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.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
[Jason Schreier] Game Publisher (Take2) Cancels Contract With Developer, Then Tries to Poach Its Entire Team
- Thread starter dex3108
- Start date
Wow just finished reading. Super gross move by T2. They'd rather waste another year of development time than work out the deal with the original studio.
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.
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.
Agreed. Such conduct is unethical but it is not necessarily illegal on its face. My point is that there are few legal tools to defend oneself in such an event. It is surpring that it doesn't happened more often given the power imbalance in the industry.
Man, this IP is cursed. The game is always successful, but the devs always get the short end of the stick.
It speaks volumes on how badly the financial situation for the employees must be if so many agreed on the offer.
Great reporting from Jason. I feel bad for the developers.
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...
I wonder if something similar happened with David Goldfarb's studio, The Outsiders. They were working on that Darkborn monster game, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXa0FlYQGMU, for 2K's Private Division. Then they quietly put project into deep ice and all of sudden David came out that they are working on new IP now.
IGN's Summer Event schedule revealed that they are now working with Funcom.
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
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?
Claiming we don't know enough to make a casual judgement of T2 here seems...very generous.
[edited to change an overly harsh tone from me]
Last edited:
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.
Corporate Money in politics. The current system is to the benefit of the corporations which own the legislatures, ergo it will not be changed.
This happens.
In fact, it actually happened to me. Multi-billion dollar company catstringed us, a startup, on more funding for weeks (incurring burn and shortening our runway). Then a day after they agree more funding, they turn around and said we changed our minds. Said it made more sense for us to just join them instead as an internal studio.
One of us did join them though, it was better for his career.
In fact, it actually happened to me. Multi-billion dollar company catstringed us, a startup, on more funding for weeks (incurring burn and shortening our runway). Then a day after they agree more funding, they turn around and said we changed our minds. Said it made more sense for us to just join them instead as an internal studio.
One of us did join them though, it was better for his career.
This is probably a more accurate summary than others are coming up with.
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.
This is not a good take.
Finally, if the case is good, the attorneys will take the case on contingent fee, meaning the plaintiff doesn't pay any fees unless they win.
Last edited:
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
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.
I would love to hear what the content of those conversations between PD and the studio leadership were. TT was clearly happy with the work, so I wonder what the contract disagreements were, or what the buyout offer looked like. It would be great to also know what changed on PD's end, was it a management shakeup or strategic re-alignment that led to this. It has implications for all their partnerships going forward.
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.
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.
All good. I'm pretty sarcastic by nature and with some of the stuff people share it makes you wonder if it's intentional and tongue in cheek or pure lunacy.
You can't shove lootboxes and pay-to-win in your online components everywhere and be a good guy.
KSP2 is a game I really anticipate playing,...but sadly I think it will be complicated to see it release
Excellent article by Jason
KSP2 is a game I really anticipate playing,...but sadly I think it will be complicated to see it release
Excellent article by Jason
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.
The company threatened to take it to courts, so they eventually did pay up, though.
The US has it in some cases too, but its not the default like other parts of the world.
But getting compensated for your legal fees doesn't really matter if you can't afford them in the first place. GRIN was brought up earlier, and they were from Sweeden, so they would have these types of laws, but going to court in the first place would bankrupt them.
Uhh that was painful to read. They only saw dollar signs with a known IP like Kerbal Space Program and didn't care about the devs to make the sequel. And to kill them during the COVID-19 pandemic, that's inhumane of 2K. I'm not surprised we are not going to see KSP 2 until fall 2021.
I think there are fee shifting agreements in some contracts, but I'm not familiar with the subject.
In general lawsuits are much more complicated and risky then a simple "X is right, Y is wrong." It's a long process where both sides collect evidence from each other during the case. That's expensive, and you don't know how it's going to turn out until it's already underway/over. That's not to mention the unpredictability of witnesses, judges and juries. In general, and I think this is true anywhere,the law doesn't become clear on a subject until it's heard by a court. And most people's conflicts are different in tiny but significant ways from every other conflict that ever happened in the past.
It gets even tougher when you add a contract to that. Then, the court has to interpret the contract, which may be ambiguous. On top of that in many lawsuits both sides have very good points and there's not always an obvious winner.