Welp, this didn’t take long.
It’s especially interesting that they laid off a lot of people who were the only ones in their particular job, leaving entire jobs uncovered. I suspect this comes right before shutting them entirely or doing it all “with AI” 🤮.
Sad in particular about Alice Bell. She was fantastic, and it always felt like she kept the site going through all the shit of recent years. Plus being the driving force behind their podcast (the Electronic Wireless Show) of course also spells doom for that one though I hope that like Indiescovery they go rogue and run it independent of the site.
Bleak times. Fuck IGN.
I hate how this is phrased as “redundancies”. IGN literally JUST bought these outlets, they haven’t had time to dig into and examine the organizations they acquired; it’s just straight into the Corpo playbook of “lay people off and let the dust settle where it may”.
These are people, not “redundancies”. They contributed in the old organization, and they could contribute in the new, but they never even got the chance.
Oh they’re redundancies to IGN alright, they literally bought their competitors and got to kill competition with zero resistance
There used to be laws against this shit.
people also used to vote in their own interests
Especially because from what was said, the employees were told the sites will be bought “as is”, so everyone gets to keep their jobs.
It’s in situations such as these where C-suites being required to also apply to them what they apply to others would be nice:
- CFO or CEO at IGN has to quit. Won’t hurt them much, but eh.
- CEO at Reedpop has to sell themselves (into slavery I suppose, plus it fits what they do to their workers).
You generally don’t buy a business and then figure all of that out. You figure it all out and then buy the business. IGN already would have 100% known the managerial setup at these companies.
What should happen is not always what does happen. There are tons of examples of brain dead companies and rich people buying companies they dont understand and then ruining them because of that.
Redundancy means that they get paid for being made to leave the company. That terminology is used because it’s different from being fired.
It’s basically just British terminology for layoffs with a severance package.
It amounts to the same thing, though. When are you got a few months pay to carry you through or not you still lost your income, and there’s no guarantee you’ll ever find a job that matches it in pay, benefits, etc.
Read the guys comment again though. They say their issue is with calling them “redundancies” in a language sense. But it’s not sugar coating it or anything, that’s the legitimate term for what happened.
There never was a chance.
Generally when companies like this are bought it isn’t to acquire the talent. That’s legitimately what needs to be taken into account when it comes to things like antitrust. You want to buy out this company, are you buying it because you want their talent to join with yours to make something better? Cool. We’ll let you do that provided you do it today fair and competitive manner.
Any other reason for wanting to buy this company is going to need to be pretty heavily scrutinized.
As soon as ign bought humble bundle it turned to shit
Oooh that’s why it’s been ass for a while now 🤦♂️
While I still “subscribe” to Humble, I don’t recall the last time I actually unpaused a month. Maybe this is the push I needed. Their offerings have been mostly subpar after they bought Humble. Not knocking the indie devs, I think my gaming tastes have changes over the years. Also, I don’t need coupons for DLC, please and thank you.
I had been a Humble Monthly subscriber since they first started it. 6 months ago my husband and I both canceled our subscriptions. Used to be some really good bundles, but now it’s just shovelware and DLC coupons.
Has there been any good bundles in the last 10 years? According to my email history the last time I bought something from them was at the end of 2014, and even before then I’d been complaining about it’s quality.
My thoughts exactly. I’m not going to boycott them, but good will is lost.
If you’re not going to boycott them, your lack of good will is literally meaningless.
Dully noted
These giant corporations don’t even have to be quiet about it anymore, there’s just no consequences. They couldn’t care less about you, me, their customers, or their employees.
They care about being able to hire labor, which we provide, and they care about revenue and profit, which we also provide. Not defending any behavior, but the consequences in a healthy economy would largely come from customers, potential and current employees. Failing that, large issues would be overcome by regulations, or at least enforcing existing ones (codified rules against monopolies, for examples, are just words if not enforced).
