Friday, December 01, 2006
EA Crushes Indie Game Development
The big bit of game industry news this week is that Headgate Studios was just acquired (assimilated) by EA. Yep, it's been borged. Now, on most counts, this is probably a pretty good thing for the employees. I have heard people talking very highly of Vance Cook, the former owner of Headgate, and for the most part this was probably done in the best interest of the employees.
With a big exception. There was a big indie contingent from Headgate. They frequently came to the Utah Indie Game Developers meetings. I don't think Headgate had any official policy concerning these guys working on games in their spare time. For the most part, it sounded like a case where if it didn't interfere with work, they didn't care.
Well, now that EA has is the new owner, that policy has changed. Dramatically, and suddenly. From what I understand, it comes down to one of four choices for indies:
#1 - You can release what you are working on for free. At least they are granting those kinds of exceptions now. So apparently, the Flat Red Ball stuff can continue development. For now.
#2 - You can terminate all further development on your indie game, so it is no longer being worked on during your employment tenure at EA.
#3 - If you choose not to do #2, your work will become the property of EA. Attempting to sell it could get your employment terminated, could get you sued, could get you a C&D, or could actually result in EA coming in, taking ownership, and selling it themselves.
#4 - You can quit. Even though you have enjoyed working there for several years - it's new management, therefore a new company.
So - any of the guys there who were getting close to completion on their indie games have hit a really major roadblock. Caster, which has been in development for at least a year and a half prior to EA taking over, is a prime example. Basically, if you were attempting to run or form an indie game business on the side, you have been effectively shut down. (Rumor has it that Vance Cook tried to go to bat for them as well, getting exceptions for everyone, but ... well, EA is EA).
This isn't an uncommon practice amongst the big publishers. Six years ago, I wouldn't have batted an eye. I mean, it's a world of non-compete agreements, NDAs, conflicts of interest, etc. Many of the companies with the most heavy-handed protective measures were founded by guys who took their best ideas (and customer lists) and jumped ship from a company themselves, and they want to make sure nobody does to THEM what they did to their previous employer. They make sure that when their lawyers draw up the employee contracts, they close whatever loophole they themeselves used to win their lawsuit.
It's all par for the course. Business in America. A kinder, gentler serfdom.
But since I got out of the games industry, and I started actually hanging out with and reading stuff by entrepreneurs, small businesspeople, and self-employed folks, the whole concept is repugnant to me now. Why should a company own your mind, or what you do in your off-hours? I've known many people at other software companies (even major, international companies) who FREQUENTLY have little IT-related businesses or software projects on the side.
As long as they aren't using company time or resources, it's No Big Deal.
Yeah. I "get it." I understand in principle. These big companies feel they are participants in EVERYTHING relating to their business. So anything you do in that field is, in their view, competing against them. I've sat in the other seat before. I've been at companies where we've been screwed over by a principal employee that went behind our backs to our client and attempted to out-bid us privately. We've sent one of our key people as a consultant to a client, who then decided to jump ship to join the client.
It sucks, it feels like a betrayal. If that happens too often, your company is going to get tanked. Since it's more efficient to govern and maintain loyalty by fear than by love, companies big enough to throw their legal weight around can make sure their employees have a fear of getting their shirt sued off their backs.
That's just the way it is.
But does that make it right? Is this the way it should be?
How hard would it be, instead of trying to strangle outside projects from your employees, to instead support them? Instead of using draconian clauses that claim that their idle thoughts ("inventions") that they come up with while mowing their lawns on a weekend belong to you, instead why not put in a "first right of refusal" clause that would still give you the option of getting a piece of the action if you think it's worthy. And if it's NOT something you are interested in, your employee is still a happy camper, because you are allowing them to pursue their own dreams. A win-win scenario. Mainly. If they get so successful that you can't afford to keep them from forming their own business... well, that's life. In this country, we eliminated slavery in 1863, so that's just how it works.
But then you've got a former employee who has nice things to say about your company, and may refer business your way.
Cooperation instead of competition? Trying to grow the pie instead of squabbling over the pieces?
Nah. What's good in life is to crush your enemies (your employees?), to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!
(Vaguely) related rants:
* No E3 For Me
* Mainstream Games Get Even Narrower
* Dependent, Independent, and Indie
* Utah Indie Game Developer Meet, Fall 2006
* Utah Indie Game Developer Meet, Spring 2006
Labels: Biz, Indie Evangelism
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 9:36 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Wow! I'm surprised that it took EA so long to buy them. Didn't they do the Tiger games for them? Those are a pretty big franchise I thought.
Well, good on them, though I'm saddened at the loss of indie talent. But then again, think of it as less competition for you! :)
Well, good on them, though I'm saddened at the loss of indie talent. But then again, think of it as less competition for you! :)
Ah, right! They are competition! I wish to crush them, see them driven before me, and hear the lamentation of their women!
I can't say that I love everything about Xango, where I'm currently employed, but something I do approve of is a new initative called the Blink Tank. Through this they are ENCOURAGING Xango employees to work on their own ideas for businesses and such and using Xango funding to help get the best ones off the ground. Of course they're interested in partnering with these new little companies, or owning equitity, but the plan also includes an exit plan for how long they continue to have their fingers in the pie.
