Understand something, these days a Fortune 500 company does not vaporize 350 jobs unless they're cutting corners or shifting salary up stream. We're not talking about a small to mid size enterprise.
There's no such thing as "Hey guys, we want to be a better company so we're firing 350 people".
Good companies improve with innovation, creating new revenue streams, and expanding portfolio of offerings.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
Understand something, these days a Fortune 500 company does not vaporize 350 jobs unless they're cutting corners or shifting salary up stream. We're not talking about a small to mid size enterprise.
There's no such thing as "Hey guys, we want to be a better company so we're firing 350 people".
Good companies improve with innovation, creating new revenue streams, and expanding portfolio of offerings.
You ever own a company? Work as an executive in a company? I am going to doubt that you had based on your above statement.
It's 350 people out of a 9,000 work force, it's between 3-4% of all employees in the company. It's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. If you have a group of employees who are specifically trained to do a certain job and you move away from that job, yes, you can try to move them around to other projects, but at times, letting them go could be the best way to go.
Keeping a bloated (unnecessary) payroll for no reason is not a smart move. So companies will get better by firing 350 people if those people are not part of the changing goals.
If i'm a company that does video games and education software and the gaming section loses money but the education software brings in a ton, then wouldn't it be intelligent to fire all in the gaming section for the health of the overall company?
Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
"We are deeply focused on increasing quality in our games and services."
Yeah, there is also a flying pig pooping shitloads of ten dollars notes all over my garden.
If you think about it, they are kind of agreeing their games need to have improved quality.
Do you prefer they say the following:
"We know our quality went to shit and we are focused on improving our quality even though we know you probably lost faith in us."
Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
If i'm a company that does video games and education software and the gaming section loses money but the education software brings in a ton, then wouldn't it be intelligent to fire all in the gaming section for the health of the overall company?
Well, that means that as a whole, the Company is not performing, which was his point. If the Company is doing well, they don't need to layoff people.
Of course there is nothing wrong with it, it's normal to cut the loose ends, but as lately the gaming industry is firing people like there is no tomorrow, and I doubt that's because they all want to optimize their workforce, you usually do that in small steps not in chunks of 350 people at a time.
When you dump so many people in one go, it's only to cut the costs in time for the end of the year results, so shareholders gets a nice dividend.
If i'm a company that does video games and education software and the gaming section loses money but the education software brings in a ton, then wouldn't it be intelligent to fire all in the gaming section for the health of the overall company?
Well, that means that as a whole, the Company is not performing, which was his point. If the Company is doing well, they don't need to layoff people.
Of course there is nothing wrong with it, it's normal to cut the loose ends, but as lately the gaming industry is firing people like there is no tomorrow, and I doubt that's because they all want to optimize their workforce, you usually do that in small steps not in chunks of 350 people at a time.
When you dump so many people in one go, it's only to cut the costs in time for the end of the year results, so shareholders gets a nice dividend.
First paragraph: - Blizzard had record profits and let go of 800 people. Essentially my point is that not all layoffs are created equally.
Second Paragraph: - 350 people sounds like a lot but when you have 9,000 employees, it breaks down to 3-4% which is not that much really. Lahnmir's company has like 80k+ employees. Walmart has 2.2 million employees worldwide (1.5m in the US).
Third Paragraph: - The end of the year results already include the salary of the people you just let go, so it shouldn't influence unless people are expecting the price to go up with the layoffs. But not all layoffs are created equally, so difficult to determine.
Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
First paragraph: - Blizzard had record profits and let go of 800 people. Essentially my point is that not all layoffs are created equally.
Second Paragraph: - 350 people sounds like a lot but when you have 9,000 employees, it breaks down to 3-4% which is not that much really. Lahnmir's company has like 80k+ employees. Walmart has 2.2 million employees worldwide (1.5m in the US).
Third Paragraph: - The end of the year results already include the salary of the people you just let go, so it shouldn't influence unless people are expecting the price to go up with the layoffs. But not all layoffs are created equally, so difficult to determine.
First point: Margin. It's not profit that determines the layoffs or the cost cuts, it's the Margin. That's what drives companies to cut costs. Blizzard might just as well made record profits, but margin might be down. Profit is a consequence of good Margin management. EX (it's an hyperbole): Company A (Blizzard): Revenues $1000, Costs $900, profit $100 (Margin is 10%) Company B (Indie): Revenues $167, Costs $67, profit $100 (Margin is 60%) They achieved same profit, but the second Company achieved that with only a fraction of the first Company sales. If the bigger company had achieved 60% Margin (like the smaller) instead of 10%, it would have made $500 more than they actually did. That's why companies always push for higher margins even when they already delivering high profits.
