6 ms·

I could definitely use a throwaway account. The thing is, I still don't want to say anything I'm not allowed to say. I do feel loyalty towards my employer, and

I could definitely use a throwaway account. The thing is, I still don't want to say anything I'm not allowed to say. I do feel loyalty towards my employer, and I'm only protecting myself if I stay clear of saying anything which identifies me. And that includes referring to knowledge which I didn't realise not many have or just generally expressing myself with my own idiosyncrasies which I may not even be aware of.

hopler 8y ago
EA's existential problems are crappy games and customer-hostile business practices, not some secret sauce at risk of being leaked.
- Agentlien 8y ago
  There are plenty of interesting things I'd love to share and fun topics I'd love to respond to which have nothing to do with what you're referring to. I'm talking about a more broad thing where I also find it difficult to join more positively minded discussions.
  - eps 8y ago
    nevermind (Quick recap, since there are now replies - EA had a policy of owning everything you produce, including the off hours, and with their constant "crunch mode" they expected you to not have time for any pet projects to begin with. An inherently abusive company, and very brazen at that. It was like that when I interviewed with them several years ago, but I doubt things changed much.)
    - mulletbum 8y ago
      I am not from the game industry or anywhere near software mecha. Can you tell me why a company would want to pay you to work on your own pet project with their money without them owning the end result? I am just confused how this is a stipulation at any job. The place I work, if I designed a model for their products on their time, with their money, it is only acceptable that they own said product. Why would they allow me to go off an compete with them?
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - detaro 8y ago
        the key is on their time. Parent explicitly mentions everything while employed there, in your free time as well.
        Davidbrcz 8y ago
        How the F* can this be legal ?
        crankylinuxuser 8y ago
        Because in this country, contracts signed are almost always enforced. It doesn't matter the unidirectional power assymetry. It doesn't matter if the contract is unconscionable. If you want the job, you sign the contract. And even if its illegal good luck going thru the courts to litigate. The companies also have more money and can outspent than you have to live.
        robin_reala 8y ago
        Which country? The US?
        xtian 8y ago
        Yes
        misingnoglic 8y ago
        Yes
      - klodolph 8y ago
        There’s a misconception underlying this comment. A “personal project” is something you do on your own time, with your own resources.
    - cableshaft 8y ago
      From my time in the game industry, I haven't encountered too many employers that were friendly about personal projects. I was able to get an explicit exception for one of my already released games in my contract for one of the companies I worked for, but most made it clear that they expect me not to work on anything in my own time, or that it belonged to them. Even a game that directly led to my employment at one of the companies, as they saw my game showcased at a game convention when it was a finalist in a major game competition, saw I was local, and brought me in to discuss a possible publishing deal (which turned into a job interview). As someone who had made and released about 8 small games on my own and liked doing it as a break from my other things, it really rubbed me the wrong way, and I didn't end up releasing that game until after I was no longer working for the company and I had lost all benefit of the free marketing I had from the contest. It's part of the reason why I haven't gone back into the game industry since I got out. I don't want to feel like I can't make anything on my own again (especially now that I'm getting into board game design and getting game designs signed with board game publishers). My current employer's business has nothing to do with anything related to gaming whatsoever, so even if they did try to take control of my games, they'd have a hell of a time taking me to court over it, or acting like I violated any noncompete laws.
    - SeanBoocock 8y ago
