Rockstar Vienna Closes Its Doors 88
slashflood writes "Rockstar has unexpectedly closed its Rockstar Vienna development office, particularly known for its Grand Theft Auto Xbox conversion, laying off more than 100 employees. Confirmation has come in the form of a weblog post by Rockstar Vienna employee Jurie Horneman: 'This morning, as I came into work, I was greeted by security guards. It turned out Take-Two has closed their Rockstar Vienna office, effective immediately, 'due to the challenging environment facing the video game business and our Company during this platform transition'.'"
Not such a hasty layoff. (Score:5, Informative)
This guy adds a lot that the article, and blog miss out. It doesn't make the news any better, especially to the ex-staff of rockstar vienna, but concerning employment law, damn; am I glad to live in Europe.
A further comment claimed that in America, companies have the right to lay you off, and stop your pay -tomorrow-
Surely that isn't right?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not such a hasty layoff. (Score:2)
At least in the field of technology, while what you say is technically true (for the most part) in theory, it isn't usually true in practice. They can terminate you, yes, but then they risk a wrongful termination suit unless you did something wrong. That's why most tech companies choose to lay off employees in the U.S.---even grossly incompetent employees. It's less risky to give a severance
Re:Not such a hasty layoff. (Score:2)
Re:Not such a hasty layoff. (Score:2)
Re:Not such a hasty layoff. (Score:3, Insightful)
After something like ten years with the company, the owner's friend found himself out of work. The owner therefore offered his friend a job. Unfortunately, the job he got was my father's. Owner's friend had no prior experience in the business.
People get canned for shitty reasons all the
being stupid... (Score:2)
The owner of my facility fired someone from the clerical position they held, for being stupid.
This person having also held a real estate license...
The fired individual filed for unemployment, and the owner of the business freaked out... and disputed the claim, as the employee had been fired.
the response from the state? it was not the fired persons "fault" they are stupid... claim approved.
employers pay (Score:2)
Re:Not such a hasty layoff. (Score:3)
It wouldn't be fucked up if you could fire your boss without losing your job for the same reasons. That's how Capitalism wo
Re:Not such a hasty layoff. (Score:1)
Re:Not such a hasty layoff. (Score:2)
1) Are they're too good and might potentially replace you? Fire them.
2) Can you hire a new grad for significantly less money, and it'll look good on the bottom line long enough for you to get your promotion and leave? Fire them.
3) Are they sick or do they have sick relatives and take occasional sick days? Fire them.
4) Secretaries won't put out for you? Fire them.
5) Wrong skin colour/ethnicity/sexual orientation? Fire them.
Being able to fire
Re:Not such a hasty layoff. (Score:2)
With a severance package, the employer can make you sign a form that says you agree not to sue. Not airt
Re:Not such a hasty layoff. (Score:1)
Yes, they expect it, but in an "at will" state, you don't have to give it. Generally, you do give notice because you aren't an asshole. The same reason that, generally, your boss doesn't fire you for no reason.
There are obviously some exceptions, including contractual obligations and assholes.
Re:Not such a hasty layoff. (Score:2)
It varies state-to-state, but many are at-will. In Michigan, for example, the following applies:
In Michigan, employees are presumed to be "at will." At-will employees may be terminated for any reason, so long as it's not illegal. Generally, employees who work under an employment contract can only be terminated for reasons specified in the contract. In Michigan, in order to overcome the at-will p
It depends on how many people you lay off. (Score:2)
There's a federal law called WARN [dol.gov], and California [findlaw.com] has a stricter version.
p.s. WARN would be a great Wikipedia article, if someone wants to make one
Re:It depends on how many people you lay off. (Score:2)
Man, sometimes I love our government.
Fuckfaces.
