SCEE to lay off nearly 10% of its workforce

There's a big difference here though in that they're services and not creating content. If you employ 100 people to process transactions, and then better tools enable 80 people to do the same work, laying off 20 people is good for business. But in creating games, if you have 100 coders and artists and engine developers working on a game, there's not much scope for trimming the fat. Unless you've got people sat around twiddling thumbs, cutting developers is going to cut development, somehow or other. Presumably projects will either progress slower, or the remaining developers will need to put in even more hours. I don't think there's much administrative overhead that can be pruned away here, and the job cuts will be from game (and other) projects.

 

Outsourcing to Satyam ... hmmm.

All I can say is, in my dealings with Satyam and outsourcing development/IT Infrastructure to them, you definitely get what you pay for.

Take that as you will.

 

However, it may well have been the case that previously, they got the same but for much more money ... Of course, I wouldn't claim without any evidence that Sony internally doesn't have a competent IT team. Just that it isn't necessarily good.

 

But that's the thing, most people working for SCEE aren't related to gaming.

SCE is on world basis the 3'rd biggest developer and has 2200 game developers across its 14 studios only beaten by Ubisoft (2400) and EA (~5500)
http://spong.com/article/11947?cb=190

So looking at SCEE's work force of 1900 staffers it's only logic that most of them aren't related to game development.

And adding the people directly involved with game development at the 4 SCE studios

Sony Studio Liverpool ~ 120
Sony Studio Cambridge ~ 90
Sony Studio London ~ 250
Guerrilla Games ~ 120
~ 560

(numbers retrieved from IGN and Wiki, mainly based on interviews)

It's rather obvious that there's a lot of places to cut in SCEE where game development won't be effected.
And it's not like SCEE only works with game development, the branch handling the consoles should also have a considerable magnitude.

But who in the world says the ~160 people come from game development? There's no valid source for such an assumption.

I know there's this B3D article with numbers of people to get axed at the different studios but GG which doesn't have other tasks than actuale game development isn't touched and the numbers for SCE Studios London are for the entire work force and not the actual amount of people working on games.

Not forgetting there's still the apparatus handling voice actors, 3'rd party relations, finances and so on where it's possible to "improve".

And if it really was financial issues then wouldn't SCE cut down on bonuses and such first? After all the games are their bread and butter (the game department's).

 

A large number of the 160 come from development. I probably can't go into more detail than that, I'm afraid.

Whether I can be classed as a 'valid source' is up for debate, but one thing is clear to me... and that is that you have no knowledge of SCEE as a corporate entity, or knowledge of staffing levels in various areas. You also seem to have no knowledge of employee costs.

Until you have some facts, I'd suggest you leave this topic alone.

Dean

 

Exactly, I am obviously not disputing your credibility and obviously I do not have any inside info.

But nothing of what you just said can be deducted from the press releases or the things known about SCEE game development.
I hope you will keep in mind that my initial post was about there not being any doom and gloom to come after in the press release, not that there couldn't be anything bad going on (huge difference).

Slapping me for being the only one who actually had bothered to look at the article in context to previous articles and didn't add unmentioned entities (like where the cuts were going to take place) instead of per automatic call down doom and gloom is just unfair.

It's not like I have taken quotes out of context or claied to have insider info or made up numbers or overlooked the numbers you supplied to B3D.

It would have made so much more sense if you had slapped me for saying "oh noes Studio Liverpool will be shut down" in my initial post because the specific areas where the cutbacks are being made aren't mentioned in the press releases.
But you actually seem to encourage that kind of behavior, something I personally feel you should be slapped for.

 

I don't understand why you're correlating loss of developer comments with doom and gloom for Sony comments. Without closely reviewing the thread, it seems to me the OP was questioning the financial health of SCEE, and responses were mostly 'this isn't indicative of financial woes' and 'bummer of rhtose getting the boot.' The second half was 'are these devs going' versus 'are these administrative staff etc. going?' It seems by accounts, if not the official press release, that there are developers going, which also makes sense in context of these being developer studios - how much non-development staff can they have acrued?

If you're point is only 'this isn't Doom and Gloom', you're preaching to the converted - that's not a common opinion. Saying the losses aren't from development staff though, you seem to be standing alone. Even the people at these studios are saying developers are getting the short end of it!

 

That is exactly the point I'm trying to make. There's been no public disclosure of any of this stuff, and as I don't see why people should make guesses regarding where cuts are being made, how SCEE is structured and so on.

Apologies if my response has offended, but I just find that someone making guesses about this in the light of recent events in poor taste.

Feel free to slap if you want, but as you're going in my ignore list as soon as I've pressed 'Submit Reply', I don't anticipate it being a problem for me.

Dean

 

I should have been more clear in my initial post.

It's wasn't directed at a specific person but the usual vultures who circle Internet boards looking for articles like Microsoft is going down because the first xBox didn't make a profit (Sony fans) or Casino Royal is a flop because of some penguins (Craig Is Not Bond) or Sony on the edge of bankruptcy because they borrowed money at favorable rates instead of selling bonds (Nintendo/MS fans) or POTC will flunk because Rotten Tomatoes had an average rating of 50% on it (Superman Returns fans).

At the time being the doom and gloom speculations had already been going on at NeoGaf for some time where people without any other insight than the article (just like me) had changed the article into entire studios shutting down and games being canceled.

I just dislike "one feather became 10 hens" scenarios but it obviously doesn't excuse me from not having been more diplomatic in my first post.

Maybe I should just have said that we do not know how game development will be effected by this and that SCEE isn't just about games. So let's wait for more info before predicting any doom scenarios.

But instead I tried to paint an alternative example which was wrong of me when I'm hampered when it comes to expressing my self in a coherent way in English.

 

You're English was fine. What I suggest is that you deal with different audiences as having no cross-over. It's easy to read a thread on one board and take your response to another, but as is the case here, the audience won't 'get it' - you were responding to a POV that hadn't yet been much expressed here, and the readers tried to understand your comments in relation to previous posts in this thread. Board discussions are local, with local (though sometimes shared) variables.

 

I guess that's why the ignore function is there, too bad you might miss out on the day I make a good post...

At least I feel less ashamed over not having seen and responded to this post earlier.

ieSpell has helped me a lot

And you are right, here I blame people for not reading an article in context while actually being the person who brings my confusion from other boards.
(must be in the genes; my dad usually hold mags so he's the only one who can she the picture he is trying to show one)