PS3 Fired Developer Interview

[bapenguin]

PS3 Week (http://www.ps3week.com/blogs/ps3week.php?title=title_6&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1) has an interview up with Josh Robinson. Who is Josh Robinson? He's an artist that was working on a Sony title and voiced his opinion about the PS3. Now he doesn't have a job.

You made some pretty big waves, at least in the gaming press, with your article about PS3 development. Tell us how your life has changed since that article, and what you’re working on now.

Yea I can’t believe how out of control everything got. It’s absolutely absurd how the internet can take something relatively harmless and turn it into something so insane.

Let me first just say, all I really did was write a few paragraphs that gave my opinion on publicly released information. I never actually released any information. After reading my small article the reader is not any more informed about the PS3 than he was before the article. I didn’t reveal any tech info and I didn’t reveal different shipping plans. I’m still in awe at the whole uproar over what amounts to NO information.

My life has changed a lot since the article. I was let go at Sony after the article was plopped on the desk of Sony corporate. I was also asked to remove the article immediately. (Which I did without any resistance.)
Note to self: Do not talk bad about the company you are currently employed with on the internet.

[Vandenh]

Note to self: never have an opinion that the suits don't like. In fact... better to have no opinion at all, that is the best way to survive in corporate ass kissing.

[fitbabits]

I just read about this. As my dear mother says, "if you can't say anything nice about someone, don't say anything at all."

Would he have been fired had he released some hitherto unavailable positive news about the PS3? Nae chance.

Would he have been fired for slamming the Xbox 360? Nope.

Note to Josh - Microsoft are currently hiring for Xbox 360 development staff. What better way to stick it to SONY than to work for their biggest rival and contribute to a monster title? Unless, of course, you signed a no-compete contract. :rolleyes:

[Reanimated]

Poor bastard. Sucks that he got fired for trying to get the truth out. I guess the truth is not allowed in Kuturagi's dream world of lies where PS2's will "jack you into the matrix"... :(

[Scaryboy]

Come on, if I went out and publicly talked crap about my employers, I'd be out the door quick as a flash. If I ran a company and one of my employees started talking crap about us publicly, they'd be out on their ass. These guys are responsible for keeping this stuff under lock and key and a lot of money is at stake. The guy was just looking for some online bragging rights and he got owned.

[KidCactus]

Not being authorized to comment on rumors and such is VERY common in large companies, no shocker here.

[rein]

I think he is a pampas ass. Nothing wrong with that, just that he is one. I think it might be a little telling that he mentions in this interview that he was already "bored" at Sony and was planning to leave any way. I think that might have something to do with his idiotic choice to trash his companies flagship product just before release.

[Borys]

Poor bastard. Sucks that he got fired for trying to get the truth out. I guess the truth is not allowed in Kuturagi's dream world of lies where PS2's will "jack you into the matrix"... :(

I still remember those AOL on PS2 shots.

As much as I love my PS2 Sony is a bunch of liars.

[disc]

He's just an artist and it seems he was just whining about features that werent working on the devkits he had seen.

The way it sounds he is an amazing versatile artist and all the other experienced artists can only use one program.

Way to go dude.

[Salesmunn]

He deserved to get fired. Imagine if it was your company?

[jeffool]

I have imagined if it was my company, by which I mean the company I work for. Imagine if it was the company you work for, Salesmunn. If you said something bad about your product/service on your own time, do you deserve to get fired? The people who pay you deserve your work during the time that they pay you for, nothing else. They should not be entitled to your undying loyalty on your personal time.

[kokyunage]

Poor bastard. Sucks that he got fired for trying to get the truth out. I guess the truth is not allowed in Kuturagi's dream world of lies where PS2's will "jack you into the matrix"...

Don't be an idiot. The truth is not allowed in any corporate environment. This includes Microsoft as well.

[Grimgrock]

Yup. The lesson here is don't talk bad about your company by name on the Interweb. Especially if you are a "public figure" like some developers could be thought of.

If I were MS, I would think twice about hiring a guy who would talk bad about their employer in such a public fashion. Ethically speaking.

