
Kerbal Space Program 2 release disrupted by corporate strife - tboerstad
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-03/kerbal-space-program-2-release-disrupted-by-corporate-strife
======
PragmaticPulp
It looks like Take-Two studios didn't want to pay the the premium of having
another studio do the work, so they switched to recruiting the employees
directly instead. And it worked.

> The LinkedIn message went on to say Take-Two was setting up a new studio to
> keep working on the same game Star Theory had been developing, a sequel to
> the cult classic Kerbal Space Program. Take-Two was looking to hire all of
> Star Theory’s development staff to make that happen. “We are offering a
> compensation package that includes a cash sign-on bonus, an excellent
> salary, bonus eligibility and other benefits,” Cook wrote.

I won't go so far as to condone Take-Two's actions, but I don't see this
entirely as a negative for the employees involved if (and it's a big if) Take-
Two chose to pay the employees extra compensation and bonuses instead of
giving the money to a middleman.

As someone who went through an acqui-hire only to see our founders walk away
with millions while the employees' salaries remained unchanged, I wouldn't be
opposed companies directing those acqui-hire funds to hiring bonuses given
directly to the employees.

~~~
IMTDb
> As someone who went through an acqui-hire only to see our founders walk away
> with millions while the employees' salaries remained unchanged

I have always understood acqui-hire as "Big company sees a team of talented
devs with good cost structure (aka: manageable salaries) so they pay a one
time flat fee to get that team working on their problems"

At no point have I ever expected developers salaries to change during an aqui-
hire. They might get a boost _after_ the aqui-hire if they have trouble
retaining the devs for whatever reason. But usually the whole point of an aqui
hire is the relative low salaries of the employees compared to their
performance.

~~~
marcosdumay
> compared to their performance

That one part is key. Acqui-hires are justified because the teams display high
performance, not low cost. If the truth is that they happen for the second
reason, expect a lot of fighting back against it once the word gets out.

~~~
philipov
> _the teams display high performance, not low cost_

Performance is relative to cost; you can't have one without the other. Trying
to spin it as being only about performance is an attempt to deceive the labor.

~~~
marcosdumay
If it helps, add "abnormally" before "low" and "high".

As of now, I don't have any certainty that there is any mass deceiving going
on. Creating a team with very high performance is not easy, and it makes sense
to reward it. But if there is deceiving, it is of one of the worst possible
kinds.

------
Dayshine
> The LinkedIn message went on to say Take-Two was setting up a new studio to
> keep working on the same game Star Theory had been developing, a sequel to
> the cult classic Kerbal Space Program. Take-Two was looking to hire all of
> Star Theory’s development staff to make that happen.

I'm amazed that the contract Star Theory had with Take-Two didn't have a
clause prohibiting Take-Two from poaching employees like this.

Edit: A more general question: If I hire a consultancy company to build
something for me, would I normally be able to directly hire the employees who
did the work? That sounds like the worst possible outcome for a consultancy,
so surely contracts prohibit it!?

Edit 2: Lots of people responding that anti-competes are always bad, and I
don't disagree, but this feels slightly different.

How about:

Is it ethical for a company to deliberately cause you to be made redundant so
they can hire you? (Emailing all employees of a company make it fairly clear
it was planned)

~~~
RcouF1uZ4gsC
> I'm amazed that the contract Star Theory had with Take-Two didn't have a
> clause prohibiting Take-Two from poaching employees like this.

Please don’t use the word “poached” to describe getting employees to
voluntarily join your company by offering better compensation. Unlike animal
poaching, employee poaching is actually good for the employees being poached.
In the name of preventing “poaching” many Silicon Valley companies in the past
engaged in an illegal scheme to fix employee wages.

~~~
MattyMc
I don't think people are interpreting the term "poached" as literally as you
are. Losing an employee to a competitor is bad for a company, especially bad
for a small company, hence the negative connotation.

~~~
GuiA
"Poaching" is terminology used by recruiters/executives precisely to control
the narrative, and justify the kind of employee-hostile decisions that OP is
referring to.

It makes sense to reconsider the use of that word given that employers
competing on wages and benefits does benefit the employees.

~~~
Dayshine
Would you describe this as Poaching:

\- Finding a small zoo

\- Deliberately bankrupting them

\- Buying their animals cheap and slaughtering them

In my mind Poaching equates to using illegal or unethical means to hunt
animals. Bankrupting a zoo to rid the animals of their protection feels like
that to me.

~~~
sk0g
It's used a lot in sports, where one team "poaches exciting talent" from
another, etc. so I don't see a problem with it myself.

