Well duh, you always (short term) make more money (short term) when you're paying fewer employees (short term)! And those (short term) gains will look really good in the future ex-CEO's resume (and bank account)!
Games
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
I remember back in all the "controversy" somebody pointed out they have about 5,000 employees. Which is an insane number of employees for a company of their size, so I guess they possibly are making a profit by firing unnecessary stuff?
Looks like from the article they still are losing 125 million dollars net a year. They're moving towards profitability though, so I'd think these layoffs wouldn't be necessary? I guess that depends how urgently their investors are requiring their money back.
do investors base their requirements for money on logical criteria or is just 'more this year than last year'? It seems to me that publicly traded companies led by investors act like children failing the marshmellow test
"I don't know anything about this but I can conclude they are all dumb"