Im sick of NDA's

[alanschu]

Fair enough.

 

I feel it goes beyond what is necessary as well, but see it as probably being a necessary evil.

 

On a final note, you cite your Dad as an example of how he's not too restricted. Could it just be that he is more open to you? My friends at Bioware are likely under NDAs, but they're pretty open around me.

[Hassat Hunter]

J.E. Sawyer explains

 

Coincidentally, I was the one who begged him to write that.

 

But you don't agree with it... or?

 

Main reason I think they won't do it is because a game usually looks quite different when shipped than what was planned. Tell me if you were a fan and followed Freelancers 5 year development of changes if anything that was in in the begin actually was shipped with retail? I doubt it.

So many things got altered there you might become as fan to follow it all, and then you'll loose costumers. Do you wan't that?

 

See how dissapointed people are with missing DMC, Kotor2 content, Unreal2 Astroid level, HL2 DM missing at release, cut horses for NWN2, scrapped mounted combat for Oblivion/NWN2 and multiply that with factor 10.

But why do I type all this... Sawyer already said it in the link; probably better too...

[Kaftan Barlast]

I can understand why a certain level of secrecy is required, but the amount we have today is too much IMO. All of Josh's reasons are valid but they dont go anywhere near convincing me of the necessity to treat a game like its military intelligence.

 

 

There was one thing dad couldnt tell me about which household chemical they used in a certain device because they hadnt patented it yet, but that was just once. The terms of the NDA the average game dev employee must sign is MUCH stricter than what he has signed as part of his employment contract.

 

The people here at school I mentioned are forbidden from discussing any part of what they are doing with outsiders. They can say "Im working with something Im not allowed to talk about" but if they say "Im doing some programming on a thing im not allowed to talk about" then theyre violating the contract.

Edited May 27, 2006 by Kaftan Barlast

[alanschu]

Well, the only reason I can think of is that they have a blanket policy to prevent any issues with whether or not something is protected by the NDA.

[metadigital]

e.g.

Volcano

 

Dante's Peak

 

As soon as one publisher finds out enough details about another's project, then they will do anything to sabotage it, even up to creating their own version (if they can rush it out before the other one, and take their first weeks' sales).

[alanschu]

Don't forget about:

 

Deep Impact

 

Armageddon

[metadigital]

Indeedy. I'm sure there are dozens more, too.

 

[alanschu]

Those two are just really bad. Especially seeing as they both happened at roughly the same time.

 

 

I find one tends to be more scientific (Deep Impact, and IIRC Dante's Peak), whereas the other is more actiony. I'm guessing the actiony one is the one that tried to cash in on the idea, but maybe that's just me.

[Fenghuang]

J.E. Sawyer explains

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Call of Cthulu: Dark Corners of the Earth had a fair amount of hype early in the cycle, hasn't gotten much advertisement from Bethesda at all, and got stellar reviews.  My guess is sales for that will bomb like they did with Beyond Good & Evil.  I remembered this one only because the name of our Dark God is attached to it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Just like to point out I called it.

 

Why must I enjoy things that fail?

Edited May 28, 2006 by Fenghuang

[metadigital]

Those two are just really bad.  Especially seeing as they both happened at roughly the same time.

 

I find one tends to be more scientific (Deep Impact, and IIRC Dante's Peak), whereas the other is more actiony.  I'm guessing the actiony one is the one that tried to cash in on the idea, but maybe that's just me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, that's my (hopefully correct!) recollection, too. The competing producers put out a film that would steal the others' thunder (using a big name on the marquee), with a quick and dirty immitation of their more considered work.

 

Business is war. If you win the business, then winners can behave as magnanimously (or otherwise) as they want; the trick is to win, first.

 

Basically I think Kaftan needs a paradigm shift: perhaps being (or pretending to be) the person who funds a game might give some perpective on their wants, needs, biases, fears and goals.

 

As I said earlier, I have no problem with middle-men; typically that is what capitalism is all about. Normally, however, the middlemen must contribute some value in proportion to their return ... with game publishers (except for special cases) the publishers take the cake and leave just enough crumbs to prevent the developers from expiring. They take the initial sum they loaned, the interest, the expenses they incurred to loan, publish and produce the game, any incidental expenses towards that, AND the IP and all future rights to the IP. That's not fair.

 

I don't need someone to loan me money to buy a watch, whilst they wear my watch, AND charge me to tell the time.

 

usury

 

J.E. Sawyer explains

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Call of Cthulu: Dark Corners of the Earth had a fair amount of hype early in the cycle, hasn't gotten much advertisement from Bethesda at all, and got stellar reviews.  My guess is sales for that will bomb like they did with Beyond Good & Evil.  I remembered this one only because the name of our Dark God is attached to it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just like to point out I called it.

 

Why must I enjoy things that fail?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Schadenfreude

[Spider]

I find one tends to be more scientific (Deep Impact, and IIRC Dante's Peak), whereas the other is more actiony.  I'm guessing the actiony one is the one that tried to cash in on the idea, but maybe that's just me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Having seen both Armageddon and Deep Impact I have to say that I believe Armageddon took way, way longer to produce. The secenery was more advanced, the special effects much more so etc. Deep Impact may have ben more scientific, but it was kinda crappy and dull. At least Armageddon was entertaining (if you left your brain at the door).

 

And iirc Deep Impact premiered before Armageddon, at least here. So if I was to make a guess, Deep Impact was the rush job not the other way around.

[Nartwak]

IMDb has Deep Impact released on May seventh and Armageddon released on July first.

