On April 29 2013 19:58 sluggaslamoo wrote: On a sidenote, if your friends aren't dedicating their life to programming, I would not want to work with them and many others would not either. Practice makes perfect, basically what you are saying is you don't have to practice to get good, well that explains why your post makes no sense. You remind me of a starcraft player who is stuck in bronze league his whole life and blames the game for his poor success.
This is not an accurate portrayal of software development as a whole. I work with a lot of amazing devs who do not dedicate their lives to it as you're describing. They don't work on side projects at home, they don't spend their free time pouring over literature and honing their skills, they don't work >8 hours a day on average. They do their job on the job, focus on how to get better while they're there, and then go home at the end of the day because it's just a job. If you don't want t work with people who think like that, it's really your loss man.
Hell I have co-workers who have switched into software dev at age 30/35+, and they're doing just fine. There's nothing magical about this shit. Yes it's a skill, yes you have to work on it, but it's not somehow superior to other fields.
On April 29 2013 20:04 sluggaslamoo wrote:Because the skills required to be a game developer are very specific. Its very hard to move out of it, especially if you have a family. C++ is not very widely used, however it is the main required skill in games development and can take decades to master.
C++ is not widely used? That's complete bullshit. Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, ... tons of places use C++ a LOT.
You're missing the point that people who work at Activision did not choose to work there.
What's Activision's turnover on developers?
As a whole, I'd say 95% of all developers in the world are absolutely atrocious because of the reason you gave. A very tiny fraction of developers actually know how to write good code and engage in computer science. I do not work with those kinds of developers and neither do my workmates because they are simply a waste of time.
I don't know why this is my loss, I get paid a substantially higher amount compared to your developers and get to work in a really good environment because of said reasons. Developers like yours would not even pass the interview of some of the companies I've worked in. While your developers write zero-test buggy software that goes overtime and is impossible to maintain, we do things properly. It doesn't matter if the software is getting built when it costs astronomical amounts of time and money to make a change simply because nothing has been abstracted properly and even lazy version control that isn't atomic with commits.
I can give you an example where a project took 6 months and looked like it was never gonna finish, then I was assigned to work on it. The code was so bad I decided to completely rebuild this 6 month project in two weeks (it became a fraction of the size while performing even more functionality than the old) and now upgrades take hours, not weeks. I left that company shortly after being employed just because of this.
I stand by what I said about C++, you aren't gonna have a lot of options if you only know C++ especially compared to the modern scripting languages that are used today. Even for Facebook, you are going to be more useful knowing PHP than C++.
Besides C++ for games development is completely different to C++ anything else. There's no point explaining it, it should be obvious to you if you are a developer.
There have been plenty of posts made about your 3rd statement, I won't go into it.
On April 30 2013 04:22 lazyitachi wrote: If your salad decisions make millions for other... maybe someone will give u money and honey. But then again.. no one cares much about those salads.. so no one give u the holla dolla. :3
I am quite certain that Mr. Kotick's decisions don't make any money either. It is the people below him actually making decisions.
Do you have any facts backing up your "certainty"?
On April 28 2013 20:26 Lemonhead wrote: Private company X gives employee Y a pay raise, and so what? They can do whatever they want with their money, and they probably think it's a good idea. What private companies want to do with their money is not subject to democracy or anything. We don't get to decide what Bobby should be earning, any more than you get to decide what I'm earning in my job.
Activision is free to pay him as much as they want, we are all free to dislike that and stop buying their products, and anyone is free to apply for Bobby's job if you think you can do a better job for the same money.
You might think you don't like the guy, or you might be jealous of the money, or think it's a little too much. Get over it.
Keep in mind, he's not funded by the government or taking the money from foreign aid or anything. The guy is working in a private company, and got a pay raise.
Because there is something to be said for having a more balanced distribution of wealth in society. Especially in the USA:
i raise you a global inequality:
oh snap, I haven't seen this, nice. Good information in this thread.
At least nobody can take all our books and internet.