[darkwarrior]

People, think sensibly now.


This isn't a sony thing. Its a fucking business thing. If you are employed by someone and publicly bad mouth them, be it Sony, Microsoft, McDonalds or a local magazine shop, you're going to be fired. The guy deserved what he got, you don't bite the hand thats paying for your home, car and possibly family.

[jeffool]

Don't be an idiot. The truth is not allowed in any corporate environment. This includes Microsoft as well.Lord knows I don't want to stand up for Microsoft, the poster child of "Fuck You" brand capitalism, but they don't freak out when their employees bring iPods to work. And if you've read any MS employee blog, while MS apparently encouranges the use of MSN 'Spaces', seeing posts like "I really think Microsoft is crazy for doing this. We need to be doing xxx." is not uncommon.The guy deserved what he got, you don't bite the hand thats paying for your home, car and possibly family.Hah! No paper I signed when I was employed at my current job (a local telvision/news station) said anything about only speaking positive of our news, the station, or any of our other programming. The show Inside Edition is a fucking joke. That we occassionally show the 'water skiing squirrel' on our newscast is a travesty and an embarrassment to anyone in our organization that would call themselves journalists. So, do I deserve to be fired?

[Nadreck]

Lord knows I don't want to stand up for Microsoft, the poster child of "Fuck You" brand capitalism, but they don't freak out when their employees bring iPods to work.

Funny you should mention that: last year, there was a memo circulated at Microsoft about not wearing your iPod around the campus. Not sure if it made it to the net, but I was living in the area at the time and heard all about it.

I've seen a lot of polarization already in this thread, but the question I have is: how many of you actually read the article before it was taken down? It's one thing to discuss frustrations you have without revealing confidential information, and it's another to slander the company or break confidentiality agreements. One is acceptable and should be encouraged at least on an internal level, the other is grounds for release and possibly further legal action.

An example of it being encouraged and used positively is the MS blogs. While there IS quite a bit of "towing the company line", they are given a fair amount of leeway in what they are allowed to talk about, and it's not always sunshine and roses.

[Captain Awesome]

Note to self: Do not talk bad about the company you are currently employed with on the internet.

Yes you can, its called http://www.fatbabies.com/ :D

[AniAko]

Note to self: Do not talk bad about the company you are currently employed with on the internet.

It's a good thing I'm not employed at Infinium labs, Electronic Arts, Sony, ***, Yahoo, AOL, Cingular, .....fucking cingular

[EternalGamer]

We all know that in reality, many companies won't stand fo you doing this. But why do so many of you think he "deserves" it? YOu are essentially legitimating this activity. How many of you want to work for a company where you have to be 24/7 walking PR for a company in your personal lives? It's immoral, in my opinion. They don't own you. They don't own your life. They pay you for the job you do when you are at the job. I know in the corporations "perfect world," everything would revolve around them all the time. I definitelly see how this might be "bad" or less productive for a company to allow employees to speak their minds. But why should the world be perfect for companies? Why does what is good for a company matter more than the people that work for it?

I wish we could read the actual article to see what he said, but since I have no evidence to the contrary, I take his word for it that he did not break any NDAs and that he showed it to other employees first to verify that fact. This does not at all sound like a guy with a grudge that wants to stick to his company. In fact, he overwhelmingly praises Sony in the interview constantly. He came off as being very self assured and honest to me. I am amazed at how many people feel obligated to side with a company's PR agenda rather than an individual's right to express himself in his own freetime. Again, is that the type of corporate world you really want to live in? Do you have more sympathies for marketing than for people? I am not trying to be a radical reformer here, but companies only get to control every aspect of your life if you accept that as their right. They certainly don't have the legal right to do so.

