Business Big Tech Layoffs Megathread - Techbros... we got too cocky...

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Since my previous thread kinda-sorta turned into a soft megathread, and the tech layoffs will continue until morale improves, I think it's better to group them all together.

For those who want a QRD:


Just this week we've had these going on:

1706112535506.png

1706112610401.png

1706112702576.png

But it's not just Big Tech, the vidya industry is also cleaning house bigly:

1706112854585.png

All in all, rough seas ahead for the techbros.
 
but because Fortnite has a downturn in engagement whatever that means.
Fortnites been on the decline for the last few years. Not a death spiral or anything dramatic like that, just the usual lifecycle of a game that's now approaching a decade of life. Pretty much everyone who'd ever be interested in it has joined it, and they're now far enough along the curve that more people are leaving it than joining it, even with its relative youth appeal. Everyone, Epic included, knew this was coming eventually, which is why they were throwing infinity money into trying to make the Epic Game Store work, lawsuits to crack every market they could, and the bottomless budget for Unreal Engine. Fishing around for the next money printer and all that. Their best effort was that fortnite custom games stuff, but it never really picked up traction the way they'd hoped - specifically, it didn't help much with monetized user retention, and didn't help at all with user growth.

This is just the tip of what'll be a larger castoff over the next two years. The obvious tell there is they're now talking about UE6 in that very announcement, when UE5 still isn't really stable. So they're broadcasting that "new features will go into UE6 and UE5 is going to get its long awaited stability and LTS work like UE4 got" without actively committing to anything or timelines on it. Investor bait and market assurance stuff, clear as day.
 
Fortnites been on the decline for the last few years. Not a death spiral or anything dramatic like that, just the usual lifecycle of a game that's now approaching a decade of life. Pretty much everyone who'd ever be interested in it has joined it, and they're now far enough along the curve that more people are leaving it than joining it, even with its relative youth appeal. Everyone, Epic included, knew this was coming eventually, which is why they were throwing infinity money into trying to make the Epic Game Store work, lawsuits to crack every market they could, and the bottomless budget for Unreal Engine. Fishing around for the next money printer and all that. Their best effort was that fortnite custom games stuff, but it never really picked up traction the way they'd hoped - specifically, it didn't help much with monetized user retention, and didn't help at all with user growth.

This is just the tip of what'll be a larger castoff over the next two years. The obvious tell there is they're now talking about UE6 in that very announcement, when UE5 still isn't really stable. So they're broadcasting that "new features will go into UE6 and UE5 is going to get its long awaited stability and LTS work like UE4 got" without actively committing to anything or timelines on it. Investor bait and market assurance stuff, clear as day.
I feel like it shouldn't be this drastic of a drop for layoffs if it's one of the games the youth likes alongside Roblox but it is true players mostly prefer the main gameplay and that can't survive on its own. Maybe they had employed too many people?
It's interesting to see how they let go of even the main designers of their skins and season art, same with systems engineers, sounds like they'll move on to keeping it afloat with the players that make content regardless of whenever custom games work or not.
 
Maybe they had employed too many people?
They're not all directly fortnite staff, a lot of them were doing the other things I mentioned that were then cut as part of this with the money drying up. Tim Sweeney envisioned Epic pulling the same trajectory as Valve, and had an absolutely insane number of hands on that. I cannot overexaggerate how much of a money and manpower pit the Epic Game Store turned into for them. Its worth remembering they laid off another near thousand heads in late 2023, after which they stated that they were financially sound again. They haven't grown back anywhere close to that headcount, so they managed to lose somewhere near six hundred and fifty mil in revenue or accumulate 650 mil in non-salary costs.

It's interesting to see how they let go of even the main designers of their skins and season art
Which'd actually be bigger than the stated 1,000 heads - A lot of that skin and design work is contract/freelance, and they're cutting a half billion of spending that includes contract labor.
 
1774487533996.png
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/...unlocked_article_code=1.V1A.GoAa.Bb73ytbBTorE
Meta on Wednesday laid off around 700 employees, a person with knowledge of the company said, the latest downsizing as the Silicon Valley giant shifts its priorities toward artificial intelligence.

Less than 24 hours earlier, the company unveiled a new stock program for six top executives that could increase compensation for some of them by as much as $921 million each over the next five years. Meta said the move was a way to retain talent in the A.I. era and push it toward ambitious growth.

The dichotomy — cutting some employees while rewarding high-ranking executives — underlines how much A.I. has changed the tech industry. In recent years, Meta has been trying to move beyond its social media and metaverse businesses. Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s chief executive, has declared that he is striving to create “superintelligence,” or a godlike A.I. that can act as the ultimate personal companion.

