• Cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    8 months ago

    The efficiency of capitalism. Spend god-knows-how-many millions of dollars and time, then realize you’d rather spend 125 million all over again just to go back and spend even more millions to hire back the dame numbers again in 1-3 years.

    • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      They make 5 billion a year, thats less than 2.5% of the money they make every year, it’s a rounding error to make the spreadsheets look real good to the money lenders .

      My company just let me go with a 6 figure package (x amount of pay + stocks). They could have easily kept me there for another year, but that’s not as good for the spreadsheets.

      • Cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        I understand that, but still, the decision is a net negative. They are merely acting based on short-sighted insights.

        • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Yeah that was kinda my point. All that matters is what the spreadsheet looks like now. It would have probably been a net positive to keep me given they are only going to grow and spend a fortune on hiring and new stocks. That’s a different spreadsheet though, I also live in a country where it’s expensive to fire full time employees collectively, so it’s not like they are paying these kinds of sums for everyone. It’s pretty cheap to make things look good on paper.

          • rasakaf679@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            Yeah, their whole goal is to look good on papers and stock market. Not to grow as actual company. They would rather cripple themselves than to strengthen themselves by slow growth…

  • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    “These charges consist of approximately $50 million to $65 million associated with office space reductions, approximately $40 million to $55 million related to employee severance and employee-related costs, and $35 million to $45 million in costs associated with licensor commitments,” reads the filing.

    The severance I get, but why is closing offices costing them so much. And what are “ licensor commitments?”

    • stevecrox@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Every big UK company I have worked for doesn’t own its building. They will typically agree to rent a building for 5-20 years at a fixed rate (longer times if its being purpose built for them) .

      So I would expect this is paying out the rest of the rental agreements for a building to escape the building lease.

      It is to do with financial reporting and the way asset and operational costs are reported.

  • 佐藤カズマ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Welp, I already didn’t like the games EA currently makes. Looking forward to going well out of my way to avoid buying anything they put out, no matter how good the reviews, trailers, etc. seem.