|
Has anyone taken a look Activision/Blizzard's financial statements?
Looks like the CEO, at 64.9 million, makes 5.5% of net income and 1% of net revenues. As far as take home pay for an executive of a company this size, that's pretty much on target. Given the growth between 2010 and 2011, I'm not sure this is unearned. He has clearly done a great job with the company.
Looking at some other metrics heavily influenced by the CEO, they have very little debt and high retained earnings, which is good because it means they are raising capital internally. Overall, the company belongs almost entirely to the shareholders. Personally, I'm tempted to stop complaining about the CEO and start buying some stock.
|
I don't see the problem? If the business feels that paying their CEO's crazy salaries is warranted then let them be. These companies aren't dumb, they would be doing it for a reason. Most likely because this bad ass guy is bringing in loads more cash than what he is earning.
If you have a problem with the development of Blizzard games then stop purchasing them. That is the problem with people these days, they are self entitled and feel as though Blizzard owe them something.
|
s this surprising to anyone in the corporate world?
Or are so many not aware of how real life works... ><
EA does well in terms of performance, CEO gets fat pay and bonus...
If people are willing to buy "shitty" games (high revenue) and keeping cost low, then means the CEO is really doing a good job.
|
Good for him. He still seems like a miserable human being so I'll take consolidation in that fact.
|
The problem is, it's not the CEO who is doing a really good job (or at least, not JUST the CEO). If their games are selling well, it means everyone in the company is doing a great job - but you don't see Joe Coder or Troy Playtester get a 800% raise.
|
Joe Coder and Troy Playtester also don't incur as much risk. If the company tanks, one would expect the CEO to get his compensation slashed or, more likely, fired. Unless it was Joe Coder that suggested the always on DRM or the inclusion of the Warhound, he is unlikely to be hit by bad company performance, outside of missing his annual bonus.
|
On April 28 2013 22:37 diplomatten wrote:
Joe Coder and Troy Playtester also don't incur as much risk. If the company tanks, one would expect the CEO to get his compensation slashed or, more likely, fired. Unless it was Joe Coder that suggested the always on DRM or the inclusion of the Warhound, he is unlikely to be hit by bad company performance, outside of missing his annual bonus.
You think the CEO is the first(or at some higher risk) to get cut/fired if a company starts to go under? You sir need to learn the term 'layoff' and then come back to this discussion.
The CEO is often the least liable, it is his heads of staff that get knocked down and the workers who get fired if products/stocks are dropping in sales/value.
|
This guy is probably the most useless person in all of activision, he should get fired instead of getting a raise ...
|
On April 28 2013 22:46 Holy_AT wrote:
This guy is probably the most useless person in all of activision, he should get fired instead of getting a raise ...
I'm sure you've done extensive research on his life and his work, as shown by the remarkably exhaustive list of sources you've provided, before making this statement.
Oh, wait.
|
On April 28 2013 22:37 diplomatten wrote:
Joe Coder and Troy Playtester also don't incur as much risk. If the company tanks, one would expect the CEO to get his compensation slashed or, more likely, fired. Unless it was Joe Coder that suggested the always on DRM or the inclusion of the Warhound, he is unlikely to be hit by bad company performance, outside of missing his annual bonus.
What happens when the company tanks is that the CEO lays off a couple thousand people so he can report favorable numbers to the shareholders...
...and then acquires whatever indie studio is highly successful at the time, only to run it to the ground and repeat the cycle while the gamers complain (but still buy since the products are not THAT inferior, potential not realized concept escapes most peoples' understanding, there goes the self-correcting mechanism of capitalism by the by).
Not to mention the fact that any CEO who is part of a huge company which adheres to this payment structure the CEO, at 64.9 million, makes 5.5% of net income and 1% of net revenues. As far as take home pay for an executive of a company this size, that's pretty much on target.
is set for life even if he works for just that year.
That ain't capitalism, that's just very smart people playing everyone else off for fools while they rewrite the rules of the game!
|
On April 28 2013 22:18 diplomatten wrote:Has anyone taken a look Activision/Blizzard's financial statements? Looks like the CEO, at 64.9 million, makes 5.5% of net income and 1% of net revenues. As far as take home pay for an executive of a company this size, that's pretty much on target. Given the growth between 2010 and 2011, I'm not sure this is unearned. He has clearly done a great job with the company. Looking at some other metrics heavily influenced by the CEO, they have very little debt and high retained earnings, which is good because it means they are raising capital internally. Overall, the company belongs almost entirely to the shareholders. Personally, I'm tempted to stop complaining about the CEO and start buying some stock.
