Talk:Infinity Ward/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use rationale for Image:Infinity Ward Logo.jpg

Image:Infinity Ward Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Call Of Duty 4 MP Screenshot.jpg

The image Image:Call Of Duty 4 MP Screenshot.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert Bowling

He is now the "Creative Strategist" at Infinity Ward. His title is no longer "Community Manager". This is sourced via his Twitter account @fourzerotwo. Checkmate11B (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There are also a lot of criticism around him. Ever since Call of Duty:Modern Warfare 2 came out the PC community have been bashing him and demanded response from him and Infinity Ward based on the failiur of the new P2P IWNET online game hosting system and a bunch of other false promises and advertisment for the MW2 PC version. --Rexz (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That's irrelevant since this is an article about the company, and Bowling himself isn't in charge of design decisions like that. He does interviews and press events, that's it. IWNet hasn't "failed", the PC community just doesn't like it. Infinity Ward's online forums would be a betterplace to voice your complaints.=/= Ironoclast (Talk) 17:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not a complaint, it's a FACT that people are complaining about him. There's nothing wrong with stating that there's big criticism about him, because we would be just starting the truth. Also, the people that runs or manage or have some kind of authority under the company should be noted, whether they should have their own page on it or not, or section. Noted that the name Robert Bowling is count as a tag leading to this article, so there's no good reason to not feature him in this page or to have a section for him and what's surrounding him in the industry and the gaming community. --Rexz (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


He should really have his own wiki page now. He has resigned from infinity ward but is still a public figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.119.21.148 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Game engines

I saw the discussion about the COD2 engine, and one of the arguments, that the game says that it uses technology licensed from Id is also appliable to the Modern warfare 2. Also the source cited in the call of duty 2 says it uses a new engine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.153.169.102 (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

March 1st, 2010 Incident at IW Studio

G4TV broke the news at around 7 pm pacific that "bouncers" showed up at IW studios, and that their studio heads (Vince Zampella and Jason West) haven't been seen since this morning meeting with Activision. Rumors and speculations is that the heads got fired.

Kotaku reports that Jason West's LinkedIn profile indicates that he is no longer working at Infinity Ward.


An annual investor report, published yesterday to the SEC by Activision, confirms the trouble. Section 18, page F-50, paragraph beginning "In November 2009". Passage reads:

The Company is concluding an internal human resources inquiry into breaches of contract and insubordination by two senior employees at Infinity Ward. This matter is expected to involve the departure of key personnel and litigation. At present, the Company does not expect this matter to have a material impact on the Company.

BobisOnlyBob (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


Read this. If true, the fate of IW is in the balance as we speak. IW will either be crippled with incompetent Activision management, or dissolved completely. Unreal stuff. 164.107.237.95 (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What could it be: Kotick lost his mind while IW didn't obey orders? ATVI wanted to keep iw wed royalties , cause MW2 sucked a bit in PC , so they argued over this , then IW made business with other company breaching WHAT contract ? IF atvi owns IW why they need contracts , and why are they even calling them selfs developers , ATVI bought them under contract , that they get royalties , but the contract doesn't include other stuff like being fired :) I think a lot of developers don't GET it what it means to be BOUGHT by some , it doesn't NEED to be in contract , ATVI owns IW , they can fire them FOR nothing , contract stays presumably for "in what atmosphere , sorroundings , pressure , and what conditions they need to do in the new job" they accepted the contract "we will give you that and this but youl be fired when you start bitching about what we promised you" so the contract can say anything if they agree , when ATVI owns IW , they can do what they want , and they can change the name , staff , everything , give them normal salary and that's it , problem is , the "contract" contained that IW will be treated as mostly independent , getting their owed royalties , and the heads revolted but it's still the same company so ATVI has no hard time just firing them , and the ROYALTIES MONEY GOES NOWHERE , it's just like ATVI would provide the funds for the new game for it's development or give that money to them in form of royalties from the sales of the previous release ; it's a DIRTY publisher tactic to make developer think they're well treated. The final thing is , it's just the one who accepts this kind of "contract" (a half-true offer) and get's bought he needs to obey it , cause when he's bought he's just a normal internal employee and the contract doesn't cound cause it's not an external body anymore , and that IW contacting with other studios was a "breach of contract" is BS , there is no contract , it's just written "iw must not engage negotations with others.." this is just something to look like IW's would be treated like real independent developer , so when they contacted other studios , they did that technically like an internal ATVI developer and this is same for everyone , it's one company , and if you cheat your own company you get fired of course. This is probably the truth flow - not exactly (not confirmed either) , but I am ofcourse on IW side, I would fight for my stuff , and not let those capitalist pigs to mess things up. The contract is the contract they accepted before they were bought , company can obliterate the contract the minute they step into the new job , cause they are normal employees , so only subjective terms apply to those , on the mood of the boss how long and if he would be giving them what he promised in the "contract" ... the contract is an buying offer , if you accept it , you're sold , the contract no longer applies. Search sources on web , they're scattered , i'ts 4 AM , i don't have more time for searching throught all my browser history atm. Find and update please.


