publish this game, then they absolutely have every right to ensure that they are paid accordingly for their investment.

It is unfortunate that Tim and the folks at Double Fine are in the position they are in right now.

[Iron Past]

If A/B still own the right to publish this game, then they absolutely have every right to ensure that they are paid accordingly for their investment.

But the fact that they waited so long to voice their 'legal concerns,' after the title is nearing the finish line and generating enough hype that EA will want to keep it, says that they are complete assholes. It doesn't make them evil, and it's good business sense, sure, but they're still assholes.

[fitbabits]

But the fact that they waited so long to voice their 'legal concerns,' after the title is nearing the finish line and generating enough hype that EA will want to keep it, says that they are complete assholes. It doesn't make them evil, and it's good business sense, sure, but they're still assholes.
Maybe, but the only people who should feel upset about it on a purely personal level are Tim and the folks Double Fine. The rants and raves of some people here are, as I said previously, a little extreme. I don't feel personally harmed by this in any way, shape or form.

Much like any legal disagreement where there's an air of uncertainty or impropriety, let's wait until the dust settles before we spit-roast anyone.

If it turns out in the end that A/B, EA, or even DF are culpable, then I'll join the chorus, but I'd prefer to wait until it's settled first.

[Telefrog]

But the fact that they waited so long to voice their 'legal concerns,' after the title is nearing the finish line and generating enough hype that EA will want to keep it, says that they are complete assholes. It doesn't make them evil, and it's good business sense, sure, but they're still assholes.

A/B warned everyone about this back when DoubleFine was shopping for a new publisher. They didn't just sit around rubbing their hands together and cackling for the big reveal. They told everyone what would happen if another publisher tried to do what EA is doing.

I'm really not sure how everyone is missing this.

[crazyD]

Maybe, but the only people who should feel upset about it on a purely personal level are Tim and the folks Double Fine. The rants and raves of some people here are, as I said previously, a little extreme. I don't feel personally harmed by this in any way, shape or form.

Much like any legal disagreement where there's an air of uncertainty or impropriety, let's wait until the dust settles before we spit-roast anyone.

If it turns out in the end that A/B, EA, or even DF are culpable, then I'll join the chorus, but I'd prefer to wait until it's settled first.

If the game is delayed at all due to this legal bullshit, I will feel personally harmed. Beyond that, I can feel pissed at my favorite dev team being screwed by this shitty publisher.

[Xerxes]

Two years ago if you would have told me Blizzard and EA were fighting, and that I'd side with EA, I'd have laughed. Now I can't help but feel that A/B are trying to take the place that EA once held.

It looks like ActiBlizzard is trying their best to earn the title of "Most Hated Video Game Company",

Activision Blizzard is a weather machine away from being Bond villains at this point.

All this hate for Activision/Blizzard is a little extreme. They are a business, and much like any other business they exist to make money. Also like any other business, they have every right to protect their own interests.

If A/B do still own the rights to any game that's being published by any other company, then they have a vested interest in ensuring that no other publisher can release the game without the correct legal paperwork in place.

But didn't they put them out to pasture. They could have been up front about the whole thing early on. It's easy for Double Fine to think, we made it, we release it after ActBliz just kind of said no deal. You wait until EA signs on and probably foots some bill to step in act like douche bags.

I love the hate for them. Aside from CoD, I have no love for them. I don't have much more for EA. I'm a Ubi guys more or less. That's not important. In business, it seems this dickish stuff is what's up. The world we live in.

[Xerxes]

If A/B still own the right to publish this game, then they absolutely have every right to ensure that they are paid accordingly for their investment.

But they could have voiced these concerns a lot earlier. It's the waiting that makes them dicks. Again, in business being a dick is what's up. Sitting and waiting until the product is about to come out, it has a little buzz behind it, and in turn more value, POUNCE!

[fitbabits]

If the game is delayed at all due to this legal bullshit, I will feel personally harmed. Beyond that, I can feel pissed at my favorite dev team being screwed by this shitty publisher.
If the game is delayed I'll feel personally harmed, but as it stands right now the release date still remains the same.

One other point - could Double Fine have screwed themselves or acted inappropriately? There are three parties involved here. It seems odd to sling the blame at one and not even question the involvement of the other two.

Again, once the dust settles, we'll hopefully see who is ultimately to blame. Until then, I'll keep my bile in check.

[MagGnome]

I never really thought much about Activision until the last couple years. I really never owned any of their games, barring a couple. Thankfully they don't own any IPs I'm crazy about.

I can't believe I'm actually rooting for EA. I used to be an EA hater, but in the recent year or two I think they've turned it around a bit, made some ground. Now I want them to succeed a bit in gaming, and want Activision to burn in hell and fail miserably.

Activision should be on every gamer's hit list after they basically came out and told us how much they want to run their franchises into the ground, milk them for all the gold their worth, until they are so worn out nobody respects the IP anymore. They had the balls to tell us this, which is a sign of massive disrespect for the industry that they are a part of.