Second Point: Again Margin. If you have a margin target of 30% and you are delivering a 27%, this is cause of big drama in the boardroom (3% margin difference could be worth Billions for big companies). You cut 5-6% of your workforce, and voila', the Margin goes back to 30%, right on target. Shareholders happy.
Third point: Margin once again. Every Company has a Margin Target. If a CEO don't hit the target that's a big problem for him. As a CEO (or any middle manager for that matter), when you sit in the boardroom trying to explain how you going to recover the margin target you missed the past year, you already have to have a good plan in place if you want their confidence for the next year. Sitting there with a good plan already in place means you can keep your job for another year, and when you are short of ideas and in a hurry (or panic), cutting Labour is always the first action they are going to take for the next fiscal year.
In short, Margin is the cancer of modern companies (not just gaming), and an easy and fast way to fix Margin gaps is cutting Labour.
If one or two of your games are not performing, their margin drops as a consequence, dragging down the margin of the entire company. So CEOs are forced to cut costs even if overall profit is still high.
Don’t discount the Sims franchise. The series makes a ton compared to what is spent to create the content they release.
Very true. But while with the Sims you buy the game only once with some DLC thrown in from time to time, with FIFA they release the same exact game every year, adding only new players and modifying some of the existing players stats. The margin on FIFA is absolutely huge, and it's always in the Top 5 throughout the whole year.
With FIFA you could simply make a regular free update every year with the new player stats, instead they charge full price every year as if it was a brand new game.
This is the type of product companies aim for; high sales, low costs, maximized margin (just to link with my previous post).
Don’t discount the Sims franchise. The series makes a ton compared to what is spent to create the content they release.
Very true. But while with the Sims you buy the game only once with some DLC thrown in from time to time, with FIFA they release the same exact game every year, adding only new players and modifying some of the existing players stats. The margin on FIFA is absolutely huge, and it's always in the Top 5 throughout the whole year.
With FIFA you could simply make a regular free update every year with the new player stats, instead they charge full price every year as if it was a brand new game.
This is the type of product companies aim for; high sales, low costs, maximized margin (just to link with my previous post).
Yep agreed. Between Fifa and Madden it appears football is a lucrative endeavor
With the Sims (more to Sims 4) since release in 2014 they have released 27 dlc....27. From the numbers I am privy to they made more money from Sims 4 in 2018 than Madden but not more than Fifa. Rinse and repeat is their strategy.
What's really fascinating is Madden and Fifa I can understand, but who plays the Sims and why totally escapes me.
I have never met anyone who has or does....apparantly they reside in an alternate universe.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Understand something, these days a Fortune 500 company does not vaporize 350 jobs unless they're cutting corners or shifting salary up stream. We're not talking about a small to mid size enterprise.
There's no such thing as "Hey guys, we want to be a better company so we're firing 350 people".
Good companies improve with innovation, creating new revenue streams, and expanding portfolio of offerings.
You ever own a company? Work as an executive in a company? I am going to doubt that you had based on your above statement.
It's 350 people out of a 9,000 work force, it's between 3-4% of all employees in the company. It's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. If you have a group of employees who are specifically trained to do a certain job and you move away from that job, yes, you can try to move them around to other projects, but at times, letting them go could be the best way to go.
Keeping a bloated (unnecessary) payroll for no reason is not a smart move. So companies will get better by firing 350 people if those people are not part of the changing goals.
If i'm a company that does video games and education software and the gaming section loses money but the education software brings in a ton, then wouldn't it be intelligent to fire all in the gaming section for the health of the overall company?
Yes owned company (obviously not a ranked one) and yes (Agency & Brand).
On an enterprise level human resource "bloat" is only cut as a knee jerk reaction to a forecast fail and never where it matters. For example; when a company has submit their fiscal projections then a GM or CFO realizes they aren't going to hit their mark. This is when they shit can non-leadership employees, fuck off the remaining employees bonuses and health benefits and stop putting bottled water in the break room.
None of the aforementioned has anything to do with "new challenges" and any of that spineroonie they put out. It literally means "somebody fucked up, we're going to fire resources to keep the books right, then put out a press release so shareholders won't pike OUR heads."
I've seen instances (in companies that generate more revenue than EA) where stupid leadership members hire garbage agencies for 3-4 times the value of work. Why? Because some bro, or frat member was the owner.
