EA, Ubisoft trade fire over hire

  • By Curt Feldman, GameSpot
  • Posted Jan 31, 2006 5:48 pm PT

Need for Speed maker calls out Splinter Cell developer's use of non-compete clauses; Ubi says it needs to "evaluate" situation.

The Canadian winters may be cold, but inside the boardrooms of Montreal's two biggest game developers, Electronic Arts and Ubisoft, the temperatures are reaching the boiling point.

Today, after hiring an Ubisoft artist to join its Montreal studio, game publisher Electronic Arts fired off a damning letter criticizing Ubisoft Montreal's policy of requiring all staff to sign a non-compete clause. The clause seeks to prevent any employee from taking a job with another game company for one year after leaving Ubisoft.

The subject recalls a legal case brought in August of 2003 by Ubisoft in Canadian courts. Then, Ubisoft charged five former employees with violating the non-compete agreement after the artists accepted jobs with Electronic Arts' Montreal studio.

While the two companies sparred in court, the would-be EA employees sat on the sidelines, unable to work. And while that case was never fully concluded, the de facto winner was Ubisoft, since courts ultimately upheld a temporary restraining order preventing the staffers from working on any EA game. It was a full year after they left Ubisoft before they were allowed to do so.

Today's letter has rekindled the war of words between the two publishers. "I am shocked," Ubisoft Montreal president and general manager Martin Tremblay said in a telephone interview tonight. "They accuse us of blocking the expansion of the [game] industry in Quebec. ... Have they lost their minds?"

In a statement, Electronic Arts wrote that it "perceives this practice [of non-compete clauses] as a constraint on the creative freedom of the individual employee," as well as "a severe limitation on the growth of the multi-media industry in Quebec." The statement says the non-compete clause--a business practice that is legal in Quebec-- is "contrary to the spirit of the salary grants that Quebec offers to the industry which are designed to stimulate growth and creative freedom."

Tremblay said he first learned of the letter from members of the press seeking comment. The letter, signed by his former colleague Alain Tascan (EA Montreal's general manager) was sent to Tremblay as well as EA's local attorneys of record, the Montreal law firm of Heenan Blaikie.

However, if EA is girding for another legal battle it may have picked the wrong time to put up its dukes. "We use [the non-compete] if we feel the people [leaving] have too much information," Tremblay said. Because he has yet to know who EA has hired, he said the company would first evaluate the situation before taking any steps.

Tremblay did make one item perfectly clear: In the eight years Ubisoft Montreal has been in operation, the developer has chosen to seek enforcement of the clause only once, in the case that was brought in 2003. At no other time--over years that have averaged 5 percent turnover, according to Tremblay--has Ubisoft been driven to seek enforcement.

"We don't want to block our people from working in the game industry," Tremblay said today. "We act only if necessary."

To support his company's use of a non-compete clause, Tremblay reflected on the new Activision operation in Montreal, claiming Activision, adapting to the business environment in Quebec, instituted a similar policy of requiring local talent to sign non-competes as a condition of employment. At press time, Activision had not responded to an e-mail request to confirm that policy.

In any case, EA is ready. "If they sue us, we will always defend our position and our people," a US EA rep said today. Tascan, however, was more diplomatic. "We're not picking a fight. My intention [with the letter] is to give the ability to any game developer in Quebec an interview at EA, and hire them if that's what they want. ... We want to be sure anybody can work anywhere they want."

57 Comments

  • ROCKINGFOOL

    Posted Feb 5, 2006 10:33 am PT

    ea is the largest game publisher in the world but they still suck

  • Cligini

    Posted Feb 3, 2006 8:11 am PT

    Ok what??

  • Kravyn81

    Posted Feb 1, 2006 8:14 pm PT

    Meanwhile people are starving in the world, but nevermind that, THIS is THE big crisis of the year.

    WHO CARES.

  • allmybase

    Posted Feb 1, 2006 2:49 pm PT

    The only reason EA is doing this is because they have a nice chunk of stock in Ubisoft. If EA didn't own part of Ubi, I honestly doubt there would be a reason for them to cry out like this. But, by my guess, the clause is a threat to EA and is perhaps being interpreted as yet ANOTHER sign that Ubi isn't too terribly happy with the relationship it has with EA.

  • Jared_Vegeta

    Posted Feb 1, 2006 1:56 pm PT

    Ok, I know that EA isn't just trying to ensure the freedom that employs can work anywhere they wont. Their obviously trying to start something with Ubi. EA really should just stay out of things like this because it only fuels the hate that people already have for EA. And besides, Ubi makes Splinter Cell, one of the greatest games ever!