I much prefer this kind of attitude to the take over and consume of owning everything an employee does, on their own time or not. It's not a perfect system, but much of American business is based on the right idea at the right time with the right money. Companies that are so afraid of competition that they have to quash that show a lot more about themselves than anything else.
If you look at Indie games you see developers working together all the time, even though they techinically are each other's competition, but the point is to see the BEST games possible out there. Yeah, we all want the best game to be ours, but we're also, by and large, players of games as well and want great games to play even if they belong to someone else. And the hope is they'll return the favor.
Seems reasonable to me.
I much prefer this kind of attitude to the take over and consume of owning everything an employee does, on their own time or not. It's not a perfect system, but much of American business is based on the right idea at the right time with the right money. Companies that are so afraid of competition that they have to quash that show a lot more about themselves than anything else.
If you look at Indie games you see developers working together all the time, even though they techinically are each other's competition, but the point is to see the BEST games possible out there. Yeah, we all want the best game to be ours, but we're also, by and large, players of games as well and want great games to play even if they belong to someone else. And the hope is they'll return the favor.
Seems reasonable to me.
It's zero-sum thinking.
If anyone else is making money, then that's money you AREN'T making. (Not exactly, but I think that's kind of the gut reaction). If you take it to it's ultimate conclusion, it's obviously flawed. Once all the prey are eaten, the predators starve.
I'm encouraged to hear that Xango is launching that initiative. That's a surprisingly healthy attitude.
If anyone else is making money, then that's money you AREN'T making. (Not exactly, but I think that's kind of the gut reaction). If you take it to it's ultimate conclusion, it's obviously flawed. Once all the prey are eaten, the predators starve.
I'm encouraged to hear that Xango is launching that initiative. That's a surprisingly healthy attitude.
You enjoyed me commenting on your problems? :)
I just hope that Caster will see the light of day again...
I just hope that Caster will see the light of day again...
Is there nothing they can do about it? What if the IP of their projects are owned by their significant other, who "pays" them to develop their indie games as a 2nd part time job? If that isn't far enough removed what about a separate 3rd party who does the same?
Is it still just the non-compete?
Is it still just the non-compete?
I don't know, Bughunter. From what I have heard, they've asked, and were told "no." Their options are restricted to what I outlined.
But if that's the real answer, or if they were only being told "No" by someone who didn't have the authority to say, "Yes," I don't know.
But if that's the real answer, or if they were only being told "No" by someone who didn't have the authority to say, "Yes," I don't know.
The options outlined coincide with my experience with EA. I just recently left, and am currently forming my own indie game startup. I agree with all of your sentiments, Coyote. While I can't argue the legal grounds (you can take it or leave it), I do think the *right* thing to do is let employees do what they will in their off hours.
But, for a company the size of EA, it's very, very murky with the number of employees they have. Is it okay for one of your QA testers to work 8 hours at your shop then go down the street and work 8 hours at Take-Two? What if they spend 8 hours testing indie games? What if its volunteer work for a friend? What if its volunteer work at Take-Two? And that's just testing... it's even gray'er when you start thinking about developing and designing...
Bottom line is that even if there are folks inside of EA management who'd not have a problem with employees creating indie games, it's easier (cheaper, more successful) to just blanket disallow it, otherwise you've got to devote resources to policing it to make sure it doesn't become a truly competitive issue.
Basically, this is a reaction to the mantra, "It's easier to ask forgiveness than permission." In the business world, "asking forgiveness" is expensive and prone to fail... explicitly denying permission up front is as cheap at printing a document up and getting the employee to sign it.
Personally, when I worked at EA, I had access to one of the finest corporate lawyers in the US (my father, former general counsel of Wal-Mart). Needless to say, my employee contract was redlined before I ever signed it, and specifically including wording indicating that non-compete only covered items related to my *job* at EA, not EA's business... in other words, I could hire myself out as a toolchain architect or technical director, but I could produce games, write books, etc. that were not directly related to that.
Post a Comment
But, for a company the size of EA, it's very, very murky with the number of employees they have. Is it okay for one of your QA testers to work 8 hours at your shop then go down the street and work 8 hours at Take-Two? What if they spend 8 hours testing indie games? What if its volunteer work for a friend? What if its volunteer work at Take-Two? And that's just testing... it's even gray'er when you start thinking about developing and designing...
Bottom line is that even if there are folks inside of EA management who'd not have a problem with employees creating indie games, it's easier (cheaper, more successful) to just blanket disallow it, otherwise you've got to devote resources to policing it to make sure it doesn't become a truly competitive issue.
Basically, this is a reaction to the mantra, "It's easier to ask forgiveness than permission." In the business world, "asking forgiveness" is expensive and prone to fail... explicitly denying permission up front is as cheap at printing a document up and getting the employee to sign it.
Personally, when I worked at EA, I had access to one of the finest corporate lawyers in the US (my father, former general counsel of Wal-Mart). Needless to say, my employee contract was redlined before I ever signed it, and specifically including wording indicating that non-compete only covered items related to my *job* at EA, not EA's business... in other words, I could hire myself out as a toolchain architect or technical director, but I could produce games, write books, etc. that were not directly related to that.
Links to this post:
<< Home
