Sources claim that the only reason Activision chose to settle the Brutal Legend debacle out of court was to prevent a public loss of face - because they sure aren't getting anything else out of the deal.
Gamers looking forward to rocking the hell out with Tim Schafer and Jack Black rejoiced yesterday when it was announced that Double Fine and Activision had reached a settlement over the whole Brutal Legend debacle.
Many, though, wondered what on earth the terms of the agreement could have possibly been. Had EA paid Activision a nice chunk of change to secure the rights once and for all? Had Activision nefariously wrangled a chunk of the profits? What was the publishing giant getting (from the other publishing giant) in exchange for letting Brutal Legend launch as scheduled?
According to "(a) person familiar with the settlement, who requested not to be identified," says the LA Times, not a whole lot:
Though the person declined to disclose any details of the settlement, it appears very likely that Activision received little to no compensation from Double Fine and agreed to a settlement to avoid losing its case in open court.
The same source says the agreement took place after the presiding judge expressed the sentiment that it would be unlikely for him to side with Activision in the matter, which was probably a huge factor in the settlement. Since Activision seems to be the current "love to hate" target in the gaming community, I expect this news will result in much rejoicing and schadenfreude.
Brutal Legend is on track for its Rocktober release.