"Hacker" Asked Microsoft to Help Him Access Infinity Ward's Emails

[nyttyn]

I am fairly sure that talking to other people isn't a violation of contract.

 

[Baldr]

"They say that Modern Warfare 3 would have been a much better game and would have made 700 million more dollars for them and they want us to pay that," said Zampella.

"We deprived them of our services by being fired and therefore we owe them money," added West.

Exactly HOW is it West and Zampella fault in that matter if they are FIRED? :/
If they ditched the company then yes it might be valid but if they are fired they should not owe them money for things they can't give.

They ditched the company while UNDER CONTRACT with a no-competitive clause. They broke the contract by making contact with EA, then Activision fired them for breach of contract.

Activision had evidence, but it was not solid, so they started "Project Icebreaker" to get more evidence both men were in contact and negotiations with EA.

That is just Activision's side of the story, you have ZERO idea if that is true or not.

You'd have to be an idiot to think that two days after they got fired, they magically got their own studio at EA with no prior contact.

 

[Baldr]

I am fairly sure that talking to other people isn't a violation of contract.

Excuse my above statements, non-competes are void in California, so I'm guessing there is something else in that Contract that bars them from doing business with EA that upset Activision.

 

[Antonio Torrente]

If someone in Hollywood is listening, I want to see "Opration Icebreaker"-The Movie!

Please don't give them the encouragement, isn't Battleship enough?

OT: Activision's management (Kotick) is really getting retarded every year. First they fire West and Zampella and now this? Wow.
This story is either a rejected movie script or a really badly written fan-fiction.

 

[nyttyn]

I am fairly sure that talking to other people isn't a violation of contract.

Excuse my above statements, non-competes are void in California, so I'm guessing there is something else in that Contract that bars them from doing business with EA that upset Activision.

I'm going with the more likely scenario that activison is fucking retarded and just wanted to deny them bonuses.


And then sue them.

For not making games because they weren't even working there.

Seriously how the fuck was that even allowed into a court of law.

 

[mysecondlife]

Thank goodness they weren't smart enough to ask lulzsec to do the job. Who knows what could have happened?

 

[Formica Archonis]

They called tech support for hacking help. Most people are smart enough not to call tech support for tech support unless they HAVE to, but not these guys.

This is like watching guys who think they're Neo and company when anyone can see it's a bunch of monkeys and a football.

But bonus points for making Microsoft uncomfortable. That, at least, takes talent.

 

[justnotcricket]

"They say that Modern Warfare 3 would have been a much better game and would have made 700 million more dollars for them and they want us to pay that," said Zampella.

"We deprived them of our services by being fired and therefore we owe them money," added West.

Exactly HOW is it West and Zampella fault in that matter if they are FIRED? :/
If they ditched the company then yes it might be valid but if they are fired they should not owe them money for things they can't give.

They ditched the company while UNDER CONTRACT with a no-competitive clause. They broke the contract by making contact with EA, then Activision fired them for breach of contract.

Activision had evidence, but it was not solid, so they started "Project Icebreaker" to get more evidence both men were in contact and negotiations with EA.

That is just Activision's side of the story, you have ZERO idea if that is true or not.

You'd have to be an idiot to think that two days after they got fired, they magically got their own studio at EA with no prior contact.

Thanks for indirectly calling me an idiot. Anyway, they knew what has happening before the day they actually got fired, if you knew the company you were working for was looking to fire you wouldn't you put feelers out? Who exactly acted in bad faith here? And only an idiot would believe that any major publisher wouldn't want to scoop up the people responsible for the biggest franchise in gaming history.

Why did Activision want to fire them? I'm genuinely confused here. From everything I've read (mostly just the articles here on the Escapist), it sounds like the entire lot of them need their heads banging together; no-one seems to come out of this totally clean.

 

[CleverCover]

You know, usually after reading the comments of a story I didn't truly understand, some things become clearer. This is not one of those cases.

Can anyone tell me why this man would think it ok to call tech support for hacking? My mind is still stuck and I can't get past that point.

 

[Savber]

Exactly how did EA win "Worst Company in America" when freaking Activision was pulling out this crap?

 

[Signa]

Jeeze, why don't they just call it Operation Breath Mint?

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Jeeze, why don't they just call it Operation Breath Mint?

Operation Altoids is a-go...*plots*

 

[justnotcricket]

"They say that Modern Warfare 3 would have been a much better game and would have made 700 million more dollars for them and they want us to pay that," said Zampella.

"We deprived them of our services by being fired and therefore we owe them money," added West.

Exactly HOW is it West and Zampella fault in that matter if they are FIRED? :/
If they ditched the company then yes it might be valid but if they are fired they should not owe them money for things they can't give.

They ditched the company while UNDER CONTRACT with a no-competitive clause. They broke the contract by making contact with EA, then Activision fired them for breach of contract.

Activision had evidence, but it was not solid, so they started "Project Icebreaker" to get more evidence both men were in contact and negotiations with EA.

That is just Activision's side of the story, you have ZERO idea if that is true or not.

You'd have to be an idiot to think that two days after they got fired, they magically got their own studio at EA with no prior contact.

Thanks for indirectly calling me an idiot. Anyway, they knew what has happening before the day they actually got fired, if you knew the company you were working for was looking to fire you wouldn't you put feelers out? Who exactly acted in bad faith here? And only an idiot would believe that any major publisher wouldn't want to scoop up the people responsible for the biggest franchise in gaming history.

Why did Activision want to fire them? I'm genuinely confused here. From everything I've read (mostly just the articles here on the Escapist), it sounds like the entire lot of them need their heads banging together; no-one seems to come out of this totally clean.

