Activision Sues To Stop Release of Brutal Legend

Wombat

Wombat

CAGiversary!
Feedback
3 (100%)
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/06/04/activision-sues-double-fine-over-brutal-legend/

From the Joystiq article:

"Yahoo reports that Activision filed a lawsuit against Double Fine, developer of the Jack Black-fueled Brütal Legend, on Wednesday to "stop the release" of the game. The mega-publisher claims to have invested "roughly $15 million" into the game's development and that "it still has a valid contract to release the game," despite Double Fine transferring rights to Electronic Arts late last year."

I didn't see this posted yet. Something about this seems fishy and underhanded.
 
[quote name='Wombat']Something about this seems fishy and underhanded.[/QUOTE]

Excellent analysis, game reporter Wombat.

A company doesn't want a competitor making money off a game that the company invested a lot of money into. I'm absolutely shocked.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']
A company doesn't want a competitor making money off a game that the company invested a lot of money into. I'm absolutely shocked.[/QUOTE]

How is this any different from any other person inventing something, selling those rights to someone (and making money in the process), and having that party turn around and profit from the idea that they paid for? The original guy can be pissed all he wants to that company X is making millions off his idea, but HE was the one who sold out.

Activision is in the same boat here. So what that they put all this money into development. They sold the rights.
 
I'd like to see this contract they speak of, and why it's relevant now, as opposed to months and months ago, after they shitcanned the project and DF ran off to EA.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'd like to see this contract they speak of, and why it's relevant now, as opposed to months and months ago, after they shitcanned the project and DF ran off to EA.[/QUOTE]


thats probably the whole deal. they dump it let someone come up and do all the work to make it sellable and then now they want to get their taste. btw doesnt activision have enough lawsuits on their plate already? i never thought id say this but i hope ea wins..............i feel so dirty saying that.
 
Well now Activision (at least all games not from Infinity Ward) joins the ranks of the publishers I boycott purchasing new games from:

All non-Bioware EA published/developed games
All Eidos property games from Square Enix
 
So now Activision pays money for the development of games then doesn't release them, geez they must be rolling in cash.

They really do look worse than EA now.
 
Shouldn't they be concentrating on creating sequels or bastardizing franchises instead of wasting time with frivolous lawsuits?
 
[quote name='mtxbass1']Activision is in the same boat here. So what that they put all this money into development. They sold the rights.[/QUOTE]


They didn't sell the rights. See articles here and here. Atari paid money for Riddick and Ghostbusters.

In both cases, sources told me that Atari paid a flat fee to Activision Blizzard to compensate it for some, but not all, of the development money Sierra spent on the games.
Click to expand...

Neither Double Fine or EA paid Activision for the rights to Brutal Legend. So, either Atari is retarded for paying money for something they didn't need to or Activision is due some money. I don't see why everyone wants to believe in conspiracy theories and hate on big corporations so badly. There's usually a perfectly logical explanation for this kind of stuff.
 
[quote name='jkanownik']They didn't sell the rights. See articles here and here. Atari paid money for Riddick and Ghostbusters.



Neither Double Fine or EA paid Activision for the rights to Brutal Legend. So, either Atari is retarded for paying money for something they didn't need to or Activision is due some money. I don't see why everyone wants to believe in conspiracy theories and hate on big corporations so badly. There's usually a perfectly logical explanation for this kind of stuff.[/QUOTE]

Then why wait so long to file suit? If I get the jist of the articles, Activision says that any money Sierra spent developing these games is money that Activision spent, even if it was before the buyout was final. Does this mean if I spend money fixing my bathroom and someone buys my house and finishes the bathroom, they owe me money for the supplies I bought when I started the project?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Nelo Ice']schafer apparently responded to the lawsuit[/QUOTE]

:rofl:
 
Activision is the new EA, thanks to everyone who bought Guitar Queer-o. Thanks guys.
guitar-queer-o-20071108025653425.jpg
 
Brutal Legend looked average and wasn't that much fun to play. $15 million must have gone straight to Jack Black because it certainly was not in the game play.
 
[quote name='Wombat']Then why wait so long to file suit?[/QUOTE]
Honestly I think the only reason the filed suit is because of the attention it's been getting. They realized the lost a potential money maker(They love that DLC). I'm sure they are just hoping for Double Fine to settle this out of court and make a quick buck.
 
Gamers are threatening/promising to boycott Activision over this. Except for (insert franchise here), gamers will never buy another Activision game again! For 2 months.
 