Re:It depends on how many people you lay off. (Score:2)
went ahead and created a stub for it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_anDepends on the situation (Score:2)
The devil is in the details but the general rule of thumb is, no they can't. Unless you COMPLETELY screw things up (the higher up you go the more likely you have a severance package prepared in which case your fine even if you get fired so don't cite management/board of directors screw ups) they can't fire you on the spot without good reason. Theres always special cases where it can be done (dec
Re:Depends on the situation (Score:2)
Re:Depends on the situation (Score:2)
Re:Depends on the situation (Score:1)
Rockstar Vienna was working on a project that was two weeks from completion.
Re:Not such a hasty layoff. (Score:4, Informative)
Surely that isn't right?
It depends, as others have said. But one thing nobody has said is that you are eligible for unemployment insurance in this situation, which lasts for six months. How much this is actually worth depends on the state, and it's typically some percentage of what you were making at your job up to a certain maximum, but it is generally always enough to get by. There are various formulas states use to calculate this, designed to average various variables that come into the real cost of living.
When I was laid off in 2001 (after the dot.com bust), I went from a $30,000 per year job (I was just out of college so wasn't making much) to $405 a week on unemployment. That's an annual pay cut of about 30% if you figured it out by the year. Anyway, even in NYC, $405 per week is enough to live on, provided you've got a reasonable savings to fall back on. The idea isn't to keep paying your wage while you sit on your duff; the idea is to keep you sheltered and eating until you can find another job.
Most states are "at will" states, meaning either side can terminate employment at either time. It's a tradeoff. You work as long as the company needs you - or as long as you need the company. This is not necessarily as bad as it seems, because it's led to a culture where those who get laid off can, provided they're skilled enough, get new jobs fairly easily. So can those who quit simply because they don't like the company they work for. There is no stigma attached to getting laid off or quitting, and in my case, and I suspect that of many others, the job I got after being laid off paid significantly more than my previous job.
In some countries I know of (Japan, for instance), it is very, very difficult to get a new job after getting laid off because companies assume it was for performance reasons. Firing people is uncommon there - rather than fire you or lay you off, they will stick you in a room by yourself until you quit - so anyone who's laid off has a real stigma attached to them. That's not true in the US, where people move from job to job as they or their companies see fit, and that's led to a mobile workforce where the skilled really generally do rise to the top faster than they would have otherwise, because if they're dissatisfied with their work or their pay, they're free to shop themselves around.
It's definitely a different philosophy than some European countries, where it's assumed that corporations owe a debt to their workers. I understand that philosophy - the Darwin-like system we have in the US can be very difficult, and does tend to weed out those who can't hack it and ruthlessly grinds them down into the dirt. But if you do make that effort to continue honing your skills and continue to gain experience and knowledge, you can rise faster and open more doors for yourself in a system like we have in the US.
Re:Not such a hasty layoff. (Score:2)
The U.S. system is a meat grinder, but if you can hack it, you can do very well for yourself. It's a matter of building relationships with people that matter (i.e., the people who can hire/fire you) and not having any misguided loyalties to institutions or companies.
Right now, I currently work as a consultant (doesn't everyone these days?) which is nearly 100% at-will employment, but at the same time is very relations
Re:Not such a hasty layoff. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not such a hasty layoff. (Score:2)
Re:Not such a hasty layoff. (Score:2)
Generally speaking, all employment estimates are done by survey, not by unemployment payouts. At most, such payouts are only one of several factors considered. See: http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/unemploy.htm [snopes.com]
Also, I have to ask, why didn't you physically show up at the unemployment offices? Did they shut those down or something?
Re:Not such a hasty layoff. (Score:2)
Re:Not such a hasty layoff. (Score:2)
Re:Not such a hasty layoff. (Score:2)
Yeah, good luck getting a new job when they ask you how you quit your old one. No 2-weeks notice? No training your replacement? No being a 'team player?'
At-will, and I live in an at-will state, just gives employers a lot more leverage and keeps them from paying unemployment. Its not some two-way street or great compromise.
Re:Not such a hasty layoff. (Score:2)
That's America. And in further American fashion, the laws that ensure companies can lay you off with zero notice are sometimes euphemistically called "Right to Work" laws.
