Contractors typically get paid more, though, right? That's what I've heard before in tech jobs. So this "temporary full-time" seemed different.
Depends on the contractor. If you have valuable skills to leverage, sure. If you don't then you take what you get.
Sometimes (not applicable to this situation obviously) the contractors are just salaried employees of another company and thus getting paid the same or less.
That was my specific situation.
I was technically an employee of a company that basically just served as an intermediary. So I worked for them on paper, but I worked for the other company in my actual day to day job. But then when the buyout/merger happened, since I wasn't on their payroll I was gone. Like instantly.
Which is the entire point of these setups. Whatever way they work what the company wants in the end is flexibility. And the tougher the labour laws, the more attractive it becomes.
I don't understand the motivation for laying off all these people.
I mean they had their best year ever, right? At least a really good one. Supposedly they want to do even better this year and next year and so on, right?
So... don't they need the people that helped make it such a successful year? If they didn't need them why were they even hired in the first place?
I don't understand the motivation for laying off all these people.
I mean they had their best year ever, right? At least a really good one. Supposedly they want to do even better this year and next year and so on, right?
So... don't they need the people that helped make it such a successful year? If they didn't need them why were they even hired in the first place?
It kind of sounds like they'll be attempting to rehire them for less wages and benefits or find some other poor people to repeat this process.
I don't understand the motivation for laying off all these people.
I mean they had their best year ever, right? At least a really good one. Supposedly they want to do even better this year and next year and so on, right?
So... don't they need the people that helped make it such a successful year? If they didn't need them why were they even hired in the first place?
I would never take a statement from a CEO at face value, esp at an earnings call. They're trying to sell their company/performance as an executive.
It's cause ATVI has fuck-all for new games/IP projected to be released in 2019 and is experiencing low-to-flat growth on existing ones (i.e. Hearthstone, OW). It's a early move to try and cushion the fact that their profit numbers wont look great for 2019 and I hope make some space for hiring devs (probably not) and continuing to pay executives millions of dollars (probably this). The stock's already tanking with this knowledge.
Bnet: CavilatRest#1874
Steam: CavilatRest
+3
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Jason Schreier covers some of the fallout of yesterday. Also in part, Activision is kinda fed up with Blizzard's glacial game development cycle with regards to new titles and after this year we can likely expect Blizzard to be pushed towards an Activision-style annualized release schedule - most likely at the cost of the "Blizzard polish" Blizzard has been well known for in the past.
Jason Schreier covers some of the fallout of yesterday. Also in part, Activision is kinda fed up with Blizzard's glacial game development cycle with regards to new titles and after this year we can likely expect Blizzard to be pushed towards an Activision-style annualized release schedule - most likely at the cost of the "Blizzard polish" Blizzard has been well known for in the past.
It's time to cut this fucking goose open and get all them golden eggs at once.
+20
Options
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
I kinda feel like Overwatch inadvertently screwed Blizzard.
Not counting Titan's wasted time, Overwatch itself had a pretty quick dev cycle. Two years I think?
I suspect that may have made Activision sit up and go, 'Wait, you assholes can develop and release a hit game in that kind of time frame?!"
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
+1
Options
3cl1ps3I will build a labyrinth to house the cheeseRegistered Userregular
RIP Blizzard. You made a lot of my favorite games, and I'll remember you fondly.
The part I find interesting is that all this corporate stuff started really hitting Blizzard in 2018, 10 years after the merger. Pure speculation, but it sure seems like Blizzard had a 10 years hands off clause, and now that it’s over Activision is asserting control. I’ve seen similar things happen at previous employers, when all the senior leadership of the acquired company leaves at the end of the hands off agreement (not always by choice) and the acquiring company installs their leadership. Usually that’s when the acquired company goes on a downhill slide, and they tend to have a hard time recovering.
Jason Schreier covers some of the fallout of yesterday. Also in part, Activision is kinda fed up with Blizzard's glacial game development cycle with regards to new titles and after this year we can likely expect Blizzard to be pushed towards an Activision-style annualized release schedule - most likely at the cost of the "Blizzard polish" Blizzard has been well known for in the past.
