We don’t have the time to comment on the many lawsuits Activision files against its employees and creative partners.

Among the charges, Activision states that West and Zampella attempted to ”prevent Activision from awarding additional compensation to [Infinity Ward] team members as a reward for the success of [Infinity Ward]-developed games, in order to make these employees easier to poach when West and Zampella executed their plans to leave the company and set up their own company.” The suit also claims that the pair delayed pre-production on Modern Warfare 3, which Activision most likely planned for a 2011 release.

West and Zampella’s original lawsuit had stated that Activision fired them as a way to deprive the developers of royalties earned from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, which has generated more than $1.5 billion in worldwide revenue since the game launched in November. The lawsuit claims Activision owes the duo $36 million in royalties and damages.

Robert Schwartz, their attorney, released a statement about the countersuit:

The allegations Activision made today are false and outrageous. Just one example is Activision’s allegation that Jason and Vince conspired to spin off Infinity Ward. Activision itself proposed spinning off Infinity Ward when, last year, it sought to renegotiate Jason and Vince’s contract and induce them to forego developing a new game in favor of doing another Modern Warfare sequel. Jason and Vince had hired the Creative Artists Agency to advise them in their negotiations with Activision, and not to breach their contract. The conversations with IW employees, talent agents, and others during these negotiations with Activision were conducted to see if Activision’s proposal could work, and not in disrespect of their obligations to Activision.

Activision’s inaccurate and misguided allegations lose sight of the reality here: None of the false claims of insubordination or breach of duties had any negative affect on Activision — none. Modern Warfare 2 has been the world’s most successful video game. And none of this changes the fact that Jason and Vince would still be at Infinity Ward developing new games except that Activision kicked them out. This is just an Activision tactic to avoid paying Jason and Vince and everyone else at Infinity Ward the millions of dollars they all earned and that Activision owes them. Since being fired by Activision, Jason and Vince have taken steps to regain control over their creative future and plan to have an announcement very soon.

Activision, as alluded to by EA’s Brown, is known for filing many, and mostly frivolous, lawsuits, so who knows exactly how this situation will pan out. We do know, however, that The Gamerz Zone will keep you up to date as it progresses.

“[Johnno, Atkinson's son] was supposed to play his first game last night at 7pm and like so many times in my time in Parliament I wasn’t there,” said Atkinson. “I am pretty disappointed about that. So I resolved that every time Johnno walks on the pitch this year his dad is going to be there even if it embarrasses the hell out of him.”

Atkinson also mentioned that he wanted to see others have a chance to make a change in Australian politics.

“I think there ought to be renewal in the ministry. I think there are talented people on the Labor backbench who deserve a go.

He also stated that he will remain as part of parliament until 2014, when his tenure ends, but that he will serve as a back-bencher.

This is good news for gamers, both in Australia and elsewhere. Australia’s view of games being an inferior medium has carried over to other parts of the world, and Atkinson was the lone party responsible for this. Australia requires unanimous votes from the various Attorney-Generals to pass any resolution, and Atkinson was, time and again, the only AG note voting in favor of an R18+ category.

You may use the following terms to express your relationship orientation in your profile or Gamertag:

• Lesbian
• Gay
• Bi
• Transgender
• Straight

Other terms regarding relationship orientation are not allowed. In addition you may not use these terms or any other terms regarding relationship orientation to insult, harass, or any other pejorative use against other users.

The Xbox LIVE team also promised to be more vigilant in monitoring the use of sexual orientation.

“Aww yeah!” ~ Kitty Man

LGBT gaming news site GayGamer.net, who has been very vocal in their efforts to bring gaming out of the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” era and into a more excepting one, has responded, saying:

This is just fantastic news and news that is a long time coming. This is something we have been fighting for here on GayGamer for a long time and it’s gives us a wonderful feeling to finally see it come to fruition.

Congratulations to Microsoft and Xbox Live for stepping up to the plate and listening to the concerns of an important and oft overlooked section of the gaming community. Bravo!

We here at TheGamerzZone applaud Xbox LIVE, as well, for finally changing what is simply a bad policy, regardless of the good intentions behind it.

This letter from Hunt, who describes himself as both a parent and child of gamers, comes after a report that 46,ooo Australians signed a petition to support the R18+ movement. He states that not having the ability to classify games for adults was detrimental to his ability to effectively do his job.

