Papers signed in 2008 shows only one Call of Duty studio has control over modern settings
Treyarch’s next game in the Call of Duty franchise could be in breach of a studio agreement signed in 2008 by both Activision and Infinity Ward executives.
Black Ops II is the first original Call of Duty game developed by Treyarch that plays out modern-day and futuristic scenes, yet a Memorandum of Understanding suggests the studio is prohibited from framing its games within the “post-Vietnam” era.
Activision representatives, as well as Treyarch studio head Mark Lamia, declined to comment on the matter when approached by Game Informer.
The Infinity Ward Memorandum of Understanding was agreed two years before studio directors Vince Zampella and Jason West were dismissed by Activision, in a move that sparked a acrimonious and highly public lawsuit.
It is not understood if Activision’s Memorandum of Understanding with Infinity Ward is still binding. The company has not clarified the situation.
Advertisement
The agreement, signed in March 2008, granted Activision authority and responsibility over all titles within the Call of Duty franchise, excluding “any Call of Duty title set in modern day (post-Vietnam), near future or distant future, which shall be under the authority of Infinity Ward”.
If the documents are still binding, Activision has found itself in a complex three-cornered authority system where Infinity Ward (now the smaller studio), has creative authority over Treyarch (now the bigger studio) due to the latter’s decision to set its game in a post-Vietnam era.
It is uncertain when Treyarch commenced production on Call of Duty Black Ops 2, though it was likely between late 2010 and early 2011 – conceivably just a few months after the Infinity Ward lawsuit.
Further documents suggest Treyarch has hit brick walls in the past when trying to modernise its games.
One incident involved depicting guns in Black Ops that weren’t designed or made available until the 1980s or 1990s.
The Memorandum of Understanding shows that Infinity Ward had in 2008 negotiated significant creative control over the Modern Warfare franchise.
Activision owns both Infinity Ward and Treyarch.
Dozens of Infinity Ward staff sued Activision in 2010, in two separate yet linked cases of alleged royalty miss-payments and unfair dismissal.
A trial is set to commence in June.
The MoA is between Activision and Infinity Ward on one hand and Zampella and West on the other (it clearly says so in the document). Since Zampella and West are no longer working for Infinity Ward or Activision, the MoA can't be binding.
The officers of the company, being Zampella and West at the time are irrelevant, it's the position of signatory that's binding. Unless officers of Infinity Ward have given verifiable approval to Treyarch, then they're not actually legally able to produce modern day installments.
On a second issue entirely, the Zampella West legal case could and presumably will make a circumstantial case that Activision had cause to terminate them by whatever means to allow Activision to develop the franchise further without the veta that Infinity ward held and presumably used i.e. by removing/replacing the officers of Infinity Ward with 'friendlies' has allowed Activision to make more games/money that otherwise would not be allowed.
IW doesnt own the rights to the modern setting. Thinking that is just dumb. They only own the rights to the Modern Warfare name. Treyarch could have made a modern setting game a long time ago if they saw fit. As long as they never use the Modern Warfare name then nothing can be done about Black Ops 2. Not to mention they are using the "future" setting. Plus im sure they went though the legal side of things before even starting the game. Use some common sense and dont post stupid articles without thinking about it
“any Call of Duty title set in modern day (post-Vietnam), near future or distant future, which shall be under the authority of Infinity Ward”.
It says "any CALL OF DUTY title". So the brand name in question is "Call of Duty", not "Modern Warfare"
If that happens, Activision will just lose the "Call of Duty" moniker, something they almost did with Call of Duty 4 when it became Modern Warfare.
IW were pissed about Treyarch there too as they say in the ending songs MW is the THIRD COD game.
