Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Riot Games laying off 11%

riotgames.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 158 posts

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#81

Post by imgabe »

sarchertech wrote: post #75
imgabe wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there are always cases of people getting laid off despite having positive performance reports, were hired shortly prior to RIF, were given assurances there would not be layoffs, etc. Right. And since we know this, isn't it basic common sense to ask yourself "what would I do if I lost my job tomorrow?" and have some savings and a plan? Especially if you're a relatively well-paid tech employee? It doesn't matter if y…

Sure and it’s probably a bad idea to walk alone in bad areas of town at night. That doesn’t mean that if you get shot while doing so that you aren’t a victim.

The company is not mugging anyone. They are exercising their right to end a voluntary association. This is a perfectly valid choice that either party of the employment relationship may make. If you usually shop at grocery store A and you decide you don't want to any more and shop at grocery store B instead, you're not "victimizing" grocery store A.

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#82

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

acdha wrote: post #73
imgabe wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, someone who gets laid off is not a victim. It's a known part of the deal of having a job. You might decide to quit and leave the employer. The employer might decide they don't need you anymore and lay you off. You both have that option. You know this going in and you both are supposed to make arrangements to be able to deal with this possibility.

Sophistry aside, it’s still profoundly disruptive for many people. Whether or not they know there’s a risk, it means people are scrambling to reestablish their finances and routines, and in many cases that can have long-lasting impacts – people have to move, Americans have disruptions to their healthcare access & providers, and older people might never regain their old salary. That doesn’t make it illegal, or even a…

Riot is offering a minumum of six months of severance. I agree, layoffs are disruptive, but this view that somehow if you get hired the company can't ever decide to let you go is totally bizarre to me. Plus, what you would be essentially arguing is that it would have been better to never have hired these people in the first place, which I strongly disagree with in the vast majority of cases.

People need to stop acting like layoffs are the worst, evilest thing that can happen. It's important that people are treated with dignity and a financial cushion, and at least according to this blog post that seems to be the case.

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#83

Post by ClumsyPilot »

WalterBright wrote: post #30
latchkey wrote: post #25

Really bums me out when I see people getting laid off and they still list a bunch of open job reqs. They were good enough to empty it out... Work with us - Open Positions: 0

Peoples' job skills are not interchangeable.

That’s what training is for.

In Britain the investment by companies into workforce training has fallen off a cliff. Then the same companies complain about shortage of skills. Apparently people should finish university with 10 years of work experience, at their own expense.

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#84

Post by ninjaK4t »

imgabe wrote: post #56
codeflo wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's narcissistic BS corporate speak that ridicules the victims. We shouldn't stop pointing that out just because it's common.

Sorry, someone who gets laid off is not a victim. It's a known part of the deal of having a job. You might decide to quit and leave the employer. The employer might decide they don't need you anymore and lay you off. You both have that option. You know this going in and you both are supposed to make arrangements to be able to deal with this possibility.

This attitude of shrug and say “that’s how it works” seems common with older accounts.

You know going into this the next generation can come along and change the rules. Maybe the past should have thought about that before having kids shrug

Physics doesn’t put an obligation on us to serve the elders catechisms and chants. It does empower us to overwhelm through strength and raw numbers.

Throwing up their hands is not a good political position of the generations who need to trust the next generations won’t just drug them up and stick them in poorly run state care.

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#85

Post by conductr »

glimshe wrote: post #31
wilg wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Accountable" doesn't mean you have to be punished.

So what is it in practice? If nothing happens, in any way, what's the point of saying it? If it means nothing, then sure, I'm accountable too, why not?

It means he’s responsible for making tough choices like initiating a layoff. Obviously all CEOs would prefer their headcount growth initiatives had generated significant revenues to justified continued employment of those heads. But that doesn’t always happen and resets are sometimes in order.