Definitely maybe! However the main source for that Kotaku article is actually another Kotaku article, which just cites some anonymous Blizzard employees (often former Blizzard employees for their most cutting quotes). Went over this a couple months ago when that was published. Then there's just speculation.
I kinda feel like Overwatch inadvertently screwed Blizzard.
Not counting Titan's wasted time, Overwatch itself had a pretty quick dev cycle. Two years I think?
I suspect that may have made Activision sit up and go, 'Wait, you assholes can develop and release a hit game in that kind of time frame?!"
I don't think that mattered really. That's a pace everyone already knew you could do but Blizzard just chose not to.
The main point is that it had all the polish and shine of a Blizzard game and was a big hit (critically and financially), but didn't take a bajillion years to make.
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
I kinda feel like Overwatch inadvertently screwed Blizzard.
Not counting Titan's wasted time, Overwatch itself had a pretty quick dev cycle. Two years I think?
I suspect that may have made Activision sit up and go, 'Wait, you assholes can develop and release a hit game in that kind of time frame?!"
I don't think that mattered really. That's a pace everyone already knew you could do but Blizzard just chose not to.
The main point is that it had all the polish and shine of a Blizzard game and was a big hit (critically and financially), but didn't take a bajillion years to make.
You could argue about how much DNA from Titan ended up in it giving its development somewhat of a boost however.
The part I find interesting is that all this corporate stuff started really hitting Blizzard in 2018, 10 years after the merger. Pure speculation, but it sure seems like Blizzard had a 10 years hands off clause, and now that it’s over Activision is asserting control. I’ve seen similar things happen at previous employers, when all the senior leadership of the acquired company leaves at the end of the hands off agreement (not always by choice) and the acquiring company installs their leadership. Usually that’s when the acquired company goes on a downhill slide, and they tend to have a hard time recovering.
I think it was just last year that the old guard of blizz leadership left, right? That's the point where things generally change as prior to then you'd have to force them out to effect real change, which is super risky.
As far as why layoffs now?
1. A lot of companies are spooked at a potential recession and want to get ahead of it (see: GM, Ford buyouts, many others)
2. Most of the layoffs are duplicated jobs in Activision (non-dev support), so this is a preamble to tighter coupling/blizzard exists in name only. You don't need two esports/pr/comms/support teams, you just need one, and you want your people running it so the easiest way is to gut the other side.
3. Cost cutting generally appeases wall street and they've taken a beating this year.
4. The changing nature of communication/technology means you can get away with fewer of these folks as the general standard for support has dropped (sadly), as the "killer app" stickiness means people will figure out how to play stuff without help/polish.
+1
Options
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
I kinda feel like Overwatch inadvertently screwed Blizzard.
Not counting Titan's wasted time, Overwatch itself had a pretty quick dev cycle. Two years I think?
I suspect that may have made Activision sit up and go, 'Wait, you assholes can develop and release a hit game in that kind of time frame?!"
I don't think that mattered really. That's a pace everyone already knew you could do but Blizzard just chose not to.
The main point is that it had all the polish and shine of a Blizzard game and was a big hit (critically and financially), but didn't take a bajillion years to make.
You could argue about how much DNA from Titan ended up in it giving its development somewhat of a boost however.
Oh for sure, but as Jeff Kaplan talked about on paper they were two different projects with two different budgets. From Activision's point of view Overwatch was a brand new project.
On a somewhat related note there are plenty of interviews with current and former Blizzard Devs about how they pretty regularly spend 10 years and a 100 million on a project that goes no where. While that is awesome for us gamers, I can totally understand why Activision may not be so enthused about that and would want them to pick up the pace a little.
Which makes me feel a little gross for saying so.