Without consumers willing (and able) to make sacrifices (like paying higher prices) to reward good corporate behavior, and to avoid companies with purely short-term profit motivated behavior, this is what we can and should expect. Nevermind companies are rewarded by shareholder and investor support based more on profits than.how those profits were made, especially when many of those shareholders feel forced to turn to the stock market to fund their retirement, as pensions are so increasingly a rare option.
Would voting for fresh representatives possibly increase instability in out daily lives? Is that instability a possibly necessary cost of maintaining effective regulation of the investor class that has captured our legislative system to their own benefit?
There are systemic problems at play here- not to downplay the choices this individual company made, but the focus could be on the larger forces at work. If your first reaction is that boycotts and choices by consumers and employees, no matter how organized and widespread, do not work, then I ask you, dear reader, to consider what might work to make the necessary systemic changes, and what, if anything, you can do to help make them happen.
The investor class has made it clear what their playbook is, as they have time and time again thru history: explotation, and as much of it as they can get away with. The question then becomes what us, the ever-increasingly exploited, are going to do about it.
no war but class war.
ed:I hope that didnt come off as disagreement- just trying to voice frustration with a side of “everyone who agrees with you please take a moment to think about the big picture, and what you can do about it” because I’m also tired of this slide into an increasingly boring dystopia
Thank you for eloquently saying what I often struggle to convey. I’m saving this comment for later reference.
Without consumers willing (and able) to make sacrifices (like paying higher prices) to reward good corporate behavior, and to avoid companies with purely short-term profit motivated behavior, this is what we can and should expect.
I think consumers have spoken, at least in part. What money can be made doing this job is more easily made on YouTube.
Which sucks due to the innate near-inability of a Youtube video to carry an argument without a visual component well.
It’s why podcasts can be decent for some topics, but youtube is just someone talking a podcast into the camera for 45 minutes, and all of it would be ~5 minutes reading a single paragraph at most if it were in written form but you really really realy got to chase those ad-impressions.
Non-textual forms for textual content have really been their own destructive blight on internet content. :'(
I get my gaming news from YouTube podcasts, mostly; at least those two do employ people actually doing some of that same type of work. It doesn’t really matter how good Schreier is at his job when I’m not going pay for a Bloomberg subscription and someone else can more cheaply copy the same content and tell me what it said. The video format gives me more of a dialogue with the person who did the work. Plus ads are much more easily defeated on a web page than on YouTube, though they are still partially defeated.
Someone should remind them that they didn’t do it the last hundred years or so because the alternative was angry mobs trying to kill them.
Someone should remind the angry mobs that they should be angry mobs.
RPS already has an article “celebrating Alices in games” as a sneaky attack on this.
At RPS we like Alices. When somebody comes along with the name “Alice” you don’t just say “oh hi” like some insolent rube. You nod with solemn respect and you say, “Alice”. An Alice is someone you should not take lightly, nor take for granted, nor leave unmonitored. For they will destroy worlds and build better ones while you are not looking. This is dangerous and exciting. Alices are a force to be reckoned with. To treat an Alice poorly is to invite shame, dishonour, and contempt. Here are some of the best Alices in video games!
But that’s it, readers. That’s literally ALL the Alices we can possibly think of. What about you? Can you think of any Alices who deserve to be celebrated?
Guys job will probably fall off a window after this, but God he probably felt awesome when publishing
We need more worker owned associations and more workers’ rights. This is ridiculous.
We also need people to realize that it’s not sustainable to expect free content while running an ad-blocker.
The problem is that ad-driven businesses are price dumping by tricking people into using their services by telling them it’s free, and thus killing the market for everyone else. I am not turning my adblocker off. I do not expect “free” content in perpetuity. I expect the “free” content business model to die off.
I expect the “free” content business model to die off.
I don’t. I expect the vast majority of people will continue to demand free content while simultaneously complaining about the quality of said content.
Yeah, unfortunately many people seem to default to complaining about things while continuing to consume what they are fed. And not change anything, of course.
