All the doom and gloom at BSN when ME2 was about to release, all the naysayers forecasting how EA was going to ruin Bioware's games and run them into the ground. And it all seems to be going like clockwork.
Haven't heard it put quite like that before, but that is a neet saying, and largely a true one.GuyN said:
Anyway, while standing here watching the trainwreck that's been burning for a long time, by some miracle two people climbed out alive. One of them said it was a life-changing event. He'll make beers from now on.
It would be easy to say that they jumped ship or were kicked out after all the flak BioWare's been having the recent years, but that's nothing more than plain assumption. However, it strikes me as odd that both founders decide to leave at the same time.
The blogs say nothing special to me. It feels like your standard company line, a last requirement before closing the door.
I might have bothered myself with this more if this happened before ME2 came out. But now, looking at what BioWare is, I really don't care. Still, they were involved on some really good games, like KotOR and ME (1). So kudos for that.
The blogs say nothing special to me. It feels like your standard company line, a last requirement before closing the door.
I might have bothered myself with this more if this happened before ME2 came out. But now, looking at what BioWare is, I really don't care. Still, they were involved on some really good games, like KotOR and ME (1). So kudos for that.
Before people continue thinking the Doctors were pushed around by EA and got fed up with it, the exact opposite happened. EA was pushing for fast release dates and the doctors agreed to them and pretty much what EA wanted although they did have the power to push the release dates to a latter date and whenever an employee who was being forced to work on such a tight schedule asked for more time they would just be told to stfu and keep working. All of this I know from a Bioware employee who is still with the company.
I think that them departing is just a fancy way for EA to fire them considering the major screw ups of DA2 and ME3. You think DA2 was shit just because it was rushed? Awakening was also rushed and it has a better story then Origins. EA may be involved in some general direction of the story ( like for instance the importance of Earth in ME3 ) but they did NOT create the retarded parts of DA2 involving mages and templars nor did they write the Catalyst or Cerberus in ME3.
So you know what? This is good news because Flynn is now essentially in charge of ME3 and he was the one who went to EA, bypassing the doctors ( which btw pissed them off ) and asked for a later release date for ME3, and surprise: EA accepted.
I think that them departing is just a fancy way for EA to fire them considering the major screw ups of DA2 and ME3. You think DA2 was shit just because it was rushed? Awakening was also rushed and it has a better story then Origins. EA may be involved in some general direction of the story ( like for instance the importance of Earth in ME3 ) but they did NOT create the retarded parts of DA2 involving mages and templars nor did they write the Catalyst or Cerberus in ME3.
So you know what? This is good news because Flynn is now essentially in charge of ME3 and he was the one who went to EA, bypassing the doctors ( which btw pissed them off ) and asked for a later release date for ME3, and surprise: EA accepted.
I agree, it could be suspicious, but it does happen. I worked in one company where three of the four most senior staff all resigned in the same month, purely by coincidence and without discussing it with each other. They were all capable of reading the writing on the wall. And in the last company I worked at, there was a direct correlation between the dates that bonuses were paid out and resignation dates. One followed the other like clockwork.MisterMida said:
And on "non-compete" agreements, anyone following this?
http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/14/zynga-responds-to-ea/
I would guess that the probability of there being a non-compete clause is pretty high. Whether or not it can be enforced is a different matter.
Yeah, for reasons already mentioned, California courts hate non-compete agreements that keep a former employee from going to work for a competitor.dragonbird said:
The history of this, which is peculiar to the US but even more so to California, goes back to the days of the "star system", where film talents (actors and directors in particular) were bound to individual studios by long-term personal services contracts; they literally could not refuse any assignment or break their contract in order to work for anybody else.
I think the outcome of a lawsuit over any kind of "no hire" restriction would follow well-established principles in California: when your trade is such that all the employers you could reasonably work for would be labeled "competitors", the "no hire" clause is void.