On April 30 2013 04:22 lazyitachi wrote: If your salad decisions make millions for other... maybe someone will give u money and honey. But then again.. no one cares much about those salads.. so no one give u the holla dolla. :3
I am quite certain that Mr. Kotick's decisions don't make any money either. It is the people below him actually making decisions.
Do you have any facts backing up your "certainty"?
Its fair to say Koticks decisions did make the company money. Its pretty easy to see this, many of the decisions he made are clearly visible, and only he would have the power to make tactical or strategic decisions that Activision have made.
However it is whether these decisions are acceptable or not as consumers. Firing entire departments, and milking out franchises while not investing into creativity is a very risk free way of making money and is not substantial grounds for a bonus in a "Games Company". It also only benefits the company in the short term, and does nothing in the long term.
On April 30 2013 05:02 goldenwitch wrote: The ridiculous amount of blatant jealousy and envy in this thread hurts my soul to read. If this was a competitive game and one player was winning a ridiculous amount more than the other players, I hope to god that you people wouldn't be begging for that player to be given an injury to balance the playing field.
Flash wins 70% in every matchup? that is 10% more than the other players, clearly this is wrong, we should break flash's hands, thus redistributing his increased win rate to the other players.
The fact that people are arguing that this is the MORAL solution to the problem is absolutely disgusting.
To continue the metaphor, if a single player was winning significantly more than the other players, we should look to what that player is doing and attempt to raise the level of our own game. This is all the more true when the "game" is our livelihoods, our support for our families, our well being, and last but not least, our happiness as human beings.
Play better and you will win more. If you are struggling, struggle harder, change your approach, find what suits you, play to your advantages, eliminate your disadvantages. Don't ask flash to let you win.
No. If we are going to use metaphors then I suggest: This is like flash getting 1% of his price money and his coach getting the other 99%.
Your metaphor does not hold water. You have two obviously different criteria for deciding who the money belongs to.
Flash plays sc2, succeeds in tournaments, and therefore the money is his. Bobby Kotick plays CEO, succeeds as a company, and therefore the money is his.
This is dramatically opposed to your idea of who the money belongs to.
Flash plays sc2, succeeds in tournaments, and therefore the money is his. Bobby Kotick plays CEO, succeeds as a company, and therefore we should take his earnings and give them to people at random without regard for how much they have made the company.
Flash actually plays SC2 and gets rewarded for his hard work, when the people who actually make video games at Activision work hard it's Bobby Kotick who is rewarded, this is not a difficult concept.
On April 30 2013 04:22 lazyitachi wrote: If your salad decisions make millions for other... maybe someone will give u money and honey. But then again.. no one cares much about those salads.. so no one give u the holla dolla. :3
I am quite certain that Mr. Kotick's decisions don't make any money either. It is the people below him actually making decisions.
Do you have any facts backing up your "certainty"?
Its fair to say Koticks decisions did make the company money. Its pretty easy to see this, many of the decisions he made are clearly visible, and only he would have the power to make tactical or strategic decisions that Activision have made.
However it is whether these decisions are acceptable or not as consumers. Firing entire departments, and milking out franchises while not investing into creativity is a very risk free way of making money and is not substantial grounds for a bonus in a "Games Company". It also only benefits the company in the short term, and does nothing in the long term.
I agree completely.
However, stockholders often pursue short-term profit, and in their eyes Bobby Kotick has therefore absolutely merited a large raise for the short-term gains he provided them.
On April 30 2013 05:02 goldenwitch wrote: The ridiculous amount of blatant jealousy and envy in this thread hurts my soul to read. If this was a competitive game and one player was winning a ridiculous amount more than the other players, I hope to god that you people wouldn't be begging for that player to be given an injury to balance the playing field.
Flash wins 70% in every matchup? that is 10% more than the other players, clearly this is wrong, we should break flash's hands, thus redistributing his increased win rate to the other players.
The fact that people are arguing that this is the MORAL solution to the problem is absolutely disgusting.