I fucking hate them. But people will lap up everthing they do, including many on these boards, because Starcraft is coming out and people will have to buy 3 different games to get the entire experience. Crazy. And not to mention all the Guitar Hero crap.

Basically, I hate all of you.


I couldn't agree more. The amount of crap that some gamers are willing to lap up in mind-boggling. Activision is a dirty company IMHO, and I for one haven't been buying any of their games. People rush to their defense as if the company is pure mana from heaven, and I just don't understand why.


Not for me. For me, it's corporate behavior (which seems to be more egregious in the larger companies, and much more visible) toward competitors, gamers, and the like. I think larger companies lose touch with what got them there...they become hell-bent on growth at all costs, which makes you a real bitch, frankly.

I think it's one of the biggest problems with our modern economy. Growth at any cost is valued above all else. People, the environment, ethics - none of it matters one iota compared to profit and growth.

[fitbabits]

But they could have voiced these concerns a lot earlier. It's the waiting that makes them dicks. Again, in business being a dick is what's up. Sitting and waiting until the product is about to come out, it has a little buzz behind it, and in turn more value, POUNCE!
Companies do this all the time. Doesn't make it any nicer, but it is what it is.

Just because we're only now hearing about this doesn't necessarily mean that A/B hasn't been looking at recompense for some time.

[Sazime]

I am down on AB because they are attempting to screw over a solid developer, and may prevent me from getting a game I want on time. Well run or not, dropping funding but retaining publishing rights as an effort to get more money is a sleazy fucking tactic.
I would compare this to the Fox/WB Watchmen dispute. It's made, it's paid for, all they want is the money that's owed to them. It does them no good to hold a completed game/movie in limbo. In fact, it would make no sense at all. They'll get their cash and that will be it.

[Goronmon]

A/B warned everyone about this back when DoubleFine was shopping for a new publisher. They didn't just sit around rubbing their hands together and cackling for the big reveal. They told everyone what would happen if another publisher tried to do what EA is doing.

I'm really not sure how everyone is missing this.They don't called it "nerd rage" for nothing. ;)

[MagGnome]

I would compare this to the Fox/WB Watchmen dispute. It's made, it's paid for, all they want is the money that's owed to them. It does them no good to hold a completed game/movie in limbo. In fact, it would make no sense at all. They'll get their cash and that will be it.

Why is this money owed to them? It was A/B's decision to drop this project and let it rot, just as Fox dropped the Watchmen project. It's not like EA swooped in and stole Double Fine away or something - A/B made it clear that they were not interested in Double Fine or Brutal Legend.

A/B shouldn't be entitled to anything. They dumped the project, end of story.

This is greed, pure and simple.

[crazyD]

If the game is delayed I'll feel personally harmed, but as it stands right now the release date still remains the same.

One other point - could Double Fine have screwed themselves or acted inappropriately? There are three parties involved here. It seems odd to sling the blame at one and not even question the involvement of the other two.

Again, once the dust settles, we'll hopefully see who is ultimately to blame. Until then, I'll keep my bile in check.

Double Fine was dropped for not creating an exploitable franchise game, so they found a new publisher. Activision may be legally right, but holding a game hostage like this is not morally right. I don't really see how DF could be in the wrong here.

[Ancalagon]

Two years ago if you would have told me Blizzard and EA were fighting, and that I'd side with EA, I'd have laughed. Now I can't help but feel that A/B are trying to take the place that EA once held.

Agreed. I almost feel guilty, saying that I think EA should win this little spat. But, no one can deny that AB are acting like cocks.

[fitbabits]

Double Fine was dropped for not creating an exploitable franchise game, so they found a new publisher. Activision may be legally right, but holding a game hostage like this is not morally right. I don't really see how DF could be in the wrong here.
Well let's look at a scenario... Double Fine gets pissed off (rightly or wrongly) and shops their game around without the full legal consent of A/B. Breach of contract right there.

I'm not for a second suggesting this is what happened, but the simple fact is nobody aside from those involved truly knows what happened. In time I'm sure the facts will come out, but until then I'll reserve judgment.

[DoctorFinger]

Why is this money owed to them? It was A/B's decision to drop this project and let it rot, just as Fox dropped the Watchmen project. It's not like EA swooped in and stole Double Fine away or something - A/B made it clear that they were not interested in Double Fine or Brutal Legend.

A/B shouldn't be entitled to anything. They dumped the project, end of story.

This is greed, pure and simple.Did Activision pay a dime towards the development of the game? As the publisher they almost certainly did. Should they be able to recoup any of that dough? I honestly can't say.

[fitbabits]

Did Activision pay a dime towards the development of the game? As the publisher they almost certainly did. Should they be able to recoup any of that dough? I honestly can't say.
I say they should. After all, it was an investment and they should at least be able to recoup their initial investment. Beyond that, it's up to the lawyers.