I've seen leadership put enterprise SaaS on their AMEX cards, move on, and the service is left running for years even though no one is using it.
I've seen dumb AF executives exponentially increase travel budgets because last minute Business Class/First Class is kewl bro.
All worth 10-15 employees worth of yearly salary. I've seen it from Telecom, Pharma, Energy, and Entertainment industries, and I'm an absolute NOBODY in the grand scheme of things. So scale up your imagination.
In regard to your example, no that wouldn't be smart. The intelligent move would be to shift your resources to the educational software division and expand your offerings there. I mean that is unless you're a fuck up and need to figure something out fast to cover YOUR ass. Then by all means. Fire all those able bodies.
People doing their jobs properly and as instructed is not "bloat". Secondly nowhere in that press release (which I hard bet was actually written by overpaid crisis management agency) do they mention bloat, and that's my point.
You can fantasize about these corporations being full of high IQ leadership rockstars. Sorry NOPE. Typically college educated, 0 common sense drones benefiting from the innovations of a long gone or long dead person. Too big to fail (right now).
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
Upper management is the ones who should get fired because of how terrible the decisions they make in every game to steer the company into abyss. If the root cause is not identified and corrected, no matter what you do, EA is still a bad company
Understand something, these days a Fortune 500 company does not vaporize 350 jobs unless they're cutting corners or shifting salary up stream. We're not talking about a small to mid size enterprise.
There's no such thing as "Hey guys, we want to be a better company so we're firing 350 people".
Good companies improve with innovation, creating new revenue streams, and expanding portfolio of offerings.
You ever own a company? Work as an executive in a company? I am going to doubt that you had based on your above statement.
It's 350 people out of a 9,000 work force, it's between 3-4% of all employees in the company. It's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. If you have a group of employees who are specifically trained to do a certain job and you move away from that job, yes, you can try to move them around to other projects, but at times, letting them go could be the best way to go.
Keeping a bloated (unnecessary) payroll for no reason is not a smart move. So companies will get better by firing 350 people if those people are not part of the changing goals.
If i'm a company that does video games and education software and the gaming section loses money but the education software brings in a ton, then wouldn't it be intelligent to fire all in the gaming section for the health of the overall company?
Yes owned company (obviously not a ranked one) and yes (Agency & Brand).
On an enterprise level human resource "bloat" is only cut as a knee jerk reaction to a forecast fail and never where it matters. For example; when a company has submit their fiscal projections then a GM or CFO realizes they aren't going to hit their mark. This is when they shit can non-leadership employees, fuck off the remaining employees bonuses and health benefits and stop putting bottled water in the break room.
None of the aforementioned has anything to do with "new challenges" and any of that spineroonie they put out. It literally means "somebody fucked up, we're going to fire resources to keep the books right, then put out a press release so shareholders won't pike OUR heads."
I've seen instances (in companies that generate more revenue than EA) where stupid leadership members hire garbage agencies for 3-4 times the value of work. Why? Because some bro, or frat member was the owner.
I've seen leadership put enterprise SaaS on their AMEX cards, move on, and the service is left running for years even though no one is using it.
I've seen dumb AF executives exponentially increase travel budgets because last minute Business Class/First Class is kewl bro.
All worth 10-15 employees worth of yearly salary. I've seen it from Telecom, Pharma, Energy, and Entertainment industries, and I'm an absolute NOBODY in the grand scheme of things. So scale up your imagination.
In regard to your example, no that wouldn't be smart. The intelligent move would be to shift your resources to the educational software division and expand your offerings there. I mean that is unless you're a fuck up and need to figure something out fast to cover YOUR ass. Then by all means. Fire all those able bodies.
People doing their jobs properly and as instructed is not "bloat". Secondly nowhere in that press release (which I hard bet was actually written by overpaid crisis management agency) do they mention bloat, and that's my point.
You can fantasize about these corporations being full of high IQ leadership rockstars. Sorry NOPE. Typically college educated, 0 common sense drones benefiting from the innovations of a long gone or long dead person. Too big to fail (right now).
I stand corrected, great job on owning a business.
I completely agree that there are unethical and numbers driven people that only care about money.
I think you and I are somewhat on the same page, i do think that bad management and unethical shit heads screw over employees but i dont think it is all the time. You are generalizing which is what my issue was.
Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
First paragraph: - Blizzard had record profits and let go of 800 people. Essentially my point is that not all layoffs are created equally.