To continue the metaphor, if a single player was winning significantly more than the other players, we should look to what that player is doing and attempt to raise the level of our own game. This is all the more true when the "game" is our livelihoods, our support for our families, our well being, and last but not least, our happiness as human beings.
Play better and you will win more. If you are struggling, struggle harder, change your approach, find what suits you, play to your advantages, eliminate your disadvantages. Don't ask flash to let you win.
No. If we are going to use metaphors then I suggest: This is like flash getting 1% of his price money and his coach getting the other 99%.
Your metaphor does not hold water. You have two obviously different criteria for deciding who the money belongs to.
Flash plays sc2, succeeds in tournaments, and therefore the money is his. Bobby Kotick plays CEO, succeeds as a company, and therefore the money is his.
This is dramatically opposed to your idea of who the money belongs to.
Flash plays sc2, succeeds in tournaments, and therefore the money is his. Bobby Kotick plays CEO, succeeds as a company, and therefore we should take his earnings and give them to people at random without regard for how much they have made the company.
Flash actually plays SC2 and gets rewarded for his hard work, when the people who actually make video games at Activision work hard it's Bobby Kotick who is rewarded, this is not a difficult concept.
He isn't being rewarded for the work they put in, he's being rewarded for the work he's done. You're assuming that the people making the game don't get good salaries, and that they don't get raises for doing a good job. They're not exactly working for free. Again I dislike activision and what they do to games, but that does not mean that what they do (the decisions kotick makes) aren't good business wise. He is making them money with his decisions, and that is why he gets a bonus. What you're saying makes it sound like the people working on the games don't get anything at all. Yes obviously he will minimize what they get in order to save the company money and make their profits bigger, but if they were truly not getting enough they would leave and go to a company with a more generous system.
On April 30 2013 04:22 lazyitachi wrote: If your salad decisions make millions for other... maybe someone will give u money and honey. But then again.. no one cares much about those salads.. so no one give u the holla dolla. :3
I am quite certain that Mr. Kotick's decisions don't make any money either. It is the people below him actually making decisions.
Do you have any facts backing up your "certainty"?
Its fair to say Koticks decisions did make the company money. Its pretty easy to see this, many of the decisions he made are clearly visible, and only he would have the power to make tactical or strategic decisions that Activision have made.
However it is whether these decisions are acceptable or not as consumers. Firing entire departments, and milking out franchises while not investing into creativity is a very risk free way of making money and is not substantial grounds for a bonus in a "Games Company". It also only benefits the company in the short term, and does nothing in the long term.
That´s also not true. He launched an Independent Games Competition with $500,000 in total available prize money for small developers working with new platforms.
On April 28 2013 20:26 Lemonhead wrote: Private company X gives employee Y a pay raise, and so what? They can do whatever they want with their money, and they probably think it's a good idea. What private companies want to do with their money is not subject to democracy or anything. We don't get to decide what Bobby should be earning, any more than you get to decide what I'm earning in my job.
Activision is free to pay him as much as they want, we are all free to dislike that and stop buying their products, and anyone is free to apply for Bobby's job if you think you can do a better job for the same money.
You might think you don't like the guy, or you might be jealous of the money, or think it's a little too much. Get over it.
Keep in mind, he's not funded by the government or taking the money from foreign aid or anything. The guy is working in a private company, and got a pay raise.
oh snap, I haven't seen this, nice. Good information in this thread.
It's up for the governments to stop this type of inequality. Privates only grow this huge because the system allows it. The more economical freedom there is, the more individual riches will grow, since they don't have to respond to any type of regulation.
I don't agree with it. My country has some of the largest inequalities around the globe (Chile), but I don't demand privates to change the way they do business, I demand my government to do something about it. If it ends up taking away some of the richest people's money, great, if they can fix it without it, that's fine as well, but I don't see it happening.
