|
On April 29 2013 06:01 Euronyme wrote:
It's kind of weird American CEOs get payed so well. Swedish CEOs operating companies with twice the revenue have salaries in the 500.000-700.000 USD range.
how many swedish companies have twice the revenue of actiblizz?
|
On April 29 2013 06:06 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 06:01 Euronyme wrote:
It's kind of weird American CEOs get payed so well. Swedish CEOs operating companies with twice the revenue have salaries in the 500.000-700.000 USD range. how many swedish companies have twice the revenue of actiblizz?
If you mean just company (not gaming) here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_Nordic_companies
|
On April 29 2013 06:06 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 06:01 Euronyme wrote:
It's kind of weird American CEOs get payed so well. Swedish CEOs operating companies with twice the revenue have salaries in the 500.000-700.000 USD range. how many swedish companies have twice the revenue of actiblizz?
According to that guys link, 30-40 have more. The ridiculous CEO pay is a very American thing. China has copied us, but most of Europe isn't like this. CEO may get 10-50x more than an average worker, not 1000x.
|
You guys can't you all understand ? This is to distract you from the main source of evil... DB.
Ill go out and say it . I wish I made that much money you are crazy not to.
|
On April 29 2013 05:36 Fyodor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 04:36 farvacola wrote: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. Nah, your post is completely myopic when it comes to the history of video games. Today is the high point of history in terms of quality standards for video games. .
Anyone who lived through it knows that 98-2002 was the best period in gaming. Go back beyond like 1995 and it starts becoming quite lo-fi...go past 2005 and it starts becoming obsessed with sales and graphics, less about games. You must be like 18 or 19 or something. The time when games like Baldur's Gate II, Planescape Torment, OoT, Goldeneye, AoC, Red Alert 2, Deus Ex, Starcraft, Diablo II were coming out every other month...just completely obliterates the slow feed of warm diarrhoea that passes for the majority of games nowadays. Only a few modern titles can stand up with the older stuff in terms of quality.
You are exactly the kind of demographic Farvacola is talking about basically.
|
If activisions LTI is the typical TSR EPS vest to 150% when above 75th percentile then it would explain the level of bank this guy is getting rather accurately considering he is murdering his competitors and doing really well in this shit economy. I seriously hate reading American annual reports though to verify it.
|
On April 29 2013 06:31 phar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 06:06 turdburgler wrote:On April 29 2013 06:01 Euronyme wrote:
It's kind of weird American CEOs get payed so well. Swedish CEOs operating companies with twice the revenue have salaries in the 500.000-700.000 USD range. how many swedish companies have twice the revenue of actiblizz? According to that guys link, 30-40 have more. The ridiculous CEO pay is a very American thing. China has copied us, but most of Europe isn't like this. CEO may get 10-50x more than an average worker, not 1000x.
The ratio of ceo to worker pay has been declining since 2000 in fits and starts.
|
As bad as Activision is for the game industry in terms of creativity, you can't deny it's making shareholders happy. Kotick getting payed well isn't really his fault. That's just the way it is.
|
On April 29 2013 06:01 Euronyme wrote:
It's kind of weird American CEOs get payed so well. Swedish CEOs operating companies with twice the revenue have salaries in the 500.000-700.000 USD range.
Why is the difference so small? I would imagine a CEO (if he's the top dog, with a lot of authority) has a lot more impact on revenue than whether or not you have e.g. 10 dime-a-dozen programmers. Is it a cultural thing where the socialist expectations/negative views of such high pay impact that paying a CEO more would not be worth the backlash?
|
|
|
On April 29 2013 06:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 06:31 phar wrote:On April 29 2013 06:06 turdburgler wrote:On April 29 2013 06:01 Euronyme wrote:
It's kind of weird American CEOs get payed so well. Swedish CEOs operating companies with twice the revenue have salaries in the 500.000-700.000 USD range. how many swedish companies have twice the revenue of actiblizz? According to that guys link, 30-40 have more. The ridiculous CEO pay is a very American thing. China has copied us, but most of Europe isn't like this. CEO may get 10-50x more than an average worker, not 1000x. The ratio of ceo to worker pay has been declining since 2000 in fits and starts.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wmpZXaN.png)
Source
Still averages above 200 times.
Edit: Dammit ControlMonkey! Beat me to it. 
|
On April 29 2013 07:17 Ryalnos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 06:01 Euronyme wrote:
It's kind of weird American CEOs get payed so well. Swedish CEOs operating companies with twice the revenue have salaries in the 500.000-700.000 USD range. Why is the difference so small? I would imagine a CEO (if he's the top dog, with a lot of authority) has a lot more impact on revenue than whether or not you have e.g. 10 dime-a-dozen programmers. Is it a cultural thing where the socialist expectations/negative views of such high pay impact that paying a CEO more would not be worth the backlash?
