I don't know how it is in the good old USA, but in Finland and the EU we actually have laws protecting the rights of employees. But then again, you're country depended on slave labour after it was abolished in other Western countries (like the British Empire) almost a hundred years, so I guess this is no suprise.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 2 »
- Hmmmm this may be why the patch and Euro were delayed...
the patch was delayed because of some exploits our program found, it should be here in 2-3 weeks,,
sorry for the delay..
Indian
sorry for the delay..
Indian
WAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH WAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH. EA is a corporation and they want to make money!!! DAMN THEM!!!! You're all morons (or at least everyone who whines about EA's money grabbing). The goal of every company is to turn a profit. That is their responsibility to their shareholders.
EA is a publicly traded company. Their financails are out there for anyone to see:OaksMokedBacon wrote:
erm for a company to cut jobs when they are making profits in the region of $2billion + is a bit ironic. ITs all about greed and the green note in the back pocket nothing more. i think its called downsizing in the US and the excuse for streamlining is bollocks. You can cut back in other ways eg stupid director bonus's which probably = 5-6 peoples wages per director, their golf holidays. You dont have to cut jobs to save money, its jsut the easiest thing to do. This world isnt controlled by the governments any more but by 10-20 companies. Look at Americas presidential campaign support, most of which is large corporations which suddenly get favours like reduced taxes, loopsholes inserted in enviromental policy so they dont have to clean up after themselves. Its a farce. ANyway going off topic so i'll say no more
http://money.cnn.com/quote/financials/f … od=quarter
"profits in the region of $2billion +"???
1st quarter 2005 they LOST $54 Million (not Billion). 2nd Quarter 2005 they made $51 Million (Not Billion). Net for the 1st half of 2005 is a LOSS of $3 Million.
So where are you getting your facts?? Pulled them out of your a$$ didn't you?
Don't bother replying, your credibility is ZERO. It is obvious you will say anything regardless of the truth.
MBA and Proud of it!!
Comon sense=business
Some have it, Some don't.
Some have it, Some don't.
The NY times is infamous for only giving one side of the story. Most salary positions can require overtime without pay because they also give loads of time off. He could have a month vacation coming after that long crunch. It's normally hourly employees that make overtime pay since they are on a fixed vacation time with fixed hours. I worked 80+ hours a week in the military and was paid a third of what that guy made. Not only that, but he could quit his job any time he wanted, I couldn't. You can say "well that's your fault for volunterring for the military" and I can say "well, it's his fault for volunteering to work for EA". And I always have to say, if you can do it better than let's see it.Matiandos wrote:
To Cyberwolf and Mike_J : It might be hard to believe but I do realize that EA, like all companies need to be profitable in order to simply keep existing, even with my 10th Grade education I think I do understand that.
But what I'd like to point out is the style inwhich EA conducts business. I believe that all trade should be based on a mutual exchange that benefits both parties, between EA and its customers (us) and EA and its employees who are giving their time and talent in exhange for pay. I think I don't need to go very much into how EA treats its customer base, but here is a little on how its like to work for this company:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/busin … ssuserland
And by the way, the slave trade was a business to so thing twice before defending something without discriminatioin.
if you lose business, and have more employees than you need, you are paying for a service no longer needed, so it would have been unwise from a business perspective to keep extras around. grade 1 stuff people
Agreed, well put. I find it very annoying to hear peoples generalizations and 1. 2. 3.'s about 'evil corporations and capitalism'. It's the popular trend now a days to hate capitalism, our nations government, and big businesses and organizations. Sure it's not without reason; the Enron scandal, Guantanamo Bay, and many other things worthy of note should make people concerned, but before you put these things in front of the firing squad make sure you know what you're shooting. That is, don't criticize things if you have little or no understanding of them.Mike_J wrote:
Really well said! Man I get sick of the "down with the corporations," "EA is the devil," "capitolism sucks" people. Thanks for thinking past the "oh since their goal is to make money they must be evil" mentallity.Cyberwolf wrote:
Try running your own successful business. Don't spew shit from your mouth with your Grade 10 education. You know little about business, and it shows. Apparently you live in a fantasy world where reality is quite obscured. Life is tough sometimes, companies go through bad times for a number of reasons. Look at other companies, all act a like. Unless of course your blind.Matiandos wrote:
Think like EA 101
All action must produce money, the more the better.
