PCG Article Xbox boss Phil Spencer says layoffs were 'painful' but necessary for 'long-term success'

[ZedClampet]

Spencer addressed the recent layoff of 10,000 Microsoft employees in an email sent to gaming division employees.

I can't describe how disappointed I am at this complete disregard for Microsoft employees. It is true that the gaming division's revenue "only" increased by 3 percent last year, but what did they expect? I'm not aware of any major games that they released last year. They bought a bunch of studios, but they aren't the kind of studios that are constantly churning out blockbuster games. Bethesda's sub-studios aren't overly successful in the big scheme of things, Obsidian released an adventure game. Halo Infinite was the year before, as was Forza Horizon. I should have thought that under these circumstances, you'd be pleased with a 3 percent increase and be telling everyone, "Just wait till Starfield releases!" But, no, you start laying people off.

I have not seen how many of those 10k people were from the gaming side. It probably wasn't many, but it should have been zero. Now if they wanted to finally give up and close Bing, that would be understandable. But the gaming division? Seems short-sighted.

 

[Alm]

343 lost a few:

So far, Halo Infinite developer 343 Industries has been hit particularly hard by these cuts, and has lost over 60 of its employees. Former 343 Industries developers have voiced scathing criticisms of Microsoft's leadership and management policies on social media after details about the layoffs came to light.

https://www.windowscentral.com/gaming/former-343i-devs-respond-to-microsoft-layoffs-they-set-halo-up-for-failure

 

[Zloth]

I can't describe how disappointed I am at this complete disregard for Microsoft employees.

?? That's how it goes in tech. I've been fired from one company three times and have quit twice. I finally found a company where I could stay in the same place for years, but I bet I'm not getting paid quite as much as I should be because of that. Back around Y2K, people would look at you funny if you stayed in the same job for two years in a row!

 

[ZedClampet]

?? That's how it goes in tech. I've been fired from one company three times and have quit twice. I finally found a company where I could stay in the same place for years, but I bet I'm not getting paid quite as much as I should be because of that. Back around Y2K, people would look at you funny if you stayed in the same job for two years in a row!

In the financial industry, people moved around a lot, but there were never any layoffs.

 

[Zloth]

That's actually kind of what was going on with me. Get fired/quit, then get hired back by the same company again, but in a different department, a month or two later - possibly through a contracting company. It ended up being a rather wasteful way to move people around the company.

 

[Brian Boru]

While 10,000 is a big number, for context MS had around 220,000 employees last year.
5%, or 1 in 20, sounds less obnoxious.

That's how it goes in tech

Yes indeed. Amazon have announced 18,000 layoffs in last couple of months, and Google 12,000.

 

[ZedClampet]

That's actually kind of what was going on with me. Get fired/quit, then get hired back by the same company again, but in a different department, a month or two later - possibly through a contracting company. It ended up being a rather wasteful way to move people around the company.

I never quite mastered this the way my wife did. Every time she switched jobs, she got a better one.

I say there weren't layoffs, but sometimes it would have been better to have layoffs. I was working for Citibank, and they decided to move about 100 good jobs from Knoxville to Charlotte, and anyone who didn't want to move to Charlotte was going to become a collections agent for mobile home loans. I had been managing a small department, and I was forced to tell them which orifice they could put their job in. Another time I was working for BB&T and was offered a job in Raleigh, NC. I said, no thanks, and they said they would find something for me in a branch. Again, I ended up having to resign rather than take a step down. I couldn't get mad at BB&T, though, because they had hired me for a single task, and I knew that once I was done with it that I was going to have to find something else, and they were nice enough to offer me a good job somewhere else. I just couldn't relocate.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

While 10,000 is a big number, for context MS had around 220,000 employees last year.
5%, or 1 in 20, sounds less obnoxious.

Yeah, it makes it a little easier to stomach when you see that it was a very small percentage of their employees. But it's still tough for those 10,000 people.

