Bobby Kotick Gets a lot of stock bonus - Page 10

On April 28 2013 14:52 screamingpalm wrote:
So Kickstarters FTW then?

On April 28 2013 16:39 BirdKiller wrote:


Even though a game company should focus on making games, the company is owned by thousands of people, groups, and institutions of diverse profile with a common goal: increase the value of the company. They effectively own the company, and therefore, the company's ultimate goal is to increase the value of the company. Creating video games is a means to this as it should.

I'm not understanding the logic of:

"shares being invested back into company" = "company still loses $55 million" + "Kotick earns $55 million"

In form of share buybacks, the shares are erased, reducing the number of stocks while maintaining the value of the company, and therefore increasing the value of the remaining stocks. The increase in value of stocks doesn't all go to Kotick, it gets distributed evenly among all the shareholders. Based on the current stats of Activision stocks, Kotick would only earn at most $510,000 more if Activision buybacks $55 million worth of shares.

"shares being sold to the public in which case more money will have to be paid to shareholders in the longterm"

In form of Activision owning at least $55 million worth of shares and selling them to the market in order to raise capital. That is financially a stupid decision that can only be seen as an act of desperation. There are far better ways to raise cash for capital, primarily through bonds and loans. Not only that, but it also reduces the value of the shares which goes against shareholder's interests. Furthermore, Activision won't being paying substantially more to shareholders, only about $684,000 more per year in form of dividends, that's not bad from cashing in $55 million, although it's still a retarded move.

There is no such thing as free money that's true. However, this $55 million came from something the company shouldn't or can't use to reinvest along with money from interested buyers, not from the company's cash or profits.

On April 29 2013 00:00 docvoc wrote:
After reading most of this thread, I think people here don't get the economics of this. He got a vast majority of his money through his own smart business decisions, the rest of his salary is of course enormous because he calls the shots at the top level of an enormous gaming industry leader when it comes to several genre's sales. This is not capitalism at its worst by any stretch. The title is sensationalist, and this move was an enormous risk on his own part, had he not built the company up to its bloodsucking, shit game producing, mass money making self, he would have lost an enormous amount of money. This isn't him fucking over his company and siphoning off money, this is him making money while making money, which any wealthy person knows is a great way to increase income. If you can make money by investing or devesting in yourself while you do your job, why not do it?

On April 29 2013 00:06 Holy_AT wrote:


He does nothing productive, so he does not deserve that much money ...
Calling the big shots ? I laugh at that, big shots are beeing called by analysts and other people he is just the dumb figure head who steals all the credit but does nothing to deserve it.
I'd sooner see the game developers getting a raise then this person.

On April 29 2013 00:06 Holy_AT wrote:


He does nothing productive, so he does not deserve that much money ...
Calling the big shots ? I laugh at that, big shots are beeing called by analysts and other people he is just the dumb figure head who steals all the credit but does nothing to deserve it.
I'd sooner see the game developers getting a raise then this person.

Like I said last week, the main reason EA is badly run isn't because the leaders are bad guys, come to ruin all our Christmas releases with their Day 1 DLC. It's not corporate greed, or that the company is "too big". The problem with EA is that it's an entertainment software company and the majority of the EA leadership doesn't have a background in software or entertainment. They are "money men" - people with a background in venture capital, management, and overseeing large established industries. Before EA, Riccitiello's job was running the Bakery Division of the Sara Lee corporation. This sort of industrial and financial oversight work is radically different from producing software in this young and rapidly changing new media. Basically, these men are out of their depth and out of their area of expertise. These guys don't work in software and don't play games, yet they're running a company that requires a keen understanding of both. They're trying to reach consumers and shape public opinion, but they don't have a firm grasp of gaming news or the culture that surrounds the hobby.

Oh, I'm sure they "play" games in the sense that they sample their own company products, but I seriously doubt any of them really go home and click away at Starcraft or Assassin's Creed late into the night. I admit this is speculation on my part, but really: Could someone who plays games and is immersed in the culture make the mistakes EA has? Ubisoft had a horrible time with their always-on DRM and eventually abandoned it. Blizzard generated a ton of negative press when the always-on requirement of Diablo III became problematic. Then EA repeated those mistakes, only more seriously and on a grander scale, even though they had recent events to inform their decision-making.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/10252-How-to-Fix-Electronic-Arts

On April 28 2013 23:46 StarStruck wrote:
I was looking at us as a whole. You and I are a minority when it comes to our spending habits when it comes to games. Even then, I'm guilty of buying unnecessary products like the CE of D3. -_-

On April 29 2013 00:30 Bulkers wrote:
Bobby got a sinecure job, only 1 out of milions can get, and lets be honest all of us are angry at him because we envy him...

On April 29 2013 00:26 Falling wrote:
Sweet. Am I going to get better games as a result of this? Probably not and so I don't really care.

Not related to Bobby Kotick specifically, but these are some great thoughts by Shamus Young on AAA Gaming leadership


Sure a company CAN pay whatever they want to their CEO and I guess that's a demonstration of what people are willing to pay. And one might even say they earned it because they made strategic decisions or some such. But for me as a gamer, am I going to get better games because of guys like Bobby? If not, then I can accept the 'why' of large pay raise, but I certainly don't have to like it. Nor do I have to think that it will in anyway increase my gaming experience.

On April 28 2013 22:23 blug wrote:
That is the problem with people these days, they are self entitled and feel as though Blizzard owe them something.

On April 29 2013 01:18 Talin wrote:


That is the exact opposite of the problem with people these days. You can call it self entitlement all you want, but in fact those people are only entitled to their opinions - and if their opinion is that Blizzard, Activision, EA, whoever delivered a trash product, then they have a perfectly valid right to voice it. In fact, it's in their best interest to do so (along with not actually buying the product).

The actual problem with people/consumers these days is that they are too lazy, too ignorant, or both.