|
On April 28 2013 18:56 stroggozz wrote:
This is pretty bad. He gets bonuses for hitting performance targets, which are profitable for the short term of a company, but very hurtful for the long term of a company. making the same sequels over and over is just hurtful to the creative industry, and it will destroy them in the long term. Furthermore, even if he was making it profitable over long term, that doesn't necessarily represent what true wealth is. True wealth will come from creativity in the game industry.
The way i see it he is getting paid a lot of money to destroy the company over a long term period, much like how the media ignores global warming so companies can make money in the short term(and destroy the world in the long term). This is one of the functions of todays society. Some people call it capitalism but thats too broad a term for me to use. The people that actually make the games should choose what the company does, or at least vote for their company leader. They know best.
But if you do that, then your company can never go public, and will never achieve the funds required to build anything fancy. It's a choice between 2 evils.
|
On April 28 2013 18:56 stroggozz wrote:
This is pretty bad. He gets bonuses for hitting performance targets, which are profitable for the short term of a company, but very hurtful for the long term of a company. making the same sequels over and over is just hurtful to the creative industry, and it will destroy them in the long term. Furthermore, even if he was making it profitable over long term, that doesn't necessarily represent what true wealth is. True wealth will come from creativity in the game industry.
The way i see it he is getting paid a lot of money to destroy the company over a long term period, much like how the media ignores global warming so companies can make money in the short term(and destroy the world in the long term). This is one of the functions of todays society. Some people call it capitalism but thats too broad a term for me to use. The people that actually make the games should choose what the company does, or at least vote for their company leader. They know best.
I really think the 'dont buy their games then' argument is very weak as well.
Well this is why most companies are so badly ran right now. When it used to be family-ran business, it was better ( except when the succession feels like CEO and President should be their job instead of just company owner.. yes old Ford, I am looking at you).
Everything is so performance based now.. Companies don't cut wages enough in the last union contract's signature? Devaluate stocks. Even if profits are had, low stock value makes the company vulnerable to financial institutions buying them and revamping them. take Cerberus for example.. this company has bought so many low performing companies (low stocks) and has revamped them to sell them a few years later (high stocks). We're not talking long term here.. the market doesn't work this way.
|
The beauty of capitalism. You get actually payed for your worth, not what random nerd on a game forum thinks you should be paid.
Owners of the company are the one who set the targets and rewards, makes the deals.
If they think that's the way to run the company, it's their right. Don't like it? Buy the company and change everything... See how fast you go bankrupt.
Even better, if you think owners of the company are destroying the company, then just sell it short. That way, their incompetence is making you rich and able to invest in the companies that you think are ran right.
If you haven't invested in any company, have you even taken a stance on your opinion? Have an opinion and stand by it.
I don't have an opinion on the remuneration issue.
It's always easy to tell others how they should be spending their money.
|
On April 28 2013 17:29 armada[sb] wrote:
"must be doing something right"
Continuing the CoD franchise every year is enough.
I hate gaming industry, what happened to movie/music industry is happening to "us" right now. I always wanted that gaming stayed as niche.
I remember the times where the "evil" corporations of today used to produce amazing games.
|
On April 28 2013 19:31 0x64 wrote:
The beauty of capitalism. You get actually payed for your worth, not what random nerd on a game forum thinks you should be paid.
Owners of the company are the one who set the targets and rewards, makes the deals.
If they think that's the way to run the company, it's their right. Don't like it? Buy the company and change everything... See how fast you go bankrupt.
Even better, if you think owners of the company are destroying the company, then just sell it short. That way, their incompetence is making you rich and able to invest in the companies that you think are ran right.
If you haven't invested in any company, have you even taken a stance on your opinion? Have an opinion and stand by it.
I don't have an opinion on the remuneration issue.
It's always easy to tell others how they should be spending their money.
The catch here is to believe that an individual is unique and irreplaceable. Disregard his strategic choices, they were made with an army of advisors on the base of a couple of very strong products.
