Support us on Patreon
PayPal
Oh dear, oh dear. The developers behind ARK: Survival Evolved (Studio Wildcard) are facing a lawsuit from the developers behind Dungeon Defenders (Trendy Entertainment).
The games are very different, but it's a people and contracts issue here. It sounds like someone has a vendetta against someone else.
It all revolves around a contract, and apparently Jeremy Stieglitz who used to work for Trendy Entertainment and apparently breached it by joining Studio Wildcard to work on ARK: Survival Evolved. Tredy Entertainment seems to require people who leave not to compete with the studio by making games for three years. Personally, I think these sorts of contracts do no good, and I am not a fan of them. I am surprised such a contract is even legal!
I am always fascinated by these sorts of lawsuits, as surely this is going to backfire on Trendy Entertainment and have a bad effect on their Dungeon Defenders games? They are already getting bad reviews for going after another developer, and their forum is filling up with angry posts. This won't end well.
To me, it sounds rather a lot like an issue of jealousy, as a developer moved onto a game that became wildly successful and they want a piece of the pie.
Thanks, Kotaku.
How do you feel about this? I know quite a lot of people really like ARK, so I hope this doesn't set development back. It could push ARK off Steam for a while, which would be a shame. Can you imagine the hell their forum and reviews would turn into ARK got forced off of Steam? Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
The games are very different, but it's a people and contracts issue here. It sounds like someone has a vendetta against someone else.
It all revolves around a contract, and apparently Jeremy Stieglitz who used to work for Trendy Entertainment and apparently breached it by joining Studio Wildcard to work on ARK: Survival Evolved. Tredy Entertainment seems to require people who leave not to compete with the studio by making games for three years. Personally, I think these sorts of contracts do no good, and I am not a fan of them. I am surprised such a contract is even legal!
I am always fascinated by these sorts of lawsuits, as surely this is going to backfire on Trendy Entertainment and have a bad effect on their Dungeon Defenders games? They are already getting bad reviews for going after another developer, and their forum is filling up with angry posts. This won't end well.
To me, it sounds rather a lot like an issue of jealousy, as a developer moved onto a game that became wildly successful and they want a piece of the pie.
Thanks, Kotaku.
How do you feel about this? I know quite a lot of people really like ARK, so I hope this doesn't set development back. It could push ARK off Steam for a while, which would be a shame. Can you imagine the hell their forum and reviews would turn into ARK got forced off of Steam? Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
0 Likes
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
wintermute Mar 29, 2016
Quoting: Foxv71He signed a contract which to me means something.... So if he broke it then he can just suck it up butter cup and get sued :).
Unless Trendy are still paying him, the contract is over.
0 Likes
EagleDelta Mar 29, 2016
I'm not sure if someone already stated this or not, but I spoke with a Gamer friend of mine (who plays ARK) that happens to be a Lawyer. Simply put, he said non-competes CANNOT prevent someone from making a living, regardless of what state that person lives in. The closest a NC can get to preventing someone from working in a specific industry (such as gaming or technology) is to say that person cannot work in game development within 200 miles of current employer.
He also stated that it doesn't matter what Jeremy Stieglitz's wife did and that it is quite common for someone to file for a business with an alias or maiden name.
More or less, the accusations brought forth by Trendy seem to be very, very thin on actual evidence of breach of contract, and what little they do looks pretty close to falling into the "unenforceable" category.
He also stated that it doesn't matter what Jeremy Stieglitz's wife did and that it is quite common for someone to file for a business with an alias or maiden name.
More or less, the accusations brought forth by Trendy seem to be very, very thin on actual evidence of breach of contract, and what little they do looks pretty close to falling into the "unenforceable" category.
1 Likes, Who?
Mountain Man Mar 29, 2016
"Personally, I think these sorts of contracts do no good, and I am not a fan of them. I am surprised such a contract is even legal!"
Why should they be illegal? If an employer says, "Here are the terms you must agree to before we'll hire you," and the employee signs on the dotted line anyway then that's on them. Trendy Entertainment is perfectly within its right to enforce a contract that both parties willingly agreed to.
Why should they be illegal? If an employer says, "Here are the terms you must agree to before we'll hire you," and the employee signs on the dotted line anyway then that's on them. Trendy Entertainment is perfectly within its right to enforce a contract that both parties willingly agreed to.