", it doesn't NEED to be in contract , ATVI owns IW , they can fire them FOR nothing "

er, what? Just because you own a company does not mean you can do whatever to your employees. There are laws and policies in place (and rightly so) to prevent this - unfair dismissal, hounding out of a job etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.120.73 (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Outside of breach of contract, wrongful termination is actually fairly limited. It protects you from being fired due to being a member of a protected class (race/ethnicity/nationality/etc.), in retaliation for litigation or whistle blowing, and maybe one or two other specific scenarios, depending on what state you live in. Other than those, your employer can fire you for basically whatever reason they want. -208.97.245.131 (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

i think it would be safe to say that infinity ward is a victim of it's own success. Activision most likely purged the company to ensure that the profitable call of duty series would continue to be released on a yearly basis. although it is bad about what happened to the IW heads, being at the helm of one of the most succesful video game franchises in history that raked in 1 billion dollars within several months of it's release puts you in the firing range when people like CEO Kotick of Activision is loading the bullets into the rifle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.228.54 (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Lawsuit court documents

Lawsuit court documents are on kotaku.com here. Should this be added to the article since they're public now? Sera404 (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The court documents are on the External Links section. Thanks Ajcadoo (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Info in Game list table

The table lists their first game "Call of Duty" released in 2003 as being for the Xbox 360 and PS3. Can not be possible since the 360 launched in 2005 and the PS3 in 06(?). Should be Xbox and PlayStation 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.10 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC) its because of the release of cod classic on psn and xbla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.71.237 (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Got a lot of vandalism here from some disgruntled PC gamers. Moozipan Cheese (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The last section regarding the dropped dedicated servers in Modern Warfare 2 is inappropriate for a wikipedia article, for its effect on IW's sales and share price must be seen to have a long and lasting effect to warrant its place here. Can we come to some kind of conclusion to exclude such materials before Modern Warfare 2 has gone on sale for at least some time before we put anything more on that issue in this article? 222.153.247.254 (talk) 05:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

More vandalism from PC gamers. :/ 13 November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.237.48 (talk) 13:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


IF only one person has tried to vandalise IW they should be VERY thankful! IW has a very ARROGANT attitude torwards its customers when it comes to MW:2. When one considers that this game cost anywhere from $60 to $90 buck (all things included) and without giving any thought to its customers IW just decided one day to remove such games as "Capture the flag" (as well as others) from the line up.

I personally play the game and IW will not state their reasoning for removing games from the line up. This has been brought up in the IW forum and they refuse to repond. Proof: http://www.infinityward.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=351012&p=4890390&e=4890390

Streetrace442 (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


Looks like someone threw in some more vandalism in the last paragraph of the "Reception" section. I don't think it sold "only 5 COPIES" in the US and UK? 204.191.190.169 (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Broden

Respawn Entertainment

We should definitely be creating an individual article once we have enough information regarding the new studio, as of now, though, keep all Respawn Entertainment stuff in the IW article. Thanks Ajcadoo (talk) 04:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else find it hilarious that the two leads who got fired got fired for breach of contract, which was revealed to be them making deals with EA and trying to take the Modern Warfare series, and then they claim it as outrageous and wrong. Then a week later they do make a new business, funded by EA, and are trying to sue for Modern Warfare? Haha I sense that perhaps, just perhaps, Activision is on the right side here. Just an idea. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • How convenient that the ONLY way Activision could retain creative control of MW is if the 2 devs got fired, and just COINCIDENTALLY, just at the moment when Activision could most easily afford to lose them (after MW2 came out), and just when it would save Activision the most money (bonuses), "suddenly", these 2 guys, while working themselves to death and delivering on an awesome game, somehow find the time & energy to be so insubordinate that, despite delivering a great game, it's deemed necessary to fire them. We'll never have all the facts (though I've found some interesting articles). But rich entities with high-powered lawyers (Activision) don't settle, unless they see a big potential for losing on the merits of the case. --Jason C.K. (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a well known fact that publishers and financial backers exert a lot of pressure on developers to change their games to suit the publisher's desires. I'll bet its a case of Activision wanting to fiddle with the next installment of Modern Warfare and IW refusing to bend. So, IW went looking for another publisher (EA) that would allow them more freedom. Activision saw what they were doing and moved to save their cash cow. With that in mind, even if IW did breach a contract, I stand on IW's side.

Dismissal section too long

We need to be cautious of recentism here - while the incident is clearly a signifciant one in the history of the developer, I don't think that it should be longer than the rest of the article combined. -208.97.245.131 (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagreed, this is one of the most controversial events in video game history. It is understandable that this section is long. It may shrink as time progresses. Ajcadoo (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? This wouldn't even hit the top 10 of controversial events in video game history. Nobody outside of fans probably even know that it occurred. For that matter, even if you told them, they probably wouldn't care. -208.97.245.131 (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Name ten other events in vg history more significant. If the two creators of MW who just got fired win their lawsuit, they will be able stop their former employers from making any new Modern Warfare games or releasing any new content and will take control of what is possibly the second biggest money making franchise in the industry. To say that would rock Activision's bottom line (and have a profound effect on the industry as a whole) is an understatement.

