3 ms·

> It's not like the history of working for game companies is unknown, major studios have always done this. Imagining it won't happen to you is wishful thinking.

by kypro 3y ago

> It's not like the history of working for game companies is unknown, major studios have always done this. Imagining it won't happen to you is wishful thinking. I understand this rationally and yet at every job I've worked at I've still felt pretty secure until the moment I've been laid off (which for the record has happened to me 4 times in the last 8 years). If you're a hard worker and you're providing a lot of value you learn the risk is never that anyone would want to lay you off individually, but that some higher up who has very little care or understanding for who is providing value will decide that you're no longer needed. It's something that I've only really came to terms with over the last few years – that no amount of effort will save you from layoffs. The only thing that will save you is luck. When I was in my twenties I honestly thought that if I just provide enough value my job would always be safe. I guess I'm just saying that I understand it from an emotional perspective. Rationally I understand you can go from feeling like the most valuable person in your department to unemployed in 24 hours. But emotionally the fact that this can happen still messes with me.

ghaff 3y ago
You can just be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If a company decides to cancel a project or reorganize business units, they're probably not going to waste a lot of energy figuring out whether they're laying off (or keeping) exactly the optimal people for the reorganized company or not.
BlueTemplar 3y ago
Sounds like the solution is to work in a small enough company that such a "higher up" doesn't exist. But then the risk for the company to go bankrupt (or grow so much they start existing) is also higher. It also seems to be "priced in" by lower pay too ? (The extreme being a 1-2 devs company.)
- jq-r 3y ago
  I guess the company has to be really small. In my <200 company the CEO changed and the new one (despite being here for a year and change) I bet he cannot name 6 engineers in the company. He doesn't care.
thegrim33 3y ago
Ok? What percentage of workers similar to you have been laid off like you have? Is your experience the minority or the majority? Your personal experience really doesn't mean anything. It absolutely certainly doesn't allow you to make absolutist sweeping statements like "no amount of effort will save you from layoffs. The only thing that will save you is luck". You've been laid off on average once every 2 years. I've been laid off once in 19 years. Did I just get lucky? Does it really just all come down to luck like you claim? Or is there more that goes into it? Maybe someone could do the math - if everyone had the same "luck" as you, what are the odds that I made it 19 years with only 1 layoff?
- kypro 3y ago
  I wasn't very clear – I wasn't suggesting my experience is typical at all, I was simply stating that I was commenting from the perspective of someone who's experienced a lot of layoffs, and that in my experience you generally don't expect them. I think there is this idea that under-performers are the ones that lose their jobs in layoffs – or at least that's what I used to think. Yet, despite always being one of the most valuable people in my team, this has never protected me, or the majority of people I've seen who have lost their jobs. That's really my point. That said, if you are an under-performer you probably will increase your odds of being laid off. I have seen a number of downsizings before where people are cut because they were performing as well as others. So maybe I should have clarified that a bit more, but I would still stand by my overall point that assuming you're not under-performing you're probably not at any increased risk of layoffs vs someone who's outperforming. And perhaps one final caveat here is that if you are an out-performer and you are laid off you will probably find it easier to find work in the future because at the very least the people you've worked with in the past will want to work with you again.

by kypro 3y ago

ghaff 3y ago

You can just be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If a company decides to cancel a project or reorganize business units, they're probably not going to waste a lot of energy figuring out whether they're laying off (or keeping) exactly the optimal people for the reorganized company or not.

BlueTemplar 3y ago

Sounds like the solution is to work in a small enough company that such a "higher up" doesn't exist. But then the risk for the company to go bankrupt (or grow so much they start existing) is also higher. It also seems to be "priced in" by lower pay too ? (The extreme being a 1-2 devs company.)

jq-r 3y ago
I guess the company has to be really small. In my <200 company the CEO changed and the new one (despite being here for a year and change) I bet he cannot name 6 engineers in the company. He doesn't care.

thegrim33 3y ago

Ok? What percentage of workers similar to you have been laid off like you have? Is your experience the minority or the majority? Your personal experience really doesn't mean anything. It absolutely certainly doesn't allow you to make absolutist sweeping statements like "no amount of effort will save you from layoffs. The only thing that will save you is luck". You've been laid off on average once every 2 years. I've been laid off once in 19 years. Did I just get lucky? Does it really just all come down to luck like you claim? Or is there more that goes into it? Maybe someone could do the math - if everyone had the same "luck" as you, what are the odds that I made it 19 years with only 1 layoff?

kypro 3y ago
I wasn't very clear – I wasn't suggesting my experience is typical at all, I was simply stating that I was commenting from the perspective of someone who's experienced a lot of layoffs, and that in my experience you generally don't expect them. I think there is this idea that under-performers are the ones that lose their jobs in layoffs – or at least that's what I used to think. Yet, despite always being one of the most valuable people in my team, this has never protected me, or the majority of people I've seen who have lost their jobs. That's really my point. That said, if you are an under-performer you probably will increase your odds of being laid off. I have seen a number of downsizings before where people are cut because they were performing as well as others. So maybe I should have clarified that a bit more, but I would still stand by my overall point that assuming you're not under-performing you're probably not at any increased risk of layoffs vs someone who's outperforming. And perhaps one final caveat here is that if you are an out-performer and you are laid off you will probably find it easier to find work in the future because at the very least the people you've worked with in the past will want to work with you again.