Now the theory is that by making it easy to fire or lay people off, companies are more prone to take risks hiring people who may end up being unneeded or not good enough for the position. Thus, if t
Re:Not such a hasty layoff. (Score:2)
The system works, for two simple reasons. You can't constantly switch jobs, since you would not be doing any productive work, and would get rather worn-out. You also can't slack off, even if your ski
Re:Not such a hasty layoff-Darwin loves "at will". (Score:1)
Re:Not such a hasty layoff-Darwin loves "at will". (Score:2)
Re:Not such a hasty layoff. (Score:1)
What's the comparable unemployment rate in Austria, France, Germany, the rest of Europe?
When the law restricts your ability to fire, you don't hire as much or as quickly. Therefore fewer jobs, therefore higher unemployment. TANSTAAFL. Luckily with the declining birthrate, there'll be plenty of jobs still left.. For white people...
And it'll suck especially bad for jobs that can be done over fiber-optic cable. Once high-quality
Re:Just a minute (Score:1)
So then what? Deport or kill the deltas? Or have the government come up with make work and print more fiat money to pay those salaries? Worked GREAT for the Soviets ISTR.. Oh wait.
The law only prohibits abusive firing to protect employees from scumbag employers who think everything goes because it's their company.
So employers are scumbags? Nice attitude, no wonder entrepreneurism is so stunted in the continent that coined
Re:Not such a hasty layoff. (Score:2)
Surely that isn't right?
But I also have the right to walk out on my job tomorrow and leave my employer in a bind trying to replace me. It's cruel both ways, but it all evens out and it's fair.
What would be really screwed up is if the employee could leave at any moment, but the employer was required to pay for their next X weeks anyway.
Er... (Score:1, Redundant)
Re:Er... (Score:1)
I'd be pissed (Score:5, Funny)
Jack wins? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Jack wins? (Score:5, Informative)
Rockstar North is presently developing a new GTA that will be simultaneously released for the 360 and the PS3, and Rockstar Vancouver remains hard at work on Bully, one of Mr. Thompson's favourite targets.
If one of Rockstar's major "murder simulator" dev studios was shut down, I could see it as a victory for Mr. Thompson, but Rockstar Vienna was known for mere "Xbox conversion."
Re:Jack wins? (Score:1)
Re:Jack wins? (Score:2)
Re:Jack wins? (Score:2)
No it's not. Xbox 360 will get some exclusive downloads, but the game itself will be PS3 and 360.
Re:Jack wins? (Score:2)
Re:Jack wins? (Score:1, Interesting)
Take2 opened another studio [gamasutra.com] a few days ago, and Rockstar Vienna ported GTA to xbox, they didn't create it.
I don't think Jack won, I think Take 2's shareholders won, when they decided to drop Vienna for cheap labour in shanghai.
GTA4 360 (Score:2)
Re:GTA4 360 (Score:2)
Rockstar Vienna did some PC to console ports. Afaik they ported GTA to the Xbox, and Max Payne to consoles.
Re:GTA4 360 (Score:1)
It looks as if Rockstar is going to be developing for next-gen platforms together from the ground up (Table Tennis is 360-only, @ E3 they announced 360 AND PS3 versions, with the 360 version having more online bells and whistles)
Does this mean in the next version of GTA... (Score:2)
na, there wouldn't be an unroar over that.
Re:Does this mean in the next version of GTA... (Score:2)
Have you ever seen the average programmer?!!
No more Max Payne? (Score:2)
Let end with a resounding WTF?!?!
It's easy (Score:2)
Re:It's easy (Score:1)
From the Gamasutra article [gamasutra.com] I mentioned:
I'm hardly fluent in marketspeak, but I'd say downsized is more accurate. It's all about squeezing every last penny out of each game - adding a new l
Re:No more Max Payne? (Score:2)
Re:No more Max Payne? (Score:2)
Re:No more Max Payne? (Score:2)
Re:No more Max Payne? (Score:2)
Fun, eh?
Re:No more Max Payne? (Score:1, Interesting)
Well