Basically, don't blame people for using the system to their advantage, blame the system for being crappy and fucked up. I really hope wealth distribution in my country becomes fair at some point in time, it's up to the governments to devise the ways to make it happen, our problem is our leaders aren't interested in that, they'd rather keep the richest getting richer, since they have personal and financial interest in the big companies here.
On April 30 2013 10:57 sluggaslamoo wrote: As a whole, I'd say 95% of all developers in the world are absolutely atrocious because of the reason you gave. A very tiny fraction of developers actually know how to write good code and engage in computer science. I do not work with those kinds of developers and neither do my workmates because they are simply a waste of time.
I don't know why this is my loss, I get paid a substantially higher amount compared to your developers and get to work in a really good environment because of said reasons. Developers like yours would not even pass the interview of some of the companies I've worked in. While your developers write zero-test buggy software that goes overtime and is impossible to maintain, we do things properly. It doesn't matter if the software is getting built when it costs astronomical amounts of time and money to make a change simply because nothing has been abstracted properly and even lazy version control that isn't atomic with commits.
I can give you an example where a project took 6 months and looked like it was never gonna finish, then I was assigned to work on it. The code was so bad I decided to completely rebuild this 6 month project in two weeks (it became a fraction of the size while performing even more functionality than the old) and now upgrades take hours, not weeks. I left that company shortly after being employed just because of this.
What do you mean by "developers like mine"? You're coming off as very arrogant man, you don't even know where I work. You have no idea how much I make, or how much my co-workers make (actually I don't have much clue how much my senior co-workers make either, aside from "more than me").
I will agree that 95% of developers are atrocious, but that doesn't have anything to do with the number of hours you're logging in excess of a 40 hour work week.
On April 30 2013 10:57 sluggaslamoo wrote: I stand by what I said about C++, you aren't gonna have a lot of options if you only know C++ especially compared to the modern scripting languages that are used today. Even for Facebook, you are going to be more useful knowing PHP than C++.
Again, there's tons of options for C++ devs. I don't know where you're getting this idea from.
On April 30 2013 10:57 sluggaslamoo wrote: Besides C++ for games development is completely different to C++ anything else. There's no point explaining it, it should be obvious to you if you are a developer.
No, it's not obvious. A lot of it is general and transferable. Most aspects of software dev should be transferable, if you're doing it right. For example, just because I spend a decent chunk of time with proprietary production systems at my current employer doesn't mean that it's all for naught if I switch jobs. The general ideas on how to keep things running is still there.
On April 30 2013 10:57 sluggaslamoo wrote: There have been plenty of posts made about your 3rd statement, I won't go into it.
I can see company owners and shareholders to get large incomes, but unless the CEO has shares in the company, he shouldn't get paid nearly this much; I don't understand why he and other people like him do get paid so much — it doesn't make any sense to me.
If the company does well, he should get benefits (or a raise) of salary proportional to what he was getting.... not some sort of huge stock benefit.
On April 30 2013 04:22 lazyitachi wrote: If your salad decisions make millions for other... maybe someone will give u money and honey. But then again.. no one cares much about those salads.. so no one give u the holla dolla. :3
I am quite certain that Mr. Kotick's decisions don't make any money either. It is the people below him actually making decisions.
Do you have any facts backing up your "certainty"?
Its fair to say Koticks decisions did make the company money. Its pretty easy to see this, many of the decisions he made are clearly visible, and only he would have the power to make tactical or strategic decisions that Activision have made.
However it is whether these decisions are acceptable or not as consumers. Firing entire departments, and milking out franchises while not investing into creativity is a very risk free way of making money and is not substantial grounds for a bonus in a "Games Company". It also only benefits the company in the short term, and does nothing in the long term.
I agree completely.
However, stockholders often pursue short-term profit, and in their eyes Bobby Kotick has therefore absolutely merited a large raise for the short-term gains he provided them.
How do you explain Amazons share price?
On April 30 2013 17:41 Xapti wrote: I can see company owners and shareholders to get large incomes, but unless the CEO has shares in the company, he shouldn't get paid nearly this much; I don't understand why he and other people like him do get paid so much — it doesn't make any sense to me.