Dan

[The Letter 3]

I smell a revolution in the air... *Distributes Marxist literature*

[jeffool]

I think most of the willingness to bend over for people with more money comes from the idea that Salesmunn put forth. "Imagine if it was your company." It seems that many people believe that they will one day be one of the Rich and Famous, and choose to view life from that perspective. Maybe all of you guys are millionaires, but I'm sure as fuck not, and I have no delusions that I ever will be. I've accepted that, and that allows me to think of things from what I believe is a more 'common' perspective. But hey, maybe I'm just full of myself

[Bubby]

Note to self: Do not talk bad about the company you are currently employed with on the internet.

Yes you can, its called http://www.fatbabies.com/ :D

Good one. Site hasn't been updated since July 21, 2005.

[Steele Johnson]

If you want to keep your job, don't talk shit about your company over the Internet. I don't understand why he is surprised that he lost his job. Maybe he's just dumb.

[EternalGamer]

Jeffool, that's a good point. But it still surprises me that people find it more instinctive to sympathize with the owners of the company over the person that is in a position probably much like their own. That sounds like some type of an economic S&M complex or something.

Dan

[Captain Awesome]

Good one. Site hasn't been updated since July 21, 2005.


An even better one, is that the forums are still fairly active :)

[AspectVoid]

The company I work for has a policy (not paper signed, but delivered by the prez) that we are not to talk bad about our flaws or our competition's flaws. We've gained a number of contracts because our clients told us that we presented our product while all the compition did was talk shit about us. It seems a fairly reasonable policy to me.

I find it very reasonable that an email went out to employees of Sony, MS, etc that say "Do not speak bad about us or else." And, honestly, that's all that's really needed.

[Dracula-X]

We don't know if he was in violation of an NDA or not, but more importantly, making claims about a console not even on the market based on pre-production/beta units, drawing comparisons to a direct competitor, etc is extremely bad form - it doesn't matter what company you work for, you just don't behave this way without consequence. I see some claims about immorality and such, but your relationship with your employer bears unforseen responsibilities. Unfounded comments can (unfairly) have an effect on stockholders/market/value/consumer confidence and a dozen other things people don't think about or see down the road. Despite what some *** apologists here might pretend, *** wouldn't tolerate this either. Nor would any other consumer electronics company. Lastly, the guy comes off like a douchebag, but that's my insignificant opinion. So yeah, I think firing him was the right thing to do. And the way he burns bridges, you think another firm would risk him flapping his lips on their products? I personally wouldn't hire someone who pulled a stunt like this.

[CrysDark]

Corporations are not democracies, and anyone who expects to be able to speak negatively about who you work for, keep you job, and call it free speech is ridiculous. There is not a company I have ever worked for that would tolerate even the stock-boy or mailroom employee doing such a thing.

I can't believe the people in here trying to defend this guy. If he was my employee I would have fired him too. Posting negative information about my company in the internet will affect my sales, and if I don't get paid my family doesn't get fed, so you’re damn right I would fire someone in my employ who would do that.

Wow, just wow at some of you people...

[EternalGamer]

This thread depresses me alot. It seems that corporations really have won the hearts and minds of the American people. People think about them and their productivity and sympathize with them before they think about individuals and their right to have a personal life with personal opinions. I am aware that this is not a freedom of speech issue. It's an employee rights issue. When did we start feeling that company productivity is more important than people being able to tell the truth. This type of insular thinking is how Enron happens, guys.

Dan

[AniAko]

Corporations are not democracies, and anyone who expects to be able to speak negatively about who you work for, keep you job, and call it free speech is ridiculous. There is not a company I have ever worked for that would tolerate even the stock-boy or mailroom employee doing such a thing.

I can't believe the people in here trying to defend this guy. If he was my employee I would have fired him too. Posting negative information about my company in the internet will affect my sales, and if I don't get paid my family doesn't get fed, so you’re damn right I would fire someone in my employ who would do that.

Wow, just wow at some of you people...

Termination is not the only way to handle an employee's behavior. The damage had already been done, so firing an employee for a heinous act like this after the fact is mearly for piece of mind and redemption. In fact in this situation I believe it might have hurt Sony's image more on top of the article. Although without knowing the intimate details (this guy could have some clause in the terms of his employment he violated that dictates immediate termination), only the Sony internals know what the aftermath is becoming. More over, I know some execs are sometimes no more mature than a whiney, bitchy, bratty 6 year old. Maybe his old boss's boss was just having a bad day and this was the icing on the cake.