[quote name='Wombat']Then why wait so long to file suit? If I get the jist of the articles, Activision says that any money Sierra spent developing these games is money that Activision spent, even if it was before the buyout was final. Does this mean if I spend money fixing my bathroom and someone buys my house and finishes the bathroom, they owe me money for the supplies I bought when I started the project?[/QUOTE]

Your analogy is a little off. It would be akin to the guy who worked on the bathroom coming in and taking back everything in it because you weren't the one that paid him. You would be pissed off because your purchase of the house included the partially finished bathroom.

The key legal arguement here is what is the value of the publishing agreement. If Double Fine wins the law suit it could have huge repercussions on future contracts between publishers and developers. Any legal precedent that increases risk for publishers is a bad thing for consumers. I can go into more detail why it is bad if you'd like.

There's no need for fans to be upset off about this yet. Most likely scenario is that it plays out just like the Watchmen lawsuit and the release isn't affected at all. It's not like there is a really fishy timeline involved here. Law suits don't happen overnight. Activision publicly stated issues with the whole thing back in February. If you've ever been involved with a merger of companies you know that it makes everything take longer and lots of things can slip through the cracks in the confusion. Given that Activision Blizzard had about $3.7B in revenue last year $15M isn't on the top of anyone's radar. At the same time it's large enough that it isn't just going to go away.
 
Has it been said that DF most likely retains the rights to Brutal Legend? I recall that this is sort of the crux of their publishing agreements - they retain all rights. This is why Psychonauts languished in development for so long. DF is generally considered a special case in this instance, because most other independent companies tend to sign agreements where rights are placed out of their hands.

Just curious. Activision sure does come off as the bad guy here, and we've had threads on this exact issue in the past (I believe FriskyTanuki made one), so it's difficult for me to really ascertain the facts at this point. If there's a contractual/legally binding thing goin' on that's unresolved, then more power to them. I just sort of doubt it right now.
 
Nothing wrong with Activisions actions. If they own the rights they can do anything they want with it.

You know it'll just get settled for xx amount of money.
 
Much better this happens to EA then any other company.

EA has deep pockets, they can afford the legal fight. So what if both companies end up with a huge legal bill, it just means stockholders of both companies end up with a little less return this year.
 
[quote name='jkanownik']Your analogy is a little off. It would be akin to the guy who worked on the bathroom coming in and taking back everything in it because you weren't the one that paid him. You would be pissed off because your purchase of the house included the partially finished bathroom.

The key legal arguement here is what is the value of the publishing agreement. If Double Fine wins the law suit it could have huge repercussions on future contracts between publishers and developers. Any legal precedent that increases risk for publishers is a bad thing for consumers. I can go into more detail why it is bad if you'd like.

There's no need for fans to be upset off about this yet. Most likely scenario is that it plays out just like the Watchmen lawsuit and the release isn't affected at all. It's not like there is a really fishy timeline involved here. Law suits don't happen overnight. Activision publicly stated issues with the whole thing back in February. If you've ever been involved with a merger of companies you know that it makes everything take longer and lots of things can slip through the cracks in the confusion. Given that Activision Blizzard had about $3.7B in revenue last year $15M isn't on the top of anyone's radar. At the same time it's large enough that it isn't just going to go away.[/QUOTE]

It's not that I don't understand where Activison is coming from, but I guess the arguement is about rights ownership after a buyout. Did Activision ever have publishing rights or are they void when the Sierra was sold? Having not seen the contracts I have no idea who really owns what. My assumption would be that EA knew who did when they bought the publishing rights, and are either prepared to pay out or to fight this.
 
[quote name='BigPopov']You know it'll just get settled for xx amount of money.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure whether or not they have the rights to the game they are probably hoping for Double Fine/EA to settle this one out of court.
 
You can't blame people being upset with Activision, I recall them essentially putting it "We can't exploit Brutal Legend on a annual basis. Therefore, we won't publish it and won't let anyone else publish it either." Yeah...

I don't think DF would run another to publisher if they didn't retain the rights. But we'll see...
 
[quote name='Wombat']It's not that I don't understand where Activison is coming from, but I guess the arguement is about rights ownership after a buyout. Did Activision ever have publishing rights or are they void when the Sierra was sold? Having not seen the contracts I have no idea who really owns what. My assumption would be that EA knew who did when they bought the publishing rights, and are either prepared to pay out or to fight this.[/QUOTE]

I wish I knew. It could very well be that Activision is in the wrong here. It just doesn't seem like the most likely scenario. Bad things can happen without having to place blame on anyone in particular. It's a shitty situation all around.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Who is Bobby and what did he say?[/QUOTE]

Bobby Kotick is the CEO of Activision. Today he remarked that he'd raise game prices "if I could." Because they aren't high enough already.

He might have said it in jest, but still. He's made so many ridiculous statements in the past ("exploit all our games over as many platforms as possible") that it's difficult to know if he's just jivin' or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top