Last year, Mr. Zuckerberg shelled out billions of dollars to hire a team of A.I. specialists. At the same time, the company planned to cut 10 percent to 15 percent of Reality Labs, its division making virtual reality and metaverse products.

The latest layoffs compounded a tough day for Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. A Los Angeles jury on Wednesday found the company liable for harming a young user with addictive design features on Instagram in a bellwether case that could open social media companies to more lawsuits over users’ well-being.

While the verdict was coming in, Meta was also announcing the 700 layoffs in the Reality Labs unit, as well as some in recruiting, sales and Facebook, a person with knowledge of the matter said. The layoffs were a fraction of the tech giant’s 78,000 employees, but signal Meta’s priorities.

“Teams across Meta regularly restructure or implement changes to ensure they’re in the best position to achieve their goals,” a Meta spokesman said in a statement. “Where possible, we are finding other opportunities for employees whose positions may be impacted.”

The layoffs were earlier reported by The Information.

Before the job cuts, Meta shared details of its new stock program for six top executives. They were Andrew Bosworth, the chief technology officer; Chris Cox, the chief product officer; Susan Li, its chief financial officer; Javier Olivan, the chief operating officer; Dina Powell McCormick, the president and vice chairman; and C.J. Mahoney, the company’s chief legal officer.

The program allows the executives to buy additional Meta stock options if the company hits certain growth targets. The most aggressive target is for Meta to become a $9 trillion company by 2031. Its current market capitalization stands at around $1.5 trillion.

If it achieves the goals, the new stock options for some of the executives — such as Mr. Bosworth, Mr. Cox and Mr. Olivan — would be worth as much as $921 million each, according to an analysis by Equilar, a compensation research firm. Ms. Li’s stock options would be worth as much as $161 million, the firm said.

It was the first time Meta gave executives stock options since it went public in 2012, when the company was named Facebook. In a statement, Meta said the program was meant to keep the company competitive with A.I. rivals and incentivize executives. Mr. Zuckerberg was not given new stock options.

“This is a big bet,” a Meta spokesman said in a statement. “These pay packages will not be realized unless Meta achieves massive future success, benefiting all of our shareholders.”

Meta has forecast that it will spend at least $115 billion this year, primarily on A.I., including on the construction of new data centers to power the technology. Mr. Zuckerberg has also said that A.I. will change how employees work, with A.I. tools allowing fewer employees to get more work done.

“I think 2026 is going to be the year that A.I. starts to dramatically change the way that we work,” he said on a call with investors in January. “We’re starting to see projects that used to require big teams now be accomplished by a single very talented person.”
 
Less than 24 hours earlier, the company unveiled a new stock program for six top executives that could increase compensation for some of them by as much as $921 million each over the next five years. Meta said the move was a way to retain talent in the A.I. era and push it toward ambitious growth.
"Uhm you don't understand, wagie... I NEED my bonus. Now please clear up your des- I mean cagie by lunchtime."

 
I cannot overexaggerate how much of a money and manpower pit the Epic Game Store turned into for them.
The store itself is terribly designed, There's a good chance even someone as subtarded as myself could design something better.

What were the other 999 people doing?
 
I think 2026 is going to be the year that A.I. starts to dramatically change the way that we work

Just like 2025... 2024.....2023......



What were the other 999 people doing?
In the rush to hire a billion developers with free government money so they could cash in on COVID forcing everyone to stay at home?

I don't think even they know why they were hired or what they're supposed to do.
 
What were the other 999 people doing?
Organizing meetings to discuss how to address the bad optics of the store, and meeting with Developers and Publishers to roadmap features for them and get buy in.

I'm only half joking, Epic consistently saw the consumer issue with EGS as a marketing and perception one, that they just needed to convince people to try it out who'd then immediately love it, and anyone who didn't was obviously just a Valve Shill and not worth engaging with. The consumer was only really a secondary concern for EGS, it was a store built first and foremost for developers and publishers, those were their customers. It was a corporate-first project through and through, and its insane overhead and slowness is exactly indicative of that. They didn't aim to have feature parity with Steam regarding storefront features like reviews right out of the gate because the big publishers didn't want that - High reviews don't particularly help their already big tentpoles that'd sell to plebs anyway, but low reviews threaten to sink a tentpole in the low info consumer market, where someone didn't really see the marketing or hype, but does see "mixed" or "negative" and says "oh, I'll wait/pass" and never remembers to come back. Social features like game forums only stand to create spaces they can be criticized in, that generate an overhead for them to manage 'correctly' to prevent negative narratives taking root.

