6 ms·
EA is laying off 6 percent of its workers
- qikInNdOutReply 4y agoBut what if they could buy a seperation-package lootbox, with a 1% chance of continued employment, for a months wage? Go all in on going all out..
- shapefrog 4y agoLootboxes are for cosmetics only, not pay to win. You would only get a special clown skin and crying emote to for your appraisal meeting.
- mattigames 4y agoEA lootboxes are not cosmetics only, and they have been fined for such sketchy behavior: https://www.gamingbible.com/news/games-ea-handed-10-million-fine-over-pay-to-win-loot-boxes-20201031 https://www.gamingbible.com/news/games-ea-handed-10-million-...
- daniel-s 4y agoSurprise workplace mechanics.
- hising 4y agoWhats up with the 6 percent layoffs on multiple companies? Did they all read the same memo?
- notimetorelax 4y agoI wonder too, it does seem close to the change in the fed rate that increases cost of capital requiring companies the be as much more efficient to keep their market cap.
- hoffs 4y agoMarket dictates that you have to layoff
- gantron 4y agoDoes it dictate that you have to or that there’s an opportunity to do so without standing out?
- Jensson 4y agoIt means that a layoff will make their stock go up. Normally a layoff makes your stock go down so then companies avoids them. But currently stocks go up after layoffs, so companies rush to do them.
- ForRealsies 4y ago[dead]
- Grum9 4y agoWhen in Rome......
- xmcqdpt2 4y agoThey all have the same shareholders (pension funds, index funds, etc.)
- shmde 4y agoWhy don't Big Corpos™ use the word fired anymore. George Carlin's Euphemisms skit is more relevant today.
- darrenf 4y agoBecause being fired means the employee(s) did something wrong. I've been laid off but never fired.
- orf 4y agoBecause they are not being fired?
- selfawareMammal 4y agoLayoff is used correctly here. What gets on my nerves is when the companies talk about "impacted employees" instead of "laid off employees", as it if had been a meteorite.
- jzb 4y agoI’ve always taken fired to mean someone was let go individually for cause. Laid off means they’ve lost their job for reasons other than performance or individual actions.
- theden 4y agoMeanwhile EA's profits went up 13% in Q3 to $1.3 billion[1]. TLDR of the wall of corp text is basically "Some you you may get laid off, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to take" 1. https://www.gamesindustry.biz/ea-profits-up-13-in-q3-to-13-billion https://www.gamesindustry.biz/ea-profits-up-13-in-q3-to-13-b...
- yreg 4y agoI'm sure some companies are making use of the current situation to get rid of people they would like to fire anyway. But some layoffs are still entirely puzzling to me, e.g. Google.
- ChuckNorris89 4y agoWhy puzzling? Does Google not have people they would like to fire? They're fine financially but with Microsoft having made them dance with GPT, the investors have seen Google has become too complacent and their monopoly on search is loosening. Seeing some scapegoats get fired might put the investors are ease.
- yreg 4y agoBecause it seems they are firing a ton of skilled, well performing people. At least that's what everyone says on the street.
- ChuckNorris89 4y agoWell performing people by what metrics? Plus, how many well performing engineers do you need when you haven't shipped a successful product in nearly a decade while canceling more of your existing products. It's more like Google overhired during the market boom just to starve their competitors for talent and not because they actually had a use for all those people. At one point you reach diminishing returns in terms of headcount and onboarding more well performing people just slows your org down as that just adds more overhead and various fiefdoms start to form that fight to entrench or upgrade their position in the org instead of doing what's good for the company, causing stagnation and complacency while competitors are running circles around you. I've seen this at every single big-corm I've worked at. It makes sense orgs end the overhiring spree from the free fed money bonanza, and are starting to think about efficiency as well.
- thih9 4y ago> An update on our people Not really "your people" anymore.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago"Our people are being promoted to role of customer." -EA to employees probably
- gantron 4y agoThis is one of the more bizarre layoff announcements I’ve read. Vague title, spends most of the intro celebrating the success of different franchises and overall strength of the business, buries the lede in the third paragraph… if you skimmed it you could miss the layoff news entirely. I understand there’s no great way to deliver a message like this but it strikes me as so tone deaf for the CEO to not even acknowledge that it sucks. The last paragraph mentions love, appreciation, joy — where’s the apology for the leadership decisions that led to these peoples’ unemployment?
- Xunjin 4y agoI'm sorry but does EA take in account their own mistakes or even hear their costumer base about franchises or the famous loot boxes? This is EA.
- ChuckNorris89 4y agoThis author has nailed it: https://twitter.com/h1ghju1ce/status/1640819647590305793?t=A_-UhRMEgj-IoSxWsQCUhw&s=19 https://twitter.com/h1ghju1ce/status/1640819647590305793?t=A...
- lbotos 4y agoThere is often this line "apology for the leadership decisions that led to these peoples’ unemployment?" and the options are as such: - In an env with cheap money, business chooses not to take advantage, growing slower, and in turn, possibly losing to competitors who did choose to take advantage - In an env with cheap money, business choose to take advantage, growing on pace with competitors and either keeping or building a competitive advantage When the environment shifts: - Businesses that chose not to take advantage of money are less likely to have layoffs, but are they on par, behind or ahead of those that did? Some will be ahead for sure, but it's not guaranteed. - Businesses that choose the money strategically cut and double down on winning bets The ultimate key take away for readers reading this: Understand what kind of business you work for, and decide for yourself if you are happy with leaderships risk profile. If you aren't, adjust accordingly... EDIT: To be clear, I'm not pro-EA and I think they have milked their products for a long while, I'm talking about the meta here.
- christkv 4y agoI looked at what the new Jedi surviver cost new and the standard edition is 80 eur for the ps5. Who can keep paying those prices? They justify the cost by the massive teams needed to deliver the software but I think they are starting to hit peak price pain threshold for a lot of people.
- A_D_E_P_T 4y agoSuper Mario Bros 3 cost $49.99 in 1990. Adjusted for inflation [1], that's nearly $120 today. Video games have actually gotten somewhat cheaper with time. And they frequently contain more content these days -- or are open-ended -- so the ratio of dollars to hours spent entertained is more favorable. [1] - https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
- christkv 4y agoThe average twenty year old in Spain makes 1000-1500 EUR a month before taxes, so I don't know how they think they will convince them to buy. In the first week of sales Dead Space Remake on the PS5 sold less than 4000 copies in all of Spain it seems.
- oblio 4y agoAmericans make a lot of money. And besides that, they're probably targeting rich kids across the world, out of 8 billion people that probably works out to a global addressable audience of half a billion.
- have_faith 4y agoI’ve seen this mentioned a few times - and it’s technically correct - but people need to remember that games have no natural price, could have been over/under priced in the 90’s or now and that quantity of assets/play time does not equal quality. Cheaper from a price per unit perspective makes it seem like we’re getting a better “deal” now but that isn’t necessarily true.