The graphs from the posts just above should answer your question quite well. Capitalism didn't always work that way. This CEO is a deity and must be paid as such is quite the new fad, comparatively. Best functioning countries in the world don't adhere to it, I wonder why.
|
On April 29 2013 05:00 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 04:42 mordk wrote:On April 29 2013 04:36 farvacola wrote: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. lol, it's clear that you feel some need to defend this multimillion dollar company from dissenting opinions on the internet, but, to use your tired business 101 logic, as a consumer, it is my right to say, "I don't like the way Activision does business." It is that simple. You can tell me that they're filling in market space all you want, but that does little in the way of discounting the notion that mega companies like Activision and EA play a huge agential role in shaping that market space in the first place. Bobby Kotick just got an 800% raise; I don't think he needs mordk's advocacy on the TL forums. I'm sure he appreciates it though. @Jonny, yeah, I'm hoping that the developer space changes soon so that the risk in putting time and effort into "the next big game" without the backing of a mega-company becomes more feasible.
ROFL, you can disagree with his raise as much as you want, that doesn't change facts. I'm sure he doesn't need or care about my advocacy, what I'm saying is pretty simple, there's no moral high ground here, he gets his cash by supplying what people demand, that's what his business does. If you don't like it, well, that's cool, I don't like massive multi millionnaires, but he isn't doing anything inherently wrong while getting this money, he's just selling harmless stuff, who cares.
I don't have to buy Activision's games if I don't like them (I actually don't, aside from Starcraft series), there's CDPR, 2K, kickstarter projects, and a huge myriad of other games I can play and developers I can support. If people are satisfied by Activision's games and Kotick and co. will sell them, well, good for them I guess.
|
On April 29 2013 07:45 mordk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 05:00 farvacola wrote:On April 29 2013 04:42 mordk wrote:On April 29 2013 04:36 farvacola wrote: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. lol, it's clear that you feel some need to defend this multimillion dollar company from dissenting opinions on the internet, but, to use your tired business 101 logic, as a consumer, it is my right to say, "I don't like the way Activision does business." It is that simple. You can tell me that they're filling in market space all you want, but that does little in the way of discounting the notion that mega companies like Activision and EA play a huge agential role in shaping that market space in the first place. Bobby Kotick just got an 800% raise; I don't think he needs mordk's advocacy on the TL forums. I'm sure he appreciates it though. @Jonny, yeah, I'm hoping that the developer space changes soon so that the risk in putting time and effort into "the next big game" without the backing of a mega-company becomes more feasible. ROFL, you can disagree with his raise as much as you want, that doesn't change facts. I'm sure he doesn't need or care about my advocacy, what I'm saying is pretty simple, there's no moral high ground here, he gets his cash by supplying what people demand, that's what his business does. If you don't like it, well, that's cool, I don't like massive multi millionnaires, but he isn't doing anything inherently wrong while getting this money, he's just selling harmless stuff, who cares.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/28/entertainment/la-et-ct-activision-lays-off-90-developers-at-radical-entertainment-revising-earlier-statement-20120628
company has to lay off people but CEO gets massive amounts of $$. Guess the question is, what is inherently wrong?
|
On April 29 2013 07:50 supervizor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 07:45 mordk wrote:On April 29 2013 05:00 farvacola wrote:On April 29 2013 04:42 mordk wrote:On April 29 2013 04:36 farvacola wrote: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. lol, it's clear that you feel some need to defend this multimillion dollar company from dissenting opinions on the internet, but, to use your tired business 101 logic, as a consumer, it is my right to say, "I don't like the way Activision does business." It is that simple. You can tell me that they're filling in market space all you want, but that does little in the way of discounting the notion that mega companies like Activision and EA play a huge agential role in shaping that market space in the first place. Bobby Kotick just got an 800% raise; I don't think he needs mordk's advocacy on the TL forums. I'm sure he appreciates it though. @Jonny, yeah, I'm hoping that the developer space changes soon so that the risk in putting time and effort into "the next big game" without the backing of a mega-company becomes more feasible. ROFL, you can disagree with his raise as much as you want, that doesn't change facts. I'm sure he doesn't need or care about my advocacy, what I'm saying is pretty simple, there's no moral high ground here, he gets his cash by supplying what people demand, that's what his business does. If you don't like it, well, that's cool, I don't like massive multi millionnaires, but he isn't doing anything inherently wrong while getting this money, he's just selling harmless stuff, who cares. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/28/entertainment/la-et-ct-activision-lays-off-90-developers-at-radical-entertainment-revising-earlier-statement-20120628company has to lay off people but CEO gets massive amounts of $$. Guess the question is, what is inherently wrong?