Even features like a more searchable, discoverable store weren't of much interest to most of the publishers. Epic wanted to focus on having the big and interesting successes, spending Valve level money to help people see 2-3 man team games instead of Ubisofts latest AAAA disaster was counterproductive. The Big Boys didn't care about EGS discoverability because they already had mass marketing campaigns, and could just afford to buy a big banner splash and push notification on EGS if they wanted a day in the spotlight to raise awareness. EGS's pitch to them was being low margin, letting them keep more money, increasing that cost for no real benefit wouldn't help them.

Same fundamental reason why late arriving things like reviews are so weird and underbaked. They spent years working with the big publishers (lots of people, lots of meetings, lots of money) to provide a minimally intrusive review system to the developer that held as little risk of being as nuclear bad/meme worthy as steam reviews could be. Controlled feedback categories, no nuance to why you dislike it, just "Rate down, or rate up with preapproved comments and emojis only". It wasn't built to appease customers first, it was built to make customers think something was being done while not annoying the precious publishers.

Epic spent a fortune on corporate manpower to ensure EGS was as unfriendly to consumers as possible and as friendly to corporations as possible, dedicated huge channels to sucking the big players dicks to make sure they stayed on the platform, and then tried bribing consumers and marketable indies to stay around with free games and the UE5 Rev Share discount on EGS. But fundamentally, for their low margin model to work, consumer quality of life features were the overhead they wanted to minimize.
 
Meta is late as fuck to the AI race. They have about 300 billion in liquid assets, but everyone reading here knows that in AI can be spent really quickly. Google will win this race; they have the infrastructure and capital. They are not as profitable as you would think, but because they are so ingrained, they are safe in terms of investment.

I was actually surprised by how much it costs for Amazon. They turned 637 billion in revenue but only profited 59 billion. It sounds alot but remember these companies deal in the 00s of millions. These companies are throwing money in RND like it was 2001. They spend as if growth is infinite when that is a lie touted by globalists and the numerically illiterate. Growth is never infinite; it is capped. You can import as many foreigners as you want, but that does not yield growth. If everyone is poor, people will spend less on your product.
 
Meta is late as fuck to the AI race
They've actually been in it for quite a while, but their flagship Llama LLM has been public and open source for years now, and was 'damaged' as a product early in by leaks of the foundational weights, sorta like AI source code. They've been iterating on it since, both text and image models, but its always been a sort of distant competitor nobody really pays much attention to.

For the most part, its biggest contributions have been to the open source space, the early Llama model leak in 2023 helped prime a lot of open source, particularly chinese competition. Most of what's out there only has tangential links by this point, but a lot of open source projects got started by the opportunity, or developed after hitting the limitations of those early models.
 
Meta is late as fuck to the AI race. They have about 300 billion in liquid assets, but everyone reading here knows that in AI can be spent really quickly. Google will win this race; they have the infrastructure and capital. They are not as profitable as you would think, but because they are so ingrained, they are safe in terms of investment.

I was actually surprised by how much it costs for Amazon. They turned 637 billion in revenue but only profited 59 billion. It sounds alot but remember these companies deal in the 00s of millions. These companies are throwing money in RND like it was 2001. They spend as if growth is infinite when that is a lie touted by globalists and the numerically illiterate. Growth is never infinite; it is capped. You can import as many foreigners as you want, but that does not yield growth. If everyone is poor, people will spend less on your product.
Wow Meta burned like an entire year of profit on the metaverse.
 
A lot of people won't want to hear this, but he is struggling because he is white and in the 25+ age bracket.
And there's an immense glut in wannabe composers at a time when there's also extremely few non-sequel projects underway. Sequels tend to use the same composer as the last game, or an ascending member of the production team under them.

Dudes good at his job, but he's in an increasingly competitive market where composer names rarely carry weight. The only gaming composers I've seen break out into the normie sphere of casuals knowing of them is Mick Gordon, with Marty O'Donnell as a close second runner. And Marty honestly only really makes it that far from getting his name known as the Halo Composer only after his acrimonious departure from Halo and the associated legal fights. And if the fucking Halo composer can't get much musical recognition, you know the space just views it as a particular commodity.

A soundtrack has to be particularly bad or exceptionally good to even stand a chance of getting noticed by players. The supermajority are just "good enough" and not even noticed in the background, often by design. Lots and lots of people can do "good enough" though, and I've never once seen a game that isn't a Rhythm game become popular for its soundtrack in spite of lacking gameplay. Its complimentary, but not explicitly required for a game to be fun.
 
