Every year there is something new and
inventive on the horizon. There is the proverbial ship, carrying all the
wonders of the age with it, yet something strangely pervasive as it
nears the horizon – green sails – sails made of currency, and
paneling made of gold. Its a money-train, on water, that impressively
enough, doesn't sink. An interesting way to describe the state of the
video game industry, and the quality of some of those involved. Of
particular note, 3 of the most prolific cases of recent memory, some
still ongoing, such as the Activision lawsuit against infinity wardand West/Zampella, as well as HammerPoint Interactive's WarZ andthe nightmare that is Sergey Titov, and the court case rocking the
NCAA/entertainment industry world – Keller vs. Electronic Arts.
While all three appear to be stories
of the little guy vs “The Man,” it's more accurate to describe
these controversies for what they really represent – greed in the
face of artistic expression, and the right to peoples due diligence
in the wake of ever-expanding corporatism in the video game industry.
Everyone should be entitled to what they're owed, but is there a
point at which both sides forget what it is they're really about in
the interest of the almighty dollar? Something to think about as we
take a step into these three prolific controversies.
The West/Zampella vs Activision
lawsuit was a major issue, starting in 2010, that ran the gamut
through the first half of 2012. Constantly in the news, it stressed
the importance of trust and transparency between company and
employee. Through 2012 it became a he-said/she-said battle in which
West/Zampella were accused of stealing code and conspired with
Electronic Arts to create something amazing from Activision
left-overs, all the while negotiating terms of new contracts with EA,
while still under contract with Activision – a wholly illegal
affair.
Of course, Activision had been accused
of firing employees in whom they owed significant royalties. Between
all the paper work and articles, the best we can surmise is that both
sides were actually right – the team that separated from
West/Zampella and left Activision became the Infinity Ward Employee
Group, who went on to win over $42 million. West/Zampella settled out of court in late May of last year with an undisclosed sum, though
with the amount they had been asking for (over 1 billion dollars), it
is fair to imagine they certainly made enough to never work again.
Likely for the best, considering all that happened, they'll actually
never be able to work again in this industry.
Thinking back on it, it is a shame
that it happened to begin with. Greed is a disease; it starts small,
insignificant, and the more it roams free, the more it grows into
something entirely disassociated from its original intent. Instead,
we end with as much as 46 people being let go and not receiving their
owed royalties, while the attempt of pinning blame on two men as part
of the fault be hind the entire ordeal, as somehow the cornerstone of
the issue. The problem is that it never was. The issue boils down to
people being owed something and not receiving it. What this means for
the rest of us, is that in the future claims of royalties, and due
commission will easily become a forefront element to any deal in the
industry, though it is likely to paint companies such as EA and
Activision in an even worse light then they already are. There are of
course, detractors on the other side, claiming people like West and
Zampella are complicit in that greed, and that folks like them are
just as bad – maybe that's true, though if you were owed money –
whether a dollar, or a million dollars – the principle is the same
for you: you want what is yours.
While talk of lawsuits abound, there
has been nothing concrete in that arena thus far in the troubles of
WARZ. The controversy, originally stemming from copyrightinfringement of some images from The Walking Dead, suddenly
turned into a total campaign smear against HammerPoint Interactive,
the makers of WARZ, in which it got out (with clear evidence)
of directly lifting the vast majority of content from the game, WARInc.: BattleZone. Additionally,
it was then shown that they lifted stylized content and direct
mechanics and UI representative of the customization menu functions
behind the Crysis series' weapons.
Things
spiral soon after, with Valve's Steam service deciding to pull the
plug on the zombie shooter and refund purchases. From there, it was a
long line of suspicious micro-transactions, underhanded moderator
bans and censorship, fraudulent activities regarding account banning
to force long-time players to repurchase in addition to lack of
features that were promised. The games big wig Sergey Titov, known
for creating the worst game in history, Big Rigs, attempted
to issue an “apology” letter, where, for all intents and
purposes, he accused everyone of misreading, rather than taking
responsibility.
While certainly not the first tale of
stolen assets in a game, if anything, the moral of this story and
those like it, is caveat emptor. Whether lawsuits are going to light
up is unclear at this point, but what is known, is that HammerPoint appears to be a subsidiary for Arktos – who also own the
company behind War inc, which Titov works for – which would likely
give him the room needed to secure those assets without legal
troubles. Even so, it doesn't account for the other theft of property
from Crysis or The Walking Dead, nor does it leave them
free from their clearly fraudulent activities.
Lastly, the Keller vs. Electronic Arts
case, which, by and all accounts is far from over, gives us another
introspective into the steps people will go for the sake of money. In
this case, Keller, a player in the NCAA asserts that his likeness
without fair representation and compensation is a clear violation ofhis right to publicity, having made money off his likeness, stats,
jersey number, etc. Assertions by the Keller camp believe the
infringement goes deeper – obtaining these stats, and other
materials across the entire division. Schools aren't permitted to
make money directly from their athletes, nor are athletes able to
obtain monetary sums for their skill, something to which Keller
believes the league exploited with EA, yearly.
It's been a long standing issue, with
cases such as Hart vs Electronic Arts, or the O'Bannon case (which is
now consolidated with the Keller camp). While these issues haven't
finalized, it's clear that whichever way they go will have a
significant effect on sports in the NCAA. Either players will receive
compensation damages, or should they lose, EA and others will be able
to speculate as to why they need to pay royalty agreements yearly at
all. I suppose, f you can't grant an NCAA player direct compensation
for his skill, it could be re-assigned in the same manner
scholarships are. After all, those are technically monetary
investments given based on skill. The League itself shouldn't have
the final say, and I think those in the Keller camp, really do have a
solid reason to not only be upset, but to continue the battle for
rights to their publicity and personality.
So, with three of the most prolific
controversies surrounding the video game industry, it's a pretty safe
bet the effect of money – and involved parties perceived right to
it – will continue to expound in an industry that's gone from
quaint and fun, to a thoroughly engaging multi-billion international
business. The over-aching theme starts to create its own picture,
however. One that particularly showcases a yearly drive for sales and
money, rather than a focus on quality products that are fun,
entertaining, and engaging, while improving the art form.
0 comments:
Post a Comment