That is why developers must be very careful not to sell themselves to people who don't share their goals in gaming.
|
On April 29 2013 07:52 mordk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 07:50 supervizor wrote:On April 29 2013 07:45 mordk wrote:On April 29 2013 05:00 farvacola wrote:On April 29 2013 04:42 mordk wrote:On April 29 2013 04:36 farvacola wrote: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. lol, it's clear that you feel some need to defend this multimillion dollar company from dissenting opinions on the internet, but, to use your tired business 101 logic, as a consumer, it is my right to say, "I don't like the way Activision does business." It is that simple. You can tell me that they're filling in market space all you want, but that does little in the way of discounting the notion that mega companies like Activision and EA play a huge agential role in shaping that market space in the first place. Bobby Kotick just got an 800% raise; I don't think he needs mordk's advocacy on the TL forums. I'm sure he appreciates it though. @Jonny, yeah, I'm hoping that the developer space changes soon so that the risk in putting time and effort into "the next big game" without the backing of a mega-company becomes more feasible. ROFL, you can disagree with his raise as much as you want, that doesn't change facts. I'm sure he doesn't need or care about my advocacy, what I'm saying is pretty simple, there's no moral high ground here, he gets his cash by supplying what people demand, that's what his business does. If you don't like it, well, that's cool, I don't like massive multi millionnaires, but he isn't doing anything inherently wrong while getting this money, he's just selling harmless stuff, who cares. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/28/entertainment/la-et-ct-activision-lays-off-90-developers-at-radical-entertainment-revising-earlier-statement-20120628company has to lay off people but CEO gets massive amounts of $$. Guess the question is, what is inherently wrong? That is why developers must be very careful not to sell themselves to people who don't share their goals in gaming.
yeah, developers out there: head his advice! Ask for a personal interview with the CEO and if he doesn't share your vision about gaming, don't take the job.
|
On April 29 2013 07:54 supervizor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 07:52 mordk wrote:On April 29 2013 07:50 supervizor wrote:On April 29 2013 07:45 mordk wrote:On April 29 2013 05:00 farvacola wrote:On April 29 2013 04:42 mordk wrote:On April 29 2013 04:36 farvacola wrote: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. lol, it's clear that you feel some need to defend this multimillion dollar company from dissenting opinions on the internet, but, to use your tired business 101 logic, as a consumer, it is my right to say, "I don't like the way Activision does business." It is that simple. You can tell me that they're filling in market space all you want, but that does little in the way of discounting the notion that mega companies like Activision and EA play a huge agential role in shaping that market space in the first place. Bobby Kotick just got an 800% raise; I don't think he needs mordk's advocacy on the TL forums. I'm sure he appreciates it though. @Jonny, yeah, I'm hoping that the developer space changes soon so that the risk in putting time and effort into "the next big game" without the backing of a mega-company becomes more feasible. ROFL, you can disagree with his raise as much as you want, that doesn't change facts. I'm sure he doesn't need or care about my advocacy, what I'm saying is pretty simple, there's no moral high ground here, he gets his cash by supplying what people demand, that's what his business does. If you don't like it, well, that's cool, I don't like massive multi millionnaires, but he isn't doing anything inherently wrong while getting this money, he's just selling harmless stuff, who cares. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/28/entertainment/la-et-ct-activision-lays-off-90-developers-at-radical-entertainment-revising-earlier-statement-20120628company has to lay off people but CEO gets massive amounts of $$. Guess the question is, what is inherently wrong? That is why developers must be very careful not to sell themselves to people who don't share their goals in gaming. yeah, developers out there: head his advice! Ask for a personal interview with the CEO and if he doesn't share your vision about gaming, don't take the job.
Of course, just go read some CDPR interviews and understand why they don't have a publisher. A publisher who cares more about money than actually good games WILL fire you if you don't get sales, or WILL alter your product to satisfy customer's demands, it's only logical.
|
On April 29 2013 05:00 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 04:42 mordk wrote:On April 29 2013 04:36 farvacola wrote: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. lol, it's clear that you feel some need to defend this multimillion dollar company from dissenting opinions on the internet, but, to use your tired business 101 logic, as a consumer, it is my right to say, "I don't like the way Activision does business." It is that simple. You can tell me that they're filling in market space all you want, but that does little in the way of discounting the notion that mega companies like Activision and EA play a huge agential role in shaping that market space in the first place. Bobby Kotick just got an 800% raise; I don't think he needs mordk's advocacy on the TL forums. I'm sure he appreciates it though. @Jonny, yeah, I'm hoping that the developer space changes soon so that the risk in putting time and effort into "the next big game" without the backing of a mega-company becomes more feasible.
