Well, the unionized staff didn't seem to be impacted by the last round. I'm inclined to say it's at least probable that it might have proved beneficial.
Is "harm" the right word to use to describe workers who were made redundant? At what point is laying someone off or firing them considered not harmful?
I am glad you have never had to deal with a job search after being fired so someone can make the quarterly numbers that result in getting a bonus that is more than you will earn in a life time, but the rest of us recognize it as an unfair deprivation from the outset.
Nah, getting another job is painful. Though change can be good. To account: It costs people to be laid off .. from psychological through to cash.
'Unfair' is relative to the relationship between the employee and employer, which is one Individual, and one Corporation. Sure there is a contract and labor protection laws. However all of us are stupid in some way (s). So disruption can have unforseen negative consequences.
Is it not fair to say they're operating independently, but Microsoft simply set expectations that drove this independent company to do this?
Corp B to continue the growth it forecasts apart of the merger needs to continue to invest in areas of high returns. Cut where it makes sense.
Corp B now has access to Corp A even solely as independent corps. Corp A gives them private pricing to Azure. Corp B starts shutting down their own infra/data center and need less staff. Don't need as much staff if you're shifting the management of many things to Corp A. Many companies do this with buying managed services.
> "As we move forward in 2024, the leadership of Microsoft Gaming and Activision Blizzard is committed to aligning on a strategy and an execution plan with a sustainable cost structure that will support the whole of our growing business,” Microsoft Gaming chief Phil Spencer said ..."
Wow that's pretty dry for a video game company.
There's really no reason to support AAA developers anymore. The market of high quality indie games is so huge. For the price of the latest COD you can buy 3 or 4 more entertaining games and actually support a human being with a soul instead of this late stage capitalist nonsense.
“inconsistent with Microsoft’s suggestion to this Court that the two companies will operate independently post-merger.”
I believe there was supposed to be a 10 year pause to any structural changes to Activision in addition to keeping the Call of Duty IP non-exclusive, firing these workers is a gain for Microsoft as it recoups cash from the merger and if anything this makes Activision dependent on its new parent Microsoft so the FTC has a good point here but I doubt they will get anything.
considering how silly some of these court documents where and the tacky controversial nonsense arguments from the executives at Microsoft and Sony... and the 'gamers lawsuit' you would be tricked into believing if whether this where just another marketing trick from Microsoft.
>the FTC ignores the reality that the deal itself has substantially changed,”
"the deal has been altered. Pray I do not alter it further."
Yeah, I'm sure cloud streaming Activision games in 2024 definitely would have saved 2000 employees' jobs. Especially with the next statement (from IGN):
>Additionally, a new filing by Microsoft lawyers today claims that Activision "was already planning on eliminating a significant number of jobs while still operating as an independent company." The layoffs, therefore, cannot be attributed to the merger, they argue.
I don't exactly like the 2nd defense of "well Activision was laying off people anyway". But it's clear this is the age of plutocracy, so the reason doesn't really matter.
14 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 41.5 ms ] thread'Unfair' is relative to the relationship between the employee and employer, which is one Individual, and one Corporation. Sure there is a contract and labor protection laws. However all of us are stupid in some way (s). So disruption can have unforseen negative consequences.
Corp B to continue the growth it forecasts apart of the merger needs to continue to invest in areas of high returns. Cut where it makes sense.
Corp B now has access to Corp A even solely as independent corps. Corp A gives them private pricing to Azure. Corp B starts shutting down their own infra/data center and need less staff. Don't need as much staff if you're shifting the management of many things to Corp A. Many companies do this with buying managed services.
Phil spencer, the head of microsoft gaming, is the one that announced the layoffs internally.
Wow that's pretty dry for a video game company.
There's really no reason to support AAA developers anymore. The market of high quality indie games is so huge. For the price of the latest COD you can buy 3 or 4 more entertaining games and actually support a human being with a soul instead of this late stage capitalist nonsense.
Basically, Lina Khan doesn't like this merger, but the courts probably aren't going to do anything about it.
I believe there was supposed to be a 10 year pause to any structural changes to Activision in addition to keeping the Call of Duty IP non-exclusive, firing these workers is a gain for Microsoft as it recoups cash from the merger and if anything this makes Activision dependent on its new parent Microsoft so the FTC has a good point here but I doubt they will get anything.
considering how silly some of these court documents where and the tacky controversial nonsense arguments from the executives at Microsoft and Sony... and the 'gamers lawsuit' you would be tricked into believing if whether this where just another marketing trick from Microsoft.
"the deal has been altered. Pray I do not alter it further."
Yeah, I'm sure cloud streaming Activision games in 2024 definitely would have saved 2000 employees' jobs. Especially with the next statement (from IGN):
>Additionally, a new filing by Microsoft lawyers today claims that Activision "was already planning on eliminating a significant number of jobs while still operating as an independent company." The layoffs, therefore, cannot be attributed to the merger, they argue.
I don't exactly like the 2nd defense of "well Activision was laying off people anyway". But it's clear this is the age of plutocracy, so the reason doesn't really matter.