Just because people want to work for a company doesn't mean they wont have to deal with a lot of shit. I would love to work with Nintendo, but guess what? I would still have to walk in knowing I would have to deal with stringent rules. Same thing with Konami (if not worse). Sony's issue was of the financial variety. Nintendo has been known for the longest for being the most inaccessible, but again...if the guy screwed up he deserves to be fired as I said before.

Wouldn´t surprise me if he was responsible for the Smash Bros leaks as well as he seems to be a very outspoken person and who knows what else he leaked considering how much he was willing to talk in a public podcast. Anyway Cliff should mind his own business, and the tired excuse that he has always been a Nintendo fan but still constantly attacking the company is just pathetic.

How are the policies retarded and outdated? Any company would do it, regardless if it was through social media or not.

Such rules are necessary for many companies. Probably graduality in punishment, depending on seriousness of infringement and if there were previous serious infringements, could be advisable, but in this particular case, while some things he revealed were harmless and were just interesting, others could damage Ninty or be twisted and used to do it. Best wishes to him, surely he just let his mouth speak too much, but he didn't mean to harm it, well, next time he'll think before speaking. Probably he'll easily find a new job, possibly from companies that would like to know more about Ninty work methods.

Oh you, I remember that suit. As I recall, it was settled pretty swiftly. I remember being surprised it was made in the first place: barring a "no-compete" clause in there somewhere I have a hard time seeing Sony having a case, but then again odds are good there was probably something like that in there which arguably applied.

Off the top of my head, Adam Orth. Josh Robinson. But, relevantly?, Nintendo's the most stringent of the big three.

I would argue, with ample supporting evidence, that it's the opposite.

Its fair enough if thats how it works (in the US). But in principle its just wrong. It means a company can be a country inside its own country by setting a group of arbitrary rules that allow them to lay off workers. That is extremely abusive, but i had heard that work laws were pretty brutal in the US before.

We do see it constantly on the games industry when teams are fired after they finished their project and then they rehire new staff when they decide on the next thing to do.

Works like that in the UK as well, most companies warn you against speaking to the media or in a similar manner, in fact in the UK it's just a straight up sackable offence when you breach contract in anyway, in most countries it's the same. You have rights yes but those rights aren't fully with out limitations like for example in the UK you can't incite racial hatred or an easy one for people to understand in the west if you say things about someone in a public manner they can take legal action against you because your words can have an affect on them and their lives, this is no different to having an NDA in a contract only a company give you a warning first and make it clear how serious a matter it can be when hired.

The NDAs are part of their terms to be an employee for any of these companies, it's like someone telling you have to take off your shoes before you come in their house and not smoke inside either you don't have to do it but then they don't have to let you in if you refuse their terms.

I kinda feel bad but he break the rules

The emboldened is an absurd and nonsensical interpretation, because all companies obviously have to abide by the laws of the countries in which they operate.

This isn't wrong, it's just you are looking at the principle in the wrong context. Yes, yes, we all know about freedom of speech, yada yada yada, but just stop for a moment and Google the term "Doing a Ratner".

Read some of the results and you'll soon understand how damaging a single throw-away remark can be for a company, and why most businesses have these rules in one form or another, including in your country. It's bad enough when an executive screws up in public, but to give thousands of employees free reign to do the same would be a disastrous move for any business.

Pranger badmouthed his employer and its fans, then discussed the reasons for some of Nintendo's decisions that Nintendo obviously didn't want publicised in that way. He went against the rules of his employment and was fired as a consequence.

Bleszinski and Nintendo fan? so why doesnt support unreal engine 4 the wiiu? This guy shouldnt say anything when it comes to nintendo