And not for nothing, only fans are likely to read this article so your contention is without merit. This development (and how it plays out) is important and necessary as it will (at the very least) have an impact on how other billion dollar corporations handle both termination of high level employees and more to the point, the public relations issues in the age of instant news via Twitter, Facebook, enthusiast press sites, etc. The current thinking that private security were brought in to handle any potential issues arising from the Infinity Ward staff over the firing is alone worth the price of admission. 144.92.84.206 (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC) KOTD

Seriously? Only ten other controversies in all of videogame history that are more significant? Um... wow... that's like trying to name some sort of dessert that includes sugar.
But still, if it will help... (and these aren't the 'top 10' or anything. they're just more significantly controversial than this topic) 1) Lawsuit of Atari against Nintendo. 2) Playstation vs PlayStation. 3) Transition to CD-based games (loading times? Gasp!). 4) Transition of Nintendo to disc-based games. 5) Wii not being high-def. 6) Wii using motion-control. 7) Wii only shipping with 512mb of storage. 8) Sony's 'boomerang' controller design (and their reverting back). 9) Sony including motion-control in their new design. 10) Sony omitting rumble from their new design (and claiming it wasn't possible to include rumble and motion-control). 11) Microsoft entering the home console market. 12) Microsoft including different versions of their Xbox 360 console. 13) Microsoft deciding to include versions with and without hard drives (thus shaping how future games for that system, or developed cross-platform could be designed). 13) Sega entering the handheld gaming market. 14) Violent videogames being blamed for killing sprees. 15) Two words: Hot Coffee. 16) Red ring of death. ... wait, that's more than 10, isn't it? Uh, I think you get the idea. This doesn't even show up on the radar.
Additionally, your argument that 'only fans would be reading this article' is wrong on multiple levels. First, that's not true. (I've never played one of their games, but I checked out the article) Second, fancruft is never allowed/encouraged here. Just because you think it appeals to fans, that isn't, in and of itself, a valid reason for including it.
Now... all of that aside, I still think the section is of appropriate length. Not because it's remotely relevant as far as gaming is concerned (and far less so the history of videogames). Frankly, that was absurd to even suggest. However, the current status of Infinity Ward is confusing. Its future is even less certain. The current approach of including all the facts that are known, so that the reader can have some idea of what's going on in the company, is logical. They're currently in this strange legal limbo. They're the central pillar of the franchise... or they aren't. They're being replaced... or they're not. They've lost their heads as a result of either terrible actions on their own parts, or of Activision. It isn't a matter of recentism, but rather simply presenting the best snapshot of their current status possible.
Will it eventually get shorter? Hopefully. Once more facts are known, much of this section will become superfluous and can be pruned away. But until then, this is probably the best it can get. 209.90.133.57 (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I disagree. I think this is a significant controversy, and I've never played an Infinity Ward game, nor do I care that much for FPSes in general.
  • Some of your "top 16" I don't even think were that big a controversy at the time, and certainly years later they're pretty yawn-inducing old news. The IW controversy, which I'm just learning about years later, seems like a big event within the industry, even if it doesn't get on the radar of a lot of players. Tens-of-millions to hundreds-of-millions at stake, a huge franchise (and control of it at stake), top-tier developers being mis-treated and booted, IP being stolen...it's a pretty big deal. This in an industry where it took a long time for it to come out how some publishers mis-treat developers, pressuring them to work themselves into a frazzle, while the lion's share of the profits go to the publisher, and the dev house goes bankrupt.
  • I think stories like these are major markers of how the industry is doing, and it's evolution, how talent is treated, where the money goes, etc. I don't think it should ever be pruned away. Though perhaps split-off into another article.
  • It's also part of the history of a major new exclusive title (Titanfall) on a major new console launch (XBox One).
  • --Jason C.K. (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The current article is perfect in length. It explains everything in a well-summarized fashion. Once the final lawsuit is all sorted out, I can definitely see a decrease in the amount of content listed for the article. As of now, this is probably one of the most important topics pertaining to Infinity Ward (at the moment) and should be of adequate length. Ajcadoo (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Resignation

Robert's resigning from his position as the lead.

Source: http://twitter.com/#!/fourzerotwo/status/184384024368783360 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.87.255.54 (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

They have more games then that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.209.77.236 (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight

This article is massively skewed towards details from the various employee controversies at IW. I'm going to try to put together a legitimate history section and add in more of a contextual narrative.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Origin in Tulsa

Not sure where to add, but an early team member of Infinity Ward said the first place they all worked together was in Tulsa. "Glasco worked on Medal of Honor: Allied Assault and, later, he and co-workers launched their own gaming company, Infinity Ward, a 22-person operation headquartered at 81st Street and Lewis Avenue. That’s where Call of Duty originated." Link to news article: http://m.tulsaworld.com/scene/features/secret-origin-heartland-gaming-expo-speaker-says-call-of-duty/article_ecd4a668-936a-5e56-a2ea-1c0bbde270f2.html 

The Experience (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Infinity Ward. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Infinity_Ward/Archive_1&oldid=1178826496"