Look at the money Activision Blizzard paid as an advance. Having been intimately involved in the music industry, I know how advances work - the publisher recoups the advance first, anything after that is split depending on what was worked out in the publishing deal.

[Laughing Penguin]

Fuck you ActiBlizz, fuck you right up your stupid, corpulent fucking asses. The only game I'll play from you now is one that involves me, your CEO, and a bucket full of AIDS and razorblades. I hope you fucking go under and everyone who works for your goddamn company, from the top suits to the guys that scrub the goddamn toilets, get sold into slavery in some 5th world country.

I hope the EA lawyers tear your asshole so wide apart you make goatce look like a fucking dimple. It's bad enough you bought yourself solid gold rocket cars whoring out a franchise another company built while patting yourself on the back about how fucking "innovative" you are but then you try to stop Tim "Allah Buddha Christ" Shaeffer from makings his rock n' roll epic with Jack Black, Rob Halferd, and Lemmy? There is a special 8th level of hell for you where molten lava is eternally poured on your genitals while your forced to watch the guys who used to beat you up in high school violate your mothers with barb wire dildos all to the sounds of Debbie Boone's Greatest Hits.

Fuckers.



Debbie Boone? Shit, man... that's harsh

[ElektroDragon]

I hate to call out the elephant in the room, but I think the folks calling on restraint in our "nerd rage" abuse of A/B, of which I too have been guilty, really don't want to have this community (as in CoG) get on A/B's bad side, as this could, at a professional level, severely limit any benefits A/B may one day impart on the community or members thereof, such as, for example, advance game copies, community sweepstakes opportunies, and other yummy things. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't see any other reason for such civility towards foul corporate behavior. I totally understand if that's the case. Or maybe some people just try to exercise restraint better than others.

But I'm with EA on this, and if that's their real response at the end there, they are made of win in my book.

[fitbabits]

I hate to call out the elephant in the room, but I think the folks calling on restraint in our "nerd rage" abuse of A/B, of which I too have been guilty, really don't want to have this community (as in CoG) get on A/B's bad side, as this could, at a professional level, severely limit any benefits A/B may one day impart on the community or members thereof, such as, for example, advance game copies, community sweepstakes opportunies, and other yummy things. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't see any other reason for such civility towards foul corporate behavior. I totally understand if that's the case. Or maybe some people just try to exercise restraint better than others.

But I'm with EA on this, and if that's their real response at the end there, they are made of win in my book.
I'll call a spade a spade when it's warranted. In this case, however, there is so much that is unknown that jumping on the hate-wagon is a little premature.

Just my opinion, though - feel free to hate away.

[Ancalagon]

I say they should. After all, it was an investment and they should at least be able to recoup their initial investment. Beyond that, it's up to the lawyers.

Look at the money Activision Blizzard paid as an advance. Having been intimately involved in the music industry, I know how advances work - the publisher recoups the advance first, anything after that is split depending on what was worked out in the publishing deal.

But then I'd say, for them to walk away, without some kind of contract in place protecting their investment, they dont have a leg to stand in. If their initial contract had a clause to cover this situation, then when the Brutal teams sits down with EA they would need to say, "Look guys, just so you are aware, if you want to publish our game you need to pay AB. Cool?"

So there clearly wasnt a contract like that, else thats what we would hear, and it wouldnt be such a contentious issue, it would be a matter of reading the contract.

Morally, I dont think AB has a leg to stand on. They walked away from it, they chose to drop what they had already invested, why should they be recompensed? Say I gamble at slot machine for 5 hours wasting countless bucks, and then someone takes my place and wins $5 mil. Do I have the right to his money just cos I sat there for a while? No, I gave up my place. Same thing here.

Besides, as I said, without a contract, its really up to the courts to decide whether AB is owed any money. I dont think they are. AB gave the Brutal team money to develop a game so that AB could publish it. AB walked away from that contract and decided not to publish the game - contract terminated. They left the Brutal in the lurch. Why are they owed money now?

[SilentScreams]

Damn Activision. How dare they ask for the money that they feel is owed to them.
The nerve!

Seriously, you guys?
Nerd rage is funny some times.

[fitbabits]

But then I'd say, for them to walk away, without some kind of contract in place protecting their investment, they dont have a leg to stand in. If their initial contract had a clause to cover this situation, then when the Brutal teams sits down with EA they would need to say, "Look guys, just so you are aware, if you want to publish our game you need to pay AB. Cool?"

So there clearly wasnt a contract like that, else thats what we would hear, and it wouldnt be such a contentious issue, it would be a matter of reading the contract.

Morally, I dont think AB has a leg to stand on. They walked away from it, they chose to drop what they had already invested, why should they be recompensed? Say I gamble at slot machine for 5 hours wasting countless bucks, and then someone takes my place and wins $5 mil. Do I have the right to his money just cos I sat there for a while? No, I gave up my place. Same thing here.