~~~
nogabebop23
This is not true at all. Professional athletes are all independent contractors
with explicitly defined terms of engagement and restrictions on changing
employers. They even call it "free agency". This is a different legal beast
than a standard employment agreement.

~~~
baseballdork
It is absolutely true that poaching is a common term in sports[1].

[1] [https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2023482-5-milwaukee-
buck...](https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2023482-5-milwaukee-bucks-who-
nba-teams-should-be-poaching-this-offseason)

------
neuralzen
One of my family members worked for Star Theory during this time, and turned
down job offers from Take Two in favor of loyalty, but it ended up biting them
in the ass unfortunately. They did end up with a great job elsewhere, but
still sad to hear this all went down. A reminder to look out for your own
interests, even if you like the people you work for, or at least balance them
because no one else likely will.

------
cwhiz
Important to note that Take Two is a huge, publicly traded, corporation with a
market cap of nearly $15 billion. They owned 2K Games, Rockstar, and others.

The tactics described in this article would be extremely shady from one small
business to another... but a massive corporation swooping in and basically
ruining another company? Wow.

~~~
modwest
I can't read the article. Did everyone except the developers get laid off? Or
did Take Two hire literally everyone from the smaller co?

edit: Ah I see they hired only about 1/3 of the staff.

~~~
gimmeThaBeet
> Brian Roundy, a spokesman for Private Division, said the company contacted
> “every member of the development team” at Star Theory with an invitation to
> join the new studio, called Intercept Games. “More than half of the team is
> now at Intercept Games,”

Granted it's from the mouth of T2, but it sounds like the offer was at least
more universal, and they would have preferred or at least been amenable to
absorbing the whole team.

------
bdowling
From the article:

> The contract with Take-Two was the studio’s only source of revenue at the
> time. Without it, the independent studio was in serious trouble.

> The [founders] had been in discussions about selling their company to Take-
> Two but were dissatisfied with the terms, they explained.

> Take-Two hired more than a third of Star Theory’s staff, including the
> studio head and creative director.

> By March . . . Star Theory closed its doors.

So, a small game studio played chicken with Take-Two, a $15 billion
juggernaut, and lost. Take-Two picked up the pieces.

~~~
codezero
Said a different way, a small studio tried to stand up for its developers, so
they would be rewarded for their hard work, and they got strong armed by an
industry goliath so they could keep all the profits.

~~~
toyg
It really depends on where those “royalties” were going and how they’d be
managed going forward.

Somehow I wouldn’t bet on them going to devs, but I’m just an old cynic.

------
JoeAltmaier
No loyalty nor generosity in the game business. Everybody out for a buck. Eat
or be eaten. I think that summarizes it?

~~~
tree3
Hmm? It sounds to me like there is a lot of generosity- Take Two poaching a
lot of engineers, offering them nice bonuses. The employees are the ones
winning in this story

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Because it was cheaper than dealing with their current employer. All about
controlling costs. The bonus was carefully calculated to balance the
development costs versus contract costs.

Those employees can expect precisely nothing once the game is complete, unless
coincidentally their new employer has another project they can be immediately
put to work on.

~~~
gamblor956
That would have been the same result after the game was finished either way,
given that Star was only a contractor.

At least at Take Two the employees have the possibility of working on other
games.

------
samkater
Can somebody with knowledge about how those contracts are set up comment on
what happens to the IP developed by Star Theory? I understand they were
contracted to build KSP2, but when "the project was pulled" by Take Two who
owns the development to date? Does Take Two/Infinity need to start from
scratch (with the benefit of many of the original developers) or do they
essentially get to go forward with whatever the latest development version was
available?

~~~
saberdancer
Usually when you are contracted to develop something custom, you do not own
the IP but rather the company that you are building it for. I doubt this is
any different here.

There are possibilities that it is arranged differently, for example if the IP
you are developing can be used multiple times the company that ordered the IP
may want to offer you the rights to distribute and use it further, for a
discount, but it is very unlikely a game would make sense for this.

~~~
shkkmo
> Usually when you are contracted to develop something custom, you do not own
> the IP but rather the company that you are building it for.

While it can get messy, generally the IP belongs to the original creators
unless otherwise stipulated by contract. Most likely, Star Theory gained
ownership of the IP created by their employees via employment contracts. The
contract between Take Two and Star Theory would then stipulate the conditions
underwhich Star Theory gives that IP to Take Two.

How and when that IP gets assigned should be a part of any such contract
negotiations and not something you should gloss over or sign blindly.

------
WrtCdEvrydy
If these are the people that dicked over the original team on bonuses and are
now getting karma... then good riddance.

~~~
marcinzm
The original developer (Squad) was bought by Take-Two who then contracted Star
Theory to develop KSP2. Take-Two then screwed over Star Theory.

Or in other words, same people who dicked over the original team, now dicked
over another team, and probably have enough content done to still make a
financial killing in the process. Given the pandemic I suspect they'll hire on
the rest of the Star Theory team at a steep discount as well.

~~~
Cthulhu_
I heard Squad screwed over the developers of KSP as well, their wages were low
compared to how successful the game was.

