4 ms·

Massive layoffs (15-20%) looming over EA

8 points by cesare 17y ago

chez17 17y ago
For those that follow gaming, it isn't a surprise that EA is shrinking. The article doesn't say so, but I would imagine it is the lower level people getting laid off for the upper level's constant terrible decision making. Sad.
- endtime 17y ago
  Out of curiosity, why would you imagine that? cperciva's suggestion seems far more likely. I know he commented after you, but I'm still curious why you came to that conclusion.
  - chez17 17y ago
    In a sense I think we are saying the same thing. As a gaming dork I hear nightmare after nightmare about the way EA treats companies after they buy them. Imagine a small gaming studio that makes a successful game that came from passion and creativity then being bought by one of the largest gaming companies in the world and being over managed to death. EA isn't run by gamers, it's run by business men. Thats why, in my opinion, the games are suffering.
cperciva 17y ago
This isn't necessarily as dramatic as it sounds. EA has an interesting "job ecosystem": They buy smaller companies, keep them alive for 1-2 games, then tend to close said companies' offices and either fire the staff they "inherited" or offer them positions at EA's main offices. I've heard that EA Canada is only losing about 3% of their people, and that other large offices are being similarly lightly hit; so this sounds to me more like EA deciding that now is a good time to get rid of some underperforming employees and several inherited offices rather than any sort of major internal shake-up.
- azanar 17y ago
  "...this sounds to me more like EA deciding that now is a good time to get rid of some underperforming employees and several inherited offices" Perhaps it is sampling error, but the companies that have downsized that I've known people at have largely said this same thing. There was some financial pain, and economically forced separations mixed in, but for the most part the recession seems to have provided a good political scapegoat to prune net-negative employees without the stigma or guilt of firing someone.

8 points by cesare 17y ago

For those that follow gaming, it isn't a surprise that EA is shrinking. The article doesn't say so, but I would imagine it is the lower level people getting laid off for the upper level's constant terrible decision making. Sad.

endtime 17y ago
Out of curiosity, why would you imagine that? cperciva's suggestion seems far more likely. I know he commented after you, but I'm still curious why you came to that conclusion.
- chez17 17y ago
  In a sense I think we are saying the same thing. As a gaming dork I hear nightmare after nightmare about the way EA treats companies after they buy them. Imagine a small gaming studio that makes a successful game that came from passion and creativity then being bought by one of the largest gaming companies in the world and being over managed to death. EA isn't run by gamers, it's run by business men. Thats why, in my opinion, the games are suffering.

cperciva 17y ago

This isn't necessarily as dramatic as it sounds. EA has an interesting "job ecosystem": They buy smaller companies, keep them alive for 1-2 games, then tend to close said companies' offices and either fire the staff they "inherited" or offer them positions at EA's main offices. I've heard that EA Canada is only losing about 3% of their people, and that other large offices are being similarly lightly hit; so this sounds to me more like EA deciding that now is a good time to get rid of some underperforming employees and several inherited offices rather than any sort of major internal shake-up.

azanar 17y ago
"...this sounds to me more like EA deciding that now is a good time to get rid of some underperforming employees and several inherited offices" Perhaps it is sampling error, but the companies that have downsized that I've known people at have largely said this same thing. There was some financial pain, and economically forced separations mixed in, but for the most part the recession seems to have provided a good political scapegoat to prune net-negative employees without the stigma or guilt of firing someone.