      Not my experience of working at EA for four years. There is a copyright assignment clause in the employment contract, and as unfortunate as that is, it is fairly common across the software industry. There was an internal process by which EA legal would clear personal projects, for which you would then have the copyright, but I never availed myself of it. As to crunch most teams I worked for at EA did not crunch in the sense you're suggesting. There was widespread recognition within the company that long term crunch was both deleterious to productivity and morale. Studios were increasingly adopting a system called "focus mode" - a short period of focused work towards a specific goal (milestone/demo/etc) where non-essential meetings were cancelled, lunch catered, and distractions eliminated - which purported to produce better results without more than standard hours. Studios at EA are fairly free to operate autonomously and they each have different cultures. Some were slower to adopt better practices around crunch, and even within the same team some disciplines would often crunch while others worked normal hours. Still, there was recognition of what better looked like in terms of production and will at all levels to make it happen. Not what I would call an "inherently abusive company".
      - Kurtz79 8y ago
        EA has a history of acquiring previously very successful, well-loved game studios and running them to the ground. After acquisiton, key people start leaving the studio, games released end up being rushed/crappy, and in the end they are closed. Bullfrog, Maxis, Westwood, Origin to cite the more known ones, too many to be a coincidence. As of now, I wouldn't be sitting comfortably if I were working at Bioware .
        Thaxll 8y ago
        Most studios killed themself by releasing crapy games tbh. Do you think it's the interest of EA acquiring studios and shutting them down? Take for example BioWare, they were acquired 3 years before their best game release: ME2 then they released ME3 an other excellent game then ...
        SeanBoocock 8y ago
        I worked at Bioware. I worked directly with people who worked previously for Bullfrog, Westwood, and Origin through the EA acquisitions. I also know people who work(ed) at Maxis. The narrative around EA's acquisitions is a gross mischaracterization. Each acquisition and its eventual outcome had a number of confounding factors. In many cases the studios were acquired because they were in financial straits and wouldn't have survived otherwise. Key people leaving after an acquisition isn't surprising: your studio was acquired because it made X type of game or franchise and maybe you don't want to continue doing that; your retention stock vested, time to try something new; you're entrepreneurial at heart and want to start a studio again after a (successful) exit. Maxis and Westwood (EA LA) went on to make their most successful titles and decade plus runs as EA studios. Likewise DICE, Bioware, Tiburon, Pogo.com and several mobile studios.
jbverschoor 8y ago
The thing is, your employer probably does not feel loyalty towards you. Protecting yourself is the real reason.
- cabaalis 8y ago
  Whistleblowing/etc aside, if you sign an NDA you should adhere to it. We should not respect people who don't hold to their agreements just because they have some juicy insider information about nothing of any consequence.
  - everdrive 8y ago
    I think there's some merit to you point, but what about people who "need a job now." Not everyone is in a position to be picky about who hires them.
- jib 8y ago
  The argument of employers being these evil things that hold no loyalty is tiresome. Loyalty is not a black and white thing. I can list close to 15 years of small experiences that make me feel like my current employer truly cares. I’ve had very few negative experiences, and when I have had them I’ve said “hey that’s not cool”, and the company has fixed it as much as it could be fixed. The fact that I may be fired at some point does not invalidate that. To me, loyalty between a company and an individual is not about the contract of work, it is about the environment that exists while you are working. Both I and the company have the option at any time to terminate the employment, that’s just part of the deal. That does not mean long term loyalty and expectations can’t exist.
  - dvtrn 8y ago
    Seems to me the argument of employer loyalty I think is more than (but still involves the matter of) whether or not an employer will go to bat for you, and speaks more to the leverage an employer has in a situation where they're faced with retaining an employee or firing an employee. As in: most often than not, in more situations than not, they have most if not all of the leverage.
tuesdayrain 8y ago
So don't say anything you're not allowed to say. I think the main point of a throwaway here is to say perfectly legal things, just without worrying about potential death threats.