Well the implication is, and there has been a little bit of proof released, is that Activision didn't want to have to pay the royalities that were due to the creators, as they the amount was relatively large. Of course it was only going to be a large amount b/c the game did huge business and made Activision a ton of money, which the franchise still does. That is why most people are viewing Activision as the bad guy. One of the Activision guys involved in this whole mess said in an e-mail that it would be a PR nightmare for Activision, writing
"Is everyone ready for the big, negative PR story this is going to turn into if we kick them out? [It's] freaking me out a little."

I see...so: Activision didn't want to pay the royalties, and thought the easisest way to get around doing so was to fire the two creators. The two guys caught wind of this, and went...shopping around for new opportunities, which Activision is trying to use as justification for firing them? My question now: if Activision did this whole email thing to get 'proof' of the two guys acting in breach of their contract, and the guys appeared to do so because they got the idea that Activision wanted to fire them, what was Activision going to use in the first place before the creator guys gave them the breach of contract thing?

There must have been something else: if these two guys are responsible for creating your most popular franchise, the one that is still making you several times richer than Croesus, why do you want to get rid of them? I know, royalties and all that, but if they keep making games that bring in megabucks, why rock the boat? Pay them their royalties (even if you don't want to) and keep reaping the benefits of the games they produce. Royalties are only a set percentage for each game sold anyway, right? Which presumably the publisher and the creators agreed on initially, so it's not like it's a total surprise. Sorry, now I'm thinking aloud...

Still just curious - the whole thing is a total mess; I'm not surprised the (apparently only) functioning brain on Activision's side started to get nervous about the consequences of this kind of thing. There's almost a kind of artistry to this level of stupidity.

 

[deathninja]

Jeeze, why don't they just call it Operation Breath Mint?

I always go with "Bacon Torpedo" if an operation or squad name is ever required.

 

[justnotcricket]

"They say that Modern Warfare 3 would have been a much better game and would have made 700 million more dollars for them and they want us to pay that," said Zampella.

"We deprived them of our services by being fired and therefore we owe them money," added West.

Exactly HOW is it West and Zampella fault in that matter if they are FIRED? :/
If they ditched the company then yes it might be valid but if they are fired they should not owe them money for things they can't give.

They ditched the company while UNDER CONTRACT with a no-competitive clause. They broke the contract by making contact with EA, then Activision fired them for breach of contract.

Activision had evidence, but it was not solid, so they started "Project Icebreaker" to get more evidence both men were in contact and negotiations with EA.

That is just Activision's side of the story, you have ZERO idea if that is true or not.

You'd have to be an idiot to think that two days after they got fired, they magically got their own studio at EA with no prior contact.

Thanks for indirectly calling me an idiot. Anyway, they knew what has happening before the day they actually got fired, if you knew the company you were working for was looking to fire you wouldn't you put feelers out? Who exactly acted in bad faith here? And only an idiot would believe that any major publisher wouldn't want to scoop up the people responsible for the biggest franchise in gaming history.

Why did Activision want to fire them? I'm genuinely confused here. From everything I've read (mostly just the articles here on the Escapist), it sounds like the entire lot of them need their heads banging together; no-one seems to come out of this totally clean.

Well the implication is, and there has been a little bit of proof released, is that Activision didn't want to have to pay the royalities that were due to the creators, as they the amount was relatively large. Of course it was only going to be a large amount b/c the game did huge business and made Activision a ton of money, which the franchise still does. That is why most people are viewing Activision as the bad guy. One of the Activision guys involved in this whole mess said in an e-mail that it would be a PR nightmare for Activision, writing
"Is everyone ready for the big, negative PR story this is going to turn into if we kick them out? [It's] freaking me out a little."

I see...so: Activision didn't want to pay the royalties, and thought the easisest way to get around doing so was to fire the two creators. The two guys caught wind of this, and went...shopping around for new opportunities, which Activision is trying to use as justification for firing them? My question now: if Activision did this whole email thing to get 'proof' of the two guys acting in breach of their contract, and the guys appeared to do so because they got the idea that Activision wanted to fire them, what was Activision going to use in the first place before the creator guys gave them the breach of contract thing?

There must have been something else: if these two guys are responsible for creating your most popular franchise, the one that is still making you several times richer than Croesus, why do you want to get rid of them? I know, royalties and all that, but if they keep making games that bring in megabucks, why rock the boat? Pay them their royalties (even if you don't want to) and keep reaping the benefits of the games they produce. Royalties are only a set percentage for each game sold anyway, right? Which presumably the publisher and the creators agreed on initially, so it's not like it's a total surprise. Sorry, now I'm thinking aloud...

Still just curious - the whole thing is a total mess; I'm not surprised the (apparently only) functioning brain on Activision's side started to get nervous about the consequences of this kind of thing. There's almost a kind of artistry to this level of stupidity.

Greed often times does not make sense. At this point they owned the IP and the game was created, even with the original creators gone they would be able to squeeze out sequel after sequel like they have been doing. I could be wrong and we'll hopefully find out once the trial is over, but it sounds like they had the IP, they had the goose that was laying the golden eggs, and they felt like the only thing West and Zampella were doing was sucking up their profits. So they acted to fix the "problem".

Charming...unfortunate thing is, even if Activision get what they want (i.e. rid of West and Zampella, assuming, in all fairness, that they are just in this for the dough), zillions of people are still going to lap up future sequels to such a popular franchise...talk about rewarding greed. But perhaps I'm being overly cynical. Thanks for answering my questions so pleasantly