|
On April 29 2013 03:42 synd wrote:
To everyone who thinks that Bobby Kotick does something for the company - wrong.
If you think that the developers themselves are responsible for the terribly-repeative CoDs we get every year, well they're not - Kotick is the CEO.
He makes the decisions and yes - they make money but of what? Of all the (not adding a racist word) who actually like to get the same product every year and still pay the same premium price.
That's the customer's choice. I dislike CoD fanboys just as much as everyone, but the truth is if demand exists, and Kotick is the one to order Activision to make supply for that demand, well, they're gonna get money.
Anyways, I'm sure that if people suddenly stopped buying CoD he'd find something else to milk, that's what big businesses do.
|
Kotick's a piece of shit, but I blame the idiots willing to pay full price for the same game 6 years in a row more than him.
Shame Blizzard has anything to do with Activision though as the influence is both tangible and cancerous.
|
On April 29 2013 03:29 TheLOLas wrote:
I don't necessarily see anything wrong with this. If the man is running the company, he has the power to set his payment to be whatever he wants, so long as the company can afford it. The man is doing a job and getting paid for it. Get over it.
I know compensation/ benefits are not taught in general but statements like these are misinformation.
No public company CEO sets their own salary. You answer to the shareholders and the board.
If he is shitty, he will be gone. But people give them the big money. The top and bottom line speaks for itself.
Shareholder get em capital growth and dividends, Kotick gets his ez moneh.
|
He's getting paid big bucks because Activision-Blizzard's stock has been on a tear for the past few months. His first duty is to shareholders, not customers. Besides, games like CoD and SCII are doing pretty damn well in terms of sales, despite the outrage from "gamer" types.
|
Better question would be not whether Kotick deserves more compensation, but whether we should be talking shit to all the gamers that buy Activision - Blizzard games. As much as Kotick doesn't have a good reputation among gamers, his current standing owes to gamers who have bought the company's products.
IMO, it's easier to blame a fat cat than to blame ourselves and other gamers. Don't mind the fact that gamers have given this company over $5 billion last year. Let's just get angry that this guy is $55 million richer. It's a stupid position for someone to rant over a person running the company while at the same time, paying its products and services.
|
On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote:
It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise.
That's still a ridiculous amount of money.
On April 28 2013 14:41 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2013 14:40 yandere991 wrote:
It vests over 5 years and its stock based awards. That is roughly 10 mill variable pay per year without NPV taking effect. Hardly the sensationalist 800% raise. but....but...but...then we can't get our pitchforks! ITT: People who don't fully grasp economics and business
I have a master's degree in economics, and I'll still grap my pitchfork. 10 million on a yearly basis + his regular salary is not justified considering the damages he's done to the company, and in particular to the Blizzard brand (due to D3).
The fact that shortterm profits are rewarded over longterm company management is in my opinion by far the largest contributing factor to what's wrong with corporate economics today.
|
Just like any other American CEO, except for a rare, honorable few. It's sad but true.
|
I didn't read the thread, but it's probably full of people who think it's ridiculous. What's funny to me is that these same people most likely buy these games and more importantly DLC. Every time people complain about gaming going downhill I always say that gamers are to blame, because they propelled this mediocrity.
|
On April 29 2013 04:18 Gentso wrote:
I didn't read the thread, but it's probably full of people who think it's ridiculous. What's funny to me is that these same people most likely buy these games and more importantly DLC. Every time people complain about gaming going downhill I always say that gamers are to blame, because they propelled this mediocrity.
And Blizzard propelled their D3 sales by deliberately deceiving their loyal customers for hinting that it'd be anywhere close to the standard of their previous games.
You actually believe I even consider buying the D3 expansion?
|
not that i care for him at all but as long as he doesn't sell his new found shares, i am fine with it
means his direct worth is connected to the quality of the games he sells
|
Thank god for Kickstarter. Activision have truly ravaged the gaming industry with their stagnation, but at least we will see some real games soon.
|
On April 29 2013 04:24 Creem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 04:18 Gentso wrote:
I didn't read the thread, but it's probably full of people who think it's ridiculous. What's funny to me is that these same people most likely buy these games and more importantly DLC. Every time people complain about gaming going downhill I always say that gamers are to blame, because they propelled this mediocrity. And Blizzard propelled their D3 sales by deliberately deceiving their loyal customers for hinting that it'd be anywhere close to the standard of their previous games. You actually believe I even consider buying the D3 expansion?
ROFL you think they knew the hardcore fans wouldn't like it? And they "deceived" their loyal customers?... Christ people on the internet sometimes...
By the time the game was out, EVERYONE and their mother knew what it was all about, I don't know what they expected.
|
On April 29 2013 04:18 Gentso wrote:
I didn't read the thread, but it's probably full of people who think it's ridiculous. What's funny to me is that these same people most likely buy these games and more importantly DLC. Every time people complain about gaming going downhill I always say that gamers are to blame, because they propelled this mediocrity.
You are forgetting a key demographic, one that is easily manipulated and mostly unaware of what makes games "good". This group would be the parents of gamer kids, and once you realize how many 8-16 year old's and their parents are a huge part of the reason Activision and EA are as big as they are today, this "don't blame the company, blame the gamer" mentality becomes a lot less meaningful.
