Isn't this is the Prey 2 tactic?
I'm surprised people don't get called out for nasty BS like this.
I'm surprised people don't get called out for nasty BS like this.
and probably pick up the IP went the studio goes underSo basically they wanted to acquire them, couldn't do it for the price they wanted so they just decided to attempt to bankrupt them and just pick of the devs themselves? Fuck off, that's an extreme scumbag move.
Take Two already owned the KSP IP.
ah that i didnt know
If the employer goes bankrupt then it's not poaching. The only recourse that I am aware of against poaching is non-compete or non-solicitation agreements.
Why was the game pulled from Star Theory?
Wasn't there a contract with Star Theory that stated they were contracted to make the game, if so wasn't a breach of contract by 2K with the dev team?
Well that's just semantics. Whether poaching or not, if a publisher's intentionally tries to bankrupt a studio with a view of acquiring the studio talent, whether they succeed in sinking the studio entirely or not is pretty beside the point. It's still a scummy and unethical thing to do from the outset.
-in Skeletor voice -I can already hear the "Triple AAAAAaaaaaAAAAAaaaaa publisher" bit.
I seem to recall BioWare and Pandemic announcing the Elevation Partners merger as a way of maintaining their independence (Shane Kim mentioned Microsoft wanted to purchase BioWare, but Elevation made it impossible/difficult). Obviously that didn't last long. I've always assumed EA bought them for SWTOR -- their answer to World of Warcraft -- but that's a topic for another time...Yes, the hedge was co-owned by John Riccitello who I think sort of "planned" it, and he bought out BioWare that way and became CEO with that acquisition.
Private Division, also a subsidiary of Take-Two/2K, likes to style itself as more risk takers image to publishing new IPs from independent studios.
After this story, studios will now think twice before considering working with them.
With the colossally unequal power-dynamics between big publishers and small independent studios, "Breach of Contract" is a legally meaningless term in regards to what the big publisher does.
I believe some ex-GRIN folks explained this in regards to how Square Enix fucked over GRIN back in the day - While GRIN had grounds for legal action, they would be facing off against a corporation that could afford to exponentially outspend them in legal fees, while every dollar GRIN spent on lawyers for a suit would have been a dollar not spent on producing a new title to try and pitch through another publisher. Ergo, suing SE for Breach of Contract would only guarantee and accelerate the studio's bankruptcy.
Fax me the code if I'm wrong.
Take Two looks bad here yea. Especially because the article paints them in such an unfavorable light. They used their leverage to put a much smaller shop in an unenviable position. They're going to lose development partners going forward from their actions. As well they should. Canceling projects puts people's livelihoods at risk at smaller studios.
But they did not need to offer jobs to people after cancelling the contract. Like, you could interpret that as poaching as the article does here, or you could also interpret that as attempting to mitigate harm to people they've wronged by offering them a job.
I agree that if the terms they offered are worth less than the current employment situation, then yea it's unethical. But if they're offering to match or exceed salaries compared with the current employer, then it's kind of a different story. That's an important thing to know here.
The way things were communicated, however, definitely does not pass the straight-face test. But the article glosses over the terms of the offers too much for us to really make us informed on Take-Two's motives here. This could have been a harsh business decision that they were attempting to make right, or this could have been a genuine poaching of talent.
Of course. No one will call them out or anything because they own Rockstar who makes GTA and RDR games. So as soon as GTAVI comes along, most will not care about their business practices. Same with EA and how they basically murder studios left and right, but it doesn't matter.Take Two doesn't get enough flak for the shady shit that they do.
And I assume that it's because they own Rockstar.
I hope more people will call them out.
Honestly I don't understand why the US doesn't change the way it processes legal battles. The group that has lost should pay lawyer fees for the opposite group. How are little companies ever supposed to fight the big boys?
I feel most of the world has implemented that system (whoever loses has to pay lawyer fees). Am I wrong?
This is probably a more accurate summary than others are coming up with.Here's a take from a game dev that states them delberately trying to break the company to poach the team is unlikely:
https://askagamedev.tumblr.com/post...hats-your-take-on-take-two-and-star-theory-is
Honestly I don't understand why the US doesn't change the way it processes legal battles. The group that has lost should pay lawyer fees for the opposite group. How are little companies ever supposed to fight the big boys?
I feel most of the world has implemented that system (whoever loses has to pay lawyer fees). Am I wrong?
This is not a good take.Corporate Money in politics. The current system is to the benefit of the corporations which own the legislatures, ergo it will not be changed.
