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.
Mountain Man Mar 29, 2016
Quoting: tuubiIt really depends. I know the news staff at local TV stations are almost always bound by a non-compete clause because it can hurt a station's brand if a popular personality were to move to a competitor's channel. It also protects a company from having their employees "poached" by a competitor.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.
I personally would never sign a non-compete contract myself, but I don't see any reason why they should be illegal.
0 Likes
Quoting: Mountain ManI personally would never sign a non-compete contract myself, but I don't see any reason why they should be illegal.Yeah, I can't say they don't have their place anywhere. I've signed a couple myself, promising not to design a competing product for a competitor of a client. Purely a formality, and not even a realistic prospect in these cases. As always, there are a lot of colours and shades other than black and white. This thread is about a specific contract with a specific NC clause though.
0 Likes
TheRiddick Mar 29, 2016
They effectively signed a contract that said when they finished with the company they wouldn't work in their line of work for 12 or so months (basically told to flip burgers for 12months). Then when the employees finally left the job, other disgruntled staff left with them, which again was against the contract as that could be considered stealing staff.
You wouldn't catch me dead signing such a ethically WRONG contract!
PS. The contract is binding even if you were redundant or quit. STUPID.
Last edited by TheRiddick on 29 March 2016 at 7:30 pm UTC
You wouldn't catch me dead signing such a ethically WRONG contract!
PS. The contract is binding even if you were redundant or quit. STUPID.
Last edited by TheRiddick on 29 March 2016 at 7:30 pm UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: STiATSame here in France. You can sign any contract with this kind of clause, unless the employer pays you to do nothing for the whole duration, this non-competition clause is totally illegal. And moreover, if the employee wasn't able to find a new job because of that, he can sue his/her ex-employer and that usually ends up with the ex-employer having to pay compensations to the employee the same amount as if he/she worked for him for the whole duration.QuoteI am surprised such a contract is even legal!
Actually, here in Austria this is not legal. Clauses like this in contracts can be ignored, they won't stand any curt or judge.
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!"ROFL
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.
Just one sentence from Noam Chomsky:
The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.
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.The employer should make the employee to have no desire to go elsewhere first. That's not that hard, wage and decent working conditions.
0 Likes
Mountain Man Mar 29, 2016
Quoting: NelUnless someone is holding a gun to his head, a prospective employee is under no compulsion to sign a contract he doesn't agree with. To claim that the employee in this instance was "starving" and had no choice but to accept an unfair deal is absurd. And "potentate"? Really? It's not as if Trendy Entertainment was the only company in the whole of the United States that would have been willing to hire him.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!"ROFL
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.
Just one sentence from Noam Chomsky:
The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.
Chomsky is a brilliant linguist, but his view on politics are, to be polite, a bit out there.
Last edited by Mountain Man on 29 March 2016 at 9:01 pm UTC
0 Likes
Putting aside whether or not they actually have a case here, what do they aim to actually acheive through these actions? I for one wouldn't ever consider buying one of their games after this and if they were to succeed in their injunction halting Ark development and manage to get it pulled from the store, I would imagine most of the players of the game would reach the same conclusions. Considering that Ark based on just today's figures is the 5th most played game on Steam (based on current number of players) with 51,401 players at it's peak today (not even taking other platforms into account), that's a hell of a lot of lost sales for their future projects compared with what they may gain in damages.
Just because you can sue someone, certainly doesn't mean you should and I think in this case they may be cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Just because you can sue someone, certainly doesn't mean you should and I think in this case they may be cutting off their nose to spite their face.
1 Likes, Who?
So why did it take them so long to figure out that he went to work for another Dev team? The game has been out for a while now. If I was the owner of Trendy I would of just been like "eh whatever". Sounds like they are just hard for cash.
0 Likes
Quoting: EagleDeltaI'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.I would like to put emphasis on this. I also have a no-compete clause in my contract. I've asked what it meant and the explanation is quite simple: a no-compete clause cannot stop you from executing your profession. A no-compete clause prevents you from leaving your company to for example work with the company's customers directly. In terms of games it means that he can't leave trendy entertainment and proceed to make tower defense games.
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.
Trendy is however arguing that ARK: Survival Evolved is encroaching into their market. By implication they are saying that ARK (to some part) is a tower defense game; a statement that is totally retarded. I cannot see a judge accepting this trail unless this judge is really stupid.
0 Likes
wintermute Mar 30, 2016
Quoting: Mountain ManIt depends on the terms of the contract.
It really doesn't. If the employment is over the contract is over, the terms in the contract are irrelevant at that point.
0 Likes
NC's don't really make sense for games. Say he left a racing game development and went to work for another racing game. If they were both good, I would buy both racing games happily. These games don't overlap at all, so it makes even less sense. It makes sense in the case where two companies are competing for the same contract. It would be counterproductive and whatever company has the biggest wallet could buy a window into their competitor's IP.
0 Likes
See more from me