In an audio interview with Kara Swisher of The New York Times, head of Xbox Phil Spencer spoke on a variety of topics surrounding the Xbox brand, including his company’s response to the myriad of ongoing sexual harassment, assault, and gender discrimination lawsuits at Activision Blizzard.
TG writes: The Assassin's Creed franchise has been around a long time, and its newest addition lets you take on the Templars in virtual reality. Should you take the leap and dive into this VR game, or should you leave this one to history?
Same but given they use the pass though functionality of the Quest 3 for the animus IIM but holding my breath but they could do without those parts
“An astonishing year for the video games that have been made, but not necessarily for the industry that it reflects.”
But there's layoffs all over. Shop I work at just laid off the entire 3rd shift. We make plastic connectors that go inside electronics. All these companies over ordered during covid cause no one really knew wtf was going on. So we were running 12 to 13 presses now down to 4 if lucky. My point is ismts not just video games. I feel bad for people who've been laid off but I feel worse for people that were machine operators, cashiers, etc.
That’s a clear reason why the industry YOURE in is suffering, not an industry where some companies are experiencing record breaking sales and still laying off. This isnt about you.
Shin
Issue is gaming revenue and profits are at all time high so executives getting huge bonuses yet those actually doing the work get laid off
I swear only 1 disagreeing with u is the already entitled rich snobs who happen to be on here
With the industry giants making record profits, layoffs are simply greed. You can't have profits without employees. It is interesting that the developers who treat their employees like humans didn't lay anyone off. As these conglomerates get bigger, it will become even more of a gig industry. Profits over people. And then they have the nerve to raise prices. And there isn't a single publisher that layed people off that didn't make an obsene profit this year.
None of them cut upper management.
Can you explain to me how profit margins and dev costs dictate layoffs? Or strategy changes and financial difficulties brought on by inflation, over-hiring, and higher interest rates affect the decision for layoffs?
I’m not taking a jab at you or anything, I’m genuinely asking if you could explain to me how this is corporate greed and the factors that prove it’s absolutely unnecessary to do so for the survival of a company.
It's a good question.
If you look at CEO pay and realize that CEOs compensation is equal to 200-300 times that of the median employee compensation (72k at Take Two - 120k at Electronic Arts), then you can see that those CEOs can survive (somehow) by being compensated by earning 2-3 times as much as the median employee.
That would save 199-299 jobs PER CEO. EA has 12 members of their Executive team. Cutting one of them via layoffs would save hundreds of jobs.
Of course, these are base salaries and don't include bonuses. In 2023, Andrew Wilson took home 20.66 million. Imagine being able to pay for your child's entire four years of college, buy a home, buy two cars and a vacation home with what you took home in half a month.
But we're led to believe that the "survival" of the company is the "in the chair" dev's fault for making 120K?
As I said, none of the small publishers and devs laid people off.
So the question is more of a moral one. Do you reward the people that made you obsenely rich by keeping them employed in lean times, or do you cut them in order to pay for your 4th vacation home?
I feel bad for CEO's... theyre looked at as entirely expendable by typical gamers who feel they make too much. Even if theyre the ones leading the charge to those horrible profits.
People have no leg to stand on if they are against MTX but then also pro reducing or removing CEO's because of all the profits theyve received from MTX as a reason to state that the company can survive without the indivudals leading the charge to the same profits that should supposedly let them continue to keep employees employed but without the individuals leading the company to make those profits.
CEO makes profits happen through bad practices people disagree with. Inflation occurs and then they lay off employees. People get upset those employees were laid off after getting all those profits from those bad practices that are suddenly the reason for removing the CEO which is the individual who made those profits happen.
Anyone here seen time machine?
If you think it's bad now just wait and see what happens if MS's gamepass model becomes successful, just like the movie industry everyone but CEO's and shareholders will get f****d because the subscription model lets you cut out the workforce from fair pay... probably why MS is pushing so hard for it
Policy does not really work that way. As Arthur Morgan put it: "you've been sold a false bill of goods." A voice and raising awareness means nothing without doing something. It takes direct action to change things, anything else is just some hippy BS.
*I like hippies, it's just a saying.
That would be interesting, as long as, the actors don't back down for a slight bump in pay and some flimsy promises.
Ben Starr is talented, ridiculously good looking, AND cares about the little man? This guy is the worst!
"Ben Starr is talented, ridiculously good looking"
This means he's a jester.
"cares about the little man"
This can mean anything, but it doesn't necessarily do anything.
"This guy is the worst!"
My criticism is not a moral judgment nor do I care if he helps old ladies across the street or not. It's not my place to say if he is a good or bad person. But I can say without action he is just acting, once again there is no way to tell or judge his moral foundation.
Next time I expect a fee.
I think the jester here is you. It's easy to sit there and accuse someone of doing "nothing" when the best you can do is make comments like this at no personal risk.
The important thing to note here is that Ben Starr was the ONLY award winner at the Golden Joystick who used that opportunity to talk about the layoffs. That in itself is an action worthy of respect. Ben Starr is already pretty well-known, and has lots of goodwill in the larger community. People love the guy. He doesn't stand to gain much on a personal level from grandstanding and virtue signalling - if anything, using that platform to talk about this kind of thing is inherently risky. It's a power move.
However, if you ever win an award for being a sad, cynical psuedo-intellectual, maybe you can use that to talk about something.
"psuedo-intellectual" ;
Prove this. I am willing to bet you misunderstand what it means to be intellectual. If not, then I can actaully learn something from this exchange.
"I think the jester here is you. It's easy to sit there and accuse someone of doing "nothing" when the best you can do is make comments like this at no personal risk."
People can critique things. I am positive you know this since you are about to tell me what an intellectual is.
"The important thing to note here is that Ben Starr was the ONLY award winner at the Golden Joystick who used that opportunity to talk about the layoffs. That in itself is an action worthy of respect. Ben Starr is already pretty well-known, and has lots of goodwill in the larger community. People love the guy. He doesn't stand to gain much on a personal level from grandstanding and virtue signalling - if anything, using that platform to talk about this kind of thing is inherently risky. It's a power move."
If he changes things then he will not only be a jester, he will be a changer. I bet he doesn't change anything, but there is always a possibility.
"He went on to say that Xbox’s mission isn’t about “virtue-shaming” other studios" Did he make up that term or swipe it from Twitter?
Activision step up please or it'll dive in my opinion.
Businesses aren't ethical, to begin with. You start throwing stones, everyone is going to get hit.