• Join Us |
  • |
  • Sign in with:

EA to Ubisoft: Shape Up

by Chris Remo, Feb 01, 2006 10:30am PST
Related Topics – Ubisoft

Alain Tascan, general manager of EA Montreal, sent an open letter to Ubisoft Montreal head Martin Tremblay yesterday, sharply criticizing Ubisoft's business practices in the two studios' shared home of Montreal. Tascan, on behalf of EA, takes issue with Ubisoft Montreal's use of non-compete clauses in their employment contacts, which stipulate that upon leaving Ubisoft Montreal, developers must wait one year before working elsewhere in the games industry. Ubisoft states that this is to ensure that sensitive information about development is not passed on to competitors, but EA claims that using a non-compete clause rather than simply a confidentiality or loyalty agreement is not only unnecessary, but fundamentally damaging to the game development community of Quebec.

The non-compete covenant that Ubisoft requires its employees sign greatly surpass the legitimate interests it may have in respect to confidentiality. Their only purpose is to seek to enclose within Ubisoft the talent, creativity and imagination of its employees, which is improper. The restrictive covenants that Ubisoft obligates its employees to sign force those who no longer wish to pursue their career at Ubisoft to put a hold on their career for one year which in our industry, as you know, is tantamount ending his/her career.

Moreover, the restrictive covenants Ubisoft forces its employees to sign are contrary to spirit of the salary grants and employment incentives that Quebec offers to our industry. Ubisoft receives grants from the Quebec government representing 50 percent of the wages of its employees whereas grants provided to other developers are only equivalent to about 37 percent.

In our view, it is not legitimate for Ubisoft to seek to benefit from important government grants, the object of which is the development and growth of the video game industry in Quebec, while at the same time, Ubisoft paralyzes the local development community.

Mr. Tascan further reinforces his point by noting that Ubisoft receives regional government grants for the purposes of fostering game development in Quebec. The result of Ubisoft's practices, it would seem, is that the company is fostering game development at Ubisoft Montreal exclusively, rather than throughout the province of Quebec. The specific impetus for Mr. Tascan's sharp rebuke is that EA Montreal yesterday hired an artist, formerly of Ubisoft Montreal, before the expiration of his non-compete clause. The two companies have been involved in a similar coflict before: in 2003, EA Montreal hired five former Ubisoft Montreal staffers, after which Ubisoft brought the matter to court. As Mr. Tascan notes in the letter, the courts never decisively ruled on the matter, so EA remains prepared to defend its decision. The prior proceedings ended up in a stalemate such that the staffers did not end up working for EA for a year one way or the other. For Ubisoft's part, it claims that it enforces its non-compete clause only in certain necessary cases. Apparently, the only time it has been invoked is in that 2003 case. It seems probable, however, that the company will take action against EA for this incident, particularly since the courts failed to establish a precedent in 2003. This conflict comes only 14 months after the infamous ea_spouse online journal post that put EA under the spotlight for alleged poor treatment of employees and failure to provide overtime pay. Despite this, Mr. Tascan seems to have a legitimate point against Ubisoft's practices; in an industry where technology evolves significantly at a breakneck pace, a mandatory year-long break from production after leaving a studio can be anything from an inconvenience to a huge setback for developers. However, Ubisoft seems to have no plans to alter its policy any time soon, so it's likely we will see the final resolution play out in the courts.


Read all the News


Comments

30 Threads* | 88 Comments
  • #82
    Refresh Thread
    By: DuvalMagic x
    Reply
    Non competes are very difficult to enforce and typically apply to a specific realm of either speciality or territory - rarely both. Of course, I'm less familiar with Canadian law, but one could always immigrate to Plano, TX :)

    I typically do not endorse non-competes, but I can understand why they are sometimes a useful way for a business to mitigate risk.

    In this case, Ubisoft took substantial risk in Montreal. Their risk pretty much *created* a large scale development scene in the city. Certainly, Ubisoft has had more to do with expansion of video game development in Montreal than any other private entity.

    The studio also has been very good for the interactive entertainment industry - it created Splinter Cell, after all.

    So, Ubisoft had to take a substantial up-front risk in order to build a studio and infrastructure to support large-scale game development.

    There is a cost to employees - a cost to recruiting and training.

    That cost is amortized over time.

    So, in order to mitigate the substantial risk Ubisoft was taking, they wanted to provide a pressure to employees that Ubisoft took a risk with that helped Ubisoft be confident it could amortize the recruitment, training and infrastructure costs over time.

    The pressure is to encourage these employees to not leave.

    The justification is that there was no significant game development craft expertise in Montreal prior to Ubisoft building it.

    Today, I believe there are over 1,000 people at Ubisoft's Montreal studio!

    In a nut shell, Ubisoft *created* the opportunity for industry experts to grow and exist in the city of Montreal.

    So, in return for it's investment, Ubisoft asks that those who join and become experts in the craft agree that, for one year after they leave, they will not take that expertise and put it to work in competition against Ubisoft.

    EA's motivations are about trying to make it okay to break that agreement. EA would desire to recruit the talent that Ubisoft has helped grow in Montreal and immediately put it to work for them instead. EA came to Montreal after Ubisoft, discovered a lively video game development community and realized that it's best bet for recruiting talented game developers was to try to take them from Ubisoft.
    Feb 01, 2006 4:19pm PST
  • #52
    Refresh Thread
    By: Balboa x
    Reply
    A job isn't just about money, it's about being able to excel at what you're good at, and enjoy your work.

    Developers aren't pieces of non-sentient meat - if they enjoy working where they are, the likelyhood of them leaving for somewhere else is remarkably reduced.

    The non-compete clause is a trap to limit your options when trying to leave an undesirable place of work.

    I'm not going to provide further evidence here, but I'm speaking from experience. There might be an element of pot/kettle here, but I'm really encouraged by what EA are saying. Let's hope they can walk the walk.
    Feb 01, 2006 12:51pm PST
  • #50
    Refresh Thread
    By: doghell x
    Reply
    As "good" as Ubisoft might be relative to EA im sure employees in both places have some very similar (ugly) stories to tell..

    at the end of the day theres always some massive company trying to pull as many strings as possible, and fucking over as many workers as possible, in an effort to earn more profit.

    im with EA on this one tho. NDA agreeements can last a year after departure, but you cant stop someone from working in the same industry. thats really pushing it.

    And making someone sign a document and giving them the "oh, those last couple of lines are only for emergency situations" is just way too sketchy.
    Feb 01, 2006 12:40pm PST