But another thing I've heard in the past from interviews with game developers is that it's very common in the industry to work on a project and then get laid off. They talked like in that industry, it happens all the time, and you just go to your next job and get laid off there when they're done with you. I think if you're a game developer, it's just common to go from job to job fairly often.

 

[Brian Boru]

it's very common in the industry to work on a project and then get laid off

That's common in the entertainment sector. Happens all the time with actors and crew, touring band crews, session musicians etc. Just the way it is.

Obviously it also happens to freelancers in any industry, or seasonal workers in agriculture, or hospitality workers in tourist areas, etc.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

That's common in the entertainment sector. Happens all the time with actors and crew, touring band crews, session musicians etc. Just the way it is.

Obviously it also happens to freelancers in any industry, or seasonal workers in agriculture, or hospitality workers in tourist areas, etc.

I used to want to be a game programmer when I was younger. Now that I know how the industry works, I'm really glad I never got into it. That kind of life would be really stressful.

 

[Pifanjr]

I used to want to be a game programmer when I was younger. Now that I know how the industry works, I'm really glad I never got into it. That kind of life would be really stressful.

I almost did a bachelor in game technology, but decided to do general computer science instead, as I figured it would give me more job opportunities and would probably be good enough if I did decide to apply at a game company after my studies. I'm very happy with that choice now.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

I almost did a bachelor in game technology, but decided to do general computer science instead, as I figured it would give me more job opportunities and would probably be good enough if I did decide to apply at a game company after my studies. I'm very happy with that choice now.

You can use general computer science anywhere. That was definitely a good choice.

 

[Brian Boru]

That kind of life would be really stressful

It's not just the lack of regular employment, which works fine for many people who can't stick never-ending 9-5, it's the nature of the work itself. I've read plenty of horror stories and zero good stories about the conditions and demands in big game dev companies.

general computer science

Yeah, agree with Woody, it's much easier to narrow down from a broad base than it is to widen up from a narrow base

 

[WoodenSaucer]

It's not just the lack of regular employment, which works fine for many people who can't stick never-ending 9-5, it's the nature of the work itself. I've read plenty of horror stories and zero good stories about the conditions and demands in big game dev companies.

From what I've heard, the devs want to do the games right, but they get heavily pressured by the executives to just push the game out so they can make a buck quicker. From the interviews I've read, that dynamic is extremely frustrating.

 

[Zloth]

From what I've heard, the devs want to do the games right, but they get heavily pressured by the executives to just push the game out so they can make a buck quicker. From the interviews I've read, that dynamic is extremely frustrating.

That dynamic is everywhere in computer programming, and probably engineering in general.

 

[Brian Boru]

devs want to do the games right, but they get heavily pressured by the executives to just push the game out

Two sides there:
♣ Execs need to recover the costs in line with financial projections made to investors, banks, analysts, etc—which for sure encourages rushed releases;
♦ Devs would dawdle forever 'perfecting' their masterpiece, which would quickly bankrupt the whole show.

We all work with 'good enough'—eg many more drive Ford & Toyota than say BMW and Mercedes. You want super-polished games, the question is will enough people pay $500 for them.

There is room for both, perhaps exemplified by the TV and movie industries. A movie might take a year to produce 90 minutes of highly polished final product. A TV show shoots 20 hours of product in ~6 months. Both work, often for very overlapping audiences.

It'll take a while for gaming to settle into a model which works for devs, pubs and players—it's still in a very volatile stage as the various techs continue to develop quickly.

 

[Pifanjr]

That dynamic is everywhere in computer programming, and probably engineering in general.

Not anywhere near the level that seems normal in game development in my experience and from what I've heard and read. It seems more likely that you only work 4 hours in a day as a software developer than that you have to make 60-80 hour work weeks.

And most software developers aren't anywhere near as passionate about what they're making as game developers are, so they don't care that much about pushing out a substandard product.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

Two sides there:
♣ Execs need to recover the costs in line with financial projections made to investors, banks, analysts, etc—which for sure encourages rushed releases;
♦ Devs would dawdle forever 'perfecting' their masterpiece, which would quickly bankrupt the whole show.