hopler 8y ago

EA's existential problems are crappy games and customer-hostile business practices, not some secret sauce at risk of being leaked.

Agentlien 8y ago
There are plenty of interesting things I'd love to share and fun topics I'd love to respond to which have nothing to do with what you're referring to. I'm talking about a more broad thing where I also find it difficult to join more positively minded discussions.
- eps 8y ago
  nevermind (Quick recap, since there are now replies - EA had a policy of owning everything you produce, including the off hours, and with their constant "crunch mode" they expected you to not have time for any pet projects to begin with. An inherently abusive company, and very brazen at that. It was like that when I interviewed with them several years ago, but I doubt things changed much.)
  - mulletbum 8y ago
    I am not from the game industry or anywhere near software mecha. Can you tell me why a company would want to pay you to work on your own pet project with their money without them owning the end result? I am just confused how this is a stipulation at any job. The place I work, if I designed a model for their products on their time, with their money, it is only acceptable that they own said product. Why would they allow me to go off an compete with them?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - detaro 8y ago
      the key is on their time. Parent explicitly mentions everything while employed there, in your free time as well.
      - Davidbrcz 8y ago
        How the F* can this be legal ?
        crankylinuxuser 8y ago
        Because in this country, contracts signed are almost always enforced. It doesn't matter the unidirectional power assymetry. It doesn't matter if the contract is unconscionable. If you want the job, you sign the contract. And even if its illegal good luck going thru the courts to litigate. The companies also have more money and can outspent than you have to live.
        robin_reala 8y ago
        Which country? The US?
        xtian 8y ago
        Yes
        misingnoglic 8y ago
        Yes
    - klodolph 8y ago
      There’s a misconception underlying this comment. A “personal project” is something you do on your own time, with your own resources.
  - cableshaft 8y ago
    From my time in the game industry, I haven't encountered too many employers that were friendly about personal projects. I was able to get an explicit exception for one of my already released games in my contract for one of the companies I worked for, but most made it clear that they expect me not to work on anything in my own time, or that it belonged to them. Even a game that directly led to my employment at one of the companies, as they saw my game showcased at a game convention when it was a finalist in a major game competition, saw I was local, and brought me in to discuss a possible publishing deal (which turned into a job interview). As someone who had made and released about 8 small games on my own and liked doing it as a break from my other things, it really rubbed me the wrong way, and I didn't end up releasing that game until after I was no longer working for the company and I had lost all benefit of the free marketing I had from the contest. It's part of the reason why I haven't gone back into the game industry since I got out. I don't want to feel like I can't make anything on my own again (especially now that I'm getting into board game design and getting game designs signed with board game publishers). My current employer's business has nothing to do with anything related to gaming whatsoever, so even if they did try to take control of my games, they'd have a hell of a time taking me to court over it, or acting like I violated any noncompete laws.
  - SeanBoocock 8y ago
    Not my experience of working at EA for four years. There is a copyright assignment clause in the employment contract, and as unfortunate as that is, it is fairly common across the software industry. There was an internal process by which EA legal would clear personal projects, for which you would then have the copyright, but I never availed myself of it. As to crunch most teams I worked for at EA did not crunch in the sense you're suggesting. There was widespread recognition within the company that long term crunch was both deleterious to productivity and morale. Studios were increasingly adopting a system called "focus mode" - a short period of focused work towards a specific goal (milestone/demo/etc) where non-essential meetings were cancelled, lunch catered, and distractions eliminated - which purported to produce better results without more than standard hours. Studios at EA are fairly free to operate autonomously and they each have different cultures. Some were slower to adopt better practices around crunch, and even within the same team some disciplines would often crunch while others worked normal hours. Still, there was recognition of what better looked like in terms of production and will at all levels to make it happen. Not what I would call an "inherently abusive company".
    - Kurtz79 8y ago
      EA has a history of acquiring previously very successful, well-loved game studios and running them to the ground. After acquisiton, key people start leaving the studio, games released end up being rushed/crappy, and in the end they are closed. Bullfrog, Maxis, Westwood, Origin to cite the more known ones, too many to be a coincidence. As of now, I wouldn't be sitting comfortably if I were working at Bioware .
      - Thaxll 8y ago
        Most studios killed themself by releasing crapy games tbh. Do you think it's the interest of EA acquiring studios and shutting them down? Take for example BioWare, they were acquired 3 years before their best game release: ME2 then they released ME3 an other excellent game then ...
      - SeanBoocock 8y ago
        I worked at Bioware. I worked directly with people who worked previously for Bullfrog, Westwood, and Origin through the EA acquisitions. I also know people who work(ed) at Maxis. The narrative around EA's acquisitions is a gross mischaracterization. Each acquisition and its eventual outcome had a number of confounding factors. In many cases the studios were acquired because they were in financial straits and wouldn't have survived otherwise. Key people leaving after an acquisition isn't surprising: your studio was acquired because it made X type of game or franchise and maybe you don't want to continue doing that; your retention stock vested, time to try something new; you're entrepreneurial at heart and want to start a studio again after a (successful) exit. Maxis and Westwood (EA LA) went on to make their most successful titles and decade plus runs as EA studios. Likewise DICE, Bioware, Tiburon, Pogo.com and several mobile studios.

jbverschoor 8y ago

The thing is, your employer probably does not feel loyalty towards you. Protecting yourself is the real reason.

cabaalis 8y ago
Whistleblowing/etc aside, if you sign an NDA you should adhere to it. We should not respect people who don't hold to their agreements just because they have some juicy insider information about nothing of any consequence.
- everdrive 8y ago
  I think there's some merit to you point, but what about people who "need a job now." Not everyone is in a position to be picky about who hires them.
jib 8y ago
The argument of employers being these evil things that hold no loyalty is tiresome. Loyalty is not a black and white thing. I can list close to 15 years of small experiences that make me feel like my current employer truly cares. I’ve had very few negative experiences, and when I have had them I’ve said “hey that’s not cool”, and the company has fixed it as much as it could be fixed. The fact that I may be fired at some point does not invalidate that. To me, loyalty between a company and an individual is not about the contract of work, it is about the environment that exists while you are working. Both I and the company have the option at any time to terminate the employment, that’s just part of the deal. That does not mean long term loyalty and expectations can’t exist.
- dvtrn 8y ago
  Seems to me the argument of employer loyalty I think is more than (but still involves the matter of) whether or not an employer will go to bat for you, and speaks more to the leverage an employer has in a situation where they're faced with retaining an employee or firing an employee. As in: most often than not, in more situations than not, they have most if not all of the leverage.

tuesdayrain 8y ago

So don't say anything you're not allowed to say. I think the main point of a throwaway here is to say perfectly legal things, just without worrying about potential death threats.