Second Paragraph: - 350 people sounds like a lot but when you have 9,000 employees, it breaks down to 3-4% which is not that much really. Lahnmir's company has like 80k+ employees. Walmart has 2.2 million employees worldwide (1.5m in the US).
Third Paragraph: - The end of the year results already include the salary of the people you just let go, so it shouldn't influence unless people are expecting the price to go up with the layoffs. But not all layoffs are created equally, so difficult to determine.
First point: Margin. It's not profit that determines the layoffs or the cost cuts, it's the Margin. That's what drives companies to cut costs. Blizzard might just as well made record profits, but margin might be down. Profit is a consequence of good Margin management. EX (it's an hyperbole): Company A (Blizzard): Revenues $1000, Costs $900, profit $100 (Margin is 10%) Company B (Indie): Revenues $167, Costs $67, profit $100 (Margin is 60%) They achieved same profit, but the second Company achieved that with only a fraction of the first Company sales. If the bigger company had achieved 60% Margin (like the smaller) instead of 10%, it would have made $500 more than they actually did. That's why companies always push for higher margins even when they already delivering high profits.
Second Point: Again Margin. If you have a margin target of 30% and you are delivering a 27%, this is cause of big drama in the boardroom (3% margin difference could be worth Billions for big companies). You cut 5-6% of your workforce, and voila', the Margin goes back to 30%, right on target. Shareholders happy.
Third point: Margin once again. Every Company has a Margin Target. If a CEO don't hit the target that's a big problem for him. As a CEO (or any middle manager for that matter), when you sit in the boardroom trying to explain how you going to recover the margin target you missed the past year, you already have to have a good plan in place if you want their confidence for the next year. Sitting there with a good plan already in place means you can keep your job for another year, and when you are short of ideas and in a hurry (or panic), cutting Labour is always the first action they are going to take for the next fiscal year.
In short, Margin is the cancer of modern companies (not just gaming), and an easy and fast way to fix Margin gaps is cutting Labour.
If one or two of your games are not performing, their margin drops as a consequence, dragging down the margin of the entire company. So CEOs are forced to cut costs even if overall profit is still high.
I agree that margin has importance, but a company should always be looking to improve margin. I look at it as cutting costs that are unnecessary. You cut costs, if you do it right, it should improve margin right. As cost is part of the margin calculation any way.
I think you may be over simplifying things, companies do many things and not all of what they do is solely based off margin.
What happens if a company wants to move into a different direction or invest in something that doesnt make their margin look good when they do it?
They may take a loss initially while they ramp up, the ledger sheet doesnt tell the whole story.
Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
What happens when games are a product or service and not a passion? This.
Very few games are made out of "passion"; devs want to eat.
Even if a game has been "made with passion" however delivering it to you, me, and however many thousands or millions of others want to play it is - absolutely - a product / service that costs money.
"Passionate devs" might "mortgage their houses" - which I would call gambling in the hope of a big payoff rather than passion btw - but the companies that make the servers, provide the software licenses, the banking facilities, telecoms facilities, offices, electricity etc., etc. they want paying. Not to mention people the company might directly employ - customer services staff, operations staff etc.
Games are all about the product / service.
And this is what happens when products / services don't perform as expected. Whether its a game or a car model.
Ok then, do you accept that the average mobile game is made with less passion than the average PC game, and if so why is that?
Many devs play and enjoy gaming and have a professional pride in what they produce. I knew someone who was part of a team that developed mobile games, he didn't really like talking about that, and looked forward making what he called a "real game" on PC/console.
So there is an occupied space between mortgaging your house and being a company man. Gaming is an art form like any other form of entertainment, if you put the product before the art expect soullessness to creep in. You make a better game/TV series etc if you are passionate about those mediums.
I do accept some of your premise however, some of the early gaming studio bosses described themselves as trying to make themselves a fortune doing something they loved in college, it was a big risk for big reward. These days the CEO's of major gaming studios are parachuted in from the likes of Haagen-Dazs, gaming means nothing to them.
First paragraph: - Blizzard had record profits and let go of 800 people. Essentially my point is that not all layoffs are created equally.
Second Paragraph: - 350 people sounds like a lot but when you have 9,000 employees, it breaks down to 3-4% which is not that much really. Lahnmir's company has like 80k+ employees. Walmart has 2.2 million employees worldwide (1.5m in the US).
Third Paragraph: - The end of the year results already include the salary of the people you just let go, so it shouldn't influence unless people are expecting the price to go up with the layoffs. But not all layoffs are created equally, so difficult to determine.