Besides, as I said, without a contract, its really up to the courts to decide whether AB is owed any money. I dont think they are. AB gave the Brutal team money to develop a game so that AB could publish it. AB walked away from that contract and decided not to publish the game - contract terminated. They left the Brutal in the lurch. Why are they owed money now?
You're making a lot of assumptions here. Let's just wait and see, shall we? There's more to this than we all think we know.

Another way to look at Activision Blizzard's investment in Double Fine is as a loan.

[mister slim]

If Activision wanted to recoup their money they could have sold their rights on. Clearly they didn't make a serious attempt to do so.

I would note that DF spent a lot of time looking for a publisher for Brutal Legend because they wanted to keep the ownership of their game, as with Psychonauts (where Majesco did not compensate MS for their expenses on the project).

[Ancalagon]

You're making a lot of assumptions here. Let's just wait and see, shall we? There's more to this than we all think we know.

Another way to look at Activision Blizzard's investment in Double Fine is as a loan.

As I said, then it would be specified as such in the contract, and there wouldnt be an issue. But, I dont think thats the case, cos if it were, the "fight" would be a whole lot shorter.

Theoretically, its a loan, but legally? Who knows?

[fitbabits]

As I said, then it would be specified as such in the contract, and there wouldnt be an issue. But, I dont think thats the case, cos if it were, the "fight" would be a whole lot shorter.

Theoretically, its a loan, but legally? Who knows?
Again, you're assuming that there was something in the contract. I haven't seen any of the contracts related to this, so I'm not going to assume anything.

[MagGnome]

Did Activision pay a dime towards the development of the game? As the publisher they almost certainly did. Should they be able to recoup any of that dough? I honestly can't say.

Do you really think they should get any of that money back?

If they wanted to recoup their investment they should have released the title themselves.

I don't know what the law says, but I think it's wrong that a company can hold another company hostage like this. A/B's decision not to publish the title should have been the end of this. They shouldn't get any money just because someone else decided to come in and help Double Fine release their game.

[bean]

I don't feel personally harmed by this in any way, shape or form.
This last bit annoys me. I think people who are jerks to others are showing behavior that shows that they would be a jerk to me. When someone is a big enough asshole to mess with talented people's livelihood, I have an incredibly low opinion of them.

Perhaps the press is not correct, but ActiBlizz's PR could release contrary information to deny these reports if they were false. ActiBlizz may be choosing to not release information because they want the story to go away rather than getting more reads with a correction. However, that is usually a dumb move because negative company information tends to word-of-mouth it's way out to people who did not read the initial story if a correction is not issued. It's hard for me to believe that ActiBlizz's PR folks do not know this. So, smoke may very well indicate fire.

Plus, I'm indirectly harmed if I don't get to play Brutal Legend due to some suit's avarice.

[Hotcod]

First of all the parallels being made to watchmen are wrong. That was over an "IP" issue, some one coming in when some one else has spent money making stuff and wanting a cut simply beacuse they own the rights to make said thing and never did.

Here AB has likely spent money on the project and have every right to make it back. The fact that they where sitting on the project changes nothing. Until they have there investment back (in what ever form) they can do what ever the hell they like. You people may not like it but AB may have felt that at the moment publishing the game would be to much effort for the reward.

The point of all this is more than likely AB just wanting to make sure they get there money back. They are taking action now so it's not in doubt later. It wouldn't surprise me to see the outcome as EA buying the rights to publish. Which is what this is all about.

The whole thing sucks for us as gamers and the like but business is business and this is not out of the ordinary or as evil and some people seem to think. Personally I think AB has acted is a sucky way if they where going to dump the game they should have found some one to sell the rights to publish on to but the simple fact is they make more money this way. Once a publisher wants to publish the game they can get more money than if they'd shopped around for one to sell to in the first place. Sucks but thats life

[mister slim]

As I said, then it would be specified as such in the contract, and there wouldnt be an issue. But, I dont think thats the case, cos if it were, the "fight" would be a whole lot shorter.

Theoretically, its a loan, but legally? Who knows?

Well, no, an advance is not a loan in that sense. There's no requirement for repayment, or it would be called a loan.

[fitbabits]

Well, no, an advance is not a loan in that sense. There's no requirement for repayment, or it would be called a loan.
In the publishing industry, which I do know fairly well having actually signed more than one publishing contract in my music days, an advance is given to a person/entity in the understanding that the money will be recouped when the product the advance was paid toward is released - no matter who releases it eventually.

[Ondo]

What games do Activision actually have coming out in the near future? I can't think of anything they have, except the next Infinity Ward game, that I'm interested in.
A new racing game from the guys that made Project Gotham Racing, that's supposed to be a combination of Forza and Mario Kart. That could be interesting.

I wonder what one factor triggered the switch in public sentiment?
http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2007/20071205.jpg

But they're still a ways behind Capcom in my list of hated publishers. Activision is better at being routinely evil, but they have never approached Capcom's masterstroke of dissolving an excellent studio and then, in a port of their best work, truncating the excellent closing to avoid showing the studio's credits.