When I made a decision, or participated in a decision, that a computer game was unsuitable for minors, I was forced to refuse classification for that game. It was not because I thought that the game depicted, expressed or otherwise dealt with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that it would offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults. It was simply because the game was not OK for kids.

Not being able to restrict computer games to adults was an impediment to my ability to reflect Australian community standards.

He also includes a chart, comparing many games classification ratings, which shows how many games restricted to adults and/or older teens in other countries were put in the hands of younger teens in Australia with a few, minor edits, which, in my opinion, shows that the lack of an adult classification in Australia is only effective in giving more children access to adult content, rather than fewer.

Hunt also goes on to speak against the idea that the lack of R18 in games is a result of a desire to protect children:

Some parents are irresponsible with the management of their children’s behaviour. If the reason for excluding an R18+ classification for games is to limit the access of the children of incompetent or irresponsible parents, then we should ban R18+ films, restricted publications, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. from our society.

He also speaks directly to South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson, specifically his claims that nobody cares about the R18+ issue, except for gamers.

Of even greater concern is the fact that Mr. Atkinson does not understand that most Australians are gamers, and therefore the majority of the population is familiar with game content.

All responses, including those from gamers, are responses from the Australian community. Whilst Mr. Atkinson may wish to marginalise gamers, and put down the knowledge of all Australians, I trust the Government will accept all submissions at face value as representative of the Australian community’s feelings on this issue.

He then goes on to use Atkinson’s words against him, by using a quote by Atkinson when internet censorship laws were enacted and subsequently repealed:

There is a need to follow South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson’s advice on a recent similar issue regarding the rights and freedoms of Australians – an attempt to restrict political comment on the internet: “When one gets public opinion wrong, as I did, one has to change one’s mind.

I think it’s clear the Atkinson, who is the only, outright, opponent of the R18 movement, has gotten public opinion wrong. Simply put, it’s time for him to change his mind.

Of the two minsters who previously spoke in favor of the movement, Australian Capital Territory AG Simon Corbell and Victoria AG Rob Hulls, only Corbell remains openly supportive. Hulls has since rescinded his support, saying he “not wish to preempt the results of the consultation.”

South Australian AG Michael Atkinson, whose position on the subject has been exceedingly negative, has stated he expects the proposal to be well supported, at minimum, and has even gone so far as to imply he’d be willing to renegotiate his stance on the subject if gamers would engage in civilized discussion. It seems possible that Atkinson is setting himself up to avoid further backlash should the proposal prove to be widely supported.

The discussion paper written to assist the AGs in their decision is reportedly large supportive, but there are doubts to how influential the papers really are in the decision-making process. Gamespot AU has gotten in touch with each of the Attorney Generals, and their responses are below.

Victoria Attorney General Rob Hulls

“The government supports the release of a public discussion paper on an R18+ classification of video games. I will not be preempting this consultation by announcing a position on this issue.”

ACT Attorney General Simon Corbell

“The ACT Government supports the introduction of an R18+ classification for video games, similar to that of films and television. This position has been conveyed at meetings of commonwealth, state, and territory ministers on a number of occasions. There is general support in Australia for an R18+ classification, and the ACT would encourage anyone with an interest in this issue to have their say by making a submission to the discussion paper. I expect that the support that exists for film and television classifications translates into [support for] classifications for computer and video games. The ACT Government is supportive of introducing an R18+ rating for video and computer games and will take into account the views of consumers through the consultation process.”

NSW Attorney General John Hatzistergos, via a spokesman

“The NSW Government supports a national approach to classification based on public consultation. The National Classification Scheme is based on the premise that classification decisions should represent the standards of morality, decency, and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults. The position of Censorship Ministers on this issue should therefore be informed by views of the broader community. The consultation process now under way is an important step in achieving this.”

Tasmania Attorney General Lara Giddings

“We are currently working through the discussion paper, weighing up the arguments for and against the classification, and intend to lodge a submission before the closing date of 28 February 2010.”

Queensland Attorney General Cameron Dick

“The Queensland government believes this issue should be resolved to give certainty to the industry. We are currently finalising our position in relation to the issues raised in the discussion paper.”

Western Australia Attorney General Christian Porter

“The Commonwealth Government released the discussion paper on 14 December 2009. Submissions to that paper will be received until 28 February 2010. Ministers will make a decision on this matter after they have had time to consider the discussion paper and any submissions.”

Northern Territory Attorney General Delia Lawrie refused to comment.

Seems like your typical political backtracking, but it’s still too early to tell whether the movement will be supported, and what action may come of it if it is.