First point: Margin. It's not profit that determines the layoffs or the cost cuts, it's the Margin. That's what drives companies to cut costs. Blizzard might just as well made record profits, but margin might be down. Profit is a consequence of good Margin management. EX (it's an hyperbole): Company A (Blizzard): Revenues $1000, Costs $900, profit $100 (Margin is 10%) Company B (Indie): Revenues $167, Costs $67, profit $100 (Margin is 60%) They achieved same profit, but the second Company achieved that with only a fraction of the first Company sales. If the bigger company had achieved 60% Margin (like the smaller) instead of 10%, it would have made $500 more than they actually did. That's why companies always push for higher margins even when they already delivering high profits.
Second Point: Again Margin. If you have a margin target of 30% and you are delivering a 27%, this is cause of big drama in the boardroom (3% margin difference could be worth Billions for big companies). You cut 5-6% of your workforce, and voila', the Margin goes back to 30%, right on target. Shareholders happy.
Third point: Margin once again. Every Company has a Margin Target. If a CEO don't hit the target that's a big problem for him. As a CEO (or any middle manager for that matter), when you sit in the boardroom trying to explain how you going to recover the margin target you missed the past year, you already have to have a good plan in place if you want their confidence for the next year. Sitting there with a good plan already in place means you can keep your job for another year, and when you are short of ideas and in a hurry (or panic), cutting Labour is always the first action they are going to take for the next fiscal year.
In short, Margin is the cancer of modern companies (not just gaming), and an easy and fast way to fix Margin gaps is cutting Labour.
If one or two of your games are not performing, their margin drops as a consequence, dragging down the margin of the entire company. So CEOs are forced to cut costs even if overall profit is still high.
I think you may be over simplifying things, companies do many things and not all of what they do is solely based off margin.
.
Don't look now, but many business leaders believe the long overdue economic downturn might hit in 2020, so they are taking steps now to prepare.
My employer is doing fine financially at present but is moving into fortress mode now.
They've already put out a cost cutting mandate, freezing new hiring and had the 1st round of layoffs this month, more to follow most likely.
Ironically the very moves they are taking to prepare may actually contribute to triggering the downturn they have begun to fear, but all just part of macroeconomic theory.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Never knew we had so many CEO's in our midsts. To me it seems like they are shutting down a few overseas departments and closing some dead projects. But that's just a opinion of a guy who likes to comment about random crap on the internet.
Some? Most everyone is a desperate fool. It isn't a matter of if, but a matter of what: what are you a desperate fool about?
For some, crowdfunding projects. Others, AAA hype trains. Even others, MMORPG renaissance (I've been a desperate fool there in the past, and I know I'm not alone here in that fact). Beyond our little hobby: relationships, politics, health "cures".... The list goes on and on. Most aren't fools for everything, but most are fools for at least some things.
Comments
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You ever own a company? Work as an executive in a company? I am going to doubt that you had based on your above statement.
It's 350 people out of a 9,000 work force, it's between 3-4% of all employees in the company. It's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. If you have a group of employees who are specifically trained to do a certain job and you move away from that job, yes, you can try to move them around to other projects, but at times, letting them go could be the best way to go.
Keeping a bloated (unnecessary) payroll for no reason is not a smart move. So companies will get better by firing 350 people if those people are not part of the changing goals.
If i'm a company that does video games and education software and the gaming section loses money but the education software brings in a ton, then wouldn't it be intelligent to fire all in the gaming section for the health of the overall company?
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
In your world, are there any acceptable reasons to fire staff?
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
If you think about it, they are kind of agreeing their games need to have improved quality.
Do you prefer they say the following:
"We know our quality went to shit and we are focused on improving our quality even though we know you probably lost faith in us."
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
If the Company is doing well, they don't need to layoff people.
Of course there is nothing wrong with it, it's normal to cut the loose ends, but as lately the gaming industry is firing people like there is no tomorrow, and I doubt that's because they all want to optimize their workforce, you usually do that in small steps not in chunks of 350 people at a time.
When you dump so many people in one go, it's only to cut the costs in time for the end of the year results, so shareholders gets a nice dividend.
- Blizzard had record profits and let go of 800 people. Essentially my point is that not all layoffs are created equally.
Second Paragraph:
- 350 people sounds like a lot but when you have 9,000 employees, it breaks down to 3-4% which is not that much really. Lahnmir's company has like 80k+ employees. Walmart has 2.2 million employees worldwide (1.5m in the US).
