Call of Duty: Legal Warfare
November 6th 2007 – One of the most anticipated gaming releases finally hits the shelves and then promptly flew off them. Breaking sales records and beating games with a proven track record of performing well, such as the latest installment of Halo, it was a sensation and hugely profitable for the owners of the studio, Activision. By June 2008 the developers, Infinity Ward, had announced that they had sold 10 million copies worldwide on all platforms and the numbers were still climbing.
Critics lauded the game almost as much as players. It won a raft of awards including three British Academy Video Game Awards for Best Gameplay of the Year, Best Story and Character of the Year, and People's Choice Game of the Year. It was proclaimed the game of the year by several industry magazines and websites. Long standing video game TV show X-Play declared that “while it may not have revolutionized the genre, it comes damn close to perfecting it.”
It also managed to inject new life into the competitive Call of Duty community, with tournaments springing up round Europe with large prize-pots backed by Activision. Once the introduction of a modification for competitive play was introduced the scene really took off and it still endures to this day. Many see the game as one of the most accessible “e-sports” titles in the current selection and for many it lifted the lid on this subculture.
All of this made the sequel even more eagerly awaited than the initial release and the hype surrounding Modern Warfare 2 began only a few months after the release of the first title in the series.
November 10th 2009 – After a prolonged drip feed of information to the media, including screenshots, features and a cinematic teaser trailer, the first signs of negativity started to creep in. First came the announcement that it was likely that the PC version release would be slightly delayed and the console versions would be available first. If this wasn’t enough to enrage PC gamers, next came the announcement that there would be a mandatory match making service called IWNET, something that meant there would also be a lack of dedicated servers. Take away the console commands, the lack of ability to have servers with more than eighteen players and no option to instantly kick or ban cheats or disruptive players and you have plenty of room for complaint. Several PC Gamer groups decide to sign petitions calling for a boycott of the game.
These decisions, coupled with the desire to move their anti-cheat system from PunkBuster to the Steam digital distribution platform’s Valve Anti-Cheat (VAC2), means that the e-sports community largely reject the game. This is compacted by the fact that the game can’t have any third part modifications made to it, meaning that the elements of the game removed from the previous title to make it better suited to competitive play will have to be included. Although the disapproval is quite vocal Activision still plan to support the game through tournaments in the same way they did for the first title.
In addition to this the mainstream media are all over the game with hysterical headlines regarding a mission called “No Russian” where the player takes the role of an undercover CIA who is part of a terrorist group. Over the course of the level a player can join in the slaughter of an airport full of unarmed civilians, or simply watch. Although there is an option to skip the level and no rewards are handed out for what the player does this doesn’t stop the Daily Mail criticising the mission’s inclusion. Keith Vaz, Labour MP for Leicester East, is quoted as saying “I am absolutely shocked by the level of violence in this game and am particularly concerned about how realistic the game itself looks” before vowing to bring the game up in Parliament.
This one mission sparks a worldwide discussion about its suitability and it is removed from some versions in different countries. Japan and Germany’s version was modified to make the mission a failure if the player killed civilians. It was a hot potato that triggered yet another media fuelled debate about the influence of “violent” video games in the absence of any real news.
Although the game courts controversy and sections of the PC community say they will not be supporting Infinty Ward in this or future titles the game goes on to be a smash hit. It sells 4.7 million copies in the US and UK in the first 24 hours of its release. The revenue generated in that time makes the game the biggest ever entertainment launch in history, surpassing Grand Theft Auto IV and other more mainstream media launches. As of the middle of January this year the game has generated over $1 billion in revenue worldwide. Infinity Ward have done it again and Activision are the beneficiaries.
1st March, 2010 – Website G4TV.com report that a “bunch of bouncer-types” turn up to Infinity Ward studios and refuse to disclose who they are to concerned staff. The studio heads, Jason West and Vince Zampella, have a meeting with the heads of Activision and aren’t seen by staff for some time afterwards.
