株式会社サイバーエージェント

"(Hidden?) I submitted a heartfelt review of the same content to subsidiary Cygames, but it was hidden in less than three days. I'm truly disappointed. Contrary to its glamorous appearance, its true nature is nothing more than a bluff. The lofty ideal of "not pay-to-win" that was once promoted seems to have become a mere formality. I understand that huge development and maintenance costs are required, but ultimately, I can't help but question the current situation, which relies so heavily on collecting excessive amounts of money from players. The "leave of old characters outdated," the ruined game balance, and extreme inflation, where the latest release is always the strongest, are just too drastic. I'm even outraged by the attitude of using the names of famous horses, yet letting old characters be thrown away by the wave of inflation. I'm aware that my knowledge of horse racing is still shallow, but at least with this game, I've logged in a total of 1,736 days. The skill gap between each running style (or the difference in the total number of skills for each running style) remains untouched. Will the day ever again come when the four running styles can compete on an equal footing (or at least in a realistic manner)? -- From a disappointed Cygames fan overseas and early adopters"

"I trusted them because they're a major company, but frankly, it fell short of my expectations in many ways. I've written several books in the business field, developed my own frameworks, and regularly share specialized content on Note. Given this background, I'm aware that I'm more strict than average when it comes to the accuracy of requests and the nature of industry trends and issues. However, throughout this interaction, I felt there was a significant gap in awareness. First, when I specifically communicated my requests and challenges, they simply put them into practice. They rarely offered any unique perspectives or in-depth proposals, or any further discussion or supplementary explanations. I was hoping for suggestions based on industry standards and examples from other companies, or proposals that challenged conventional wisdom, but they seemed passive throughout. What I found particularly disappointing was that the team I was working with lacked sufficient knowledge and experience, and they did little to understand the background and underlying intent of the request. While the task itself was carried out carefully, there was no deep discussion, understanding of industry-specific issues, or strategic reinterpretation. It felt like the work was primarily being handled by junior staff. In fact, there were many exchanges during our discussions where it seemed like they were still learning the ropes. Deliveries were often delayed from the original schedule, and I had to personally check the progress each time. I also feel there is room for improvement in project management and information sharing compared to industry standards. The costs were by no means cheap, and in terms of added value relative to cost, it's hard to feel satisfied compared to industry and other companies. Overall, I think mismatches are likely to occur when there are upstream expectations, such as "they will proactively think about and propose essential issues and strategies even without detailed instructions." Conversely, if the request is clear and you're expected to follow a manual, or if the output simply exceeds a certain level, you may be able to entrust the work to them with confidence."

"Aren't the bias in Abema's political programs too extreme? It seems there are some very immature people there. Shame on you."

""

"I'm a former employee, and I'm glad I left. It's a truly terrible company."