[mister slim]

In the publishing industry, which I do know fairly well having actually signed more than one publishing contract in my music days, an advance is given to a person/entity in the understanding that the money will be recouped when the product the advance was paid toward is released - no matter who releases it eventually.

The product that the standard contract states is owned by the record company?

[SilentScreams]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2007/20071205.jpg


Yeah, heaven forbid Activision release sequels to their successful games. /rolleyes

[fitbabits]

The product that the standard contract states is owned by the record company?
Another way to put it is that the publisher assumes joint ownership of the product being produced for consumption. That's pretty much standard. So, in this case (assuming we're talking the same type of contract), Activision and Double Fine own the property jointly. Unless Double Fine negotiated a release from the contract, then Activision still has a legal entitlement to recoup the investment/advance - at the very least.

As I've said, nobody outside of those intimately involved knows the ins and outs of any contracts that were signed at the time Activision became the publisher. Until we do (which may never happen), making factual statements related to the contract(s) and/or ramifications inherent thereof is purely speculation and not based on fact.

[MagGnome]

Yeah, heaven forbid Activision release sequels to their successful games. /rolleyes

You're right. "Exploiting" titles on a yearly basis is GREAT!

Three cheers for Activision! Hip hip hooray!

[mister slim]

As I've said, nobody outside of those intimately involved knows the ins and outs of any contracts that were signed at the time Activision became the publisher. Until we do (which may never happen), making factual statements related to the contract(s) and/or ramifications inherent thereof is purely speculation and not based on fact.

I doubt any contracts were signed at the time Activision became the publisher. It's very unlikely Activision would have signed Brutal Legend in any case, and certainly not under the terms Doublefine was looking for, which is why it ended up at VU.

[fitbabits]

I doubt any contracts were signed at the time Activision became the publisher. It's very unlikely Activision would have signed Brutal Legend in any case, and certainly not under the terms Doublefine was looking for, which is why it ended up at VU.
Ah, I see. I meant Activision Blizzard.

[AgtFox]

Well let's look at a scenario... Double Fine gets pissed off (rightly or wrongly) and shops their game around without the full legal consent of A/B. Breach of contract right there.

I'm not for a second suggesting this is what happened, but the simple fact is nobody aside from those involved truly knows what happened. In time I'm sure the facts will come out, but until then I'll reserve judgment.
OK, let's look at timelines here to show how much of a dick move this is on Activision Blizzard's part:

July 28th, 2008: Brutal Legend to not be published by Activision after Vivendi merge

December 12th, 2008: EA announces they will publish Brutal Legend

February 13th, 2009: Activision Blizzard informs EA that they have publishing rights and may sue.

Now, there is almost 5 months between the dropping of Brutal Legend where Double Fine was shopping it around. Then in December EA announces they will publish the game and it takes 2 months for Activision Blizzard to say, "woah, woah!" to it? C'mon, they should have reacted well before this. Activision Blizzard reads the gaming news as much as we do, they probably knew the suitors even before we did. They probably even knew EA had it in advance, but why wait 2 months to drop this? And why not put out there during the 5 months DF was shopping it that anyone that picked it up may have to pay a fee in order to get it.

I hate to call out the elephant in the room, but I think the folks calling on restraint in our "nerd rage" abuse of A/B, of which I too have been guilty, really don't want to have this community (as in CoG) get on A/B's bad side, as this could, at a professional level, severely limit any benefits A/B may one day impart on the community or members thereof, such as, for example, advance game copies, community sweepstakes opportunies, and other yummy things. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't see any other reason for such civility towards foul corporate behavior. I totally understand if that's the case. Or maybe some people just try to exercise restraint better than others.
I'll let you know I don't give a rat's ass if Activision Blizzard were to drop any kind of involvement in CoG over this. I am of the opinion that we are an independent entity that will call a spade a spade no matter what kind of deal we may or may not have with a company. Other founders may disagree with me, but CoG as a site should not cowtow to a company in order to keep in good graces with them.

Back to the topic. Bottom line in my mind is that Activision Blizzard is figuring out that they may have underrated the selling ability of Brutal Legend as a game. They are probably also afraid that EA has it since EA has the type of money to be able to advertise the heck out of the game and hopefully sell more copies. When Activision Blizzard first looked at it they probably thought it would sell like Psychonauts and now they're finding out they may have made a mistake.

[fitbabits]

OK, let's look at timelines here to show how much of a dick move this is on Activision Blizzard's part:

July 28th, 2008: Brutal Legend to not be published by Activision after Vivendi merge

December 12th, 2008: EA announces they will publish Brutal Legend

February 13th, 2009: Activision Blizzard informs EA that they have publishing rights and may sue.