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
The part I find interesting is that all this corporate stuff started really hitting Blizzard in 2018, 10 years after the merger. Pure speculation, but it sure seems like Blizzard had a 10 years hands off clause, and now that it’s over Activision is asserting control. I’ve seen similar things happen at previous employers, when all the senior leadership of the acquired company leaves at the end of the hands off agreement (not always by choice) and the acquiring company installs their leadership. Usually that’s when the acquired company goes on a downhill slide, and they tend to have a hard time recovering.
I'm thinking this might just be a matter of timing. Basically you can hold off the empty suits at Activision as long as everything is going good but the minute you have an even slightly off year suddenly they are all over your ass. My personal suspicion is that everyone internally knows there are no new products dropping for the next couple of years and this presented a moment of weakness the idiots at the top of management couldn't not respond to.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
There's an elephant in the room.
What the fuck is a "temporary full-time employee"?
What the fuck is a "temporary full-time employee"?
contractor.
Basically a way to get people for cheap without actually giving them benefits, perks or job security. The abuse of contractor titles is such a travesty in the modern working world.
What the fuck is a "temporary full-time employee"?
The inevitable consequence of a society that makes health insurance (and by extension healthcare) and pension completely dependent on employment, or wants to.
+6
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Uninstalled Battle.net.
Man that was a moment. Battle.net has some memories attached to it.
But yeah, fuck you Activision. Somehow you're making EA and Square-Enix look good. That's a fucking achievement.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Man that was a moment. Battle.net has some memories attached to it.
But yeah, fuck you Activision. Somehow you're making EA and Square-Enix look good. That's a fucking achievement.
I'm leaving it installed just for Destiny 2, which I can justify to myself because Bungie split from Activision and it just happens to still be on that service. The moment Destiny moves off then it's gonezo.
Jason Schreier covers some of the fallout of yesterday. Also in part, Activision is kinda fed up with Blizzard's glacial game development cycle with regards to new titles and after this year we can likely expect Blizzard to be pushed towards an Activision-style annualized release schedule - most likely at the cost of the "Blizzard polish" Blizzard has been well known for in the past.
Interesting note from that article:
This year will likely be a slow one for Blizzard, as the company implements its new strategy across franchises like Diablo, Warcraft, and Overwatch (all of which have new games in development, many for smartphones).
New Overwatch game?
0
Options
38thDoelets never be stupid againwait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered Userregular
Jason Schreier covers some of the fallout of yesterday. Also in part, Activision is kinda fed up with Blizzard's glacial game development cycle with regards to new titles and after this year we can likely expect Blizzard to be pushed towards an Activision-style annualized release schedule - most likely at the cost of the "Blizzard polish" Blizzard has been well known for in the past.
Interesting note from that article:
This year will likely be a slow one for Blizzard, as the company implements its new strategy across franchises like Diablo, Warcraft, and Overwatch (all of which have new games in development, many for smartphones).
New Overwatch game?
Spend 200 vesper gas on Zerg rush?
You require more vespers gas. Buy a cerebrete pack for 99$?
Jason Schreier covers some of the fallout of yesterday. Also in part, Activision is kinda fed up with Blizzard's glacial game development cycle with regards to new titles and after this year we can likely expect Blizzard to be pushed towards an Activision-style annualized release schedule - most likely at the cost of the "Blizzard polish" Blizzard has been well known for in the past.
Definitely maybe! However the main source for that Kotaku article is actually another Kotaku article, which just cites some anonymous Blizzard employees (often former Blizzard employees for their most cutting quotes). Went over this a couple months ago when that was published.
And we go over this same thing every time this is gone over - Jason Shreier is one of the(if not the) most credible in the industry, and if he's saying it based on his sources then it's as true as you can get.
Donnicton on
0
Options
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
What the fuck is a "temporary full-time employee"?
My first job in IT I was basically this. I was ‘casual’ (in Australia that is, do the hours you’re asked for the pay offered, but no benefits). My boss was trying very hard to make me Permanent but I joined right when they were being bought by another company.
I stayed for years after that merger, but then it come about that we were bought to offshore our work. That’s why I was never made Permanent, because they had every intention of firing me and didn’t want to pay me a redundancy package.