Considering the motion to terminate this guy seemed immediate, it seems Sony is cleaning up and perhaps covering up what they feel is detrimental to the project's future. Decisions made in haste could mean Sony's under some extreme pressure.

Then again, look at Nintendo, all their employees talk highly about their products. Is it all hype? I don't believe so. I'd like to think that at least half of the reason for their products appraisal is because the product is just that good.

Then again you have Infinium Labs who are trying to sell ice cube trays at an ice machine maker convention. They totallly buy in to their own propaganda no matter what the reality of their product is.

Maybe Sony's actually selling crap this time around? If their employees think so, maybe it's true. Of course this is the message Sony is afraid of being conveyed by the article, but like I said, the damage is already done.

[karak]

Termination is not the only way to handle an employee's behavior. The damage had already been done, firing an employee for a heinous act is not always the best decision. In fact in this situation I believe it might have hurt Sony's image more on top of the article. Although without knowing the intimate details, only the Sony internals know what the aftermath is becoming. More over, I know some execs are sometimes no more mature than a whiney, bitchy, bratty 6 year old. Maybe his old boss's boss was just having a bad day and this was the icing on the cake.

Considering the motion to terminate this guy seemed immediate, it seems Sony is cleaning up and perhaps covering up what they feel is detrimental to the project's future. Decisions made in haste could mean Sony's under some extreme pressure.

Thats a very good way of putting it. Where I work we are not controlled like a police state, but the managers are very into keeping track of employee moral even of those things that they can not change. Discussion occur and they try to work with someone. If I went onto a site and posted about it I would not be fired. I would be talked to and the underlying things that were wrong would try to be fixed. That is of course because we are a company that values what people bring to the table. Sometimes its a bit touchy feely to me. But a stern reprimand and some discussion could have kept this person where they have probably made an enemy. And Sony, especially with the problems they face and the multipule people discussing the same facts as this person, need all the friends they can get.
My company makes a point of explaining that we are not controlled after hours in any way.

[RMan]

While we can’t know for sure, more than likely this is only the tip of the iceberg of the employee’s disruptive behavior. It’s very unlikely that he was fired for this instance, more than likely this was just the last straw. I have seen first hand how one bad/disgruntled employee can derail the efforts of otherwise effective ones, so if it were me, and I saw them intentionally reducing morale then I’d certainly fire them, if for no other reason than to try to protect the jobs of the employees that deserve theirs. Of course, I don’t know the employee’s behavior at the job, or even the contents of this post, only the suggestion that he was fired for posing it (which I hardly think is the whole story).

[EternalGamer]

But you are willing to give the company the benefit of the doubt but not the employee? We don't know the details of the work situition of either. I am surprised that people assume the company is justifed in its actions without such information.

Dan

[RMan]

But you are willing to give the company the benefit of the doubt but not the employee?
Absolutely not, that's why I made no assumptions. We have only heard an employee's side, and my gut tells me this is a very small part of the story. Personally, I'm not sure how I'd react as a company if the post was the first and only incident, I guess that depends on the contents of the post. I would say if that's the first place they expressed their grievances then that'd be a strike against them since it should first go to their superiors in an effort to improve the process. Taking it online is questionable to begin with, but taking it online first would be very bad indeed. Again, I don’t think that happened, I think this was likely the last incident in a longer list of incidents, and no matter who was right or wrong in those incidents, I find it hard to swallow that Sony fired them solely for this one incident (but it’s possible).

[Mirabelle]

Note to self: Do not talk bad about the company you are currently employed with on the internet.

I work in the game industry and when i started a new job recently, I was specifically told that badmouthing the company online would result in me getting fired. And then they told me about someone who had recently been let go for exactly that reason. This is pretty standard practice in this industry.