Kotick is not getting what he's "worth", he's rather mostly the benefactor of the owner's need for security and simplicity. This money is to avoid the small risk of replacing him and/or having to rethink the company's hierarchy, and the most simple way to reward the company's success as it would be a hassle to look at who did what in the long chain that gave birth to profit.
This has nothing to do with capitalism, but with the inefficiency of human entreprises. A good example of irrational group behaviour.
|
@ "I remember the times where the "evil" corporations of today used to produce amazing games."
Like 5 years ago... When I was studying SAT practice questions... I recall an essay featured in one of the Critical Reading sections that described one aspect of the entertainment/movies business. The overall message was basically: "in the entertainment industry one good strategy is to repeat what works". Think Scary Movie. Why stop at just one, if it was so successful? Indeed, we're still seeing new Scary Movie iterations coming out year after year. Same goes for computer games. If people are loving CoD...why try hard to make something new and awesome? I know that's what they should do, and that good things happen when new things are tried. But there is more uncertainty when you stray from what you know works.
Kinda random but I thought that kinda relates to why new, innovative, amazing games aren't coming out as much as repeats of things that have proven successful, like CoD
|
On April 28 2013 18:56 stroggozz wrote:
This is pretty bad. He gets bonuses for hitting performance targets, which are profitable for the short term of a company, but very hurtful for the long term of a company. making the same sequels over and over is just hurtful to the creative industry, and it will destroy them in the long term. Furthermore, even if he was making it profitable over long term, that doesn't necessarily represent what true wealth is. True wealth will come from creativity in the game industry.
The way i see it he is getting paid a lot of money to destroy the company over a long term period, much like how the media ignores global warming so companies can make money in the short term(and destroy the world in the long term). This is one of the functions of todays society. Some people call it capitalism but thats too broad a term for me to use. The people that actually make the games should choose what the company does, or at least vote for their company leader. They know best.
I really think the 'dont buy their games then' argument is very weak as well.
This is such a fantastically true and powerful post. Kotick is destroying what was once two fantastic names in the industry. Trading away the goodwill off the business for a quick buck and calling it growth. When really it is liquidation. The worst thing to happen to gaming.
On April 28 2013 19:47 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2013 19:31 0x64 wrote:
The beauty of capitalism. You get actually payed for your worth, not what random nerd on a game forum thinks you should be paid.
Owners of the company are the one who set the targets and rewards, makes the deals.
If they think that's the way to run the company, it's their right. Don't like it? Buy the company and change everything... See how fast you go bankrupt.
Even better, if you think owners of the company are destroying the company, then just sell it short. That way, their incompetence is making you rich and able to invest in the companies that you think are ran right.
If you haven't invested in any company, have you even taken a stance on your opinion? Have an opinion and stand by it.
I don't have an opinion on the remuneration issue.
It's always easy to tell others how they should be spending their money. The catch here is to believe that an individual is unique and irreplaceable. Disregard his strategic choices, they were made with an army of advisors on the base of a couple of very strong products. Kotick is not getting what he's "worth", he's rather mostly the benefactor of the owner's need for security and simplicity. This money is to avoid the small risk of replacing him and/or having to rethink the company's hierarchy, and the most simple way to reward the company's success as it would be a hassle to look at who did what in the long chain that gave birth to profit. This has nothing to do with capitalism, but with the inefficiency of human entreprises. A good example of irrational group behaviour.
This is another brilliant post. Good job guys, you both nailed it.
|
8.1 -> 64.9 is a 700% increase, not 800%.
Just thought someone should point that out.
|
Guess its deserved. Blizzard is the absolute top in the gaming industry.
|
On April 28 2013 19:54 hypercube wrote:
8.1 -> 64.9 is a 700% increase, not 800%.
Just thought someone should point that out.
Damn, I'm bad at math I guess... How'd I wind up with 801% just now?? lol crap
Here's what I did: 64.9/8.1 = 8.01; 8.01*100 = 800%
|
i don't care about how well they performed.
this is just redicules.
|
On April 28 2013 19:57 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2013 19:54 hypercube wrote:
8.1 -> 64.9 is a 700% increase, not 800%.