Temporary Full Time is unfortunately very common. I saw plenty of people over the years, there and elsewhere, hired to work full time as casual. My previous boss made it clear he was doing it to have a ‘flexible’ work force, if workloads reduces significantly he could just tell people not to come back. And agin, this is in IT, not working in a coffee shop.
I'm upset, but not enough to boycott: only the remaining devs would pay the price in this economic climate, and Overwatch is the future of e-sports and symbolic of the direction I want online gaming to go (even though the gaming populace isn't ready for it). However, there's a lovely little election in 2020...
I'm upset, but not enough to boycott: only the remaining devs would pay the price in this economic climate, and Overwatch is the future of e-sports and symbolic of the direction I want online gaming to go (even though the gaming populace isn't ready for it). However, there's a lovely little election in 2020...
Yeah, the best way to support game devs would be to support labor friendly candidates in the upcoming elections.
Black lives matter.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
+5
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I'm upset, but not enough to boycott: only the remaining devs would pay the price in this economic climate, and Overwatch is the future of e-sports and symbolic of the direction I want online gaming to go (even though the gaming populace isn't ready for it). However, there's a lovely little election in 2020...
Yeah, the best way to support game devs would be to support labor friendly candidates in the upcoming elections.
Yeah boycotts won't teach publishers anything, they will always fall back to what bumps their stock price this quarter. The only thing that will change anything is legislation.
KoopahTroopahThe koopas, the troopas.Philadelphia, PARegistered Userregular
I actually had a meeting with a recruiting agency yesterday who are trying to set me up with a new job as a contractor. One of the things they boasted was health benefits and 401k options through their business as the place where I may actually be working isn't required to give me either. I've gone through this a few times before, but a lot of contracting agencies actually have benefits available to supplement the actual businesses being greedy AF.
Jason Schreier covers some of the fallout of yesterday. Also in part, Activision is kinda fed up with Blizzard's glacial game development cycle with regards to new titles and after this year we can likely expect Blizzard to be pushed towards an Activision-style annualized release schedule - most likely at the cost of the "Blizzard polish" Blizzard has been well known for in the past.
I feel like the last WoW expansion had much less "Blizzard polish" then we are use to
Posts
Which is the entire point of these setups. Whatever way they work what the company wants in the end is flexibility. And the tougher the labour laws, the more attractive it becomes.
I mean they had their best year ever, right? At least a really good one. Supposedly they want to do even better this year and next year and so on, right?
So... don't they need the people that helped make it such a successful year? If they didn't need them why were they even hired in the first place?
It kind of sounds like they'll be attempting to rehire them for less wages and benefits or find some other poor people to repeat this process.
I would never take a statement from a CEO at face value, esp at an earnings call. They're trying to sell their company/performance as an executive.
It's cause ATVI has fuck-all for new games/IP projected to be released in 2019 and is experiencing low-to-flat growth on existing ones (i.e. Hearthstone, OW). It's a early move to try and cushion the fact that their profit numbers wont look great for 2019 and I hope make some space for hiring devs (probably not) and continuing to pay executives millions of dollars (probably this). The stock's already tanking with this knowledge.
Steam: CavilatRest
Short-term money.
Jason Schreier covers some of the fallout of yesterday. Also in part, Activision is kinda fed up with Blizzard's glacial game development cycle with regards to new titles and after this year we can likely expect Blizzard to be pushed towards an Activision-style annualized release schedule - most likely at the cost of the "Blizzard polish" Blizzard has been well known for in the past.
It's time to cut this fucking goose open and get all them golden eggs at once.
Not counting Titan's wasted time, Overwatch itself had a pretty quick dev cycle. Two years I think?
I suspect that may have made Activision sit up and go, 'Wait, you assholes can develop and release a hit game in that kind of time frame?!"
I don't think that mattered really. That's a pace everyone already knew you could do but Blizzard just chose not to.
