Sure you want to write for the XBox???

#21 @Scott I did not say that a job is a right. I said that when an employer offers you a job they have made a contract with you. After they offer you a job you do have a right. And there ARE guarantees with employment - ever heard of a "golden parachute"? Those incredibly cool perks that high level business people give themselves whether their business succeeds or fails?

@Josh Why should any job offer go with the statement you can be let go at any time? Blue collar workers generally have there jobs protected from casual or unjustified dismissal. Is there really anything wrong with that? Business owners should not be allowed to be arbitrary and capricious with peoples lives.

Businesses, especially big businesses don't go down overnight except in VERY rare circumstances. And MS isn't going down. They just weren't making a big enough profit from a division to suit those at the top. I would call that being arbitrary and capricious.

As for people walking out at any time... Don't you generally give notice before you leave? I do. I consider it part of being professional. And some companies have a clause in their hiring contract that you MUST give them notice or they can withold wages. So the "business" has more rights than the people that work there?

People really need to think about what they are saying and permitting to happen here. What you are saying is, "If I start a business I can ruin peoples lives without any regard for the consequences. I can hire them, upset their social relationships, promise anything I want, and then dump them - BECAUSE IT IS A BUSINESS. That is the sole reason I can do it.

I am saying, "No, you cannot. You incur a responsibility to those you offer employment to. You must do the best you can to continue that employment - even if it means you don't make as much profit as you might otherwise make."

Notice I am NOT saying you must lose your shirt because you offered someone a job. I am not saying that you must maintain non-profitable divisions in your company.

I am saying that you cannot fire someone just to make more profits when that person is engaged in a profit making enterprise in your company.

Go make additional profits elsewhere. Improve your product, find a way to make it for less money, use newer, more reliable materials, make your equipment more robust so you don't have maintenance costs. Recycle stuff so you don't pay top dollar for your goods. But stop thinking of the employees of your company as a "material resource" that you can "improve" by slashing employees and benefits.
Hire contractors for short term work - not full time employees.

Modern American business now tries to view all white collar employees as contractors. It is a convenient lie for those who do not want to take responsibility for their business decisions. It was not the case in the past. And I see no reason to allow it to go unchallenged just because PR marketing from a large company says it is "just the way business is done." It is NOT the way business is done unless you let it happen that way.

So, Nope I still don't buy it.

#22 I guess we are not going to agree. :)

On the other side though a employee could just decide to quit and leave their job without notice. Which isn't exactly ethical either. Also David, MS may be using that money to start another project that will employ more people in the future.

As far as cutting costs, employees are most companies biggest asset and biggest liability. Health care costs due to fraud is killing even big companies. I'm just trying to point out that layoffs are not necessarily a sinister plan.

#23 Yeah, we probably are. But I at least got people to think about it a bit - including me. That's progress.

I agree it is unethical for employees to just walk out on a company. But it has far less drastic consequences, and businesses even have insurance against something like that - its called "key man" insurance and they roll it into the prices that they pass along to us for their product. It covers the business the same way that unemployment is supposed to cover the employees. Both should be for the worse case scenario - not for regular business practicies.

Sinister plan? Oh no. I don't thnk it is a sinister plan. I think it is an extraordinarily bad business decision by people with a mindset that you tell people that they are a business asset, but you treat them like they are a commodity. And a culture that says, "Its ok to mess up people's lives - it's just business."

I do agree that the horse is pretty much dead, so we now return you to your regularly scheduled game discussions. ;)

#24 Coming in on the tail-end of this discussion I have to say I'm not surprised by the reaction David has gotten with his comments. I think GG members are not at all consistant with their views on issues that continue to pop up.

Some weeks ago this same issue came up between Joe Masurak (sorry for spelling your name wrong Joe)and another fella who has since been ostrasized. Joe took the very same position David takes now, that the standard business model in Corporate America needs to change because of its devestating impact on the lives of the 'little guy'. The majority of the commentators in the discussion sided with Joe and generally shored up the idea that the standard needs to change. Now here's David singing the same song but now popular opinion is against him.

It seems to me that as a whole Garage Games represents a noble idea. If there is an underlying philosophy to Garage Games it would be 'we are a vehicle for changing the way games are made and hence how businesses should be run, customer and employee friendly'.

I for one have seen both sides of this coin and I can say it is possible for a business owner to operate his company in a responsible and ethical manner. Just because its become commonplace for business ethics to get chucked out the window at the first sign of trouble does not mean the practice has merit. What does have merit is shifting your assets around a bit and making accomidations where possible until the market comes back up, and it always does.

I side with David because he speaks to a more important need for strong business-owners to consider reasonable alternatives to business problems rather than dumping excessive numbers of employees as a quick fix.

#25 I don't know, I'm agreeing with David too. I just don't really want to argue, or say anything bad about Microsoft right now, just in case they are listening. (hides in the corner, "they're always listening")

#26 ...

#27 Ooops. I missed one of Mike's points.

Yes, MS might reorganize and start a new project that will hire more people. And those people will likely not be the ones they hired in the first job, because they didn't retrain them, and their salaries would be higher, and their benenfits would be higher.

And why is it an acceptable business justification that, they MIGHT start a new project, and they MIGHT hire new people, and they MIGHT be more profitable, a reason to put people out of work - especially people that you offered a job and who are currently doing what you asked them to do? Is that really a reason to allow a company to cut off medical benefits? Life insurance? Disability?

Let's make it a bit more personal.

Do you think it would be ok for your boss to come in and turn off the iron lung that is keeping your daughter alive because it means a better profit this quarter?

That's what really happens in these situations. People don't get medical care. It's not just that they have a couple weeks of unemployment insurance and then go back to id or Valve or Sony. It means they lose their homes. They fight with their wives and there are ugly divorces. They become depressed and angry and abuse their children.