Nah, it's full of inaccuracies.This is probably a more accurate summary than others are coming up with.
You're right, those speculation points could very well be (or in this case, are) inaccurate. I was speaking more of the logic behind this being a calculated assassination rather than an unfortunate (and cold-hearted) businesses move.Nah, it's full of inaccuracies.
"About 80% of the Star Theory's employees took the offered employment and are now working on KSP2" -> incorrect
"Late last year (2019), the project was reorganized when the scope was changed." -> incorrect
"What seems more likely is that the project's development wasn't going so well and the leadership on both sides tried to renegotiate the terms." -> incorrect
"In such a situation, Star Theory was almost certainly going to lay off significant numbers of their work force to stay afloat, so Take Two made the first move by offering to hire them." -> very incorrect and misleading
My understanding is that Private Division informed the studio owners at the exact same time they were sending out LinkedIn messages to employees offering them jobs. Whatever it was, it was very much a calculated move, and it upset a whole lot of people, including a couple who I hadn't originally spoken to, but who reached out to me today after the story ran. Sucks that this ask a game dev tumblr (which I have enjoyed in the past) is handwaving it in such misleading and inaccurate fashion.You're right, those speculation points could very well be (or in this case, are) inaccurate. I was speaking more of the logic behind this being a calculated assassination rather than an unfortunate (and cold-hearted) businesses move.
My understanding is that Private Division informed the studio owners at the exact same time they were sending out LinkedIn messages to employees offering them jobs. Whatever it was, it was very much a calculated move, and it upset a whole lot of people, including a couple who I hadn't originally spoken to, but who reached out to me today after the story ran. Sucks that this ask a game dev tumblr (which I have enjoyed in the past) is handwaving it in such misleading and inaccurate fashion.
Oh I had no doubt about the timing, it's certainly an ugly and devastating move by TT no matter how you slice it.My understanding is that Private Division informed the studio owners at the exact same time they were sending out LinkedIn messages to employees offering them jobs. Whatever it was, it was very much a calculated move, and it upset a whole lot of people, including a couple who I hadn't originally spoken to, but who reached out to me today after the story ran. Sucks that this ask a game dev tumblr (which I have enjoyed in the past) is handwaving it in such misleading and inaccurate fashion.
Fee shifting makes the risk of loss more severe which is a major advantage for the party that us more able to bear the cost of litigation. The benefit of the "American system" (that's what it's called in legal circles") is that it means that there is reduced risk when the little guy wants to sue a big guy. However it's important to note that some kinds of cases fall under fee-shifting statutes, which means loser pays fees. In those cases the legislature is usually trying to disincentivize frivolous lawsuits.
So, in summary, the issue is more complicated than you think and varies by subject area.
I'll need to see more evidence before I'll just outwardly believe giant publishers and corporations act unethical.
If you still don't believe it by now then I doubt you ever will.
My bad, with some of the things people say these days it is getting a lot harder to assume its sarcasm.
This happened to a project at a company I worked at many years back. They put together a pitch project that a first-party publisher paid them to do. In the end, they made up some BS claims about the breach of contract so they wouldn't have to pay them for it, and went with a cheaper dev.With the colossally unequal power-dynamics between big publishers and small independent studios, "Breach of Contract" is a legally meaningless term in regards to what the big publisher does.
I believe some ex-GRIN folks explained this in regards to how Square Enix fucked over GRIN back in the day - While GRIN had grounds for legal action, they would be facing off against a corporation that could afford to exponentially outspend them in legal fees, while every dollar GRIN spent on lawyers for a suit would have been a dollar not spent on producing a new title to try and pitch through another publisher. Ergo, suing SE for Breach of Contract would only guarantee and accelerate the studio's bankruptcy.
Fax me the code if I'm wrong.
Honestly I don't understand why the US doesn't change the way it processes legal battles. The group that has lost should pay lawyer fees for the opposite group. How are little companies ever supposed to fight the big boys?
I feel most of the world has implemented that system (whoever loses has to pay lawyer fees). Am I wrong?
I think there are fee shifting agreements in some contracts, but I'm not familiar with the subject.But wouldn't that risk not really matter because some people are obviously in the wrong/right? (in my mind I wouldn't see people sue each other unless they really believe they were in the right… right?)
Also, who determines if a case falls under fee-shifting statutes? Is this something that can be determined in contracts (if company breaks x contract we have the right to sue with fee-shifting?=
Sorry, Im very ignorant on the subject and would love to learn more.