Activision: Brutal Legend is ours. EA: Activision is a jealous ex-husband.
Think the drama over "Brutal Legend" is over? Think again.
It turns out that Activision Blizzard is under the impression it still has publishing rights to the game. And it’s threatening to sue developer Double Fine and new publisher Electronic Arts as a result.
(Some background for anyone who hasn’t followed this whole drama for the past year: Double Fine, developer of the critically acclaimed but underperforming “Psychonauts,” set up “Brutal Legend,” an action game set in the world of heavy metal that stars Jack Black, at Vivendi Games. Then last year Vivendi Games merged with Activision to form Activision Blizzard. The newly merged company, led by Activision execs, declined to pick up a number of Vivendi’s projects, including, it appeared, “Brutal Legend.” Then in December, Electronic Arts announced that it had reached a deal with Double Fine and would release the game next fall.)
Now Activision Blizzard has written a letter to EA (and possibly Double Fine) informing them of its legal concerns. According to two sources familiar with ActiBlizzard’s position, the publisher believes that it was still in negotiations with Double Fine and that the EA deal is invalid.
Does that mean ActiBlizzard wants “Brutal Legend” for itself? Nope. I’ve been told it doesn’t think the game has the potential to be the kind of mega-profitable, “Call of Duty”-size franchise that it looks for these days.
So what does it want? A good guess would be money in exchange for giving up its publishing rights. That is what it received from Atari for “Ghostbusters” and “The Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Athena,” for instance.
Double Fine’s position, however, appears to be that it owns the rights to “Brutal Legend” and that somehow in the merger process, whether because there’s no longer a Vivendi Games or because the original fall 2008 publishing date passed and Activision didn’t express interest in finding a new one, it's allowed to find a new publisher.
An Activision Blizzard rep declined to comment. But EA has responded with its claws bared, giving me this rather pointed response:
Me-ow.
Chris Morris reports on the business and culture of video games and offers analysis of recent events and industry trends.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Hi. I never thought I would be cheering for EA but I want double fine to get this game out, unless being forced to move on to another project forces double fine to make a new SCUMM game.
Posted by: usdr | November 05, 2009 at 10:36 AM
According to two sources familiar with ActiBlizzard’s position, the publisher believes that it was still in negotiations with Double Fine and that the EA deal is invalid.
Posted by: purchase | August 30, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Sometimes you have to import flour before you can consume bread. Just saying.
Posted by: nike sb | July 07, 2009 at 11:43 PM
good
Posted by: MIR2 gold | July 04, 2009 at 06:51 PM
@ Mitch
When Take 2(don't really know if it was them) approaches the NFL to take them exclusive (which would have ended John Madden Football) and the NFL then tells EA that they have heard an exclusive contract is really good, what do you think EA will do?
Posted by: Damien | June 09, 2009 at 07:46 AM
oh this is foul. I never thought I would be cheering for EA but I want double fine to get this game out, unless being forced to move on to another project forces double fine to make a new SCUMM game :)
Posted by: rockhard free game R | April 23, 2009 at 01:11 PM
God forbid somebody actually create a one of a kind game.
Posted by: persiana | February 28, 2009 at 07:30 PM
This pretty much cements it for me. Unnecessary, and predatory litigation gets you on my s****list.
Activision joins (ironically enough) EA as companies I will not purchase a game from.
Electronic Arts joined my s***list when they negotiated with the NFL as the sole holder of the NFL license in video games- pretty much killing any chances for Sega or Microsoft's versions to come to market in any significant way. Basically monopolizing the american football video game market.
Haven't bought an EA game since.
Posted by: Mitch | February 28, 2009 at 07:27 PM
We doubt that Activision would try to sue. That would be like a husband abandoning his family and then suing after his wife meets a better looking guy.
Hilarious!
Posted by: Chris | February 16, 2009 at 09:25 AM
oh cool ×D Activison go!
Posted by: Neoman | February 16, 2009 at 08:13 AM
Activision can go F themselves in the A. They have become everything we used to hate EA for. YOu dropped them, they get to leave. go dig a few more billions out of wow susbscribers and leave Double fine the F alone.
Posted by: DonOfWar | February 14, 2009 at 01:07 PM
Actually, both Mirrors Edge and Dead Space did more than 1m copies a piece at retail, which in the current game industry is pretty darn good for an original IP. Also Kotick is quoted as saying that Activision dropped Ghostbusters because it didn't seem to be good material for a ten year franchise like Guitar Hero or CoD. Nevermind that it's already been a franchise for 20 years.
Bobby Kotick is the worst thing to happen to the gaming industry since the Sega CD.
Posted by: TheStripe | February 14, 2009 at 07:08 AM
Activision is probably one of the most litigious publishers out there, I would take their threat seriously. Also, Dead Space has not sold very well, this is a fact. Mirros Edge did horribly. But you have to applaud them for trying some new IP and I hope they continue. EA just needs to learn how to launch and market it. @ Batch, I am pretty sure Modern Warfare and the next COD are not WW2 and Activision is coming out with Prototype, Sinularity and a couple of other unannounced original IP... get your facts straight before you bitch
Posted by: NERD | February 13, 2009 at 04:25 PM
Sweet, the douches who are going to ruin Blizzard, who make sure video gamers only ever play games set in WWII, who don't take risks on new property, only stuff that is considered without risk, are claiming they're owed for a game they decided to drop because it was an original idea which didn't have enough sequel potential built in to it that our grandchildren would be playing the series when they are our age.
Awesome.
Posted by: batch | February 13, 2009 at 03:18 PM
To suggest that simply rehashing old tired games is the best business plan tells me that you have no idea how to run a business. People don't want more of the same.. if they did then games such as Dead Space wouldn't sell as well as they have. Besides Madden and Guitar Hero have cult followings, just like Halo or Metal Gear Solid. Sure those people will buy whatever you throw in front of them so long as the name is on it, but does that make for a good game? Will that keep them afloat? It's obvious that the answer is no, as even the mighty EA has made job cuts.
New ideas are what bring new customers. EA is doing the right thing by bringing us great innovative titles as of late and we can only hope that ignorant remarks such as @Super Duper's will go unheard.
Posted by: CrAppleton | February 13, 2009 at 02:47 PM
@Super Duper - EA is doing everything in it's power to buck this trend. Last year they took chances with a few original IPs like Dead Space and Mirror's Edge. Ricettiello (sp) has admitted that he didn't like where the company (EA) was headed and wanted it to turn around. I think we'll see good things coming from EA.
Posted by: Paul | February 13, 2009 at 01:37 PM
Super Duper,
I'm confused. Are you saying you WANT Electronic Arts to release nothing but retreads? Why? I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
Posted by: Chris Remo | February 13, 2009 at 01:34 PM
The childishness of the videogame industry knows no bounds. Both EA and Activision are famous for releasing retreaded, me-too games each and every year. THIS is the game they pick to fight over? Really?
They should each stick to what they do best - releasing countless Madden, Guitar Hero sequels and watch their yearly profits diminish over time.
Posted by: Super Duper | February 13, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Well great response from EA and I hope Double Fine go tell Activison to get stuffed.
I don't believe Activison would sue either it would generate so much bad press with the hardcore scene as Double Fine is a favorite like Valve that it would cement their status as the new evil empire.
Posted by: Dan | February 13, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Me-ow indeed.
Regardless of who is in the right, I think it's probably not wise to poke the bear (Bobby) or his legal department. Especially not in the press.
Posted by: Cris Waters | February 13, 2009 at 12:10 PM