Mick Gordon, with Marty O'Donnell as a close second runner. And Marty honestly only really makes it that far from getting his name known as the Halo Composer only after his acrimonious departure from Halo and the associated legal fights.
wasnt mick gordon also ousted by id under nasty circumstances? there was a whole drama where he released details about how he was mistreated iirc
alex brandon is really good, ut99 and dx have some of the best soundtracks of all time even though imo michiel van der bos was the one responsible for most of the really good tracks. unfortunately the era of tracker music and striking soundtracks is long past us, most modern games just try to look and sound realistic or cinematic and having a soundtrack full of heterogenous bangers isnt the style anymore. im sure a lot of indie joints would kill to have him as a composer but that wont earn him a living
 
And there's an immense glut in wannabe composers at a time when there's also extremely few non-sequel projects underway. Sequels tend to use the same composer as the last game, or an ascending member of the production team under them.

Dudes good at his job, but he's in an increasingly competitive market where composer names rarely carry weight. The only gaming composers I've seen break out into the normie sphere of casuals knowing of them is Mick Gordon, with Marty O'Donnell as a close second runner. And Marty honestly only really makes it that far from getting his name known as the Halo Composer only after his acrimonious departure from Halo and the associated legal fights. And if the fucking Halo composer can't get much musical recognition, you know the space just views it as a particular commodity.

A soundtrack has to be particularly bad or exceptionally good to even stand a chance of getting noticed by players. The supermajority are just "good enough" and not even noticed in the background, often by design. Lots and lots of people can do "good enough" though, and I've never once seen a game that isn't a Rhythm game become popular for its soundtrack in spite of lacking gameplay. Its complimentary, but not explicitly required for a game to be fun.
In this regard, the developers of Hotline Miami definitely had the right idea by using tracks from (at the time) underground artists.


Pretty good collection of bangers, and the artists don't rely on the vidya industry, most of them are touring around and gained a lot more popularity thanks to the exposure the games had given them.
 
Last edited:
That is a bummer to read as a fan of his work since I found out about trackers in the Unreal days. It makes me glad to know that he has done some recent albums on Bandcamp and that you're able to set the amount for it since I can recall bumping one up to 3-4x the normal cost of an album if not both of them.
 
I'm only half joking, Epic consistently saw the consumer issue with EGS as a marketing and perception one, that they just needed to convince people to try it out who'd then immediately love it, and anyone who didn't was obviously just a Valve Shill and not worth engaging with. The consumer was only really a secondary concern for EGS, it was a store built first and foremost for developers and publishers, those were their customers. It was a corporate-first project through and through, and its insane overhead and slowness is exactly indicative of that. They didn't aim to have feature parity with Steam regarding storefront features like reviews right out of the gate because the big publishers didn't want that - High reviews don't particularly help their already big tentpoles that'd sell to plebs anyway, but low reviews threaten to sink a tentpole in the low info consumer market, where someone didn't really see the marketing or hype, but does see "mixed" or "negative" and says "oh, I'll wait/pass" and never remembers to come back. Social features like game forums only stand to create spaces they can be criticized in, that generate an overhead for them to manage 'correctly' to prevent negative narratives taking root.

Even features like a more searchable, discoverable store weren't of much interest to most of the publishers. Epic wanted to focus on having the big and interesting successes, spending Valve level money to help people see 2-3 man team games instead of Ubisofts latest AAAA disaster was counterproductive. The Big Boys didn't care about EGS discoverability because they already had mass marketing campaigns, and could just afford to buy a big banner splash and push notification on EGS if they wanted a day in the spotlight to raise awareness. EGS's pitch to them was being low margin, letting them keep more money, increasing that cost for no real benefit wouldn't help them.

Same fundamental reason why late arriving things like reviews are so weird and underbaked. They spent years working with the big publishers (lots of people, lots of meetings, lots of money) to provide a minimally intrusive review system to the developer that held as little risk of being as nuclear bad/meme worthy as steam reviews could be. Controlled feedback categories, no nuance to why you dislike it, just "Rate down, or rate up with preapproved comments and emojis only". It wasn't built to appease customers first, it was built to make customers think something was being done while not annoying the precious publishers.
Part of the 'fuck consumers' approach was also how Epic approached games on its platform.

Epic doesn't have any real games to speak of, with Fortnite costing $0 and largely being a meme if you're over the age of 20 - where as Valve has Half-Life 1 and 2, Portal 1 and 2, Team Fortress 2, and Counter Strike to get people into Steam on top of the huge libraries they've built up over time. Epic needed games to get people into the platform and decided to do it in the worst ways possible.

Instead of buying a studios and then making games (aka Sony and Microsoft, who are reviled for it) they decided to pay huge money to existing developers with popular games (Fall Guys, Rocket League) and then delisted those titles on Steam - which made people really angry. They also paid gigantic money for timed exclusivity deals just to try and fuck with Steam users, culminating with a hilarious overspend of ~$150,000,000 dollars for 6-months of exclusivity for the smash hit Borderlands 3 (which was garbage), but also tens of millions for various other titles also. They poured millions upon millions into this in such a way that made players just hate them even more.
 
Back
Top Bottom