Games

16798 readers

727 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc..
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.

Comments.

No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works

505

US game devs celebrate as non-compete clauses, previously deemed 'a trash way to keep the talent', face a ban from the FTC—which would free up movement across the AAA industry (www.pcgamer.com)

submitted 7 months ago by nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works to c/games@sh.itjust.works

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] yamanii@lemmy.world 16 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Why give them the power anyway? And no, it wasn't thrown out everytime: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/developers-are-ready-for-noncompete-agreements-to-die

Scott Hartsman, a game development veteran who spent time as an executive at Sony, Trion Worlds, and Wargaming, was one of the few I spoke with who'd ever had a noncompete clause in his contract enforced by a former employer

[+] RedditWanderer@lemmy.world -12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Your quote makes my point:

he's an executive
one of the few to who this has ever happened
they aren't retaining the talent at the company, just its ability to go somewhere else. (They are still paid)

That's exactly what I said in my comment. They're thrown out for regular joes because it's too aggressive, we don't take money from multiple companies while not working there. Execs take garden leave that can keep going for years, they tend to want to keep them locked in during that time.

You still don't have the right to work or unions, but we're going to extend executive's ability to make money from multiple companies at the same time? This is only passing because it affects mostly the wealthy. It never held power for the average employee.

[–] yamanii@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You didn't even read, he wasn't an executive when it happened.

[+] RedditWanderer@lemmy.world -10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

And this story wasn't written when it happened, if it actually happened the way he describes it (there's no source).

I know the issues in the industry, I'm in it, and this is why the article has plenty of:

Digging up stories of developers being directly impacted by noncompetes was a little tricky. Plenty of folks had seen the language in contracts, but not many had had them actually enforced.

The story he describes as a kid is more akin to a slap suit. The IPs we build and the techs we make are still not protected by this, and the same cease and desist could be sent to a company where they think.you are using their tech.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

And this story wasn't written when it happened, if it actually happened the way he describes it (there's no source).

"Your story proves my point"

"No it doesn't"

"In that case I question its authenticity!'

[+] RedditWanderer@lemmy.world -9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So because slap suits for ridiculous reasons exists we can use them as examples for any other case?

It's funny you disregard that each argument I made is also made in the argument, and his little story is not part of the actual case, so its authenticity is irrelevant and doesn't make your point.

You've been familiar with the story for an hour, give yourself a chance.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I was simply pointing out that you were fine with the story being used in an argument when you thought it supported you, and now that it's been pointed out that it doesn't you suddenly don't think it's valid to use at all.

Really calls into question the authenticity of your arguments.

[–] RedditWanderer@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago

I'm still fine with the story and the arguments it had. I didnt change anything, his story of when he was a kid isn't part of the case, it's anecdotal.

Youre still the one who has made no arguments