The largest game publisher in the world managed to end April on a high note despite two months of bad press, growing gamer discontent and a half billion dollar lawsuit over the personnel imbroglio surrounding their Modern Warfare games.
It would have taken huge news to divert attention even slightly from the growing soap opera of discontent bubbling up from the makers of Modern Warfare 2. But that's just what Activision delivered in the last week of the month, revealing that the makers of Xbox 360 mega hit Halo were now designing a multiplatform game for Activision to publish.
Perhaps ironically, developers Bungie were enticed to sign an agreement with Activision by the sort of deal that the now disintegrating Modern Warfare studio Infinity Ward were up in arms about not getting.
Apparently, Bungie's deal with Activision, which is for a single new gaming property and all of the games that come out of it, gives them the sort of control almost unheard of in today's world of hundred million dollar games and few self-published titles. Under the agreement, Bungie will still own the franchise, retain independence and even have control over things like the final cost of the game.
I pointed this out to Thomas Tippl, Activision's Chief Operating Officer, a few hours after news hit of the deal. Why, I asked, did you give Bungie the deal that Infinity Ward was asking for?
"These two things are completely unrelated," Tippl said. "We have been very focused on bringing the best talent to work in our studio model. We have done that successfully over the past two years as can be seen with our merger with Blizzard, bringing Bizarre to join our portfolio and attracting some of the best shooter talent, including some of the Dead Space team. That's been part of our strategy and it's not going to change.
"The Infinity Ward situation is completely different from that. I'm sure you have read our cross complaint and I think it's self-explanatory."
In the complaint, Activision paints a pretty unflattering picture of former Infinity Ward heads Jason West and Vince Zampella, both fired by the company for, among other things, "insubordination." According to Activision, the two were trying to make the people at their studio unhappy so they would quit and come to work for the two at a studio that they were secretly setting up behind the publisher's back.
West and Zampella denied that was the case, saying that Activision withheld bonuses and broke promises. West and Zampella have since set up a new studio and inked a publishing agreement with Activision's chief rival, Electronic Arts.
And what about Bungie's take on all of this?
In 2000, the company was purchased by Microsoft, after apparently deciding not to partner up with Activision. Seven years later, Bungie cut a deal to free itself from Microsoft and become a private company once more.
I asked Bungie head Harold Ryan, who was on the same call with Activision's Tpipl, what had changed in the ten years since they had first rejected Activision as a partner.
"I was at Microsoft when Bungie was first acquired," said Ryan. "For Bungie, the thing that was most exciting (about the Microsoft deal) was the opportunity to help define the Xbox and bring the game we wanted to play to a new platform.
"That at the time was the right decision for Bungie."
And now?
"I think this is the opportunity for us to look at where we succeeded over the last ten years and where we didn't do as well as hoped," he said. "This will allow us to really hit millions of players across the world, and do that on the platform of their choice."
Perhaps this is a chance for Bungie to move from helping to define a console to helping to define a medium.
Well Played is a weekly news and opinion column about the big stories of the week in the gaming industry and its bigger impact on things to come. Feel free to join in the discussion.
The product listing for the newly-announced Call of Duty Black Ops appears to spill major details about the November first-person shooter:
Call of Duty returns this November, but this is a Call of Duty like no other, this is Black Ops.
Now you will witness the birth of the Elite Special Forces and take part in off-the-record missions using unconventional weaponry to get the job done! From Cuba to the Arctic and the jungles of Vietnam, Call of Duty: Black Ops features stunning cinematic graphics and intense gameplay that puts you right at the heart of the action!
That's from a product listing for Black Ops on the website of major UK retailer Game.
The listing strengthens assumptions that the game will have a modern setting. (Clarification: "Modern," as in after World War II, setting the game beyond the era during which most COD games have been set.)
Call of Duty: Black Ops is published by Activision and developed by Call of Duty: World at War development studio Treyarch.
[Thanks for the tip from Shaun at One Last Continue] [PIC]
Looks like that earlier report wasn't quite on the mark, as the next Call of Duty game from developers Treyarch now has a name, and it's not Vietnam. It's Call of Duty: Black Ops.
The game's website has accidentally gone live, and while no content of worth can be accessed aside from an empty blog, there's a big logo sitting there for you to stare at.
The "Black Ops" name certainly falls in line with our earlier guesswork, which was that the game's action encompasses much more than Vietnam, taking you on a tour of various Cold War hotspots. Or...it could just be a Black Ops team in Vietnam. We don't know, and won't know until later tonight when the game is officially revealed.
