While I agree that their personal desires are not relevant, the fact that they both signed contracts forbidding them from negotiations with EA or anyone else is relevant. If I was a betting man I'd say that there was some back room dealing with EA going on well before West and Zampella were fired.

They can be sued for breach of contract. As for Raypture, a contract binds those who signed it. Of course, a contract involving an illegal action is not a binding one, simply because the law is above it. However, a contract which involves nothing illegal, like the ones they likely signed with Activision, is a binding one.

What would be the point of contracts if they were only pieces of paper?

If indeed both of them have taken CoD assets with them, or have convinced other people to do so, Activision would be in the right to sue them, as these are Activision'S property, despite the fact that IW were the ones developing it.

If you were an engineer for BMW, and you made a plan for a new car, but decided to go to GM, taking the plans with you would be a violation of the law, mostly if you have a contract with BMW preventing you from doing so. The same applies here. This might seem somewhat unfair to some, mostly since it involves a large corporation going against a single person or a small group, like a David vs Goliath battle. But even large corporations need to protect themselves and need to be protected by the law.

I don't care who's right, the fact of the matter is that activision is a bunch of retards and ruined the best thing that's ever happened to them. Usually publishers would be doing everything they possibly can to please the developers who just gave them the most successful game in history, and would be doing everhing possible to make sure that they are happy there and wanting to stay with them. Instead, activision treats them like crap and makes their single best asset want to leave. I don't understand the logic with that, any other publisher in the world would have been bending over backwards for infinity ward to ensure they would stay with them and continue to make them successful games.

Besides, before any of this insubordination nonsense, Activision still wasn't paying them the royalties they were due for the launch of MW2. They should have paid them for the MW2 launch the royalties they were due, because that happened well before all of this happened, so just because all of this is happening right now that doesn't mean they shouldn't have been paid for a game launch that happened months before.

I'm pretty sure that is not going to hold up in court. Who knows though maybe they will use the "contracts aren't relevant defense". That should be amusing.

Non-compete agreements (that prevent employees from negotiating with or joining a competitor) are automatically void as a matter of law in California, except for three specific situations expressly authorized by statute, (none of which is applicable in Activision-Infinity Ward case.)

In addition, out-of-state non-compete agreements are not enforceable in California.

Companies in California like Activision continue to make employees sign non-compete contracts all the time, but those contacts are actually useless. However, companies and employers either (a) want to use those contracts to intimidate ignorant employees, or (b) do not know those contracts are useless in California.

So, the non-compete "contracts aren't relevant" defense WILL actually hold up in a Californian court; in addition, if a contract includes both non-compete and compensation agreements, the non-compete part will not hold up and be voided in the court, while the compensation part will be upheld and enforced by the court.

There have been many such court cases in California. The companies that made employees sign non-compete agreements and then tried to enforce the contracts have ALWAYS lost. You can google it to confirm.

According to Kotaku your right...

http://kotaku.com/5519049/t...

I got the Gladiator reference, and haha, you even have the Roman avatar. Good post, bubbles.

And your proof that Activision withheld these payments and therefore breached their various contracts with IW employees would be? I'm not saying that it didn't happen, I'm just saying that at this point we have no proof and it would be wrong to jump up Activision's ass without it.

BTW, if you post a link to an article quoting an "unnamed source" saying that this is what occurred I'm going to fly to your house and c@ck punch you!

I agree, but if you sign a contract that states you are forbidden from negotiating with the competition before said contract is up, and then breach that contract you put yourself in a very actionable position.

Also, everyone is saying that Activision owed royalties for MW2 and that may very well be the case. What I fail to see anyone pointing out though is how those royalties were to be paid out. Were they on a time table, was it set up as a certain amount over time. Since no one here has seen the contracts between Activision and IW I think the only safe thing to assume is that no one knows for certain what was owed, what was payed, and what wasn't.

i agree a contract is a contract but fvck a contract if you dont pay me..

we both dont have all the proof we would need to see who is in the wrong. but by the same token what if they didnt have any contact with the comp? its not like at this point acti. is showing any proof of that contact.

so for all we know these guys can be going to ea now just to piss them off, it doesnt mean that they had contact prior.

as far as pay last i read west and z is suing for all royalties as in they got none of it and thats all we can go by for now. i would like to think that they wouldnt sue for the money if its not due yet but this world is full of crazy ppl so you never know. this will go on for a long time so it will be a while till we know what is owed.

Haven’t watched it . Is it not good ?