Standard tactic when making unpopular changes, and a company would really like to keep them. Sacrificial CEO gets replaced, to make it look like things changed.
He should start a game company with Don Mattrick and the ghost of Bernie Stolar. Then everyone will know which games NOT to buy, just like back in the days of Acclaim.
Edit: Actually this guy signed onto Unity in 2014 Unity was still privately held. It went public in September of 2020. Unity's founder, David Helgason is still on their board and served as some sort of Senior Executive whatever position at Unity. Dude still has a 4% share of their stock.
So anyway, probably this David Helgason character who hired him. And/or whoever else (including Riccitiello!?) who was on the board at the time.
The relationship between CEOs and boards of directors is so fucked up and incestuous...
In any case and in retrospect, Johnny boy was 100% hired to cue them for up for the eventual IPO and boy did he ever. It's amazing how fast companies go down hill when they become publicly traded.
He’s been involved in several of the big Unity scandals, yes.
This most recent event wasn’t one thing, it was a culmination of poor decisions. If Unity had been sunshine and rainbows all up until now, then the reaction wouldn’t have been so bad. It was the final nail in the coffin, really.
Since he’s been involved, it’s been fuck up after fuck up.
Off the top of my head there’s failing to prepare for massive changes to the ads they could run on Apple and Google’s platforms and then realising that the money they were making was way less than expected, purchasing a company associated with malware, calling game developers “fucking idiots”, growing the company enormously over lockdown and then realising they’ve pissed all their money away. I don’t really know what a CEO actually does so a lot of that could be just company decisions, but JR definitely seems like a loose cannon who can’t help being wildly unprofessional.
There was also a bunch of sexual harrassment that was swept under the rug. He’s an incredible scumbag and a shitty CEO, which is why the psychopaths that inhabit corporate boards seem to love him
9 years of everyone telling him that forcing the UNITY splash screen on “baby’s first game” was a bad idea and was hurting the engine, because people were assuming all games made in the engine were bad, because good games didn’t show they also used Unity. Now that he is gone this changes.
Also he is a huge fan of the “metaverse” idea: venturebeat.com/…/unity-ceo-john-riccitiello-the-… and I am sure some of Unity’s money went there at a time they could not afford it and with nothing to show for it.
My only argument against your opinion, is that he actually has a trackable history of poor performance as a CEO and a trackable record of very bad monetization schemes. He’s the reason EA is the way it is.
This isn’t the first company he’s ruined the reputation of.
Granted, the board that elected him is still there. That’s an issue that will persist for a while.
My only argument against your opinion, is that he actually has a trackable history of poor performance as a CEO and a trackable record of very bad monetization schemes.
…which could be because he has offered this service to many boards in the past.
Bethesda has put themselves in an awkward spot by promoting niche and deep RPG mechanics for so long, and then becoming such a AAA developer with entire keynotes dedicated to previewing them that they no longer want to risk making deeper complex mechanics because they’re scared of “confusing” the base audience.
I want to say they need to take Starfield as a wakeup call, in comparison to games like BG3. But they don’t need to, because Gamepass numbers are practically imaginary sales numbers, and we’re just going to hear about how well it sold for the next half-decade.
I don’t know how unions work in Poland, but here in Germany you should organize, when there are lay offs in your company.
Unions can bargain better conditions for the lay offs like higher gratuities (is there something like this on the states?) or create a point system, who gets laid off first (based on family status, age, the likelihood of finding another job…).
Theoretically yes but union power has been eroded to the point where most wage slaves think they don't need a union yo bargain, we are all family here 🤡
Man am I tired of being shafted for not having kids, the when it comes to holidays, covering for other staff and things, employees with kids always take priority and employees without don’t have an ‘excuse’. Extending that to layoffs is extremely toxic and punitive to younger workers.
I don’t have kids either, but to me it’s logical, that that this has to be taken to account. I mean, those are people who are dependent on the situation, it’s not like they could do anything on their own. I’m happy, that at least this is something, where humanity comes into play. And again: I don’t have children and I don’t want them in the future.
And like I said, there are also other points, like age, or how long the people are working for the company.
What would be your points, to decide if someone has to be fired? And no, firing no one at all is not an option in this scenario ;)
I’m all for unions, but identifying layoff targets based on these things seems like a sure way for the system to get abused. Single people and people without kids get stuck filling in for people with families already-taking layoffs for them is asking a lot.
Definitely agree on the spirit of your comment though- unionizing is pretty much always a good idea.
eurogamer.net
Gorące