But farv, all you said was that mord is right. You just represent a certain segment of the gamer population. You just said it fancy to make it sound like your position is more sophisticated culturally so it's right.
Also put down the red flag comrade
You as a consumer have the right to say and since people like what they put out enough to buy it in droves they have the right to ignore your butt. They'd have that right even if you were Joe Vidjagem Player but then it would be a bad business decision.
You don't have the right to get your way just because you imply it'd be better if someone with your perspective was dictator of Activision.
Also this post:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=410026¤tpage=5#89
On April 28 2013 17:22 Teddyman wrote:He's probably doing something right. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AWTsYub.png)
whole story.
kotick and activision signed a contract, he did what he was hired to do, he gets what he was promised in the contract
what's the big deal
it's not like we're living in exactly boom times here
look at that graph
no CEO should get criticized for delivering that for a game company post-2008.
hating on a guy for how much money he makes when your real beef is that you're unhappy with the product is petty.
|
On April 29 2013 07:55 mordk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 07:54 supervizor wrote:On April 29 2013 07:52 mordk wrote:On April 29 2013 07:50 supervizor wrote:On April 29 2013 07:45 mordk wrote:On April 29 2013 05:00 farvacola wrote:On April 29 2013 04:42 mordk wrote:On April 29 2013 04:36 farvacola wrote: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. lol, it's clear that you feel some need to defend this multimillion dollar company from dissenting opinions on the internet, but, to use your tired business 101 logic, as a consumer, it is my right to say, "I don't like the way Activision does business." It is that simple. You can tell me that they're filling in market space all you want, but that does little in the way of discounting the notion that mega companies like Activision and EA play a huge agential role in shaping that market space in the first place. Bobby Kotick just got an 800% raise; I don't think he needs mordk's advocacy on the TL forums. I'm sure he appreciates it though. @Jonny, yeah, I'm hoping that the developer space changes soon so that the risk in putting time and effort into "the next big game" without the backing of a mega-company becomes more feasible. ROFL, you can disagree with his raise as much as you want, that doesn't change facts. I'm sure he doesn't need or care about my advocacy, what I'm saying is pretty simple, there's no moral high ground here, he gets his cash by supplying what people demand, that's what his business does. If you don't like it, well, that's cool, I don't like massive multi millionnaires, but he isn't doing anything inherently wrong while getting this money, he's just selling harmless stuff, who cares. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/28/entertainment/la-et-ct-activision-lays-off-90-developers-at-radical-entertainment-revising-earlier-statement-20120628company has to lay off people but CEO gets massive amounts of $$. Guess the question is, what is inherently wrong? That is why developers must be very careful not to sell themselves to people who don't share their goals in gaming. yeah, developers out there: head his advice! Ask for a personal interview with the CEO and if he doesn't share your vision about gaming, don't take the job. Of course, just go read some CDPR interviews and understand why they don't have a publisher. A publisher who cares more about money than actually good games WILL fire you if you don't get sales, or WILL alter your product to satisfy customer's demands, it's only logical.
the customer demands a good product so good game = what publisher wants by your logic. Also, not seeing how your answer counters my initial post.
|
Stock options are actually very effective at making the value of a company go up. Stock options are good for all of us as consumers.
What a stock option is, is the company promising to sell stock in a company at a future date for a set price. GAAP in the united states requires that stock options be valued at their current market value, since in the past big companies found loopholes that allowed them to misrepresent their salary expense as 0. The value of that 55 million IS NOT GUARANTEED. His cash slaary of 8.3 million is the only secure part of his payroll.
Say Activision does poorly these next 5 years, effectively the stock options offered today become 0, so he is not paid anything over his 8.3 million cash salary.
Now in order for him to make that additional money, he has to make sure the market share of the stock goes up. What this means is that he has to be sure to make the company do better, come out with new games and create better products and support for those products, in order to maintain and enhance their customer base.
Now you can go all anti-capitalism, and anti-corporation, but his cash salary of 8.3 million is the only thing promised to him. In order for him to make the majority of his compensation he has to improve the company, the more he improves the company, the more he gets compensated.
Overall this is pretty cool and shows a bright future for the video game industry.
85% of his salary is based off his performance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
9301
1730
665
EPT
