Core Viewpoint - Duoyi Network plans to relocate its headquarters from Guangzhou and lay off over 1,000 employees, citing judicial decisions from the Huangpu Court as detrimental to its operational autonomy [1] Group 1: Management Controversies - The management style of Duoyi Network is characterized by a "high-pressure governance system" centered around founder Xu Bo's personal will [2] - Employees face punitive clauses, such as being charged for meals after leaving the company, which courts have deemed invalid [2] - There are reports of extreme management tactics, including confinement of employees in a "small black room" for refusing to resign [3] Group 2: Judicial Confrontation and Employee Impact - Duoyi Network has a pattern of punishing employees collectively following judicial losses, exemplified by the closure of its Chengdu office after a court ruling [4] - The company frames its legal defeats as a result of judicial unfairness, using employee layoffs as leverage against the judiciary [5] Group 3: Business Crisis - Duoyi Network is experiencing a dual collapse in product and market, with over 90% of its revenue coming from the "Shenwu" series, which has faced multiple IPO failures due to lawsuits [7] - New game releases have underperformed significantly, with combined revenues of less than 1.2 million yuan for two new titles in 2025 [7] - The company has seen a valuation bubble burst, dropping from a valuation of 27 billion yuan in 2023 to being absent from the 2024 Hu Run list [8] Group 4: Governance and Cultural Issues - The founder's controversial actions and statements have led to a collapse of the company's public image and governance structure [9] - The company's approach to labor relations has resulted in long-term damage to its talent ecosystem, with key personnel leaving [12] - The company's ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) standing has deteriorated, leading to a loss of trust from local governments and investors [13] Group 5: Conclusion - The situation at Duoyi Network illustrates a clash between feudal management practices and modern legal frameworks, highlighting the risks of viewing the judiciary as an adversary [14]