I disagree. Ads are not the answer. Treating them as such is simply giving up.
Agreed, ads are not the answer. Paying for content is the answer.
But people want their content to be free, while also being angry that their free content contains ads.
Because content distributors haven’t thought of another way to get money. The only other thing they came up with is subscriptions. Some have thought of donations, but they haven’t banded together to come up with an alternative. It’s weak and totally mid.
i’ll turn off my adblocker when i can be confident that your site won’t show me ads for child porn or actual fucking scams.
Going rogue is how the TWiT network started I think - when Leo and co used to have a show called The Screensavers but it ended.
We also got Digg out of it, while it ended up poo reddit and lemmy wouldn’t be quite the same without it.
,
Here are a few commas, in case you’ll ever need any.
Thanks! I’ll use, them liberally and, with reckless abandon! Look, earrings!
,😁,
I remember the TechTV days before G4 took over. AotS was fun but never really replaced Screen Savers. Then G4 did whatever the fuck it did (mostly airing ghost hunters from what I remember) and went off air so we lost that too. Then there was the terrible attempt at revival a few years ago that failed spectacularly.
TWiT is still going though. Maybe something cool will come out of this.
Oh no, I love Alice :( She just moved, relatively recently…
I guess I can finally stop reading RPS now.
Can’t wait to start following the new sites (blogs at first, probably) these people create.
The old Ziff Davis Nasty
I’m amazed they are allowed to own both publishing for video games (Humble) and publishing for journalism.
I’m amazed they are allowed to own
By this point I’m surprised that they’re not allowed to own people, seeing as their business model treats people as if they are property.
You now have a chance to follow some of their independent blogs, support them that way, fuck all this big companies, they are laying of everyone for ai
You guys are still reading IGN?
You guys are still reading IGN?
No, that’s why they buy other sites.
to add their technological and cultural distinctiveness to their own
Did anyone ever think that any workplace anywhere is about the value produced and wages rather than tribalistic fuckshit?
- Governments should only allow big mergers in exceptional circumstances
- Big conglomerates should be broken up
They are bad for the workers, and bad for the consumers. Half of the time, aklso bad for the shareholders (according to an old McK study). Lives are being ruined for billionaires to gamble for more billions.
Buying out competition and throwing out the workers confident that investors won’t back a small dog against a big one
In an investor run economy, competition means you might lose a bet. For an investor its better to reduce competition than lose bets. This is originally why anti trust legislation was created: The market needs to be forced to compete or it will amalgamate into a giant blob of noncompeting assets.
High taxes exist to reduce accumulation of assets and slow down the snowballing effect of huge investors. This is what the trump tax cuts look like.
This is originally why anti trust legislation was created
If you look at the history of anti-trust legislation, some of its first uses and biggest targets were labor organizers. Under the Sherman Antitrust Act, one of the first and most notable cases was the US lawsuit against the Workingmen’s Amalgamated Council (also known as the “Triple Alliance” of teamsters, scalesmen, and packers) over what was then the largest labor action in US history.
It wasn’t until the 1914 Clayton Antitrust Act that unions were granted safe harbor from anti-trust provisions. And it took until 1941 for the courts to finally fully decriminalize labor actions - a process that was ultimately reversed starting in the 1960s under Nixon, and extended under Ford, Carter, and then Reagan.
High taxes exist to reduce accumulation of assets and slow down the snowballing effect of huge investors.
That’s the Keynesian approach, certainly. But the Chicago School that came to dominate US economics during the Volcker Era suggested instead that we can adjust the Federal Funds rate to keep malinvestment from derailing an economy. And that this strategy means asset accumulation is now safe and profitable for large corporate interests.
Large investment banks are actually good, because they give us a steady and constant flow of price information on a private market. And since price discovery is the real goal of regulation, the advent of these mega-banks means we can let the institutions regulate themselves without any conceivable downsi- sound of the 2008 market crash