0 Likes
Mountain Man Mar 29, 2016
Quoting: PeciskFirst of all, they can try sue employer, but it is employee who is breaking contract here, so I wonder how it would work even.That's usually how these things go. If a company has a no-compete clause with an employee, and they learn that employee is now working for someone else, they will contact the new employer and say, "Either you fire that guy or we'll sue you for knowingly breaching a contract." Quite often the new employer will happily comply because the employee was obviously not honest with them during the interview.
0 Likes
Quoting: Mountain Man"Personally, I think these sorts of contracts do no good, and I am not a fan of them. I am surprised such a contract is even legal!"
Why should they be illegal? If an employer says, "Here are the terms you must agree to before we'll hire you," and the employee signs on the dotted line anyway then that's on them. Trendy Entertainment is perfectly within its right to enforce a contract that both parties willingly agreed to.
If i sign a contract that says I have to kill myself if I ever leave company x, should that be on me? Stupid example, but you probably get my point. Such clauses shouldn't be allowed. They are from greedy people forcing crap on others. In this case the company is so scared of competition they put that clause in.
2 Likes, Who?
Mountain Man Mar 29, 2016
Quoting: wintermuteIt depends on the terms of the contract.Quoting: Foxv71He signed a contract which to me means something.... So if he broke it then he can just suck it up butter cup and get sued :).Unless Trendy are still paying him, the contract is over.
0 Likes
lucifertdark Mar 29, 2016
Instead of spending time on court cases they should be spending time on getting their so-called games working.
0 Likes
Kimyrielle Mar 29, 2016
NCA clauses are common and there is nothing wrong with them as long as they are not overreaching. In this case I would say it's reasonable to ask employees not to go to a company -directly- competing with them, but ARK isn't even in the same genre as any Trendy game. There is no direct competition going on (games of the same genre directly compete against each other), just an indirect one (all products compete against each other for the customer's limited buying power). In this situation the clause is more than unreasonable and basically amounts to forbidding someone to work in his chosen profession entirely. What's a game developer going to do if he's not allowed to make games for -anyone-? I can't believe this clause will stand in any court, but I am no lawyer.
Trendy just went on my shitlist for this, though. Not going to buy any more games from them, ever.
Trendy just went on my shitlist for this, though. Not going to buy any more games from them, ever.
3 Likes, Who?
Mountain Man Mar 29, 2016
Quoting: liamdaweYou're right, that is a stupid example. It's also a strawman fallacy. Unlike your analogy, a non-compete clause is not inherently unreasonable. Suppose, for instance, that an employer recruits an employee and invests time and resources into training him. Then the employee says, "Thanks for the training... see ya!" Now the employer will get no return on their investment, and they'll have to start from scratch. A non-compete clause is a reasonable precaution because it offers some assurance to the employer that the new employee won't suddenly flake out on them. If the prospective employee doesn't like the terms of the contract then it's his responsibility to walk away.Quoting: Mountain Man"Personally, I think these sorts of contracts do no good, and I am not a fan of them. I am surprised such a contract is even legal!"If i sign a contract that says I have to kill myself if I ever leave company x, should that be on me? Stupid example, but you probably get my point. Such clauses shouldn't be allowed. They are from greedy people forcing crap on others. In this case the company is so scared of competition they put that clause in.
Why should they be illegal? If an employer says, "Here are the terms you must agree to before we'll hire you," and the employee signs on the dotted line anyway then that's on them. Trendy Entertainment is perfectly within its right to enforce a contract that both parties willingly agreed to.
0 Likes
Quoting: Mountain ManSuppose, for instance, that an employer recruits an employee and invests time and resources into training him. Then the employee says, "Thanks for the training... see ya!" Now the employer will get no return on their investment, and they'll have to start from scratch. A non-compete clause is a reasonable precaution because it offers some assurance to the employer that the new employee won't suddenly flake out on them. If the prospective employee doesn't like the terms of the contract then it's his responsibility to walk away.There are more positive ways to inspire loyalty. You are unlikely to have very productive staff if you need clauses like these to force/blackmail them to remain in your employ. But this is beside the point as well.
1 Likes, Who?
See more from me