If the company does well, he should get benefits (or a raise) of salary proportional to what he was getting.... not some sort of huge stock benefit.
He is getting paid as he has increased the value of the company according to shareholders. That is exactly what shareholders want him to do, and that is why they don't pay him a fixed salary. Mike Morhaimme also got paid $10M this year for the same reason.
On April 30 2013 04:22 lazyitachi wrote: If your salad decisions make millions for other... maybe someone will give u money and honey. But then again.. no one cares much about those salads.. so no one give u the holla dolla. :3
I am quite certain that Mr. Kotick's decisions don't make any money either. It is the people below him actually making decisions.
Do you have any facts backing up your "certainty"?
Its fair to say Koticks decisions did make the company money. Its pretty easy to see this, many of the decisions he made are clearly visible, and only he would have the power to make tactical or strategic decisions that Activision have made.
However it is whether these decisions are acceptable or not as consumers. Firing entire departments, and milking out franchises while not investing into creativity is a very risk free way of making money and is not substantial grounds for a bonus in a "Games Company". It also only benefits the company in the short term, and does nothing in the long term.
I agree completely.
However, stockholders often pursue short-term profit, and in their eyes Bobby Kotick has therefore absolutely merited a large raise for the short-term gains he provided them.
How do you explain Amazons share price?
I take it you mean as of Friday?
The share price dropped because the revenue that Amazon predicts for this quarter is less than consensus estimates. In other words, investors are selling because the expected short-term results aren't promising.
On April 30 2013 04:22 lazyitachi wrote: If your salad decisions make millions for other... maybe someone will give u money and honey. But then again.. no one cares much about those salads.. so no one give u the holla dolla. :3
I am quite certain that Mr. Kotick's decisions don't make any money either. It is the people below him actually making decisions.
Do you have any facts backing up your "certainty"?
Its fair to say Koticks decisions did make the company money. Its pretty easy to see this, many of the decisions he made are clearly visible, and only he would have the power to make tactical or strategic decisions that Activision have made.
However it is whether these decisions are acceptable or not as consumers. Firing entire departments, and milking out franchises while not investing into creativity is a very risk free way of making money and is not substantial grounds for a bonus in a "Games Company". It also only benefits the company in the short term, and does nothing in the long term.
I agree completely.
However, stockholders often pursue short-term profit, and in their eyes Bobby Kotick has therefore absolutely merited a large raise for the short-term gains he provided them.
How do you explain Amazons share price?
I take it you mean as of Friday?
The share price dropped because the revenue that Amazon predicts for this quarter is less than consensus estimates. In other words, investors are selling because the expected short-term results aren't promising.
Your point?
Have you looked at Amazons P/E-ratio? If investors only cared about short-term profit, shouldn't it be much lower?
Just be smart, don't start working in the gamedev industry, or at least be very smart about the company you pick. Even the companies who say they want a normal work week don't truly keep to those schedules,so make sure you talk to the people working there first. You can work in much better conditions in other parts of IT.
The gamedev industry in general does not care a whole lot about its employees. I especially hate the part where a company goes into a 6+ month crunch, having you work during holidays hardly seeing your family. And then after the crunch people are laid off because they don't need so many people at that point anymore since there isn't another game in full production yet. So either you are at the risk of getting fired yourself, or your colleagues can suddenly go. I mean, there are some companies that don't do this, but you will need to search for em.
On April 30 2013 04:22 lazyitachi wrote: If your salad decisions make millions for other... maybe someone will give u money and honey. But then again.. no one cares much about those salads.. so no one give u the holla dolla. :3
I am quite certain that Mr. Kotick's decisions don't make any money either. It is the people below him actually making decisions.
Do you have any facts backing up your "certainty"?
Its fair to say Koticks decisions did make the company money. Its pretty easy to see this, many of the decisions he made are clearly visible, and only he would have the power to make tactical or strategic decisions that Activision have made.