1. Reducing number of employees and exploiting the ones that stay for max. profit = $$$$
2. Making big promises to gain customers but never deliver, for max. profit = $$$$
3. Release all kinds of add-ons and expansion that essentialy bring nothing really original to the table but effectivly milk the franchise cash cows for max profit. = $$$$
Last edited by Kkookie (2006-02-03 13:53:46)
<Rant>
EA is not evil, but they are not completely ethical either. They are quickly becoming considered the Microsoft of the gaming world. I love many of their products and buy and use many of them. But with the growth of EA comes the callousness of a corporation looking out only for a short term boost in earnings to increase shareholder wealth.
Here's my 2cents...
The layoff article from yahoo business news mentions something important that should be considered. The five-year cycle (during which a new game console's pending roll-out causes slowed/delayed game sales). So EA must have known this was going to happen. Who hasn't heard of XBOX 360 or the Playstation 3? If they didn't know the slowdown would occur management isn't doing their job.
Most MBA courses and many baby BA (Bachelor's of Business Administration) courses include at least one ethics class and usually even a HR manager's class. In these classes it is widely taught that it is more expensive to fire and rehire new talent, than to retain and retrain. By firing employees EA will incur increased costs and decreasing revenues. Take into consideration severance packages, employee lawsuits and negative publicity that may hurt sales. Then once the sales slump is over EA will again need to ramp up its work force to meet increasing demands for new titles. So a crop of new hires will come along, they will cost more due to training costs, low productivity etc. All around a bad move.
EA should have planned ahead and weathered the storm for a few months until the sales slump ended.
Now my beef with EA... if EA knew, and they had to know the gaming industry slow down would occur, they SHOULD have planned for it. There are many ways EA could have turned this slow down to their advantage. Layoffs are a weak management attempt at shoring up bad financials over the short term. A quick fix that usually hurts more in the long run. Many of these former programmers will now move onto other programming positions taking their skills and human capital with them, some even to compete against EA.
EA should have given employees some much need time off... its sounds like many EA programmers work long hours and would have appreciated this. This in turn would have garnered even small amounts of employee loyalty and in turn maybe even better productivity from already full trained programmers.
Layoffs only occur because of bad planning by managers. Individuals firings due to performance problems being the exception.
</Rant>
EA is not evil, but they are not completely ethical either. They are quickly becoming considered the Microsoft of the gaming world. I love many of their products and buy and use many of them. But with the growth of EA comes the callousness of a corporation looking out only for a short term boost in earnings to increase shareholder wealth.
Here's my 2cents...
The layoff article from yahoo business news mentions something important that should be considered. The five-year cycle (during which a new game console's pending roll-out causes slowed/delayed game sales). So EA must have known this was going to happen. Who hasn't heard of XBOX 360 or the Playstation 3? If they didn't know the slowdown would occur management isn't doing their job.
Most MBA courses and many baby BA (Bachelor's of Business Administration) courses include at least one ethics class and usually even a HR manager's class. In these classes it is widely taught that it is more expensive to fire and rehire new talent, than to retain and retrain. By firing employees EA will incur increased costs and decreasing revenues. Take into consideration severance packages, employee lawsuits and negative publicity that may hurt sales. Then once the sales slump is over EA will again need to ramp up its work force to meet increasing demands for new titles. So a crop of new hires will come along, they will cost more due to training costs, low productivity etc. All around a bad move.
EA should have planned ahead and weathered the storm for a few months until the sales slump ended.
Now my beef with EA... if EA knew, and they had to know the gaming industry slow down would occur, they SHOULD have planned for it. There are many ways EA could have turned this slow down to their advantage. Layoffs are a weak management attempt at shoring up bad financials over the short term. A quick fix that usually hurts more in the long run. Many of these former programmers will now move onto other programming positions taking their skills and human capital with them, some even to compete against EA.
EA should have given employees some much need time off... its sounds like many EA programmers work long hours and would have appreciated this. This in turn would have garnered even small amounts of employee loyalty and in turn maybe even better productivity from already full trained programmers.
Layoffs only occur because of bad planning by managers. Individuals firings due to performance problems being the exception.
</Rant>
Fly Planes
Ha ha ha ha!ColonelCanuck wrote:
<Rant>
Layoffs only occur because of bad planning by managers. Individuals firings due to performance problems being the exception.