Although no statements are forthcoming it quickly becomes apparent that Jason West is removed from his position at Infinity Ward when a screenshot of his facebook status – that says “Jason West is drinking. Also, unemployed” – surfaces on Japanese gaming site Kotaku. This is then verified on his LinkedIn profile when he updates his employment to show that he ended working for Infinity Ward in March 2010.
G4 continue to dig and manage to turn up a Securities and Exchange Commission filing that states that “The Company is concluding an internal human resources inquiry into breaches of contract and insubordination by two senior employees at Infinity Ward… This matter is expected to involve the departure of key personnel and litigation.”
Two days later Activision confirm that both Jason West and Vince Zampella have been removed from their positions and announce their interim replacements. What does it all mean? Why did this happen? The studio heads, at times maligned by the gaming community, seem to have been elevated to the status of heroic underdogs in the absence of a factual account of what actually happened, but the ramifications that it will have on the wider gaming community are also an unknown quantity.
It seems though that relationships had always been strained, these new events casting fresh perspective on words of yesterday. Between the breaking news someone dredged up an old interview that was an indicator that things were not at ease between both parties. The October interview with Official PlayStation Magazine quoted Zampella as saying:
“"Activision also did not want Modern Warfare. They thought working on a modern game was risky and [thought], 'oh my god you can't do that, it's crazy!' They were doing market research to show us we were wrong the whole time."
Aftermath – What happened?
Since Activision have merged with Blizzard they have undoubtedly become one of the biggest players in the gaming industry. However this seems to have coloured the way they interact with their studios. These latest reports made them seem like bullies. Was the security necessary for what looks to be an internal disciplinary issue? Could the situation have been handled differently? Just what was it all about anyway?
It didn’t take long for details to start being “leaked” to the press. Bingegamer.net, citing anonymous sources and adding the caveat that they were not presenting the information as “100% cold hard fact”, reported that the move on Activision’s part was financially motivated. For starters they quoted several anonymous staff members as having said that not one penny of the $1 billion it earned Activision had ever filtered down to Infinity Ward and that many understood they were due royalties on the game. The writer also pointed to the fact that Infinity Ward’s contract with Activision ended in October of this year, This seemed to be corroborated by rumours earlier in the year that Modern Warfare 3 was going to be handed off to another studio, although this was never confirmed. They also attempted to shed some light on the alleged “breaches of contract and insubordination” by reporting it was believed that Infinity Ward had been in talks with a rival publisher. Later, news sources would speculate – without committing it as fact – that this was Electronic Arts.
One thing amongst all of this did seem to be factual: As Infinity Ward partly owned the intellectual property for the Modern Warfare series it seemed the only thing that would prevent them receiving any form of royalty payment would be if they were to have breached their existing agreement with Activision in any way. Needless to say, as most following the bizarre situation as it unfolded, it was no surprise when the lawyers were wheeled out and started doing the talking.
Zampella and West struck first with a strongly worded statement issued by their representatives from O'Melveny & Myers LLP. The statement appeared on PRNewswire.com and read:
“Activision has refused to honor the terms of its agreements and is intentionally flouting the fundamental public policy of this State (California) that employers must pay their employees what they have rightfully earned," said their attorney Robert Schwartz. "Instead of thanking, lauding, or just plain paying Jason and Vince for giving Activision the most successful entertainment product ever offered to the public, last month Activision hired lawyers to conduct a pretextual 'investigation' into unstated and unsubstantiated charges of 'insubordination' and 'breach of fiduciary duty,' which then became the grounds for their termination on Monday, March 1st."
"We were shocked by Activision's decision to terminate our contract," said West. "We poured our heart and soul into that company, building not only a world class development studio, but assembling a team we've been proud to work with for nearly a decade. We think the work we've done speaks for itself."
Zampella added, "After all we have given to Activision, we shouldn't have to sue to get paid."
However their attack through the media wasn’t to end there. A sixteen page screed detailing what had happened in the building, amongst other things, appeared on IGN with some choice quotes adding fuel to the fire:
"This lawsuit is solely and regrettably the result of the astonishing arrogance and unbridled greed of defendant Activision," it began.