  • Morfanos

    Posted Feb 1, 2006 1:37 pm PT

    Well...I have a friend who chosed EA because UBI have this thing in their contract. Why did EA montreal was created in montreal? Because it was created by former UBI montreal staff members who could not stand the work condition at UBI. I don't like EA pretty much but from what I know from EA montreal, for now at least, they're far from what EA normally stand for.

  • XlpranksterlX

    Posted Feb 1, 2006 12:23 pm PT

    I would hate to think that EA is doing this to cause ubisoft to lose money in expenses and fees...
    but regardless if its stated in the contract than i guess its valid.

  • sofy

    Posted Feb 1, 2006 11:16 am PT

    Well I do understand Ubi's point of not wanting their best ppl going to work for EA. BUT also to consider those employee’s side,,,, If some artists/programmers/designers are leaving Ubi, they prolly have some good reason. Salary? Too much overtime? Personal opinions conflits?
    It's not only about games Ubi Vs EA, but also about ppl.

  • JonathanNash

    Posted Feb 1, 2006 10:48 am PT

    I don't hate EA per se, they're just a business with the goal of making money. If crap games are a means to that goal, then what do they care. Not everyone in the industry has to love gaming, for some all it is is a means to an end. And besides, people who buy EA games still have a choice of whether to buy something or not. If everyone hated them that much they'd be out of business by now. Having said that, I don't particularly 'like' them.

  • jeeeeeeee

    Posted Feb 1, 2006 8:52 am PT

    Being a lawyer (from Montreal, on top of that!), I would say that at first sight, the stipulation of non-competition ("clause de non-concurrence" in French) is invalid. This case went to the Court of Appeal and Ubisoft won, in October of 2003. Although I haven't read it and I don't know exactly what the litigation was about.

    A stipulation of non-competition is legal, but a tribunal can downgrade it or completely void it if it is found abusive or too restrictive. This is why lawyers are usually VERY careful with that kind of stipulation in an employment contract. The classic example of abuse would be to say that the employee, upon leaving, connat work in ANY company doing the same kind of business ANYWHERE for 5 years. Any court of law would tear down that clause. A good formulation would be something along the lines of "you can't work for a competitor in a radius of 100 miles for 3 years". Depending on the type of industry or cemmerce, the radius and the number of years can vary. From what I hear, EA's contracts refer to 1 year, and has no geographic limitation. I understand that this is an international business, but I would call it abusive and I would tone it down a bit if EA were my client.

    By the way, professional obligation... this was in no way a legal opinion.

    Also, I liked the comment from Ubisoft saying something along the lines of "We created 700 new jobs in Montreal, while EA created 70". So long for stalling innovation!

    j.

  • ParallaxAbstraction

    Posted Feb 1, 2006 8:05 am PT

    I love how EA has the nerve of talking how Ubisoft are the ones contraining creative freedom. Of course, EA leaves out how they recruit Ubisoft employees by offering them a significantly higher salary, but don't tell them that when their project is over (after they have to spend many more months in crunch time than most other teams), they'll either be told to drop to a much lower salary or be laid off. They also make a practice of purposefully trying to recruit people off of active projects in order to delay their development and cause financial harm to their competitors (hence why they offer the initial higher salary.) EA's got no high ground in criticizing the laboru practices of almost anyone else (save perhaps those publishers that use Russian sweat-shop labour.)

  • ufopuller

    Posted Feb 1, 2006 6:59 am PT

    Ah, er, gettin' rid of deadwood (hopefully management)

  • chrisdojo

    Posted Feb 1, 2006 5:00 am PT

    that's ea for ya.

  • MedevilDragon

    Posted Feb 1, 2006 4:24 am PT

    Score: Ubisoft - 1, EA - 0

  • borashed

    Posted Feb 1, 2006 2:58 am PT

    read this and you will hate EA more

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/business/yourmoney/21digi.html?
    ex=1258693200&en=40a60cc6d7971ab2&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

  • borashed

    Posted Feb 1, 2006 1:48 am PT

    magus704

    {Phil, people hate EA cause they only work on small incremental improvements on their sports titles, buy big time licenses, like movie games, and then go ahead with turning those lcensed products into generic, mediocre action games that appeal to the lowest common denominator. Leaving us, the guys that actually care about games, scratching our heads as to why these games sell so well, and far better games do not}.

    coud not agree more!!!!!