Game sales, and console sales as well, rely on hype and word of mouth (since games are rarely advertised in a conventional sense) to get people to buy the product. If your employees are posting bad things about your product on the internet, it can negate all of the positive word of mouth.

Maybe in industries that rely on tv commercials to recruit potential customers it wouldn't be as big of a deal, but damaging a console's (or game's) reputation with the online community affects the biggest market of potential customers.

[Dracula-X]

This thread depresses me alot. It seems that corporations really have won the hearts and minds of the American people. People think about them and their productivity and sympathize with them before they think about individuals and their right to have a personal life with personal opinions. I am aware that this is not a freedom of speech issue. It's an employee rights issue. When did we start feeling that company productivity is more important than people being able to tell the truth. This type of insular thinking is how Enron happens, guys.
I think you're a little off base here. No one prevented this guy from having a personal life or limited his freedom of speech. Not being able to talk about a product he's peripherally affiliated with is not suppression of free speech. As I said above, there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. You have responsibilities as an employee to not unfairly discredit, direct or otherwise, your employer. Undermining the company not only potentially jeopardizes the company and it's business, but your fellow co-worker's jobs. He even admittedly knew he might rub people the wrong way with what he wrote. Smart!

Edit: Oh, and comparing this to the Enron scandal is really reaching.

[Zurik]

I am not trying to be a radical reformer here, but companies only get to control every aspect of your life if you accept that as their right. They certainly don't have the legal right to do so.

Dan

It isn't their legal right to control everything you do, that's true. They do have a legal right to fire people though, and most of the time they don't have to have a good reason.

[karak]

I think you're a little off base here. No one prevented this guy from having a personal life or limited his freedom of speech. Not being able to talk about a product he's peripherally affiliated with is not suppression of free speech. As I said above, there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. You have responsibilities as an employee to not unfairly discredit, direct or otherwise, your employer. Undermining the company not only potentially jeopardizes the company and it's business, but your fellow co-worker's jobs. He even admittedly knew he might rub people the wrong way with what he wrote. Smart!

Edit: Oh, and comparing this to the Enron scandal is really reaching.

Actually it doesn't look like he unfairly discredited anything. At least he certianly didn't in his blog post which I read. And no you don't owe the company anything. EVER. While you are working you are there's, if he did this while on company time sure. NOTHING about what he said was unfair and his preface and his statements made that clear to all. Anyway it doesn't matter in the long run. He's gone and for some that will be another reason to dislike a company, for others it will mean nothing. For him it will mean whatever it means. Its not the end of the world for anyone, but its good to have the information and it's interesting Soap-opera on an otherwise boring front.

[RMan]

And no you don't owe the company anything. EVER. While you are working you are there's, if he did this while on company time sure.
Well, it should be considered, then, that this should work both ways. For instance, firing employees before Christmas vacation, or during a family emergency, or any other time their productivity falters and it doesn’t directly violate a law or their contract should not upset employees (since the company owes them nothing). If companies should have no expectations on their employees after they clock out, then should the company insurance plan only cover accidents in the office, and not the employee’s family? I think the idea that companies should expect nothing from their employees after they clock out is pretty unrealistic, and would generally result in a worse relationship between employees and employers.

[karak]

Well, it should be considered, then, that this should work both ways. For instance, firing employees before Christmas vacation, or during a family emergency, or any other time their productivity falters and it doesn’t directly violate a law or their contract should not upset employees (since the company owes them nothing). If companies should have no expectations on their employees after they clock out, then should the company insurance plan only cover accidents in the office, and not the employee’s family? I think the idea that companies should expect nothing from their employees after they clock out is pretty unrealistic, and would generally result in a worse relationship between employees and employers.

Hmm... well ours is excellent and we don't expect anything after hours of them. The other stuff you said didn't make sense to me so I can't comment on it at all, it doesn't go with what I am talking about and looks like it completly blows it out of proportion which is exactly where this shouldn't go.
He owes nothing off hours. Ever. Simple. But again he is gone and in the end thats the result. Case closed for him until his book deal.