However it is whether these decisions are acceptable or not as consumers. Firing entire departments, and milking out franchises while not investing into creativity is a very risk free way of making money and is not substantial grounds for a bonus in a "Games Company". It also only benefits the company in the short term, and does nothing in the long term.
I agree completely.
However, stockholders often pursue short-term profit, and in their eyes Bobby Kotick has therefore absolutely merited a large raise for the short-term gains he provided them.
How do you explain Amazons share price?
I take it you mean as of Friday?
The share price dropped because the revenue that Amazon predicts for this quarter is less than consensus estimates. In other words, investors are selling because the expected short-term results aren't promising.
Your point?
Have you looked at Amazons P/E-ratio? If investors only cared about short-term profit, shouldn't it be much lower?
Please reread my posts more carefully. My exact words were "stockholders often pursue short-term profit.
Regardless, Amazon's high P/E ratio is due to it's potential for growth... but are you seriously arguing that growth = long term only?
On April 30 2013 04:22 lazyitachi wrote: If your salad decisions make millions for other... maybe someone will give u money and honey. But then again.. no one cares much about those salads.. so no one give u the holla dolla. :3
I am quite certain that Mr. Kotick's decisions don't make any money either. It is the people below him actually making decisions.
Do you have any facts backing up your "certainty"?
Its fair to say Koticks decisions did make the company money. Its pretty easy to see this, many of the decisions he made are clearly visible, and only he would have the power to make tactical or strategic decisions that Activision have made.
However it is whether these decisions are acceptable or not as consumers. Firing entire departments, and milking out franchises while not investing into creativity is a very risk free way of making money and is not substantial grounds for a bonus in a "Games Company". It also only benefits the company in the short term, and does nothing in the long term.
I agree completely.
However, stockholders often pursue short-term profit, and in their eyes Bobby Kotick has therefore absolutely merited a large raise for the short-term gains he provided them.
How do you explain Amazons share price?
I take it you mean as of Friday?
The share price dropped because the revenue that Amazon predicts for this quarter is less than consensus estimates. In other words, investors are selling because the expected short-term results aren't promising.
Your point?
Have you looked at Amazons P/E-ratio? If investors only cared about short-term profit, shouldn't it be much lower?
Please reread my posts more carefully. My exact words were "stockholders often pursue short-term profit.
Regardless, Amazon's high P/E ratio is due to it's potential for growth... but are you seriously arguing that growth = long term only?
Please answer the below in order for me to better understand your logic.
- Are you talking about short-term earnings growth or short-term growth in the stock price? - Please specificy how you think the value of a stock is estimated by analysts and the majority of stockholders in ATVI - Do you have any empirical data/evidence/sources to back up your theory(ies)? - How is this relevant for Activision/ATVI. Could they have purused any other strategy which could have increased the present value of future earnings?
On April 29 2013 21:43 Nekovivie wrote: Shame that its one fatcat getting all the reward rather than the content designers, marketers and everyone else involved with the actual physical work.
Most companies have employee incentive plan rewards. I remember doing an engagement on a mining company and the employees got a massive payout due to shares skyrocketing and they had options. Companies just doesn't have to disclose it.
Tech companies give options way more frequently than other companies in my experience. Not sure if gaming is the anomaly.
I've worked at several companies and never seen bonuses handed out at the grass roots level :/
if you want to be in the "Games Industry" you want to work on companies that make the "dev kits" and sell them...working directly on a single game sucks balls.
if you want to make serious cash as a "game developer" and also do some really kick ass super cool programming i recommend the career path similar to that of Dr. Eugene Fiume.
he makes serious cash... does some really cool programming and is employable in industries other than "gaming".
i went to a co-op school so that i could see what the "real work" was like. In 1st year i wanted to get into the video games industry.... after a few co op work terms i found my niche.. which was far away from video games... making and selling 'add on tools' for vertical market medical software.
EPT