[alanschu]

I find one tends to be more scientific (Deep Impact, and IIRC Dante's Peak), whereas the other is more actiony.  I'm guessing the actiony one is the one that tried to cash in on the idea, but maybe that's just me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Having seen both Armageddon and Deep Impact I have to say that I believe Armageddon took way, way longer to produce. The secenery was more advanced, the special effects much more so etc. Deep Impact may have ben more scientific, but it was kinda crappy and dull. At least Armageddon was entertaining (if you left your brain at the door).

 

And iirc Deep Impact premiered before Armageddon, at least here. So if I was to make a guess, Deep Impact was the rush job not the other way around.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wonder if that would have more to do with the limitless pocketbook of Jerry Bruckheimer. The guy once signed a check for an insane amount of money to get an aircraft carrier to turn around so he could get a better shot of it in the sunset for Top Gun.

[metadigital]

I wonder who got the proceeds of the cheque ... "

[Volourn]

I liked both Deep impact, and Armageddon; but for different reasons. Overall, I'd give Armageddon the edge because it felt more epic and since both dealt with 'end of the world' type scenarios; epic is the feeling the movies should go for, imo.

[astr0creep]

I havent signed anything yet so, yes Sacred 2. Suppose Id go on and disclose something like that there will be X new spells..  what could that matter to anyone?

 

 

If you don't like it, don't sign it, and then don't work for them.

 

It's really that simple.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I dont work for them I get no pay and no credit. Thats hardly a choice, IMO.

 

 

 

But Im not really making a serious argument here, Im just ranting about being forced to sign lots of binding legal documents I dont want to sign and dont see the need for "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It seems to me they already broke their NDA by revealing information to you about the product and then letting you leave without signing one such document.

 

I've signed NDA's before. I really never mind about keeping my mouth shut, it's not even difficult. What bugs me about NDAs are the other stuff like "You can't work for a competitor of ours for two years after you leave your job with us". This means that all the skills I've learned throughout the years with them are useless and in order to work for the next two years I have to get some education or a crappy job I don't want.

Keeping my mouth shut for two years I don't mind at all but I should be able to work wherever I want.

[Darque]

Yikes, that's a pretty dumb rule to have... the two year thing, that is.

[alanschu]

Well, a lot of what he works on will have included proprietary code, and not proprietary code that he worked on.

 

As a business, how do you ensure that if someone quits your company, he doesn't start using that proprietary code at a different company that competes with the first business that created it?

[metadigital]

I think you'll find that six months is the maximum legally enforceable term, though (certainly in the UK it is, and I'd be very surprised if the USA was worse).

[Kaftan Barlast]

I've signed NDA's before. I really never mind about keeping my mouth shut, it's not even difficult. What bugs me about NDAs are the other stuff* like "You can't work for a competitor of ours for two years after you leave your job with us". This means that all the skills I've learned throughout the years with them are useless and in order to work for the next two years I have to get some education or a crappy job I don't want.

Keeping my mouth shut for two years I don't mind at all but I should be able to work wherever I want.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

* Thats called a CNC (Covenant Not to Compete) or simply "Non-competition clause" and it is a legal contract that IMO, should be illegal. From what Ive read, theyre only accepted in the US and only enforceable in some states.

 

 

Their purpouse is to prevent employees from leaving the company to work for another company or to start up a bussiness of their own in the same market. I suppose it makes sense from a corporate standpoint, but it is grossly unethical.

[alanschu]

Their purpouse is to prevent employees from leaving the company to work for another company or to start up a bussiness of their own in the same market. I suppose it makes sense from a corporate standpoint, but it is grossly unethical.

 

Their purpose is to prevent people from taking proprietary ideas from a company, and using them at a different company without proper permission/compensation.

[Kaftan Barlast]

But what they actually do, is to act as a deterrent for employees thinking about quitting their job in order to join another company that offers better wages/benefits/fun.

 

 

Lets say an evil company... we'll call them EA, has John the talented graphics programmer quit to join ID instead because EA forces him to work 12h a day without compensation. They dont like that, so when they manage to hire Jim the gullible programmer, they make him sign a non-compete so if he quits, hell have to work at McDonalds for 6months before he can work in the game industry again. Thus, Jim knows he will be penalized if he quits so he stays on and works 12h shifts without compensation. EA doesnt do this because they believe Jim will nick their secret Scrotum Engine

[alanschu]

Sounds like conspiracy theories.

 

I guess the 12 hour days aren't that big of a deal for Jim. And yeah, it'll definitely be a McDonald's. Because this non-competition clause would definitely shut the door to anything beyond fast food! Even if it did, maybe Jim should check his pride at the door.

 

 

Since we're going to play the conspiracy theory game, this clause also prevents evil companies...we'll call this one EA, from going after the employees of other companies and stealing them with promises of fat paycheques and excellent working conditions.

 

 

But yeah, it's definitely not because people have all sorts of access to ideas and implementation strategies that aren't their own. I mean, no person would ever dream of taknig a kickass idea that they learned at one company, and using it in a competing company that would be willing to pay them more money.

Edited June 12, 2006 by alanschu

[Fenghuang]

I dunno, when people tell me something I don't like or screw me over I generally say "F*** 'em" and walk. I live pretty impulsively and I don't think that'll change once I break into the games industry. It's certainly worked for me so far.

[Gorth]

But what they actually do, is to act as a deterrent for employees thinking about quitting their job in order to join another company that offers better wages/benefits/fun.

 

 

Lets say an evil company... we'll call them EA, has John the talented graphics programmer quit to join ID instead because EA forces him to work 12h a day without compensation. They dont like that, so when they manage to hire Jim the gullible programmer, they make him sign a non-compete so if he quits, hell have to work at McDonalds for 6months before he can work in the game industry again. Thus, Jim knows he will be penalized if he quits so he stays on and works 12h shifts without compensation. EA doesnt do this because they believe Jim will nick their secret Scrotum Engine