|
|
 |
| [May 22, 2012, 11:09 am ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.
 |
| 19. |
Re: etc. |
May 23, 2012, 11:00 |
Beamer |
|
|
InBlack wrote on May 23, 2012, 09:32:
Beamer wrote on May 22, 2012, 13:37:
I dunno, there are ways to look at it:
- I see no evidence of "slave labor"
- Yes, I agree, they were bringing in huge money and should have been coddled, but at the same time they were employees. Any employee hanging up the phone on their boss is going to be in a world of hurt
- The E3 demo was a contractual thing with Microsoft. Missing that would jeopardize millions of dollars Microsoft was paying towards the development. I'd say yes, if you promise a 3rd party you'd have an E3 demo ready for them in exchange for millions of dollars then your game would be worse without it
- I don't see the T-Shirt point, but that's weird because Activision should be the ones making the shirts, just using stuff the art department had already designed
Still playing the devil's advocate on this Beamer? Even after Activision settled out of court? Doesnt that tell you something?
Yes, that they still owed some of the bonus money.
I don't see how that relates to what you quoted. Was the law suit about slave labor? Was it about whether they were properly fired for failing to deliver milestones promised to Microsoft?
No, it was about the timing of the firing related to the bonus money owed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
.. ..
Copyright © 1996-2013 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Twitter 