After stating that they were responsible for "lining Activision's pockets with billions of dollars in revenue", West and Zampella said that the fact they were having to sue for their pay was "not surprising, given that Activision is run by a CEO who has been publicly quoted as believing that the best way to run a videogame studio is to engender a culture of 'skepticism, pessimism, and fear,' and who prefers to pay his lawyers instead of his employees".
It continued:
"West and Zampella were not as eager as Activision to jump into the development of Modern Warfare 2. Despite assurances by Activision that West and Zampella would have complete freedom to run Infinity Ward as an independent studio, Activision had begun to intrude upon Infinity Ward's ability to create quality games.
For example, Activision forced Infinity Ward's employees to continue producing the games at a breakneck pace under aggressive schedules, and West and Zampella were concerned that Activision was emphasising quantity over quality.
Given Activision's insistence that Infinity Ward continue to focus on sequels to Call of Duty games instead of new intellectual property, West and Zampella were also concerned that Activision's demands risked 'burning out' the Infinity Ward employees' creativity. Nurturing a creative environment had been one of the cornerstones of Infinity Ward's success.
West and Zampella were not eager to extend their employment; especially as they watched their games receive countless awards and make Activision billions of dollars, while many Infinity Ward employees were not being provided a fair share."
Details of the investigation were also included and it alleged that West and Zampella "were interrogated for over six hours in a windowless conference room", while investigators also "brought other Infinity Ward employees to tears in their questioning.”
“Activision offered West and Zampella less than six hours to respond. It was also futile because Activision had already made up its mind. In fact, Activision had already included in its SEC Form 10-K Annual Report a disclosure to that effect.”
Activision were not flustered by this flurry of potentially negative publicity. They simply responded, through their own legal team, by saying that the lawsuit was meritless. A short statement, issued to most press outlets, said:
“Activision is disappointed that Mr. Zampella and Mr. West have chosen to file a lawsuit, and believes their claims are meritless.
Over eight years, Activision shareholders provided these executives with the capital they needed to start Infinity Ward, as well as the financial support, resources and creative independence that helped them flourish and achieve enormous professional success and personal wealth.
In return, Activision legitimately expected them to honor their obligations to Activision, just like any other executives who hold positions of trust in the company. While the company showed enormous patience, it firmly believes that its decision was justified based on their course of conduct and actions. Activision remains committed to the Call of Duty franchise, which it owns, and will continue to produce exciting and innovative games for its millions of fans.”
The Reshuffle
What this means for the Call of Duty series now is anyone’s guess. Activision didn’t waste any time in announcing a reshuffle in how it would all work and the next set of Call of Duty titles. The next scheduled game was due for a Summer release and would be handled by Treyarch, those who brought us the World At War installment, Nazi zombies and all. But they also pointed to the future, almost as if the dealings with Infinity Ward were at an end already, with no possible ramifications likely to disrupt their plans. They even suggested that future Call of Duty games could be in a different genre to the standard FPS.
“The company is also for the first time announcing that a new game in the Call of Duty series is expected to be released in 2011 and that Sledgehammer Games, a newly formed, wholly owned studio, is in development on a Call of Duty game that will extend the franchise into the action-adventure genre” read the statement.
A new “business unit” was being formed, a group that could focus on the brand in a similar way to the interaction between Blizzard and World of Warcraft. They also promised "high-margin digital online content", "new geographies", "new genres", and "new digital business models". Even if you try to decipher the jargon, it’s broad in scope.
Yet clearly, for all the faults, the problems and controversy, Infinity Ward had done something right. Even those of us fixated on e-sports would probably have to concede that thanks to the Modern Warfare series more people are starting to grasp the concept of competitive gaming, although not perhaps as we understand it. In terms of delivering an unadulteratedly fun and accessible gaming experience for all different types of players, they achieved that too and it is reflected in the sales.
Regardless of the blame game, the rights, the wrongs, the who gets paid and who doesn’t, will the Call of Duty series be better or worse without Infinity Ward’s involvement? Will Activision keep the faith with Modern Warfare? Are CoD games as we have come to know them going to become a thing of the past. Questions that will be answered in due course, outside of the courts rather than in them.