3 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
3.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Nov 24, 2010, 10:14
3.
Re: etc., etc. Nov 24, 2010, 10:14
Nov 24, 2010, 10:14
 
My understanding was that they wanted Modern Warfare 3 delivered in 2 years and that they were holding their MW2 royalties unless they agreed to it, and the heads of IW wanted to do something that wasn't Modern Warfare

That's similar to what I heard/read. More detailed in fact, and that makes more sense. The gist I got during the whole thing was that IW was the one twisting arms asking for more money, etc. And instead of negotiating with them activision fired them. Supposedly without pay.
2.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Nov 24, 2010, 08:50
2.
Re: etc., etc. Nov 24, 2010, 08:50
Nov 24, 2010, 08:50
 
My understanding was that they wanted Modern Warfare 3 delivered in 2 years and that they were holding their MW2 royalties unless they agreed to it, and the heads of IW wanted to do something that wasn't Modern Warfare
1.
 
Re: etc., etc.
Nov 24, 2010, 01:13
1.
Re: etc., etc. Nov 24, 2010, 01:13
Nov 24, 2010, 01:13
 
Did anyone see Pachter's recent video clip where he said why the heads of IW were fired? He said they were fired because they refused to make a CoD subscription based game... which was a shocking statement to me... is this simply common knowledge? He said it with a good deal of confidence (which might mean he pulled it right out o his ass) but it's odd how clear activision is being on this point about not making cod subscription based right now...and the pachter says that about the heads of IW...this whole thing is still as bizarre as ever...

3 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older