    EA got zilionn copies of same material over and over look at thier yearly sport games and thier ugly nfs games

  • mikekare79

    Posted Feb 1, 2006 12:07 am PT

    Ubisoft does not want anyone leaving within their 1st year, yet they recruit people within their 1st year. Not right. Not Ethical.

  • mikekare79

    Posted Feb 1, 2006 12:06 am PT

    I like Ubisoft better. That said, EA is right.

  • jakeboudville

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 11:31 pm PT

    I'm with Ubisoft

  • Chibi

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 11:20 pm PT

    well maybe it's because ubi soft exploit their employee... I mean maybe I know a thing or two about that...

  • mkdc

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 10:43 pm PT

    good job Ubisoft, when you hired those employees and they accepted to sign those contracts, they need to respect the clauses. If it claims they can't work for a competing company for a year, then they should find something else while waiting. Otherwise, it might become the guy which left Microsoft for Google, and reveal all MS strategies and all that to Google. Afterall, EA is the master at copying other game companies!

  • Haziqonfire

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 10:12 pm PT

    ubisoft made pop games.. go ubisofT!

  • pcmacro

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 10:10 pm PT

    Screw EA, Ubisoft is the best. Funny thing is that I live in montreal. It's good to see the power in the videogame business is in montreal.

  • Voltaris

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 10:05 pm PT

    Take two of the biggest game companies, put 2 of thier studios 1km apart and this is what's happening.

    EA came in Montreal for only one reason: the excellence of Ubisoft's Montreal Studios. Ubi is not in Vancouver nor Toronto; why EA came in Mtl instead of Toronto?

    Who started the war?

  • drangel_jam

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 9:19 pm PT

    Money Talks. More moeny more probs. At the end it's all about the benjamins.
    They are both right, and also wrong.

  • plasmatron

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 9:05 pm PT

    In any industry, as an employee gains experience, he becomes more productive, so he gains worth on the job market. This means his salary gets higher. At least, in the capitalist system in which we live (now we dont want communism, dont we?). But if someone is stuck behind a non-competive clause, he cannot negotiate his salary as he gets more experienced since he cannot go work for another company that could pay more. All the while, his employer cheaply benifits from his acquired experience. And this experience belongs to the employee, not the compagnie that hired him. Although EA is not the most innovative game developper, Ubisoft is quite unfair quite its employees. Such practises in the game industry is totally against freedom.

  • MetaMods

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 8:21 pm PT

    EA spend more times make a great game instead of keep sueing ppl and buying every companys out.......SEROIUSLY spend more times on your game!!!

  • mukuyaku

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 8:09 pm PT

    I think that non-compete clauses are a totally legitimate way to protect your business interests, as long as they are not unreasonably restrictive as to the area in which the person is not allowed to compete, the time period, and the activities that they cannot engage in.

    I mean, at the very least the employee got a lot of experience working for Ubisoft which is what made them desirable to EA to begin with. Coincidentally, EA is also the devil.

  • jeebs213

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 7:53 pm PT

    I agree with just about every EA basher in here. EA needs to be taken down before it ruins the game industry with generic franchises and watered down game mechanics. The least it could do would be to quit trying to gobble up any publisher that actually tries to be unique. Since EA's failed in late 2005 to aquire Ubisoft it's instead attempting to go under the radar and steal Ubisofts creative development teams. Have you seen the Black screenshots? EA's obviously trying to copy Ubi's style. Even Need for Speed Most Wanted has Ubi's trademark darker tones. Why don't you come up with your own ideas EA?!!!!

  • 8bitantichrist

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 7:47 pm PT

    It's pretty funny seeing EA throw stones at a company for being unfair to employees after they just lost a 15.6 million dollar lawsuit for bad working conditions.

  • avadine

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 7:45 pm PT

    I love UBI! They are a great company that still takes risks and produces top shelf product. See, it can be done!

  • Entropis

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 7:45 pm PT

    I think a lot of people are confusing a non-disclosure with a non-competing clause. Almost every job in every field you have non-disclosure agreements and those are rock solid, if you break it the lawsuit can tear down even EA. But a non-competition clause pretty much has been in the grey area on whether or not it is legitimate or not. What it means is that Ubisoft might have fired these developers and programmers and EA hired them and so Ubisoft is trying to hassle EA. I'm pretty sure in the US EA would win the case but don't know much about the Canadian justice system.