That giant date seems to suggest the game will be out on November 9.
The next Call of Duty game from World At War developer Treyarch is reported to take the popular first-person series to the Vietnam War.
While Activision is still a day away from officially revealing the game, VentureBeat writes that Call of Duty: Vietnam will make its debut in this week's episode of GameTrailers TV. Not too surprising, as we've heard rumors and been witness to leaks that the seventh major Call of Duty game will be set during the Vietnam War era.
Like previous Call of Duty games, Kotaku has heard that the game won't be isolated to just one location. Portions of the game are rumored to be set in Cold War Russia. A teaser web site tied to the next Call of Duty title was launched earlier this month by Activision.
Coming soon: Call of Duty Vietnam [VentureBeat]
Bungie's ten-year publishing agreement with Activision will bring the next game from the famed-developers of Xbox 360 exclusive Halo, to all platforms.
"Today we are very proud to announce a ground breaking ten year partnership between Bungie, one of the greatest developers in the world and the makers of Halo, with Activision, the number one video game publisher, who will bring the new intellectual property to fans worldwide across all platforms," said Thomas Tippl, Chief Operating Officer of Activision Blizzard.
The deal, termed an "alliance" by both Bungie and Activision executives, took nearly a year to lock down, Tipple said.
"We are always looking at opportunities to bring great games to gamers world wide there are very few studios in the world of the caliber of Bungie, with the track record of making great games that sell," he said. "As such we began discussions with Bungie about nine months ago..."
More details on the news this morning that Bungie has signed a ten-year publishing deal with Activision can be found here.
Harold Ryan, president of Bungie, said the deal will allow the "alliance" to bring their next game and "universe" to the widest audience possible.
Read More on the deal and what it means here:
Check out our exclusive one-on-one interview with Bungie about the details of the deal for their next big action game here.
Activision talks with us about the possibility of the Bungie title requiring a subscription and Bungie discusses their thoughts on it coming to the Wii.
There's a brand new Call of Duty game coming this year. This Friday, you'll get your first peek at the follow-up to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, courtesy of GameTrailers TV.
While Activision may be embroiled in drama related to its most recent Call of Duty, that won't stop the company from churning out annual sequels to the ultra-popular first-person shooter. In 2010, Call of Duty: World at War developer Treyarch is on tap to deliver a new iteration, already penciled in to ship before the "holiday."
It represents the first Call of Duty game to be released under publisher Activision's new "strategic plans" for the franchise.
GameTrailers TV's promo promises a "global announcement" and "the first teaser trailer" for Call of Duty 7, so make sure you're up at 12:40 a.m. with your eyes glued to Spike TV to catch it.
Episode 310 Promo [GameTrailers TV]
A group of nearly 40 past and present Infinity Ward developers have banded together to file suit against the publishers of Modern Warfare 2 for breach of contract and unpaid royalties, according to court documents obtained by G4 TV.
The Infinity Ward Employee Group's suit, which lists 38 plaintiffs including some currently employed by Activision at the Infinity Ward studio, is seeking as much as half a billion in unpaid bonuses, royalties, profit sharing and future profits from games such as Modern Warfare 3 and punitive damages.
The suit alleges, according to G4 TV, that the payments were withheld to prevent employees from quitting Activision.
"In short, Activision withheld the property of the IWEG in an attempt to keep the employees hostage so that Activision could reap the benefit of the completion of Modern Warfare 3, " according to the suit.
Former Infinity Ward heads Jason West and Vince Zampella filed a lawsuit against their former publisher in March, seeking $36 million unpaid royalties and alleging an "Orwellian," "pre-ordained" investigation designed to "manufacture a basis to fire" the studio founders.
Since the firing of West and Zampella, the two former studio heads have gone on to establish Respawn Entertainment and sign on with Electronic Arts, their formal rival. Dozens of Infinity Ward employees have since voluntarily left the Encino-based studio, with a portion of those departures joining Respawn.
A group of nearly 40 past and present Infinity Ward developers have banded together to file suit against the publishers of Modern Warfare 2 for half a billion dollars, alleging breach of contract and unpaid royalties, according to court documents obtained by G4 TV.com.
The Infinity Ward Employee Group's suit, which lists 38 plaintiffs including some currently employed by Activision at the Infinity Ward studio, is seeking as much as half a billion in unpaid bonuses, royalties, profit sharing and future profits from games such as Modern Warfare 3 and punitive damages.
