Bioware founders leave Bioware and retire from the video game industry

[Luder]

Originally Posted by Mike F

This is what I'm talking about. People are free to dislike the ending, but the fact that they can express their displeasure anonymously on the internet allows disappointment to turn into a tantrum in a way that would almost never happen if it were expressed in person.

I'm betting that if you met a BioWare designer in person, you'd come up with something more reasonable than "either deliver on your promises or keep your mouth shut."

I don't blame the DR's for the latest failures but I'd flat out ask Hudson and Walters: "At what point did you think this ending was a good idea? Some kid in a hoody, just made everything up to this point, irrelevant and useless." Also, too short of development/EA deadline made DAII a substandard game, horrific writing is what sunk ME3.
I highly doubt these 2 quit because of mean comments from anonymous internetters, if they did, then perhaps they need some thicker skin.

I think the DR's saw the writing on the wall, and got out while the getting was meh.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Mike F

This is what I'm talking about. People are free to dislike the ending, but the fact that they can express their displeasure anonymously on the internet allows disappointment to turn into a tantrum in a way that would almost never happen if it were expressed in person.

I'm betting that if you met a BioWare designer in person, you'd come up with something more reasonable than "either deliver on your promises or keep your mouth shut."

i'd ask them WTF they were thinking by putting that ending in the final product, and tell them i've never been as disappointed by a game before in my life because i had never cared about a franchise as much as Mass Effect. then i'd ask them what the chances were of Bioware people jumping ship from EA and starting their own independent development company, because might give me something to look forward to

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

This isn't a legal forum, but aren't non-compete clauses in contracts technically illegal? Something to do with harming the economy (monopolization, etc.)

As in if the Bioware guys start up another rival studio and EA sues them over breach of contract, the Bioware Docs. can argue that EA is hurting the end consumer. They could also argue that this is their only form of occupation so denying them starting up a new studio would be to deny them of a job.

Non-competes aren't illegal. You just have to make them reasonable. I.e., you can't say "you're never allowed to work in computer software for the rest of your life", but you can say, "you cannot develop games for a competitor for 5 years". There's a poorly defined and industry dependent line on what's reasonable and what's void for public policy. I.e. in a lot of industries you have to set a reasonable geographic perimeter - "If you cease to run our sporting goods chain you can't open another sports store within 500km of this area we operate in for 5 years" or something. That probably doesn't apply to this industry.

By now an industry standard will have emerged for what looks normal in a non-compete and everyone will just use some variation of that standard.

[MarchHare]

By now an industry standard will have emerged for what looks normal in a non-compete and everyone will just use some variation of that standard.

On another forum I visit, there's a poster who formerly worked at BioWare Edmonton and Ubisoft Montreal. He said the standard non-compete clause in the video games industry is one year.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

On another forum I visit, there's a poster who formerly worked at BioWare Edmonton and Ubisoft Montreal. He said the standard non-compete clause in the video games industry is one year.

I wonder how much of the non-compete is in effect. Good games take several years, so say these guys left. Next month they get an idea for the most awesomest game ever. Over the next 11 months, they work out a lot of the kinks, get a script set up, and get all their general ducks in a row. When the year is up, they pitch it to a new company, hand everything over to the guys who do the grunt work, and start going.

Or are you not allowed to do anything game related for a year?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

On another forum I visit, there's a poster who formerly worked at BioWare Edmonton and Ubisoft Montreal. He said the standard non-compete clause in the video games industry is one year.

I believe this would be for the Developers/Project managers.

I think there are also additional non-competes when you purchase a company from someone? I.E. they can't start a rival again for another couple of years.

They may be a little longer when the sale of a business is involved.

[3 Justin 3]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

I wonder how much of the non-compete is in effect. Good games take several years, so say these guys left. Next month they get an idea for the most awesomest game ever. Over the next 11 months, they work out a lot of the kinks, get a script set up, and get all their general ducks in a row. When the year is up, they pitch it to a new company, hand everything over to the guys who do the grunt work, and start going.

Or are you not allowed to do anything game related for a year?

If EA were to find out that they were working on a game within that year they could sue them for breach of contract. Could potentially be hard to find evidence, but they could still sue.

Everything like that should be done on a piece of paper and a pencil.