Gaming

20062 readers

72 users here now

Sub for any gaming related content!

Rules:

1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Metallinatus@lemmy.ml

peternile@lemmy.ml

121

EA will spend over $125 million laying off 5 percent of its workforce (www.gamedeveloper.com)

submitted 9 months ago by ylai@lemmy.ml to c/gaming@lemmy.ml

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 23 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

They make 5 billion a year, thats less than 2.5% of the money they make every year, it's a rounding error to make the spreadsheets look real good to the money lenders .

My company just let me go with a 6 figure package (x amount of pay + stocks). They could have easily kept me there for another year, but that's not as good for the spreadsheets.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I understand that, but still, the decision is a net negative. They are merely acting based on short-sighted insights.

[–] RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah that was kinda my point. All that matters is what the spreadsheet looks like now. It would have probably been a net positive to keep me given they are only going to grow and spend a fortune on hiring and new stocks. That's a different spreadsheet though, I also live in a country where it's expensive to fire full time employees collectively, so it's not like they are paying these kinds of sums for everyone. It's pretty cheap to make things look good on paper.

[–] rasakaf679@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago

Yeah, their whole goal is to look good on papers and stock market. Not to grow as actual company. They would rather cripple themselves than to strengthen themselves by slow growth...

[–] moody@lemmings.world 2 points 9 months ago

Short term gains are king for stock value.