Do you know if California legislation covers non-compete when it's part of the sale of a company? I'm wondering if EA may be able to enforce in this particular case because it's the Bioware founders, rather than just part of an employment contract.GuyN said:
Mmm. There might have been agreements made relative to the sale, since they owned the company that was sold to EA. They're, of course, smart enough not to discuss these in public. But they still may be closing in on the limits of enforceability, because California doesn't allow a personal services contract longer than 7 years (the "de Havilland law", after Olivia de Havilland, who sued Warner Bros. to get out of her contract).dragonbird said:
(Olivia de Havilland believed that Warner Bros. had been giving her only demeaning ingenue roles, some of which she refused, and the studio suspended her. She sued and won, went on to win the Oscar for Best Actress twice, and lost an Oscar for "The Snake Pit" only because Jane Wyman won it for "Johnny Belinda".)
The other possibility is a mutual agreement at the time of resignation - lump-sum payment in return for non-compete (and possibly also in return for agreeing not to bad-mouth the company). I don't know if California legislation bans that, but unless there is coercion involved, I would expect it to be enforceable.
Anyway, it's all speculation. It would be truly wonderful if the Bioware guys did set up a new company, brought back some of the other old-timers, and went into direct competition, but, alas, I suspect it won't happen.
But right now, I have the popcorn all bought ready for the Zynga/EA battle (interesting to watch when you don't like either company).
Anyway, it's all speculation. It would be truly wonderful if the Bioware guys did set up a new company, brought back some of the other old-timers, and went into direct competition, but, alas, I suspect it won't happen.
But right now, I have the popcorn all bought ready for the Zynga/EA battle (interesting to watch when you don't like either company).
California's probably the strictest jurisdiction in the world when it comes to non-compete agreements, and EA would have to litigate with Zynga (and any litigation that arises with the Bioware founders) in California.dragonbird said:
Unless the non-compete is connected with the sale of a business, and nothing about the Bioware founders leaving or all the talent jumping to Zynga leads me to believe it is, it cannot prevent the departing employee from pursuing his trade, even with a competitor. Yeah, this leads to all sorts of cases where businesses raid their competitors for employees. The way high-tech business works in California, this is considered healthy and encouraged.
Sorry - I've been muddying the waters by posting about two different things. The Zynga action is NOT about the Bioware founders leaving. The only connection between the two events are that they both concern staff departures from EA.GuyN said:
Well, I think both are likely to end up in court eventually. EA and Zynga will come first, you're right, and that will leave EA looking foolish. But eventually the Bioware founders are going to come back to the business, and that's likely to be even bigger and messier.dragonbird said:
In an odd way, hearing the news about the Bio docs departure reminds me of my feelings about Tower Records. The Tower Records classical annex in West Hollywood was easily the best staffed, stocked and well run outlet for classical music in L.A during the 80s and 90s, but slowly and surely they cut back on all the things that made it a mecca for classical lovers. First they raised prices, then they fired the store's buyer, Heidi, who had impeccable taste and knew her customers well, and thus knew what would and would not sell. Instead all of Tower's stores were stocked by a single central buyer who was simply incompetent. Then they fired their knowledgeable staff in favor of cheaper, but clueless kids who would work for minimum wage. Then they raised their prices again...
By the time they were formally liquidated, it was pretty much meaningless because the real Tower Records had been dead for at least a decade before they had the decency to take down the signs. I feel pretty much the same about this Bioware news. It's still called Bioware but it is not the Bioware that built the name and reputation that EA is exploiting today.
Supposedly the doctor's resignations come five years to the day after EA's acquisition of Bioware. I imagine that sticking it out five years was a contractual stipulation in order to reassure the Bioware staff of at least some level of continuity after the purchase of Bioware.
But now that the last bit of Bioware's independent legacy has left the building, I wonder how many of the developers will start heading for the nearest exit?
By the time they were formally liquidated, it was pretty much meaningless because the real Tower Records had been dead for at least a decade before they had the decency to take down the signs. I feel pretty much the same about this Bioware news. It's still called Bioware but it is not the Bioware that built the name and reputation that EA is exploiting today.
Supposedly the doctor's resignations come five years to the day after EA's acquisition of Bioware. I imagine that sticking it out five years was a contractual stipulation in order to reassure the Bioware staff of at least some level of continuity after the purchase of Bioware.
But now that the last bit of Bioware's independent legacy has left the building, I wonder how many of the developers will start heading for the nearest exit?