Now, there is almost 5 months between the dropping of Brutal Legend where Double Fine was shopping it around. Then in December EA announces they will publish the game and it takes 2 months for Activision Blizzard to say, "woah, woah!" to it? C'mon, they should have reacted well before this.
Yeesh. You're assuming that in the two month period you cite Activision Blizzard were just sitting around with their collective thumbs up their asses? I suspect, although I have no proof (and nor, for that matter, does anyone else here), that they were actually examining their options and only now feel confident stating publicly that they still hold the rights.

Back to the topic. Bottom line in my mind is that Activision Blizzard is figuring out that they may have underrated the selling ability of Brutal Legend as a game. They are probably also afraid that EA has it since EA has the type of money to be able to advertise the heck out of the game and hopefully sell more copies. When Activision Blizzard first looked at it they probably thought it would sell like Psychonauts and now they're finding out they may have made a mistake.
It's all in your mind! All of it. :)

[AgtFox]

Yeesh. You're assuming that in the two month period you cite Activision Blizzard were just sitting around with their collective thumbs up their asses? I suspect, although I have no proof (and nor, for that matter, does anyone else here), that they were actually examining their options and only now feel confident stating publicly that they still hold the rights.
My argument is that they should have known Double Fine was going to find a publisher for the game. They should have, within those 7 months from them dropping it to today, told Double Fine that they expected compensation should they find another publisher. So yes, I think Activision Blizzard was sitting with their thumbs up their asses in this case. Plus industry talk of EA publishing Brutal Legend started way back in August and you can't tell me that Activision didn't get a whiff of the news. All it would have taken was a phone call to DF or EA to say that they expected compensation to whatever company decided to publish it.

For all we know (and I'm not saying we do) the deal Vivendi had with DF was much like id had with Activision for many years (and what id has now with EA) and what companies like Valve and Crytek have with EA where EA basically pays for the manufacturing and distribution of the game and the majority of the development cost comes from the developer.

I don't remember ever hearing about Microsoft asking for money when they dropped Psychonauts and Majesco took up the publishing rights. Also, who is to say that EA didn't pay Activision a flat fee like Atari did for development already finished on Ghostbusters and Chronicles of Riddick? The fee Atari paid was undisclosed.

Also, Activision Blizzard is asserting in the letter that they believed they were still in negotiations to publish Brutal Legend (which is basically a lie since they outright said they weren't picking up Brutal Legend back in July) and that the EA deal is invalid. Now, don't you think a deal would have been worked out in those 5 months or that Activision Blizzard would have called foul way before this after the EA announcement?

[mister slim]

Also, who is to say that EA didn't pay Activision a flat fee like Atari did for development already finished on Ghostbusters and Chronicles of Riddick? The fee Atari paid was undisclosed.

What the fee was for is also undisclosed. Both Ghostbusters and Riddick are licenses that were held by VU, so that would require some payment to Activision Blizzard.

[fitbabits]

My argument is that they should have known Double Fine was going to find a publisher for the game. They should have, within those 7 months from them dropping it to today, told Double Fine that they expected compensation should they find another publisher. So yes, I think Activision Blizzard was sitting with their thumbs up their asses in this case. Plus industry talk of EA publishing Brutal Legend started way back in August and you can't tell me that Activision didn't get a whiff of the news. All it would have taken was a phone call to DF or EA to say that they expected compensation to whatever company decided to publish it.

For all we know (and I'm not saying we do) the deal Vivendi had with DF was much like id had with Activision for many years (and what id has now with EA) and what companies like Valve and Crytek have with EA where EA basically pays for the manufacturing and distribution of the game and the majority of the development cost comes from the developer.

I don't remember ever hearing about Microsoft asking for money when they dropped Psychonauts and Majesco took up the publishing rights. Also, who is to say that EA didn't pay Activision a flat fee like Atari did for development already finished on Ghostbusters and Chronicles of Riddick? The fee Atari paid was undisclosed.

Also, Activision Blizzard is asserting in the letter that they believed they were still in negotiations to publish Brutal Legend (which is basically a lie since they outright said they weren't picking up Brutal Legend back in July) and that the EA deal is invalid. Now, don't you think a deal would have been worked out in those 5 months or that Activision Blizzard would have called foul way before this after the EA announcement?
Bottom line is I don't know. Nobody here knows. That's the only point I've been trying to make all along.

People getting on the hate-train and railing (!) on Activision Blizzard without knowing the full facts are perhaps being premature in their judgment. In many ways, AB has taken over the mantle of most-hated developer/publisher from EA. Some of the reasons are not without merit, but the constant jumping to negative conclusions is specious.

I have nothing invested in either EA, DF, or AB, so I'm not playing favorites here.

[Straximus]

Even if Activision turns out to be in the (legal) right, I can still be angry at them, and be justified in that anger. I don't need to care about who's in the right. I only want the game. There is no other relevant variable in that equation as far as I'm concerned.