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#86

Post by Apocryphon »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #82
acdha wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sophistry aside, it’s still profoundly disruptive for many people. Whether or not they know there’s a risk, it means people are scrambling to reestablish their finances and routines, and in many cases that can have long-lasting impacts – people have to move, Americans have disruptions to their healthcare access & providers, and older people might never regain their old salary. That doesn’t make it illegal, or even a…

Riot is offering a minumum of six months of severance. I agree, layoffs are disruptive, but this view that somehow if you get hired the company can't ever decide to let you go is totally bizarre to me. Plus, what you would be essentially arguing is that it would have been better to never have hired these people in the first place, which I strongly disagree with in the vast majority of cases. People need to stop actin…

Maybe those people would have been otherwise hired by employers who prudently didn’t overhire and need to cut afterwards.

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#87

Post by gurchik »

acdha wrote: post #77
WalterBright wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Layoffs are often a polite way of firing deadwood. The laid off people can preserve their dignity and apply for unemployment.

If 11% of their employees are “deadwood” they have had a spectacular failure of management.

The failures of Riot's management have been apparent. Three years ago, the company paid $100 million due to sexual harassment and gender discrimination done at all levels of management including the cofounders and their CEO and COO. Over 150 employees held a walkout. It's not just employees either, on the esports side, the North American players walked out last spring which caused the summer split to be delayed.

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#88

Post by acdha »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #82
acdha wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sophistry aside, it’s still profoundly disruptive for many people. Whether or not they know there’s a risk, it means people are scrambling to reestablish their finances and routines, and in many cases that can have long-lasting impacts – people have to move, Americans have disruptions to their healthcare access & providers, and older people might never regain their old salary. That doesn’t make it illegal, or even a…

Riot is offering a minumum of six months of severance. I agree, layoffs are disruptive, but this view that somehow if you get hired the company can't ever decide to let you go is totally bizarre to me. Plus, what you would be essentially arguing is that it would have been better to never have hired these people in the first place, which I strongly disagree with in the vast majority of cases. People need to stop actin…

> Plus, what you would be essentially arguing is that it would have been better to never have hired these people in the first place

If you reread my comment, that’s not there and I acknowledged that it’s sometimes necessary (many of the current layoffs are not but I also remember 2000 when a lot of places which had been unable to fill customer demand were abruptly without business). My point was simply rejecting the idea that people are somehow not harmed by this - it’s usually legal, something people should expect, etc. but it still has a big impact. I respect business leaders who are cognizant of that and treat people with dignity - for example, Riot doesn’t appear to be claiming this is performance based like a certain company recently in the news.

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#89

Post by emestifs »

kyriefh wrote: post #36

brutal job market in games right now. layoffs and studio closures all over the place, startups having trouble closing rounds, meanwhile ever more games on the market with 15k released on steam last year

> startups having trouble closing rounds

Game startups or tech startup in general? I can understand tech startups still feeling the effects of limited venture capital, I'm less familiar with gaming startups and their funding dynamics.

Also, can you share more details about the games industry? There's no much that has made it to the front page of HN regarding how hard the games industry in particular was hit by layoffs, so I don't have a sense of numbers.

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#90

Post by ClumsyPilot »

alchemist1e9 wrote: post #57
gamblor956 wrote: post #2

Riot Games is profitable, so this is about increasing profits. EDIT: As several people have noted, while Riot Games is private, their majority owne (Tencent) is not. According to Tencent's most recent filings, video game revenue is up by double-digits and they reported profits in the past. Unless Riot is claiming that they increased expenses by double-digit % in Q4, they are profitable.

Please educate yourself properly and try to understand capitalism the single biggest force behind the improvement in the human condition. Vilification of profits is a disgraceful attitude. https://x.com/aphysicist/status/1747868626948907325

I am amazed by this shameless appropriation of credit for scientific breakthroughs and peddling of a self-congratulating fantasy.

Nicola Tesla was a successful capitalist? Isaac Neuton? Leu Paster? What about the guy that invented penicillin?

Without capitalists, progress reaches the masses a bit slower. Without scientists, capitalists would still trade sheep, live in huts, and wipe their ass with tree bark.

Post reply on HN