Amazing how many people are playing Devil's Advocate. Saying that terrible, short-term business gains are 'a great job'. Kotick is setting up Blizzard and Activision to be virtually gone by 2030. Releases such as Starcraft 2, Diablo III and the constant splurge of ridiculous WoW titles, combined with the fact that the fastest growing game to come out of their products recently (Dota) is now made by Valve, mean that when the morons of the general public finally awake to the fact that CoD has become a total rip off, the company will have no more IP to rape and devalue and will crash and burn.
And I find it extremely hard to believe that Activision Blizzard will be able to come up with any new IP worth any salt. All of the games they are pushing were fantastic, great ideas, which have been ruined by short-termism. That that can be considered a 'great job' just serves to indict the standard of perspective in economics nowadays. I also believe that EA will eventually lose its grip on sports games unless it actually makes something of quality. Companies like Take Two are just so much better and I am confident that the attrition in a battle between EA and Take Two will eventually favour TT. And there is always hope that a company comes along who tries even harder to produce a quality product and engender long term support.
|
Wow this is full of cliché.
Funny how the average poster here thinks that the CEO is not doing anything and that he could do a better job.
How can you guys judge someone on public information, when what he is paid for is highly confidential.
Get a clue!
It's like saying "it's easy to make money, I'm not making any but I know how to work... Well I won't because it's so easy it's immoral"
What part of the talented employee getting paid, having a good job security is worth rewarding more? If they are so good, they can make their own company.
If they are good as a group, then it's thanks to the company.
The game is fair. Not Happy, leave and do better somewhere else. Too hard? Then you overestimate your value.
Underestimating other's value doesn't make you better, just jealous.
First step to be a better person, work to understand what the guy earn his money for. You will be a better person, you will be more successful, you will be put in situation where you make the calls.
|
Deleted.
Should have read the article.
|
Isn't the his stock income irrelevant to his income as a CEO? I mean simply invested in the company and got paid the dividends.
|
On April 28 2013 23:20 Djzapz wrote:
A huge part of that money could go to producing better games and paying their employee's overtime for a change. Or just hire new employees instead of closing down studios.
If he's paid in shares, no it couldn't. It's not cash sitting on a bank account that's being paid to him. Also everyone is being mislead by the OP, in reality he is getting a 130% "raise" assuming that the company's share price stays at current level. He might be overpaid anyway, but the company is outperforming the sector by enough that even if he is responsible for 1% of the difference the shareholders are still the big winners in this deal.
|
|
|
On April 28 2013 23:30 Teddyman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2013 23:20 Djzapz wrote:
A huge part of that money could go to producing better games and paying their employee's overtime for a change. Or just hire new employees instead of closing down studios. If he's paid in shares, no it couldn't. It's not cash sitting on a bank account that's being paid to him. Also everyone is being mislead by the OP, in reality he is getting a 130% "raise" assuming that the company's share price stays at current level. He might be overpaid anyway, but the company is outperforming the sector by enough that even if he is responsible for 1% of the difference the shareholders are still the big winners in this deal.
Yeah I realized before you posted... Like I said, I should have read the article. His salary is pretty reasonable so I have no issues with any of this now.
I read the headline and I assumed it to be true... but I'm pretty sure this doesn't qualify as a "800% raise". Most of it is not his Activision salary...
|
Not going to lie we're pretty big saps when it comes to our spending on video games.
|
On April 28 2013 23:39 StarStruck wrote:
Not going to lie we're pretty big saps when it comes to our spending on video games.
All of us? I only buy games that I'll have played hundreds, usually thousands of hours by the time I'm done with them. When I was a kid I did play WoW though, so yeah I was kind of a sap. It's an easy fix tho.
|
On April 28 2013 19:34 bgx wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Actually, I'd say the music industry is a little ahead of the curve compared to the movie industry & gaming industry when it comes to reform. Notice how I didn't say Television & Cable.
On April 28 2013 23:41 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2013 23:39 StarStruck wrote:
Not going to lie we're pretty big saps when it comes to our spending on video games. All of us? I only buy games that I'll have played hundreds, usually thousands of hours by the time I'm done with them. When I was a kid I did play WoW though, so yeah I was kind of a sap. It's an easy fix tho.
I was looking at us as a whole. You and I are a minority when it comes to our spending habits when it comes to games. Even then, I'm guilty of buying unnecessary products like the CE of D3. -_-
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