</Rant>
That has got to be a joke.
While hindsight can ALWAYS say, "Well, they should have.....", it is impossible to be perdict the future with 100% certainty. Layoffs occur when you have more workers than work for the forseeable future.
It is quite obvious what you know came from a book, not the real world.
Industry analysts predicted the slow down in game sales early last year when it was learned both Sony and Microsoft had planned to market new consoles.
EA senior management had to know this was going to happen. A large corporation without any forecasting of future revenues is just asking for insolvency.
Employees once again pay for managerial incompetence.
Book smarts or none. It doesn't take a genius to see this.
EA senior management had to know this was going to happen. A large corporation without any forecasting of future revenues is just asking for insolvency.
Employees once again pay for managerial incompetence.
Book smarts or none. It doesn't take a genius to see this.
OK, a slow down for the industry was predicted. What could they have done that would have avoided the layoffs?ColonelCanuck wrote:
Industry analysts predicted the slow down in game sales early last year when it was learned both Sony and Microsoft had planned to market new consoles.
EA senior management had to know this was going to happen. A large corporation without any forecasting of future revenues is just asking for insolvency.
Employees once again pay for managerial incompetence.
Book smarts or none. It doesn't take a genius to see this.
So it is predicted that there is an industy downturn, what can they do?
CUT EXPENSES. You start with the less painful things, but eventually (Depending on the length and depth of the slump) you finally get to your most expensive cost- PEOPLE.
Even knowing the future does not give you the instant power and resources to CHANGE TO FUTURE.
If I tell you today that you are going to lose all of your income tomorrow, and will have zero income for the next 5 years, what can you do today that is going make it so that you do not have to change your lifestyle or cut major expenses?
Open your book and tell me what it says that EA should have done different.
I didn't read all of the replies in this thread, but I read enough to see the same thing that's common in threads like these.
Unless any of you have actual held a position in which you would attain knowledge of how and why large conglomerates make the choices they do, do everyone a favor and don't speak. So, that would encompass everyone here that's had an opinion regarding this matter.
Being a young 20-something, or 40-something college graduate perhaps marginally qualifies you to say something mildly intelligent in the matter, but why do you attempt to analyze a situation that you know nothing about? Your 40 hours of business classes don't carry much weight.
It's the same paradigm that exists in religious and political arguments. Neither side knows a damn thing about the matter except from what they've grown-up hearing, or seen in the media, but both sides think they have all the answers.
So, stop talking, and realize that you don't.
Unless any of you have actual held a position in which you would attain knowledge of how and why large conglomerates make the choices they do, do everyone a favor and don't speak. So, that would encompass everyone here that's had an opinion regarding this matter.
Being a young 20-something, or 40-something college graduate perhaps marginally qualifies you to say something mildly intelligent in the matter, but why do you attempt to analyze a situation that you know nothing about? Your 40 hours of business classes don't carry much weight.
It's the same paradigm that exists in religious and political arguments. Neither side knows a damn thing about the matter except from what they've grown-up hearing, or seen in the media, but both sides think they have all the answers.
So, stop talking, and realize that you don't.
Last edited by trepid_jesse (2006-02-03 16:38:25)
most of those layed off will have jobs again after the slump.
EA market and sell the game, dice create.
EA market and sell the game, dice create.
So, if the slowdown was predicted last year what was management to do. Start laying off people before the slowdown? No, as long as there is work to be done you keep the people there. Once the slowdown becomes a reality then you start laying people off. Or, do you have a better suggestion? Thsi isn't rocket science.ColonelCanuck wrote:
Industry analysts predicted the slow down in game sales early last year when it was learned both Sony and Microsoft had planned to market new consoles.
EA senior management had to know this was going to happen. A large corporation without any forecasting of future revenues is just asking for insolvency.
By the way, that article about EA Employees hit close to home. I work for a Tax Software company and have not had a day off since January 1st and don't see one coming any time soon. We have a new release going out every week to keep up with changes in tax laws/forms for Federal and the states. I put in 60-70 hours a week, and I'm salaried - so no OT. However, the people who work for me are hourly and I think they are actually making more than me because of the OT they get.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 2 »
- Hmmmm this may be why the patch and Euro were delayed...