I'm not against capitalism. I think that you should be entitled to make BOATLOADS of money. Personally, I want to. You just have to do it responsibly.

American capitalism is being driven by unrealistic profit expectations. It is using those expectatons to put unrealistic expectations on its management. They are taking out those unrealistic expectations on the employees. It's a mistake, and we need to draw attention to it and to stop it.

Notes that buzzard's are circling the dead horse and scrambles to get out of the way...

#28 I think there are plenty of things wrong with a lot of major corporations in this country, but laying off workers from projects that aren't doing as well as the company wants it to isn't one of them.

I fully believe in the concept of "at-will" employment. I have a job so long as both I and the company want me there. Either of us can change our mind at any time. If you want to be free to accept other opportunities at any time, you've got to give the company the same benefit. I'd much rather have the flexibility than the stability. YMMV.

On the issue of businesses having more rights because individuals are expected not to quit without notice... The standard for giving notice is two-weeks. Most bigger companies pay more than that in severance for layoffs. So it really isn't an imbalance. I have no idea what kind of package the XSN people got, but I know some other people who have faced MS layoffs and they all got *very* generous severance packages. If you want to change my mind about Microsoft being the bad guy here, I'll need some proof that the employees walked away with nothing.

#29 Personaly i think most of the MS bashing/hating is due to jealousy. But thats OK, it all falls under the category "Its the American way". Them big bucks MS rake in, surly have big taxes. MS is just like any one else only in a higher bracket.

I agree it is a sad thing when anyone gets laid off from a good job. There is only one failsafe guarantee in life. DEATH.

#30 >Personaly i think most of the MS bashing/hating is due to jealousy.

Most of the MS bashing/hating comes from their aggressive buisness tactics which have ruined thousands of people.

#31 @Pat,

any info on how us indies will be able to develope titles for the XBox? last I checked the XSDK was a huge expense and I doubt using a mod chip with a copy of the xsdk from emule would be prudent or legal.

-Ron

#32 I really have no information that I'm sure is a) ok to give out or b) useful. This Xarcade thing is an experiment for GarageGames, and for Microsoft as well. I think that in about a half a year, we'll have a better understanding about how this all will work, and how we can get more games onto the Xbox. I realize that this helps nobody and probably is frusturating, but it's all I can dish out right now.

#33 The best way to develop an xbox title is to a) have a portable engine and b) make a fun game. We're able to get on the x-box partially because we have a bit of a track record and good contacts, but mostly because we have a game that's good and well suited to the console platform. If we didn't have a MarbleBlast or a ThinkTanks to put up there we'd probably not be involved in this development.

Basically, you have to make a game that's fun and succesful enough to attract the attention of the console manufacturers, so that you can then take your portable engine and zonk your game over to the new system. The fact that we already had a DirectX-enabled version of MarbleBlast (we used it to demo some tech for a graphics card manufacturer) was very helpful. With TSE, porting to X-box is going to largely be a matter of dropping in a new GFX layer.

#34 And this has what to do with making games for the XBox? Nothing but a ex-employee pissed off because he was fired. So he is going to come to an indie site and say dont try to make a title on this platform?

I dont see any other reason for the start of this thread.

#35 @Robert Nope. Afraid you jumped to the wrong conclusion. I never worked for Microsoft (and I never had him take over any company I worked for either). And while I have met Mr. Gates back before he needed several bodyguards I didn't dislike him at all, we had a very pleasant conversation.

I started this thread because I had something to say. So I said it. I call into question whether you want to make games for a company who treats its own employees so cavalierly.

Remember YOU will be the little fish - they not only own the OS, the SDK, and the hardware as well. Same as any other console. However, when dealing with a company you might want to consider their track record with past companies - especially smaller companies.

The direction the conversatin took was my response to some of the other comments that were made.

#36 I enjoyed reading this thread and I was quite happy it did not devolve into a flame war.

#37 My favourite Boss - Employer relationship was working for a daily paper where my boss preferred to refer to me as a "Unit of Labour"

Not sure my relevancy, but you have to expect an employer to exercise some freedom, because an employee certainly will. A better job comes along, hes most likely going to take it. Works both ways.

Edited my last bit out after reading Pauls above post :)

#38 Very good points. You know, my grandfather owned a house right next to (one of) bill gates house. I can't believe they never ever talked, but I doubt he was ever home in the house.
Oops, back on subject. Yeah, things do need to change in the world of business.

#39 My ex-gf's Dad worked for Gates, and he was treated very well. He eventually left Microsoft because he didn't like the way they managed the research he was working on. They like to move people around so people are working on things "fresh", but he wanted to stay working on whatever it was he was researching, so left to do some start up in that field.

He however did go back to working to them and only had good words to say about the company and what it was like working for them. (as far as I know he still is working for them)

I'm not saying thats the typical employee's opinion, I'm just saying its one of them.

(I still have a fancy microsoft jacket he gave me which I've never worn in public :P )

#40 David, in your perfect world business owner would be a hostage of his own business. Actually, take a look at German auto manufacturers - they're dieing slowly because unions are so powerful politically that they simply can not fire people and plants that are clearly a loss-makers, have still to go on.

Besides, you assume too many of variables having specific values - there_was_no_golden_parachutes_for_fired_emplyees = true; MS_sports_games_did_fairly_well_although_not_stellar = true etc. Do you have hard facts? I know I dont, thats why I could be wrong, but so could you.

I however could agree that on the whole the corporate culture is pretty sick, thats why I believe in small and flexible companies, however, I personally have not seen a proof that MS was one of the worst corporate structures. And hating them just because they're big and have muscles is well..silly :)