[Steele Johnson]

This thread depresses me alot. It seems that corporations really have won the hearts and minds of the American people. People think about them and their productivity and sympathize with them before they think about individuals and their right to have a personal life with personal opinions. I am aware that this is not a freedom of speech issue. It's an employee rights issue. When did we start feeling that company productivity is more important than people being able to tell the truth. This type of insular thinking is how Enron happens, guys.

Dan

Before talking shit about the company who has employed you so that you can have a personal life, you should quit. After you quit, THEN you can talk shit about the company who you no longer work for.

It's not that corporations have won the hearts of the American people, it's the fact that they've given us an opportunity to expand on our careers and make money. How is that a bad thing? If the employee has something against the company that leads him/her to post something negative on the Internet, then that employee should NOT be working there.

How would you like it if your son or daughter were talking shit about you everywhere they go, meanwhile you're paying for the roof over their heads, food, clothes, college education, etc, etc? That would feel really good, eh? I'd like to see your tolerance towards them on the grounds of "personal opinions". lol

It's common sense and boils down to one thing: knowing when to keep your mouth shut. Don't give me this "I'm allowed to have my own opinion" crap. That just sounds dumb.

[Slacker]

I actually found what he'd posted and quite frankly I'm not sure they fired him for talking bad about his game. Here's the quotes from him that I'd imagine sealed his fate:

"Again, where is the box? Where is the final system? When is it coming out? No one knows and in the mean time people in the industry are starting to get just a little salty."
"We dont have a controller, there is no network code and there is no box."

Saying that they don't have final dev kits, controllers, or network code gives away a lot of info about hardware/SDK timelines. There's been a lot of rumors running around that Sony is changing their controller after the public's reaction to it and this makes that sound a bit more feasible.

Saying that your game sucks may or may not violate your NDA depending on how it's worded. Giving out production details like this definitely would violate your NDA.

[Grimmjow]

Come on, if I went out and publicly talked crap about my employers, I'd be out the door quick as a flash. If I ran a company and one of my employees started talking crap about us publicly, they'd be out on their ass. These guys are responsible for keeping this stuff under lock and key and a lot of money is at stake. The guy was just looking for some online bragging rights and he got owned.

i agree with this comment

[karak]

It sucks how people think its ok to lie and brag about how cool something that doesn't exist is, which is lying no matter how you slice it. But it isn't cool when you say its not real or its not complete. Pot+Kettle=black. Now I know why EA still gets away with all their crap, because no one is allowed to talk about the "Big bad stuff" because they will be fired, but all the lies about how good it is...well thats ok.

[Sensei-X]

I'm sure there's more to the story then meets the eye since I'm fairly sure that simply talking bad about the company you work for and getting fired over it, unless strictly forbidden on a signed contract, would give you grounds to sue your employer.

[Speed_D]

there was a memo circulated at Microsoft about not wearing your iPod around the campus.
Yeah but also shortly after that, there were a lot of senior Microsoft people reacting (to summarize) with: "if they're bring iPods to work then why do they prefer them? We should be working to make a Windows-based alternative more desireable, rather than banning iPods on campus"

That attitude (well, heh, along with that little monopoly position they have) is why Microsoft makes a formidable competitor.

He owes nothing off hours. Ever. Simple.
I think people are missing a key point here. I agree that people should be able to say what they want in their free time away from work. HOWEVER, wherever he made those comments, it was glaringly obvious who his employer was. If you make comments on the Internet like that, people view you as a representative of that company, even if you're just a 3D modelling peon.

If he made comments anonymously, or even on some blog where his name was visible but no one knew what his job was, Sony probably wouldn't give a shit.

If his comments made it obvious that he worked there, then odds are there was an NDA violation.

[Stormwatcher]

The guy was probably out to get fired or something. In this particular time of this particular industry, such comments might ressonate with gaming and business websites and paper publications, and so his comments could have damaged the company for real. It is not absurd to expect that employees keep the dirty laundry inside. And this kiand of thing has nothing to do with frauds like Enron's. He cannot badmouth the company he works for and during such a critical time and expect them to love him more.