  • Orasion_Seiz

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 7:35 pm PT

    im with EA all the way

  • hush404

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 7:31 pm PT

    Argh! EA pushing their weight around again! It's simple! Ubisoft places the clause into effect if they consider the employee (who's leaving Ubisoft) to have too much info on current/ upcomming Ubisoft games which could be given to EA (a competitor). It makes complete sane sense and EA has no right to challenge it like this and accuse Ubisoft Montreal of "blocking the expansion of the [game] industry in Quebec ..." Which is bonkers! Ubisoft is the only reason game development exists in Quebec! They have done (& continue to do so) wonders for gaming development in Quebec and Canada as a country.

  • Smartiepants

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 7:29 pm PT

    EA is a gigantic monster that's gradually swallowing everything and everyone in the games industry. IT MUST BE STOPPED!!!

  • elvisapresley

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 7:27 pm PT

    [This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

  • elvisapresley

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 7:27 pm PT

    I have no love of EA, but I hope they win the case 'cause I'm against extended no-compete clauses in employment contracts. A company trying to protect its interests is one thing, but barring individuals from making a living (and pursuing the best options open to them) is a bad practice.

  • thekey

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 7:14 pm PT

    I HATE E A! They make the worst games ever and they know it thats why they try to buy up ever license and hire every talented game artist they can find. EA stinks! Burn EA Burn!

  • Snipes33

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 7:00 pm PT

    Ubi>*>EA

  • NeoJedi

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 6:59 pm PT

    Ubi is right in this case, those 2 guys should've never have signed that non-compete clause. Those 2 must have info that Ubi doesn't want leaked out.

  • Game-o_O

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 6:48 pm PT

    Those that love fantasy games, go onto working at gaming studios and making uber for money. Those that love sports games, go onto being a couch potato. There's no inovation in games that simulate what you can actually do in your back yard. Sure they're fun, & drain months at a time from your life to complete. Thats because you do the same repetative thing over & over.

  • Game-o_O

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 6:46 pm PT

    No, they read it. You're just being baised against biased people. Hypocrite. - EA at it again I see? They just wanna know what Ubisoft is planning, who would want to work at EA? What do they make thats inovating? Omg, the best thing they have is a racing game! [The newest inovation was getting chased by cops for.. being a danger to the street omg!] - God, I hate people that only by systems to buy EA's crappy remake of every single sports game, every single year. Unlike fantasy games; YOU CAN PLAY THOSE SPORTS IN REAL LIFE O_O!

  • davahsa

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 6:42 pm PT

    As much as I hate EA, Ubi-soft's rendition of a Peter Jackson flick was worse. Sorry Pete. I'm glad you like Ancile but Kong the game was crappy when compared to the flick where-as Return ot King was pretty cool and The Fellowship introduced to the gaming world how cut sceans from movies should be used. Plus didn't those sell a hell of a lot more? Any way.... just to even things out.....I hate you EA for taking away my NFL2k just before the next-gen started! Burn in H-E-double-hockey-sticks!

  • Sturm08

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 6:40 pm PT

    I'm amused at the comments. People didn't even read the article. They just saw "EA" in the headlines and went and jumped on the trash EA bandwagon.

  • magus704

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 6:36 pm PT

    Phil, people hate EA cause they only work on small incremental improvements on their sports titles, buy big time licenses, like movie games, and then go ahead with turning those lcensed products into generic, mediocre action games that appeal to the lowest common denominator. Leaving us, the guys that actually care about games, scratching our heads as to why these games sell so well, and far better games do not.

  • kaito2

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 6:30 pm PT

    I don't really care who "wins" (I really haven't been that impressed with either as of late), but clearly Ubi Soft has more legal ground to stand on than EA. Since the employees working for Ubi Soft agreed to the terms of their contracts, EA really has no basis for any legal action. Although, I would add that such clauses probably limit the number of talented people who would want to work for those companies.

  • Phil120

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 6:25 pm PT

    y does everybody hate EA?

  • Jab_Jackal

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 6:25 pm PT

    Comon EA! Boo Ubisoft! You killed my Rainbow Six! Made it all girley.

  • Phil120

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 6:25 pm PT

    [This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

  • i_love_my_ds

    Posted Jan 31, 2006 6:22 pm PT

    this is the dumbest thing ever. why are they so competitive? oh well at least there is competition.

advertisement

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Tags

ea   ubisoft

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!