But beyond that... PR is a very basic part of business. When you do what AB just did, you know how it will play in the press, and among enthusiasts. If they had some spin to put on this to make themselves look better, it would already be out there. Hypothetically, if there's some mitigating circumstance that makes it all better then they deserve any bad PR they get for not getting it out ahead of the fallout. All of the things we *do* know make AB look very bad right now, and that's no one's fault but their own.

So yeah. Fuck those guys.

[Sazime]

Why is this money owed to them? It was A/B's decision to drop this project and let it rot, just as Fox dropped the Watchmen project. It's not like EA swooped in and stole Double Fine away or something - A/B made it clear that they were not interested in Double Fine or Brutal Legend.

A/B shouldn't be entitled to anything. They dumped the project, end of story.

This is greed, pure and simple.
Not at all. What if you bough the rights to a story to make into a movie? What if you payed good money, but decided due to interest in the producers previous films, it would not be wise to immediately drop a lot of cash in the project, especially since your studio just bough another large studio and had some serious restructuring to do. Another production company comes along and buys the same property (netting the owner two pay checks) and suddenly, the IP you invested in is now being produced by someone else. You put in the time and money to find and pay for this IP and now someone is looking to profit from it.

It's not greed on anyone part, as far as I'm concerned. If anyone is greedy, it's Double Fine for wanting two paychecks. My assumption is that it was done by accident, and now A/B is wants their cut. As far as we know, they waited till production was over, but a lot happens in meetins we never hear about when it comes to these things. Realistically, A/B may have said, "fine, make the game, but we want our cut. We own it," and then had EA come back with, "possession is 9/10ths, and we possess it now." Is the best way to make it all public and draw it out? No, but it sure puts to cleats to EA.

Above all, this is a business, it is not your dream factory of fanciful games. The little guy is not always in the right, and the big guy puts far more on the line hiring people to do nothing but find IPs than the lucker SOB who gets the next best idea handed to him. WB got screwed over by an over zealous option owner who double sold the rights. For all we know, someone at Double Fine saw money to me made and a hole in a contract and tried the same thing.

[Sazime]

Even if Activision turns out to be in the (legal) right, I can still be angry at them, and be justified in that anger.
The Czechs were pretty pissed off about Budweiser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budweiser_%28Anheuser-Busch%29#Name_origin_and_dispute) too. Are you still championing their cause?

[Kelegacy]

I wonder what one factor triggered the switch in public sentiment? Even before the merger was announced, Activision was going to surpass EA as the largest publisher. Is that all this is? Hating whomever is at the top?

Personally I think the whole Guitar Hero/Rock Band situation was a big catalyst, for a number of reasons. It also doesn't help that Bobby Kotick has a recurrent case of foot-in-mouth disease. Although more often than not, it's really just a little too much honesty from the man.

EA has gone on to support their games awesomely (Burnout Paradise) and release new IPs (Dead Space, Mirror's Edge, etc) whereas Activision has just decided to squeeze the life from their titles with no remorse. EA really ARE the good guys these days. They've released quality, original titles and seem to have made baby steps in the right direction. Activision? No way. If it isn't Call of Duty or Guitar Hero, you won't see much new from them. I would hate to work for them. Their developers must feel like the Bungie folk when they were sweatshopping under the yolk of Microsoft.

[Ancalagon]

EA has gone on to support their games awesomely (Burnout Paradise) and release new IPs (Dead Space, Mirror's Edge, etc) whereas Activision has just decided to squeeze the life from their titles with no remorse. EA really ARE the good guys these days. They've released quality, original titles and seem to have made baby steps in the right direction. Activision? No way. If it isn't Call of Duty or Guitar Hero, you won't see much new from them. I would hate to work for them. Their developers must feel like the Bungie folk when they were sweatshopping under the yolk of Microsoft.

Yeah, agreed. EA has changed, although they have some way to go, notably in the DRM area.

Can you imagine "Call of Guitar Hero?"

"Private, we're being overrun. Unless you can pull off a killer guitar solo right now, we're done for!"

[Rock Bandit]

Yeah, heaven forbid Activision release sequels to their successful games. /rolleyes

In 2009 alone we're going to see no less than 4 different Guitar Heroes released. That sir is the difference between sequelization and exploitation.

Also, I heard Activision CEO Bobby Kotick can't get an erection unless he kills a dog. Just something I heard.

[SilentScreams]

In 2009 alone we're going to see no less than 4 different Guitar Heroes released. That sir is the difference between sequelization and exploitation.

While I agree with the distinction, it doesn't change the fact that people keep buying these sequels, and I don't doubt they will continue to do so.

If people keep buying them, you can hardly blame Activision for "exploiting" that.

[Straximus]

The Czechs were pretty pissed off about Budweiser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budweiser_%28Anheuser-Busch%29#Name_origin_and_dispute) too. Are you still championing their cause?

I'm not sure I get the point you're going for. But I doubt I'll care about Brutal Legend in a hundred or so years.

