Pros
The people making sure the games are made and released, one of the best I've encountered.
Cons
I joined the team when they were just starting to grow, and it was exciting to imagine what the future could hold for us. We quickly reached over 100 employees. However, that growth was not matched with the right decisions, particularly during one of their best years after COVID. They failed to adapt and showed little interest in doing so. It became clear that, for them, it was all just a numbers game. As long as the numbers kept rising, they were satisfied, even if some of those numbers reflected how many employees were disappointed with how the CEOs and middle management were handling their teams. I often heard promises about a better future, professional growth, how employee happiness was the top priority, and how they wanted to create an open and safe space where everyone could be heard. But that “better future” was accompanied by an increasing number of vague requirements that made professional growth virtually impossible. Even when we met every expectation, the guidelines were so unclear that they could easily argue otherwise. Developing games became increasingly difficult, not because employees didn’t know what they were doing, but because the CEOs had lost sight of what was truly needed. Only after the games were released, and met with harsh criticism from players and the community, did they start backtracking and implementing what everyone had been saying should have been done from the beginning. They had 100 employees, people who were actual gamers and enjoyed playing the games we were building, yet they chose not to listen to them in pursuit of squeezing more money out of players. That approach failed completely. Team leaders, who initially tried to support their teams, began to succumb to the whims of the CEOs. They had little choice; it was either comply or be unfairly criticized. Eventually, some of them began treating their teams the same way, and soon after, the CEOs initiated their first round of layoffs. Following that, more promises were made: everyone else was “safe,” and the layoffs were a “last resort” to protect the remaining employees. They even brought in an external psychologist to gauge company morale, and the findings were alarming. Nearly the entire company was at dangerous levels of burnout or heading there quickly. No action was taken. In marketing, gaslighting employees seemed to take priority over everything else, largely due to the team leader. There was zero accountability for the decisions being made, even though tasks were carried out exactly to their liking rather than in the best interest of the work. Every suggestion was dismissed immediately, and the few that were accepted faced the same dismissive attitude from the CEOs. Some employees were even called into private meetings with the CEOs to be reprimanded for simply raising concerns. Silencing employees took precedence over solving problems. Eventually, another layoff took place. Those who had been vocal during their contracts and honest in the biannual happiness surveys were the ones targeted. Now, promotions are being handed out left and right, and employees are being shuffled between teams to cover the gaps left by the layoffs. But nothing seems to have genuinely improved.