Just thought someone should point that out. Damn, I'm bad at math I guess... How'd I wind up with 801% just now?? lol crap Here's what I did: 64.9/8.1 = 8.01; 8.01*100 = 800%
Using those numbers he would get 800% of the previous amount, which is a 700% increase.
It does not matter anyway, it is a 5 year deal so it's actually a 140% increase.
|
On April 28 2013 19:50 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2013 18:56 stroggozz wrote:
This is pretty bad. He gets bonuses for hitting performance targets, which are profitable for the short term of a company, but very hurtful for the long term of a company. making the same sequels over and over is just hurtful to the creative industry, and it will destroy them in the long term. Furthermore, even if he was making it profitable over long term, that doesn't necessarily represent what true wealth is. True wealth will come from creativity in the game industry.
The way i see it he is getting paid a lot of money to destroy the company over a long term period, much like how the media ignores global warming so companies can make money in the short term(and destroy the world in the long term). This is one of the functions of todays society. Some people call it capitalism but thats too broad a term for me to use. The people that actually make the games should choose what the company does, or at least vote for their company leader. They know best.
I really think the 'dont buy their games then' argument is very weak as well.
This is such a fantastically true and powerful post. Kotick is destroying what was once two fantastic names in the industry. Trading away the goodwill off the business for a quick buck and calling it growth. When really it is liquidation. The worst thing to happen to gaming.
The problem is, if you are a shareholder that is only interested in short term gains, that's exactly what you want. In a sense, it's not so much the CEO's fault as opposed to the shareholder's fault.
|
Ah, it was a misunderstanding of the wording I guess. Good to know in case that ever comes up in the future!
|
|
|
On April 28 2013 14:47 GoTuNk! wrote:
He owns stocks and made the value of the company skyrocket, what an evil bastard ! (/sarcasm)
This is as retarded as saying we shouldn't shower because kids in some parts of africa don't have access to clear water.
If you wanna blame someone for the unfortunate you should start by actual criminals and big governments.
I'm not passing any judgement here, just curious. I see the stockprice rised 650% over the last 10 years. Is this legit or is the stockprice inflated?
|
On April 28 2013 20:04 Leetley wrote:
No words here.
here neither, but i suspect for totally different reasons.
|
On April 28 2013 19:57 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2013 19:54 hypercube wrote:
8.1 -> 64.9 is a 700% increase, not 800%.
Just thought someone should point that out. Damn, I'm bad at math I guess... How'd I wind up with 801% just now?? lol crap Here's what I did: 64.9/8.1 = 8.01; 8.01*100 = 800%
It increased to 800% of the original from 100% of the original. Hence an increase of 700%.
+ Show Spoiler +I realize how incredibly nitpicky this is. I do apologize.
|
On April 28 2013 14:48 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2013 14:45 sluggaslamoo wrote:On April 28 2013 14:37 wUndertUnge wrote:On April 28 2013 14:36 sluggaslamoo wrote:
Meanwhile Activision developers are struggling to make a living... See that's what I'm trying to figure out. What are their salaries? Does this man really deserve all fo that compensation? Shouldn't it go to the people actually doing the work? Being a game developer for the giants (except probably Blizzard/Valve) leads to a pretty terrible lifestyle. You basically get paid almost a minimum wage even though you are much more qualified and more deserving than the rest of the population.Most developers such as myself, started out wanting to become game developers and then came to the shocking realisation that its not what its cracked up to be and shifted to much more lucrative careers in the software development industry like web-development, where you can work normal hours and get paid 4 times as much. More deserving....? MORE DESERVING? You think that developers are more deserving that say, oh; teachers, nurses, police/EMS/Firefighters, social workers, single moms, peacecorps, habitat for humanity, big brothers/bigsisters etc... How in the...? They make computer games
Having met some fairly repugnant teachers, social workers and police (I've actually met at least one racist version of each..) and some really nice developers I'm going with yes on that one. Not everyone who does something that can benefit society does it for society...
|
the average earning of 1 person is about 5.1 million dollars their whole life.
if you keep this in mind this amount is really fucked up lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