Yeah, I get that. But there is a third side. That side is the perspective of the consumer. You and I are both old enough to remember before the days of downloading patches and updates to games. Back when they had to put out games that actually worked, because when they went to print, that was it. If they put out a buggy game without the option to update it, they'd be the laughing stock of the gaming industry, and they wouldn't last very long. People wouldn't buy their games anymore.

And you and I have both lived through the evolution of being able to put out an unfinished game, knowing that they can just update it later. We've seen games that were absolute turds come out, and then a year down the road, they've put out so many updates that it's a decent game. I got in on the whole deal where they gave away every game in the Arkham series to people who bought Arkham Knight in the beginning when it was that bad, just to compensate them for buying a shamefully unfinished game. We could talk about Assassin's Creed: Unity, Cyberpunk, a ton of games where they opted to put out a crap game to make a quick buck, knowing that people would eat it up and just download the updates later.

So I see your point about having to recover costs and make investors happy. But many times, they push it to the limits and cross the line. There has to be some balance.

 

[Zloth]

Not anywhere near the level that seems normal in game development in my experience and from what I've heard and read. It seems more likely that you only work 4 hours in a day as a software developer than that you have to make 60-80 hour work weeks.

Huh? That last sentence threw me.

And most software developers aren't anywhere near as passionate about what they're making as game developers are, so they don't care that much about pushing out a substandard product.

No, still lost. Some software developers are game developers, so how could those people be more passionate than themselves?

@WoodenSaucer - and what about the things that were overdeveloped? If coders spent far too much time accounting for issues that would only affect 0.001% of the customers, how would you know it? Bugs are obvious but, if you're going to weigh them against overdevelopment, you've got to have a way to measure both.

 

[Pifanjr]

Huh? That last sentence threw me.

No, still lost. Some software developers are game developers, so how could those people be more passionate than themselves?

Game developer is a separate job title from software developer. But even if you consider game developers to also be software developers, most software developers are still not game developers.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

@WoodenSaucer - and what about the things that were overdeveloped? If coders spent far too much time accounting for issues that would only affect 0.001% of the customers, how would you know it? Bugs are obvious but, if you're going to weigh them against overdevelopment, you've got to have a way to measure both.

You're not wrong. But I'm mainly talking about all the games that are obviously sloppy when they're released. It's been happening way too much for the past several years.

 

[Sarafan]

I never understand why big companies buy smaller studios and then fire their staff or even close them completely. Microsoft in the last few years bought a lot of new studios and now they're firing. It was the same with EA in the past. Now they want to take over Activision Blizzard and what next? I bet they'll start firing people again...

 

[WoodenSaucer]

I never understand why big companies buy smaller studios and then fire their staff or even close them completely. Microsoft in the last few years bought a lot of new studios and now they're firing. It was the same with EA in the past. Now they want to take over Activision Blizzard and what next? I bet they'll start firing people again...

I think EA has been a much bigger offender. Microsoft is laying off a small percentage of their staff. EA bought up studios just to shut them down because they didn't like the competition.

 

[Brian Boru]

I never understand why big companies buy smaller studios and then fire their staff or even close them completely

In any industry:
♣ Competition, as Woody said.
♦ Acquire their IP—big example is Google's purchase of Motorola, mainly to acquire their raft of patents to defend Android from MS and Apple lawsuits.
♥ Synergy—bought company may have a presence in markets the buyer wants to enter. Buying is a much simpler strategy than trying to build a presence from scratch.
♠ Others I can't think of at the moment.

There will always be overlaps between the companies, at least in admin areas, so the buyer has to streamline that by integrating whatever makes sense to keep, and closing the rest.

 

[Sarafan]

Of course I'm not trying to say that Microsoft is a gaming villain, because that would be far from truth, but I'm thinking that the company might have over-invested in the process of acquiring new studios.