As the gaming industry grew, my generation and the one before it had a fairer hand in dictating what "quality" meant in terms of gaming. With far fewer commercials, GameSpot bundles, and, most importantly, a wide and disparate business environment, small time developers had the luxury of trying things out and seeing if the public would enjoy them without the looming threat of corporate take-over or the necessity of bombing the public with massive advertising campaigns. Though things like Kickstarter and the growing indie game scene speaks to this trend in a contemporary sense, they are orders of magnitude smaller and less influential than Activision/EA, and it should be clear that these huge companies success is due to more than simply the fandom of the masses.
|
On April 28 2013 14:34 Disregard wrote:
He doesn't receive all that in cash its most shares since he bought a portion of Activision back then, still ridiculous. Everyone hates him but hes loaded what can you do capitalism at its best.
Fair enough, but corporate logic dictates that a CEO that is well compensated is less likely to leave the company if you give him money that reflects his results.
|
On April 29 2013 04:36 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 04:18 Gentso wrote:
I didn't read the thread, but it's probably full of people who think it's ridiculous. What's funny to me is that these same people most likely buy these games and more importantly DLC. Every time people complain about gaming going downhill I always say that gamers are to blame, because they propelled this mediocrity. You are forgetting a key demographic, one that is easily manipulated and mostly unaware of what makes games "good". This group would be the parents of gamer kids, and once you realize how many 8-16 year old's and their parents are a huge part of the reason Activision and EA are as big as they are today, this "don't blame the company, blame the gamer" mentality becomes a lot less meaningful. As the gaming industry grew, my generation and the one before it had a fairer hand in dictating what "quality" meant in terms of gaming. With far fewer commercials, GameSpot bundles, and, most importantly, a wide and disparate business environment, small time developers had the luxury of trying things out and seeing if the public would enjoy them without the looming threat of corporate take-over or the necessity of bombing the public with massive advertising campaigns. Though things like Kickstarter and the growing indie game scene speaks to this trend in a contemporary sense, they are orders of magnitude smaller and less influential than Activision/EA, and it should be clear that these huge companies success is due to more than simply the fandom of the masses.
It still doesn't matter. There is a demand for this type of game, no matter how terrible a different segment of the gamer population thinks it is. As long as such demand exists, there will be those supplying the goods, and since that demand is large, they'll do well, that is all. There is no blame in milking demanding customers, it's the way business is done that is all.
If you want to target a different audience with your business, making more unique experiences etc, that's great, but that doesn't mean you can fault Activision for seeking a more economically rewarding approach.
|
On April 29 2013 04:36 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 04:18 Gentso wrote:
I didn't read the thread, but it's probably full of people who think it's ridiculous. What's funny to me is that these same people most likely buy these games and more importantly DLC. Every time people complain about gaming going downhill I always say that gamers are to blame, because they propelled this mediocrity. You are forgetting a key demographic, one that is easily manipulated and mostly unaware of what makes games "good". This group would be the parents of gamer kids, and once you realize how many 8-16 year old's and their parents are a huge part of the reason Activision and EA are as big as they are today, this "don't blame the company, blame the gamer" mentality becomes a lot less meaningful. As the gaming industry grew, my generation and the one before it had a fairer hand in dictating what "quality" meant in terms of gaming. With far fewer commercials, GameSpot bundles, and, most importantly, a wide and disparate business environment, small time developers had the luxury of trying things out and seeing if the public would enjoy them without the looming threat of corporate take-over. Though things like Kickstarter and the growing indie game scene speaks to this trend in a contemporary sense, they are orders of magnitude smaller and less influential than Activision/EA, and it should be clear that these huge companies success is due to more than simply the fandom of the masses.
From what I've heard a huge factor has been a combination of higher development costs and lower revenue. That's made developers/publishers much more risk adverse - better to cash in on a "sure thing" than trying something novel.
|
The cost of rent has gone up, the cost of food, and of gas, and the cost of CEOs is out of control, yet starting wages for deli clerks has been $8.09/hr since March 2005 (Colorado state UFCW local 7, in this case), which is down from the previous rate of $9.62/hr.
You could argue that the bubble has burst, and that you obviously can't get a good job with a high school degree like my dad did 40 years ago, but it seems that the poor are hurt more than the rich, if the rich even notice at all.
Grats to everyone who works the system and comes on the winning side of indentured servitude.
|
If i was an employee at ANY level in that company I would leave. I have no idea how this dude can sleep at night.
Yeah you wanna pay a good ceo to keep him around but really now... he was probably doing just fine on the millions he allready had
|
Canada11378 Posts
On April 29 2013 04:18 Gentso wrote:
I didn't read the thread, but it's probably full of people who think it's ridiculous. What's funny to me is that these same people most likely buy these games and more importantly DLC. Every time people complain about gaming going downhill I always say that gamers are to blame, because they propelled this mediocrity.
That's a hell of an assumption. I can't remember the last time I've bought an EA game for instance. I didn't buy Diablo 3, I've only bought one 2 FPS in my life and both because they were awesome and unique (Mount & Blade Napoleonic Wars!) Where's my justice? Why is there a massive glut of similar FPS?
Truth is I don't expect it because it's too monstrously big for some gamers to not buy it and hope that something will change. There's too many others for there to be any sort of solidarity to demand greater quality of games by not purchasing this or that item.
You can try shuffling blame off on customers, but the producer have control over their product and they are the ones deciding the quality of the gameplay. Maybe some blame can be shared amongst customers, but 'success' of short term cash cows resulting in poorer gameplay lies squarely in the camp of the creaters and producers.
|
United States645 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