The suit alleges, according to G4 TV, that the payments were withheld to prevent employees from quitting Activision.
"In short, Activision withheld the property of the IWEG in an attempt to keep the employees hostage so that Activision could reap the benefit of the completion of Modern Warfare 3, " according to the suit.
Reached for comment Tuesday afternoon, an Activision spokesperson refuted the allegations:
"Activision believes the action is without merit," the spokesperson said. "Activision retains the discretion to determine the amount and the schedule of bonus payments for MW2 and has acted consistent with its rights and the law at all times. We look forward to getting judicial confirmation that our position is right."
Former Infinity Ward heads Jason West and Vince Zampella filed a lawsuit against their former publisher in March, seeking $36 million unpaid royalties and alleging an "Orwellian," "pre-ordained" investigation designed to "manufacture a basis to fire" the studio founders.
Since the firing of West and Zampella, the two former studio heads have gone on to establish Respawn Entertainment and sign on with Electronic Arts, their formal rival. Dozens of Infinity Ward employees have since voluntarily left the Encino-based studio, with a portion of those departures joining Respawn.
Gamers have needs. They have requests for the games that they play, some of these demands surprisingly specific. Today, let us consider the case by one gamer for the ability to shoot from a prone position and some accompanying news.
A writer and apparent member of the U.S. Coast Guard who writes by the name of BaTs argues that the new Medal Of Honor should allow a prone posture. Why?
Going prone is a tactic that not every player wants or use[s]. But for defensive players like myself find it essential. Imagine being with a squad needing to defend a structure or corner of the street. You can lay prone with your M249 SAW Machine Gun aimed down range to pick off targets as they run at your position. Your shots will be well placed and more accurate then standing or crouching in real life.
I guess what I'm getting at here is that Medal of Honor has the opportunity to become a military simulation better than America's Army, Battlefield Series, Call of Duty series, and Operation Flash Point. It should have all the tools, tactics, and features necessary to play how you would actually fight on the battlefield. If you don't want to go prone, then don't. But don't take it away from gamers that do.
BaTs notes that players could not go prone in Battlefield Bad Company 2, supposedly due to the developers wanting to keep players moving and the game flowing swiftly.
I checked with EA and learned that the single-player mode of Medal of Honor will indeed allow players to make their soldier go prone The multiplayer mode, which is being developed by a different team, the ones who made Bad Company 2, will not.
Read the rest of BaTs case for the full argument about why military shooters should have the prone option. Also read it if you want to know what "dolphin-diving" is, which I didn't know about until today.
This is a specific request, to be sure, but I get it. After all, it's not much different than caring whether the next Bionic Commando has a jump button, right?
Medal of Honor and the Prone Debate [Off Duty Gamers]
Gamers have needs. They have requests for the games that they play, some of these demands surprisingly specific. Today, let us consider the case by one gamer for the ability to shoot from a prone position and some accompanying news.
A writer and apparent member of the U.S. Coast Guard who writes by the name of BaTs argues that the new Medal Of Honor should allow a prone posture. Why?
Going prone is a tactic that not every player wants or use[s]. But for defensive players like myself find it essential. Imagine being with a squad needing to defend a structure or corner of the street. You can lie prone with your M249 SAW Machine Gun aimed down range to pick off targets as they run at your position. Your shots will be well placed and more accurate then standing or crouching in real life.
I guess what I'm getting at here is that Medal of Honor has the opportunity to become a military simulation better than America's Army, Battlefield Series, Call of Duty series, and Operation Flash Point. It should have all the tools, tactics, and features necessary to play how you would actually fight on the battlefield. If you don't want to go prone, then don't. But don't take it away from gamers that do.
BaTs notes that players could not go prone in Battlefield Bad Company 2, supposedly due to the developers wanting to keep players moving and the game flowing swiftly.
I checked with EA and learned that the single-player mode of Medal of Honor will indeed allow players to make their soldier go prone The multiplayer mode, which is being developed by a different team, the ones who made Bad Company 2, will not.
Read the rest of BaTs case for the full argument about why military shooters should have the prone option. Also read it if you want to know what "dolphin-diving" is, which I didn't know about until today.
This is a specific request, to be sure, but I get it. After all, it's not much different than caring whether the next Bionic Commando has a jump button, right?
Medal of Honor and the Prone Debate [Off Duty Gamers]