~~~
mhh__
[https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/55xv60/kerbal_space...](https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/55xv60/kerbal_space_program_developers_only_paid_2400/)
(thread with some sources)

Squad were paying the original developers next to nothing for working full
time on KSP

------
spiritplumber
I wonder how Felipe feels like about it. I helped a little with the wheels way
back when (and sent the dev team a rover when they finished!)

------
everyone
Damn. I was really looking forward to that game. I love KSP but the original
is so janky with memory leaks / slowdown / physics craziness, the bigger the
mission you try, the less fun it is. The same game but with its own custom-
made engine learning from the previous game would have been great.

Anyway no way I can buy it now and support that.. Also even if I just pirate
it, its probably gonna turn out shite anyway now with giant publisher running
everything.

------
speeder
Can someone show me a non paywall version of this? KSP is fairly important to
me. (I studied with KSP author, and told him when in college, that a game like
what he promised to create was impossible. KSP was among other things, him
proving me wrong)

~~~
gnulinux
I'm curious why did you think it was impossible?

~~~
Cthulhu_
KSP takes some liberties with physics, simplifying things so that e.g. the
N-body does not apply (that is, your craft are only affected by one body at
once). Other challenges are the scale and number precision. It doesn't get it
exactly right either, especially when you use the time accelleration, things
can go a bit... weird. See
[https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Deep_Space_Kraken](https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Deep_Space_Kraken)

~~~
mrfredward
There may not be an analytic solution, but solving the n-body problem
numerically with newtonian physics isn't a difficult thing to do...it's simple
enough that it has been used as a benchmark for doing computations:
[https://benchmarksgame-
team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...](https://benchmarksgame-
team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/performance/nbody.html)

~~~
ben-schaaf
I'm sure they know this. The problem is that n-body simulations don't scale
well with simulation speed. In KSP you can speed up time by up to 100,000x,
which is essential for gameplay. If you want the same accuracy for n-body at
that speed, you'll also need to do 100,000x the calculations. Whereas with
KSPs simplified model you can calculate the position in orbit at arbitrary
points in time, making 100,000x just as computationally expensive as 10x.

~~~
e_y_
From a gameplay perspective, there isn't much sense in a full N-body
simulation. Players only care about their spacecraft, which is a restricted
three-body problem (small spacecraft, massive gravitational bodies) outside of
special cases like gravity tractors. And the simplified two-body SOI worked
pretty well in practice.

In any case, the bigger gameplay problem tends to be the vehicle physics
simulation, where you have hundreds+ parts interacting and not in the most
stable fashion especially above 2x time warp. That's the part that seemed
amazing when KSP first came out, moreso than the orbital simulation (although
the solar system exploration clinched the overall experience).

~~~
perl4ever
I haven't played the game, and I don't know if it _matters_ , but I would
think that considering the processing necessary for attractive graphics in
today's world, doing the physics right would have a cost too small to
practically measure.

I don't understand how something that could easily be done on an 8 MHz
computer in 1985 could strain a modern machine. Especially if you look up a
decent algorithm and don't do the naive one.

Maybe there is some misunderstanding. Like, "n-body" to me doesn't imply a
detailed simulation of inhomogenities in the celestial objects, like in real
life they talk about mascons and such when landing on the moon. I'm assuming
it's just that you calculate the forces of each body on every other body. And
while you can do better than a simple N^2 calculation, if you have less than a
dozen what does it matter?

------
rendall
It was a sleazy thing to do, at least as Bloomberg describes it, but this time
it won the day.

... I'm not sure that Take Two wins the war, though. Now other development
companies will be more wary about working with them.

------
richardwhiuk
Normally these contracts have a no-poaching clause to prevent this.

------
shmerl
Take Two decided to outdo EA in destroying studios.

Wasn't original Kerbal Space Program made by Squad? I'm glad they released it
for Linux. I doubt Take Two will do the same.

~~~
staz
Squad totally abused the original dev see the other comments in the thread.
Take Two have some Linux games (mainly Civ, Borderland and X-Com)

------
z3t4
The game has gone worse since the original developers left. More and more bugs
that ruins game-play. I guess the game still sells good though.

------
neonate
[https://archive.md/IWOo5](https://archive.md/IWOo5)

------
beckingz
Given how badly Star Theory performed on planetary annihilation, I have
minimal sympathy for the company.

Still, the hardball tactics by Take-Two is sad to see.

~~~
ThrowawayR2
Oh it's _them_? Wow, hadn't heard that Uber Entertainment had changed their
name.

(Planetary Annihilation was not a bad game; it just wasn't the Total
Annihilation / Supreme Commander sequel that people were expecting.)

~~~
beckingz
It wasn't a bad game. Definitely.

That said, they over promised and under delivered on the original, and then
had a stand alone expansion (Planetary Annihilation: Titans) that finally
filled most of the promises.

I recall that at first they did a bad job of supporting players who had pre-
ordered, but eventually walked it back and gave kickstarter supporters the
expansion for free and early purchasers large discounts.