Definitely maybe! However the main source for that Kotaku article is actually another Kotaku article, which just cites some anonymous Blizzard employees (often former Blizzard employees for their most cutting quotes). Went over this a couple months ago when that was published. Then there's just speculation.
But it's reasonable.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
The main point is that it had all the polish and shine of a Blizzard game and was a big hit (critically and financially), but didn't take a bajillion years to make.
You could argue about how much DNA from Titan ended up in it giving its development somewhat of a boost however.
I think it was just last year that the old guard of blizz leadership left, right? That's the point where things generally change as prior to then you'd have to force them out to effect real change, which is super risky.
As far as why layoffs now?
1. A lot of companies are spooked at a potential recession and want to get ahead of it (see: GM, Ford buyouts, many others)
2. Most of the layoffs are duplicated jobs in Activision (non-dev support), so this is a preamble to tighter coupling/blizzard exists in name only. You don't need two esports/pr/comms/support teams, you just need one, and you want your people running it so the easiest way is to gut the other side.
3. Cost cutting generally appeases wall street and they've taken a beating this year.
4. The changing nature of communication/technology means you can get away with fewer of these folks as the general standard for support has dropped (sadly), as the "killer app" stickiness means people will figure out how to play stuff without help/polish.
Oh for sure, but as Jeff Kaplan talked about on paper they were two different projects with two different budgets. From Activision's point of view Overwatch was a brand new project.
On a somewhat related note there are plenty of interviews with current and former Blizzard Devs about how they pretty regularly spend 10 years and a 100 million on a project that goes no where. While that is awesome for us gamers, I can totally understand why Activision may not be so enthused about that and would want them to pick up the pace a little.
Which makes me feel a little gross for saying so.
I'm thinking this might just be a matter of timing. Basically you can hold off the empty suits at Activision as long as everything is going good but the minute you have an even slightly off year suddenly they are all over your ass. My personal suspicion is that everyone internally knows there are no new products dropping for the next couple of years and this presented a moment of weakness the idiots at the top of management couldn't not respond to.
What the fuck is a "temporary full-time employee"?
contractor.
Basically a way to get people for cheap without actually giving them benefits, perks or job security. The abuse of contractor titles is such a travesty in the modern working world.
One step above an intern.
The inevitable consequence of a society that makes health insurance (and by extension healthcare) and pension completely dependent on employment, or wants to.
Man that was a moment. Battle.net has some memories attached to it.
But yeah, fuck you Activision. Somehow you're making EA and Square-Enix look good. That's a fucking achievement.
I'm leaving it installed just for Destiny 2, which I can justify to myself because Bungie split from Activision and it just happens to still be on that service. The moment Destiny moves off then it's gonezo.
Interesting note from that article:
New Overwatch game?
Spend 200 vesper gas on Zerg rush?
You require more vespers gas. Buy a cerebrete pack for 99$?
What about the aborted MMO Overwatch arose from?
That's Titan, which was mentioned, yeah.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
And we go over this same thing every time this is gone over - Jason Shreier is one of the(if not the) most credible in the industry, and if he's saying it based on his sources then it's as true as you can get.
My first job in IT I was basically this. I was ‘casual’ (in Australia that is, do the hours you’re asked for the pay offered, but no benefits). My boss was trying very hard to make me Permanent but I joined right when they were being bought by another company.
I stayed for years after that merger, but then it come about that we were bought to offshore our work. That’s why I was never made Permanent, because they had every intention of firing me and didn’t want to pay me a redundancy package.
Temporary Full Time is unfortunately very common. I saw plenty of people over the years, there and elsewhere, hired to work full time as casual. My previous boss made it clear he was doing it to have a ‘flexible’ work force, if workloads reduces significantly he could just tell people not to come back. And agin, this is in IT, not working in a coffee shop.
Yeah, the best way to support game devs would be to support labor friendly candidates in the upcoming elections.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
And labor friendly studios, of course.
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
I feel like the last WoW expansion had much less "Blizzard polish" then we are use to
I will never forget Battle Chess the game that taught me chess