Third Paragraph:
- The end of the year results already include the salary of the people you just let go, so it shouldn't influence unless people are expecting the price to go up with the layoffs. But not all layoffs are created equally, so difficult to determine.
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
They are creative works, just like books and music and any of the other creative arts.
That fact is lost on the "gaming industry", which has become a corporate enterprise that seeks above all to increase shareholder value.
Leave it to the indies, that's where you'll find true passion and creativity, not games designed by analysing focus groups and player metrics...
It's not profit that determines the layoffs or the cost cuts, it's the Margin.
That's what drives companies to cut costs.
Blizzard might just as well made record profits, but margin might be down.
Profit is a consequence of good Margin management.
EX (it's an hyperbole):
Company A (Blizzard): Revenues $1000, Costs $900, profit $100 (Margin is 10%)
Company B (Indie): Revenues $167, Costs $67, profit $100 (Margin is 60%)
They achieved same profit, but the second Company achieved that with only a fraction of the first Company sales.
If the bigger company had achieved 60% Margin (like the smaller) instead of 10%, it would have made $500 more than they actually did.
That's why companies always push for higher margins even when they already delivering high profits.
Second Point: Again Margin.
If you have a margin target of 30% and you are delivering a 27%, this is cause of big drama in the boardroom (3% margin difference could be worth Billions for big companies).
You cut 5-6% of your workforce, and voila', the Margin goes back to 30%, right on target.
Shareholders happy.
Third point: Margin once again.
Every Company has a Margin Target. If a CEO don't hit the target that's a big problem for him.
As a CEO (or any middle manager for that matter), when you sit in the boardroom trying to explain how you going to recover the margin target you missed the past year, you already have to have a good plan in place if you want their confidence for the next year.
Sitting there with a good plan already in place means you can keep your job for another year, and when you are short of ideas and in a hurry (or panic), cutting Labour is always the first action they are going to take for the next fiscal year.
In short, Margin is the cancer of modern companies (not just gaming), and an easy and fast way to fix Margin gaps is cutting Labour.
If one or two of your games are not performing, their margin drops as a consequence, dragging down the margin of the entire company.
So CEOs are forced to cut costs even if overall profit is still high.
But while with the Sims you buy the game only once with some DLC thrown in from time to time, with FIFA they release the same exact game every year, adding only new players and modifying some of the existing players stats.
The margin on FIFA is absolutely huge, and it's always in the Top 5 throughout the whole year.
With FIFA you could simply make a regular free update every year with the new player stats, instead they charge full price every year as if it was a brand new game.
This is the type of product companies aim for; high sales, low costs, maximized margin (just to link with my previous post).
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
I have never met anyone who has or does....apparantly they reside in an alternate universe.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
They might indeed live in a parallel universe.
I completely agree that there are unethical and numbers driven people that only care about money.
I think you and I are somewhat on the same page, i do think that bad management and unethical shit heads screw over employees but i dont think it is all the time. You are generalizing which is what my issue was.
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
I think you may be over simplifying things, companies do many things and not all of what they do is solely based off margin.
What happens if a company wants to move into a different direction or invest in something that doesnt make their margin look good when they do it?
They may take a loss initially while they ramp up, the ledger sheet doesnt tell the whole story.
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
Many devs play and enjoy gaming and have a professional pride in what they produce. I knew someone who was part of a team that developed mobile games, he didn't really like talking about that, and looked forward making what he called a "real game" on PC/console.
So there is an occupied space between mortgaging your house and being a company man. Gaming is an art form like any other form of entertainment, if you put the product before the art expect soullessness to creep in. You make a better game/TV series etc if you are passionate about those mediums.
I do accept some of your premise however, some of the early gaming studio bosses described themselves as trying to make themselves a fortune doing something they loved in college, it was a big risk for big reward. These days the CEO's of major gaming studios are parachuted in from the likes of Haagen-Dazs, gaming means nothing to them.
My employer is doing fine financially at present but is moving into fortress mode now.
They've already put out a cost cutting mandate, freezing new hiring and had the 1st round of layoffs this month, more to follow most likely.
Ironically the very moves they are taking to prepare may actually contribute to triggering the downturn they have begun to fear, but all just part of macroeconomic theory.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Doesn’t stop them from preordering the next big hype. Some people are just desperate fools.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
For some, crowdfunding projects. Others, AAA hype trains. Even others, MMORPG renaissance (I've been a desperate fool there in the past, and I know I'm not alone here in that fact). Beyond our little hobby: relationships, politics, health "cures".... The list goes on and on. Most aren't fools for everything, but most are fools for at least some things.