[Kelegacy]

While I agree with the distinction, it doesn't change the fact that people keep buying these sequels, and I don't doubt they will continue to do so.

If people keep buying them, you can hardly blame Activision for "exploiting" that.

I agree with that, because people on these boards complaining are probably some of the ones supporting Activision and will buy their further exploitations.

I'm not. So I can complain to my heart's content.

[Deadend]

Yeah, agreed. EA has changed, although they have some way to go, notably in the DRM area.

Can you imagine "Call of Guitar Hero?"

"Private, we're being overrun. Unless you can pull off a killer guitar solo right now, we're done for!"

I'd buy it
if it wasn't published by Activision
I don't think I'd have any trouble avoiding Activision games from here on out. As I already played every game they are putting out next year... last year. I just need to cancel my WoW account and resist Diablo 3 in the future. The rest of their catalog has very little interest to me.

Also, they are kind of being bitches about it. They want money, but they were content to let the game fade into nothing. I also want to know if Double Fine owned the IP for Brutal Legend.

[Sazime]

Also, they are kind of being bitches about it. They want money, but they were content to let the game fade into nothing. I also want to know if Double Fine owned the IP for Brutal Legend.
That essentially what I'm thinking, but with a lot less venom than I was spewing earlier. :)

[MagGnome]

I agree with that, because people on these boards complaining are probably some of the ones supporting Activision and will buy their further exploitations.

I'm not. So I can complain to my heart's content.

Likewise. I can't even remember the last time I bought an Activision game.

That's a pretty silly thing to say when you think about it. Just because something sells well doesn't mean we shouldn't complain about getting inundated with that product. I guess Silent Screams must spend a lot of time on music forums defending the likes of Britney Spears and Fallout Boy. ;)


Not at all. What if you bough the rights to a story to make into a movie? What if you payed good money, but decided due to interest in the producers previous films, it would not be wise to immediately drop a lot of cash in the project, especially since your studio just bough another large studio and had some serious restructuring to do. Another production company comes along and buys the same property (netting the owner two pay checks) and suddenly, the IP you invested in is now being produced by someone else. You put in the time and money to find and pay for this IP and now someone is looking to profit from it.

Except Brutal Legend isn't a licensed property. It is Double Fine's original creation, not something that AB or Double Fine or EA had to pay a third party for the rights to use. Your example is flawed.

Besides, AB DUMPED THE GAME. They dropped it. They made it very clear that they were not interested in Brutal Legend. How many times do I have to repeat this? They only gained interest when they realized that they might be able to score some cash from EA.

[Sl1pstream]

really don't want to have this community (as in CoG) get on A/B's bad side, as this could, at a professional level, severely limit any benefits A/B may one day impart on the community or members thereof, such as, for example, advance game copies, community sweepstakes opportunies, and other yummy things

Wait, when did we turn into Gamespot again? Besides, that was Eidos, not Acti/Blizzard.

That said, fuck 'em.
I'm also not really a fan of censorship because of what might happen by the way.

[Karmakin]

Gnome, I lub ya, but I'm going to have to go against you here. Unless they're getting into JT territory, I'm going to have to assume that they have some contractual hold over the BL IP property, or the code there-in. In that case, they really have every legal right to just bury the project if they decide not to sell.

Is it a dick move? Yup. For sure. But it's something that's done quite a bit, in a different context. How many games go out of print? It's the exact same situation. The whole idea is that it's about limiting potential competition with the latest and greatest.

One of the things that have always bothered me about this community (first at EA and now here), is the moralistic stance taken on IP law and licensing without understanding and accepting the ramifications of it. It means if something isn't released in your territory, you don't get it. If something is OOP and ultra-rare and you can't buy a copy without paying 200 bucks, you're out of luck. If 20 years down the road, we lose parts of our cultural identity, well...we have this copy of the latest and greatest version of Call of Tony Hawk Football 42 you can buy instead! (Truth be told, IMO the Call of Duty, Tony Hawk and Madden series were never cheap rehashes. I don't like football, but they did put effort into it past a simple roster change on a year to year basis. Some experiments have failed. But they have tried at least. In fact, I'd go as far as to argue that there are very few mainstream "cashing in rehashes" out there. Everybody tries something new every time out. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But the attempt is always there)

But the point remains. To IP law, games, music and movies are widgets to be bought and sold and are interchangeable. In reality they are cultural artifacts to be both be encouraged and nurtured and protected.

IMO this thread shows the sometimes thin, sometimes thick wall between the two.

Edit:You know what the biggest rehash of last year was?

Rock Band 2.

And it's the game that has gotten more play time than any other. (Next to maybe WoW and TF2)

[Sazime]

Except Brutal Legend isn't a licensed property. It is Double Fine's original creation, not something that AB or Double Fine or EA had to pay a third party for the rights to use. Your example is flawed.
How so? Are you saying that, without a doubt, video game developers don't option properties or sell distribution rights the same way writers and movie houses do?